Walter Cronkite dead at 92

posted at 8:29 pm on July 17, 2009 by Allahpundit

I have no reaction aside from the basic human sympathy one would feel for anyone who’s died. But as I said after Jacko passed: If you’re in the habit of watching cable news, you’re in for a very rough, very hagiographic week. Good luck.

Update: He retired as anchor of the CBS Evening News in 1981 at the ripe young age of 64, leaving us with decades of Dan Rather coverage that might not have been. Terrific.

Update: WaPo was ready with its obit. His most controversial moment as a reporter:

Cronkite was often viewed as the personification of objectivity, but his reports on the Vietnam War increasingly came to criticize the American military role. “From 1964 to 1967, he never took anything other than a deferential approach to the White House on Vietnam,” Gitlin said, but added, “He’s remembered for the one moment when he stepped out of character and decided, to his great credit, to go see [Vietnam] for himself.”

In 1968, following the surprise Tet Offensive of the communist North Vietnamese, Cronkite went to Southeast Asia for a firsthand look at the war. His reports on the “Evening News” and in a half-hour special were instrumental in turning the tide of American public opinion against U.S. policy.

“To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past,” he said, casting doubt in the minds of millions of Americans on official versions of the war. Cronkite’s viewers were certain that he would never lie to them, and the White House and the Defense Department did not command that level of credibility.

President Lyndon B. Johnson was widely quoted as having told aides, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”

Update (Ed): I don’t have much to add here either, except to send my condolences to the Cronkite family.  I have felt for a long time that both his fans and his opponents made far too much out of Cronkite, who was a good news reader — and a better ambassador for CBS than his successors.  Walter Cronkite did not lose us the Vietnam War; that was lost by Congress in 1974-5, after Richard Nixon had managed to put it back more or less to status quo ante years past Johnson’s quote.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

scott_lauritzen on July 19, 2009 at 7:02 PM

I don’t get the Ezekiel passage as condemning anyone speaking ill of the dead.

That said, it is one thing to wish someone ALIVE to die and be sent to hell. It’s another to wish someone already dead for them to be put in a place that they deserve to be in. (note also the WISH part for to state flatly would be to usurp G-d and his judgment).

Cronkite succumbed to the new found celebrity hero-worship fostered by TV. He started to believe the sycophants and yes-men surrounding him and that his opinion was fact and without flaw. He then used that false perception to justify almost single handedly turning the American people against their own interest and their word thus condemning those who looked to us for salvation to death and the pits of despair. For him to have a taste of what millions experienced from his influence would be justice indeed.

Sherman1864 on July 19, 2009 at 8:18 PM

You claim that the choices you outline were viable solutions, but they overlook the realities on the ground and advances made by U.S. forces later in the conflict. LBJ and his advisers WERE AFRAID of China and did not have enough nerve to implement the easier but more risky solutions. Even so they fumbled the other “harder” choices also because they failed to understand the psychology of the enemy and the people we were there for. At the time of the TET offensive, the people of RVN were beginning to see what the result of a Northern victory would be which is why the Viet Cong launched TET; they were desperate as they knew the were losing the “minds” of the people and they no longer had the secure base of acquiescence to their presence by the people. Some more money/aid to the country and a heavy military push could have kept the NVA north of the border long enough for the ARVN to achieve self-sustainability. I think your opinions have been formed by insufficient diversity of research and that you should seek out other works of reference that don’t fit your preconceived notion of what the flaws were in the Viet Nam conflict.

jcw46 on July 19, 2009 at 10:58 PM

the Vietnam War was lost from the start for lack of will to employ the extreme measures I discuss. What president would choose to completely control a South Vietnam in order to change the social fabric while at the same time punishing the North very very harshly? Verdict? Our forces in Vietnam, the soldiers, performed superbly.
But given the lack of will to impliment above policy, the war was NOT one the US could win.

Sherman1864 on July 19, 2009 at 8:18 PM

.
I’m sorry but that is nonsense. We could have won the war early on. Check out historian of the Vietnam War, Mark Moyar, book if you will: Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 by Mark Moyar, Cambridge.

A Winnable War
The argument against the orthodox history of Vietnam.

Pike then made an extraordinary claim by comparing the effects of the constrained air campaign in 1965 and the “Christmas bombing” of 1972. Officially known as Linebacker II, this massive, around-the-clock air campaign far exceeded in intensity anything that had gone before. Hanoi was stunned.

“While conditions had changed vastly in seven years,” Pike continued, “the dismaying conclusion to suggest itself from the 1972 Christmas bombing was that had this kind of air assault been launched in February 1965, the Vietnam war as we know it might have been over within a matter of months, even weeks.

.

And we DID WIN IT, until a Democrat controlled Congress threw our victory away in January 1975 when Congress over-road Pres. Ford’s veto and cut off necessary and promised military aid to South Vietnam.

See A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam, by military historian Lewis Sorley.

