home

When A Journalist Editorialized On A War

Watching Meet the Press and the ridiculous talking heads, this time Meacham, Kearns Goodwin and Gregory, say nothing about nothing, I was thinking if that was preferable to what Kyra Phillips did. Of course, Meet the Press is, in theory an opinion show so the issue is should reporters by doing opinion segments. I am pretty strongly in favor reporters and Editors saying NO to that. So Gregory, Meacham, Citizen Stengel and the like should not be doing opinion segments. But that does remind of the one time a reporter did opine on a war:

[Walter Cronkite] was not punished in the ratings when he went to Vietnam and reported that he had seen the lies, corruption, and stalemate in that war and that it was time for us to go. LBJ watching Cronkite's Vietnam report. President Lyndon Johnson listened to Cronkite's verdict with dismay and real sadness. As he famously remarked to an aide, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America." After all, this was not one of the young, brash reporters like Morley Safer or Jack Laurence pricking the president's power. It was Cronkite, veteran of World War II, a man of unimpeachable patriotism. When he stated the obvious -- that the Viet Cong had no intention of giving up, and we had no intention of remaining in Vietnam for another generation -- the common sense of it stuck with the public.

Can you imagine NASCAR Brian Williams, Katie Couric or ABC's generic anchor (I know his name, but he has no persona) doing that? Of course not. Heck, the Media does not give opinions on issues, it makes fun of politicians. Our political journalism is as pathetic as the President it covers.

We are in an Era of Incompetence, from our President to our Media.

< Former Gore Aides Asked to Keep an Opening for Him | Ending The Iraq Debacle Is What The American People Want >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Incompetence is now celebrated as a virtue. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    As well as an excuse. e.g. Libby, Gonzales: 'I don't remember'.

    And Bush?
    In the midst of a family dynamic of inflated expectations insert one mediocre male. Rear him to tales of family greatness. Bring him up in an environment where want and need are utterly unknown. Give him every advantage, and isolate him from the remotest possibility of failure. Send him to elite schools where his sense of superiority is further reinforced, and then hand him every professional success on a silver platter. What sort of individual will you end up with? The material of great leadership, or something else altogether?
    The Wrong Stuff

    Surely I don't have to remind you (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    of the fact that that
    Media does not give opinions on issues, it makes fun of politicians.
    is exactly why we're not in Al Gore's second term.

    none of the aforementioned (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    have the gravitas that mr. cronkite had. the closest we've had, in the past 20 years, is maybe dan rather.

    jim, as usual, is totally clueless, when it comes to actual historical fact. i didn't see an actual link to gen. giap's book, where he purportedly makes this astounding confession.

    the gen. has been interviewed on tv. in none of those interviews has he ever claimed to have thought the war was lost after tet, and only reclaimed as a consequence of cronkite's comments.

    technically, tet was a military victory for US & ARVN forces. however, that's only important if one assumes that gen. giap ever realistically thought he would succeed militarily, and that it was the goal of the operation to begin with. as it turns out, neither is true.

    the main goal of tet was to show that the NVA was capable of striking anywhere in south vietnam. in this, it was wildly successful. fify cities were attacked simultaneously, with no warning to allied forces. that none were held is irrelevant to the overall success of the mission, none were expected to be.

    the glaring weakness exposed by tet was the complete failure, of both the US and S. Vietnamese intelligence communities, to pick up any hint of the forthcoming attacks, even as NVA & VC troops and supplies were building up in those areas. not a single word!

    as well, it's always been suspected that another purpose of tet was to decimate the VC, to eliminate them as a potential strong political rival to ho. again, it succeeded, whether or not it was planned; the VC never regained the strength they had before the massive losses suffered during the tet offensive.

    so yes, tet was a military "victory" for the allied forces in s. vietnam. it was, however, a pyrric victory. it exposed to everyone the complete lack of any coherent strategy being employed in the conduct of the war.

    this is what "uncle" walter saw and reported on.

    it wasn't just him, it was also many of the troops actually on the ground, they just didn't have the platform cronkite did.


    "I didn't see an actual link... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by desertswine on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:57:49 PM EST
    ...to gen. giap's book, where he purportedly makes this astounding confession."

