Man, Walter is Gone!

[subroc]

Amazing discussion. Is there anything you right wingers can't blame on the media?

No. they are pretty much resposible for the downfall of the west but if there is any blame left over we blame liberal educators.

[Franco]

Amazing discussion. Is there anything you right wingers can't blame on the media?

Walter Cronkite, a left wing hack "journalist" who, as part of the media mafia of the time, single handedly extended the Vietnam War. Truly a mainstream point of view.

I don't think there is any question that much of the media and then Hollywood became sympathetic with the North Vietnamese, extending the war. Cronkite was the first personality with a major audience to do so.

[YardleyLabs]

Jeff, you missed my point. Had Walter Cronkite reported accurately after the Tet Offensive, the war might have ended in 1968 instead of 1973. Had reporter Cronkite told the American people what really happened, that we had inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy, caused massive damage to their capacity to fight and rallied American morale, The North Vietnamese would have been forced to approach the peace talks with more urgency. Instead, they learned to play into a war of attrition using the American press to serve their cause.

Yes, in hindsight the Vietnam War was a mistake. However, one journalist’s influence of it changed the course of history.

I actually suspect that the journalists were behind the curve and that public tolerance for a war without end to anything but casualties had already reached its end. The Tet Offensive demonstrated, yet again, that the assurances given by the Generals concerning the effectiveness of our efforts were hot air. CIA intelligence reports from the time indicated that bombing was accomplishing nothing and was not expected to accomplish anything. More troops was not a real option plus our earlier expansion of the number of troops had failed to meet any of the objectives set for those expansions.When McNamara left in early 1968, he was convinced that there was no winning strategy. Further, intelligence reports at that time suggested that there would be no negative geopolitical consequences to a withdrawal. Cronkite didn't make support for the war go away. The parents of the kids being killed made that happen. We look today at the 4000 US troops killed in Iraq and forget too easily what it was like to lose 58000 dead and another 2000 MIA's presumed dead.

A trip to Vietnam gives some pretty immediate feedback on just how misguided our war strategies were. 25 years following the end of WWII, the destruction from the war was still apparent everywhere in Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, and Russia. This was true despite the Marshall Plan and major efforts at reconstruction.

25 years following our withdrawal, you could not tell there had ever been a war except from the missing limbs of the survivors and the complete absence of wildlife. This was true despite the fact that Vietnam had operated in isolation because of American embargoes until 1992. The reason was simple. Vietnam had no infrastructure to destroy: no major road systems, no major rail systems, no major ports, no electrical grid, etc., etc. The idea of winning by bombing someone back to the middle ages assumes that they are not already there. I am very skeptical of all claims that we might have "won" had support for the war remained strong.

[YardleyLabs]

No. they are pretty much resposible for the downfall of the west but if there is any blame left over we blame liberal educators.

There we have it in a nutshell.

[Franco]

Again, had the American Press not aided the communist, the war would have ended in 1968-69. President Nixon's goal of, peace with honor could have been achieved if not for the support the communist received by much of the U S Press. The Vietnamese learned how to play the press like a puppet to thier benefit and that cost us another 20,000-25,000 dead.

quote:The Tet Offensive demonstrated, yet again, that the assurances given by the Generals concerning the effectiveness of our efforts were hot air. CIA intelligence reports from the time indicated that bombing was accomplishing nothing and was not expected to accomplish
:end quote

Hot air? The communist were on their knees after the Tet Offensive. Had we used the Tet Offensive as a reason to start bombing the north, they would have worked much harder for peace at the talks in Paris. But, then they realized the American Press was on their side. CIA Intelligence stated that bombing the jungles of S Vietnam was ineffective that that we need to concentrate on the Ho supply line and the the ports of the north which Nixion beleived to be true. That's why we went into Cambodia and incresed our attacks on the north. I believe your statement above to be a bit "revisionist".

Again, just like Iraq, Vietnam was a war we should have never fought. However, it was the American Press in both cases that has given aide to the enemy.