    Because it's right wing myth that never actually happened. They just like to parrot it 'cause it makes them feel justified. In other words, it's just made-up sh*t.

    Parent

    These are corporate shills (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kitt on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:21:24 AM EST
    The likes of John Roberts & Kyra Phillips, among others is that they work for corporate news conglomerates who have no interest in promoting 'news' for christsakes. You don't "bite the hands that feeds."

    Remember to watch Bill Moyers' program on PBS on April 25th.

    The proven (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    lier, who used to claim -- until completely outed -- to have access to Gen Giaps memoirs, is still railing hysterically about being stabbed in the back by Uncle Walter.

    They have pills now for that kind of thing, dont they?

    Vietnam: the "Rosebud" of the Right; when their tribal narcissism was wounded irrevocably.

    If it (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    wasnt for the Left and the Liberal media, they wouldnt keep shooting themselves in the foot.

    The Right and the war propagandists lied about NVA troop strength and capability -- the truth is always too "emboldening" -- and when Tet came everyone was in a state of semi-shock that it could have even occurred. After all, the North's "morale was at it's lowest point ever" etc etc.

    Still (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:00:23 PM EST
    waiting for that link to Gen Giaps memoirs, Jim.

    In Vietnam, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    millions begged us to stay, and despite all the doom-and-gloom predictions our government made then, as they do now in Iraq, leaving turned out to be the best thing we could have done for the Vietnamese, a country which is now a trading partner with much of the world and prospering as a whole.

    There are not millions of Iraqis begging and pleading with America to stay and protect the country and them. By a large margin they wish us gone so they can determine the future of Iraq and establish whatever government they wish, and not suffer under the rule of American puppet politicians.

    The maladministration of bush cannot point to a sea of faces, an ocean of humanity, no millions of Iraqi citizens begging us to stay as they do not exist.

    All comparisons stop: We were begged to stay by the South Vietnamese; Iraqi's are killing as many soldiers as they can to drive us out of Iraq. There is no comparison...



    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:37:29 PM EST
    Ah dearest Jondee...

    Please be so kind as to visit the website, Amazon.com and feel free to purchase a book.

    In the meantime, you can actually read this thread in total, or this quote. See above for link.

    In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise...

    And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.

    Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor." Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily,

    Of course the conscience had no conscience when it came to supporting our troops and South Vietnam.

    Parent

    Vietnam (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    is the "Rosebud" of the Right; the wound to their tribal narcissism that they'll never fully recover from.

    See what we made them do?

    Thanks for asking (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise...

    And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.

    Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey
    Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor." Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily
    ,

    Link

    Pffft (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    Riiight, if only Jane Fonda had not gone to Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh would have given up his 30 year struggle.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Heehee...And if... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by desertswine on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:50:28 PM EST
    only Moe Howard hadn't done that Hitler schtick, the Germans would have won WWII.  

    Parent
    desert (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:01:43 AM EST
    Cute.

    But think about the people who died due to our withdrawal and then think about the morality of what the radcal Left did.

    Parent

    first think about the people ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    ... who died because the war was started on a lie. Tonkin Gulf or saddam's WMDs, starting wars for lies never works out.

    Parent
    Glad you continue to display a (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:00:00 AM EST
    truly astounding lack of knowledge.

    Remember who is saying this.

     

    on strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war....

    But Johnson folded in the face of radicals in the US and the Demos started playing politics and the enemy was emboldened...

    Wait! That's sounds like something else that is going on.

    Parent

    You know, Jim (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    You come here everyday and try everything you can think of, which clearly isn't much, to try to convert someone opposed to the Iraq occupation to voluntarily put on the same blinders you wear. And it never works.

    It never works because there is nothing left you can say to justify the invasion and the mass death and ongoing debacle in Iraq - a debacle that you and the rest of bush supporters are accessories to and just as responsible for as if you had personally cut the throats of the nearly one million people who have died in - that hasn't already been refuted utterly many times before by so many people here at Talkleft and elsewhere.

    Each time you run into one of those refutations you squawk for awhile, throw out a few strawmen, dissemble, deflect, insult, then disappear, only to resurface in another thread repeating the same crap that made you look so silly in a previous thread.

    There is nothing left you can say that can justify the debacle. There is nothing left you can say that can justify its beginning, its execution, or its continuance.

    There is only one thing left to consider, Jim. You intentionally choose to go down on the wrong side of history with the most notorious and conscienceless psychotic mass murderers that have ever existed in the long story of the human race.

    It can't be simply because you are unable to admit a mistake in judgement. No one, I believe, could be that insecure, and still be sane.

    Why do you do this to yourself?

    Parent
    Convert you, edger? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:33:16 PM EST
    Convert you? Why do you think I would consider you worth the effort?

    My points are made in the interest of those who may be unaware of certain things. Those born 1/1/8 are 39 years and unless they do a lot of digging, have only be exposed to the type of claptrap that you pass out on a daily basis.

    I am, dear edger, very close to the middle of America. You are far to the Left.

    And I have asked you time and again to justify your position, as I did mine above, yet you can not do so.

    Why don't you try to articulate a rational reason for your continual attacks??

    Parent

    HA HA.... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    I am, dear edger, very close to the middle of America.

    Wake up dear Jimmy-boy. You're a charter member of the right-wing lunatic fringe. Thanks for the laugh.

    Crank up your oxygen a little... get some air up there.

    Parent

    Well.. if that's true (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    there's is very little left of middle America.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    As I explained to my Repub friends, and on this blog, the pendulum swings.

    Enjoy what you believe is your triumph. It will be briefer than you think.

    So as through a glass and darkly
    The age long strife I see
    Where I fought in many guises,
    Many names -- but always me.

    ---- George S Patton



    Parent
    Triumph? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    You misread me. Badly.

    Parent
    Lies and the lying liars (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    trust ppj to quote every wrongwing internet rumor as the basis for his delusions about the US's involvment in a war started on lies.

    And anyone who believes the traitor col. olly north about anything need serious medication applied under their tinfoil hat.

    sheesh, imagine if a non-rethug quoted "a journalist for the North Vietnamese army newspaper" and "editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. "

    Parent

    I can count on Sailor (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    to let his venomn over extend himself.

    In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam

    Obviously a nobody who had no insight or knowledge of what went on. And that rag, the WSJ...

    et al - When I bring up the numbers who died because of our pull out from South Vietnam, and the numbers to died after Tet because the North understood that they would be given a political victory by the radical Left in the US, no one wants to believe the sources.

    And no one wants to compare what is happening now, to what is happening now.

    Sailor - The war started in Vietnam long before the Tonkien Gulf incident. I thought you knew that.

    Parent

    The fact that Cronkite was wrong (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:09:32 AM EST
    about Tet doesn't seem to enter your mind.

    He was wrong? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    Coming from you Jim that means absolutely nothing.

    Quote what Cronkite said. And tell me he was wrong.

    The Right Wing Tet talking point yet again. Yes, Tet was a military failure for the N. Vietnamese. But the point was that they could launch Tet and could keep launching Tets forever.

    The American People did not want to be in Vietnam forever. Nor do they want the same in Iraq.

    Your opinion is just what is wrong - misunderstanding how wars are won and lost.

    Parent

    Try reading some facts. (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

    At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

    According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.

    Link

    It was with Tet '68 that the American media first knew sin. Anyone seeking to understand the character of consistently negative media coverage of the Global War on Terror must understand Tet.

    It was the first time in history that the news media overturned a victory won by forces on the ground.

    One observer struck by the dichotomy between what occurred and how it was reported was a journalist named Peter Braestrup, chief of the Washington Post's Saigon bureau. Braestrup had also worked for Time Magazine and The New York Times. In later years he became a fellow of the Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson International Center and editor of The Wilson Quarterly. Not the CV of any sort of conservative, and in fact Braestrup was an establishment liberal of the type that scarcely exists any longer.

    Link

    It's highly doubtful that the NVA/VC expected to hold all or even some of the cities and towns they attacked, but the NLF apparently did expect large sections of the urban populace to rise up in revolt. With a few exceptions, this didn't happen. South Vietnam's city dwellers were generally indifferent to both the NLF and the Saigon Government but the VC clearly expected more support than it actually got.