[dnf777]

There we have it in a nutshell.

Who was clipping the Depends coupons?? I need a few about now!

Of course, my bladder incontinence isn't from laughing so hard, its part of the Cronkite-Clinton-Carter communist conspiracy to rule the universe and give us all leaky bladders! It's also their fault the latches on my barn door broke. And my truck squeaks, and the air-conditioner isn't as cold as I'd like. Oh wait, that's Biden's department.

[Hew]

Of course, my bladder incontinence isn't from laughing so hard, its part of the Cronkite-Clinton-Carter communist conspiracy to rule the universe and give us all leaky bladders! It's also their fault the latches on my barn door broke. And my truck squeaks, and the air-conditioner isn't as cold as I'd like. Oh wait, that's Biden's department.

So says the reigning and still undefeated POTUS Place "Bush Did It" Champion.

[Leddyman]

I actually suspect that the journalists were behind the curve and that public tolerance for a war without end to anything but casualties had already reached its end. The Tet Offensive demonstrated, yet again, that the assurances given by the Generals concerning the effectiveness of our efforts were hot air. CIA intelligence reports from the time indicated that bombing was accomplishing nothing and was not expected to accomplish anything. More troops was not a real option plus our earlier expansion of the number of troops had failed to meet any of the objectives set for those expansions.When McNamara left in early 1968, he was convinced that there was no winning strategy. Further, intelligence reports at that time suggested that there would be no negative geopolitical consequences to a withdrawal. Cronkite didn't make support for the war go away. The parents of the kids being killed made that happen. We look today at the 4000 US troops killed in Iraq and forget too easily what it was like to lose 58000 dead and another 2000 MIA's presumed dead.

A trip to Vietnam gives some pretty immediate feedback on just how misguided our war strategies were. 25 years following the end of WWII, the destruction from the war was still apparent everywhere in Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, and Russia. This was true despite the Marshall Plan and major efforts at reconstruction.

25 years following our withdrawal, you could not tell there had ever been a war except from the missing limbs of the survivors and the complete absence of wildlife. This was true despite the fact that Vietnam had operated in isolation because of American embargoes until 1992. The reason was simple. Vietnam had no infrastructure to destroy: no major road systems, no major rail systems, no major ports, no electrical grid, etc., etc. The idea of winning by bombing someone back to the middle ages assumes that they are not already there. I am very skeptical of all claims that we might have "won" had support for the war remained strong.

Why don't you try telling that to the South Vietnamese who were slaughtered after we pulled out. No negative geopolitical consequences my ass, do you remember what Ben Laden said gave him confidence? He said we didn't have the will to engage them long enough to win. Viet Nam is where it started.

Interesting that you are concerned with the missing wildlife. There's a lot more than that missing.

I'm not sure we should have been there in the first place but I AM sure we should go ahead and win if we go. Cronkite turned public opinion so that a bunch of idiot politicians started trying to micro manage a war from overseas...sound familiar? You can't win that way. War is an us or them proposition. We decided it would be us because of men like Cronkite.

[cotts135]

Originally Posted by Franco View Post
After North Vietnam's Tet Offensive, we had the communist on their knees. They took such heavy loses after Tet that Gen. Giap wasn't sure how long it would take for them to recover, if they ever would. Then came Mr Cronkite telling the American people after Tet that we were in a war we wouldn't win and turned the east and west coasters against the war. The communist saw the turning tide in the USA and that gave them the determination to persevere. The North Vietnamesse can thank Mr Cronkite for breeding new life into thier struggle!

[QUOTE]

This is my understanding of events as well. If anything he should have been discredited and charged with treason.

I'm thinking he probably doesn't meet that criteria.

Here is the Constitutions definition of treason:

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

And then there is that little thing in the First Amendment of our Constitution that protects free speech. Cmon Subrock I expected a little better from you

















;

[subroc]

...giving them aid or comfort...

Seems to fit.

Claiming the war is lost when in reality, at the time, it was less than true.