    Link

    Hanoi was perfectly aware of the growing US peace movement and of the deep divisions the war was causing in American society. What Giap needed was a body-blow that would break Washington's will to carry on and at the same time would undermine the growing legitimacy of the Saigon Government once and for all. In one sense, time was not on Giap's side. While Hanoi was sure that the Americans would tire of the war as the French had before them, the longer it took, the stronger the Saigon Government might become. Another year or so of American involvement could seriously damage the NLF and leave the ARVN capable of dealing with its enemies on its own. Giap opted for a quick and decisive victory that would be well in time for the 1968 US Presidential campaign.  

    Of course he didn't get what he wanted... until Cronkite gave it to him.

    Link

    Parent

    NVA morale was down? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    Boy that showed after Tet.

    Sheesh.

    You think Walter Conrkite propped themn up? You think the NVA soldier even knew he Cronkite was?

    Your delusion I have heard before from others.

    Parent

    Yes, PPJ sums it up nicely: (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    Save the free world by stifling dissent.

    Parent
    Can you think beyond your hatred?? (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    It is, dear sequeaky, a troublesome question for those of us who recognize that we must not only win the war, but also retain our rights.

    In WWII societal pressure did not, and would not have allowed the actions we now see coming from the anti-war Left, encourged by some very questionable organizations.

    So, what do you do? First you understand that without the survival of the country, individual rights are meaningless. If we become governed by Shari law and you citicize it as you do America, you will just be imprisoned or killed. That you fail to understand that leads me to believe:

    1. you do not believe that Shari law would apply to you.

    2. your priority of defeating Bush blinds you to the results of your actions, or you do not care.

    3. you are incapable of understanding either 1 or 2, and exist only in an anti-war world where someone else will always be there to care of you.

    When we invaded Iraq I understood, and so commented, that it was a battle of the WOT and that we would also have further battles to fight. I was hopeful that the press would be on our side, and the Left would be ignored, as much as possible.

    That didn't happen, so we now find ourselves on the brink of seeing our Congress actually attempt to defund our troops in the field, and we have just seen the Majority Leader of the Senate bring dishonor on himself and the Senate with his comments.

    I can not tell you what will happen in the near term, but in the long term I think it is clear that the evil that we thought dead in Hitler's bunker has changed its spots and broken out to re-haunt the world.

    Your failure to confront this disease make Chamberlain look like a warrior. There will be other attacks against the US outside and inside the country. The lives and treasure lost will make 9/11 look like a day at the park, and eventually the country will rise up and demand that we put a stop to this.

    At that point you can expect to be in great danger of losing those rights you demand. Your failure to be responsible in the short term will have terrible consquences long term.

    And come to think of it, that covers 99% of life.

    Parent

    What war do you think we're fighting? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    I think it is clear that the evil that we thought dead in Hitler's bunker has changed its spots and broken out to re-haunt the world.
    I think you've got Militant Islam seriously confused with Fascism. If you seriously believe that the United States is in any danger of being governed by Sharia law, then you're really beyond the realm of worthwhile discussion.
    we have just seen the Majority Leader of the Senate bring dishonor on himself and the Senate with his comments.
    Utter nonsense.
    Your failure to confront this disease make Chamberlain look like a warrior. There will be other attacks against the US outside and inside the country. The lives and treasure lost will make 9/11 look like a day at the park, and eventually the country will rise up and demand that we put a stop to this.
    I'd like to have a chat with your crystal ball dealer.  

    Parent
    andgarden (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    My crystal ball is a close look at history.

    Let us wait and see. I hope I am wrong, but even the best defense breaks down every now and then.

    Reid said what he said. I'll let history judge him. I think history will be on my side.

    Evil is evil. There's no difference if you are a Jew killed by Hitler, or a Jew killed by Iran. Dead is dead. Perhaps you have never heard of Amin al-Husseini, known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem."

    In 1933, within weeks of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, al-Husayni sent a telegram to Berlin addressed to the German Consul-General in the British Mandate of Palestine saying he looked forward to spreading their ideology in the Middle East [2],[3], especially in Palestine and offered his services. Al-Husayni's offer was rejected at first out of concern for disrupting Anglo-German relations by allying with an anti-British leader. But one month later, Al-Husayni secretly met the German Consul-General Karl Wolff near the Dead Sea and expressed his approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked him not to send any Jews to Palestine. Later that year, the Mufti's assistants approached Wolff, seeking his help in establishing an Arab National Socialist (Nazi) party in Palestine.......

    ....He later sent an agent and personal representative to Berlin for discussions with Nazi leaders.

    In 1938, though Anglo-German relations were a concern, Al-Husayni's offer was accepted. From August 1938, Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. From Berlin, al-Husayni would play a significant role in inter-Arab politics.

    Wikipedia

    Perhaps you would like to reconsider your "confused" comment.

    Parent

    You wouldfit right in in the England (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:11:59 PM EST
    of the middle 30's.

    If you seriously believe that the United States is in any danger of being governed by Sharia law, then you're really beyond the realm of worthwhile discussion.

    But perhaps you can tell us what you would do to keep the terrorists from attacking?

    And could I suggest you take a look at Europe today and the population projections??

    How many children do you plan on having??

    Parent

    You get an F (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:34:36 PM EST
    for your understanding of history and demographics.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    NVA soldier? What a strawman. Can't you do better?

    Parent
    It is a strawman (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    That is my point about your silly comment.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    Uh, do you understand that the soldier doesn't run the army???

    It was the Generals and the command strcuture who were encouraged by the media, and especially Cronkite.

    Parent

    I do indeed (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    Which is why discussions of morale whic relates to General are ridiculous strawmen trotted out by Generals and PResidents to stifle dissent.

    The foolsihness continues from you.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:13:27 PM EST
    I note that you focus on one point out of 20, and then refuse to do anything else.

    My disappointment in you as a debater continues to fall.

    Parent

    And your illustrious sources for this are: (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:04:28 PM EST
    1. some anonymous person on a free Yahoo web page ("sources used" page "currently unavailable")

    2. a website of deep and unbiased erudition whose recent offerings include "Spain's Feminized War on Terror,"  "Give 'Em Surrender Harry Finds His Tet Offensive," "The Muslim Brotherhood's Duping of America," "Fantasy Manhood from France," and "The New Lynching: Why I Must Defend Don Imus"

    3. a missionary group dedicated to bringing bibles to the benighted Heathen of Vietnam (along with a few medical services)

    4. an anonymous page on an anonymously produced "unofficial history of the  Australian &  New Zealand Armed Forces"

    The "facts" you cite may or may not be correct - but why would you expect anyone to accept low-grade sources of information like this?

    Parent
    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    I rarely check ppj's links anymore because they are usually minted in wingnuttia, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz et al. But these are real doozies this time. He has outdone himself. Thanks for the laugh.

    Parent
    sqeaky (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:18:16 PM EST
    You left out the best part:

    "besides that they make me uncomfortable with the truth..."

    BTW - Are you still claiming Ho was a Christian terrorists??

    Pardon me for giggling.. I don't think you know zip about terrorists or christains...

    Parent

    Giggle Away (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:01:28 PM EST
    While the terror victims mourn.

     Link

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:25:47 AM EST
    I can tell you from my firsthand experience in the United States Army at the time that it was definitely not popular with the me or the people who served with me.

    As it is today, the war in Vietnam was far more popular with those who were not personally at risk than with those being asked to take that risk.

    What's the word for those people?

    Parent

    it doesn't enter my mind (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    because it clearly isn't true. see above post.

    n. vietnam was fighting a war of attrition, willing to lose however many it took to force the US out of vietnam. their's was more a nationlist movement than communist; it was intended to re-unite n. and s. vietnam, artificially separated at the end of wwII.

    with the US unwilling to take the sherman approach in vietnam, lack of success was almost pre-ordained.

    this is what mr. cronkite realized, in the aftermath of tet.

    geez jim, open your eyes for god's sake.

    Parent

    It's a shame (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    the species Chickenhawkus Americanus never had the cajones to walk their sabre rattling tough talk in Vietnam.

    But, Rush, Sean and Jim aren't the hands-on type; they're our visionaries.