A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam (1999)

Mike OMalley on July 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Cronkite had to know that he was talking through his hat back in February 1968. He didn’t have the military training or experience to interpret what was going on. Liberal that Chronkite was, it seems that he just felt that what the people who did have the necessary military experience and military training were telling him about the war in Vietnam was something did not jive with his personal assessment. Thereafter millions died and not once did this pillar of MSM journalism ever ever set the record straight and acknowledge that he was wrong about Tet and Vietnam.
.
Reread Chronkite’s the opening about the 1968 Tet offensive:

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi’s winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations

In hind sight, it sure sounds as though someone in the military was telling it to Chronkite straight?
.
Now read the opening line of Chronkite’s second paragraph:

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.

What evidence could there have been that Chronkite was able to competently so interpret? Chronkite covered the Battle of the Bulge during WWII. Without doubt the Battle of the Bulge had to look no less dark than the aftermath of Tet in 1968. The German offensive of the Battle of the Bulge was planned with the utmost secrecy, minimizing radio traffic and conducting the movement of troops and equipment under cover of darkness. The German offensive took the Allies by complete surprise, in part due to American overconfidence. However, the German offensive ended as a severe defeat leaving many experienced German units severely depleted of men and equipment. German survivors were forced to retreat to the defenses of the Siegfried Line, the last of the German reserves were now gone; the Luftwaffe had been broken. [test adapted from Wikipedia] And four months later Nazi Germany surrendered unconditionally.

Again in retrospect, the defeat administered to the indigenous Viet Cong in the South was no less devastating for them than Germany’s defeat in the Battle of the Bulge. Remember four months later Nazi Germany surrendered. And someone in the military was surely telling Chronkite that we were closer to victory after Tet.

Now notice Chronkite’s fourth sentence in his second paragraph:

On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy’s intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.

Again in retrospective Tet 1968 was indeed the enemy’s “last big gasp before negotiations”! And some military analysts were telling Chronkite as much!

.

I think the Chronkite never conceded his error about Tet because he was more comfortable with America’s failure in South Vietnam than he would have been with America’s success.

Yes there is blood on this man’s hands.

Mike OMalley on July 19, 2009 at 11:51 PM

.
I’m sorry but that is nonsense. We could have won the war early on. Check out historian of the Vietnam War, Mark Moyar, book if you will: Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 by Mark Moyar, Cambridge.

Mike OMalley on July 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM

I never even heard of Mark Moyar, although my never having heard of him doesn’t make him wrong, of course.

Personally, I prefer to go by books such as “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam” by H. R. McMaster (Now General H. R. McMaster, basically promoted by General David Petraeus).

If those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, then H.R. McMaster has done the Pentagon and the nation a favor. He has good advise for readers, especially high ranking military ones. Like all good history books, it unlocks the past and guides an understanding of the present.
(Ernest Blazar)

Red hot. Brilliantly shows how the American people were conned.
(Col Davis Hackworth U.S. Army (retired))

It’s stunning. Go get Dereliction of Duty, a blistering and scholarly expose.
(Rush Limbaugh)

Joe Bloggs on July 19, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Again in retrospective Tet 1968 was indeed the enemy’s “last big gasp before negotiations”! And some military analysts were telling Chronkite as much!

Where did that come from? The Saigon 5 o’clock follies, episode 125? Into the tens of thousand of Americans were killed in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive. Who do you think killed them? Ghosts?

Yes there is blood on this man’s hands.

Mike OMalley on July 19, 2009 at 11:51 PM

This is probably the biggest case of scapegoating since Kristallnacht. If such things were possible Baines Johnson and Strange McNamara are probably high fiving each other in their graves.

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 12:08 AM

Say Joe, so you name for us:
Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara?
.
Throw in Henry Cabot Lodge, and couple of New York Times reporters in the early 1960s, Henry Kissinger, the Senators and Congressman who over-road Pres. Ford’s veto of the termination of financial aid to South Vietnam, a certain second lieutenant who ran the Winter Soldier anti-war aggi-prop … it’s a long list in which Walter Chronkite doesn’t get top billing.
.
.
Thank for the recommendation. Dereliction of Duty is an excellent information source on this topic. Maybe I should revisit it. Take a look and Mark Moyar and Lewis Sorley. I think you will agree they got much to add to the public discussion about the Vietnam War.

Mike OMalley on July 20, 2009 at 12:44 AM

Dereliction of Duty is an excellent information source on this topic. Maybe I should revisit it. Take a look and Mark Moyar and Lewis Sorley. I think you will agree they got much to add to the public discussion about the Vietnam War.

Mike OMalley on July 20, 2009 at 12:44 AM

I can hardly believe that I am “fighting” the Vietnam war all over again after 37 years when I had pretty much forgotten about it the day before I left and with Obama busy trashing the country too. People today have such a different perspective on it from when it was actually happening.

In addition to McMaster see also Vietnam in Retrospect: Could We Have Won? from the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 1:06 AM

“Notwithstanding the departure of the last US combat troops from Vietnam in 1973, the Vietnam War continues to be fought and refought here in the United States. Wars are unpleasant to wage, and even more unpleasant to lose. The Vietnam War has divided Americans as has no other foreign conflict since the War of 1812. George McGovern, politically both product and victim of the war, has declared it “our second civil war. We are going to be fighting it for the rest of our lives.”

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 1:08 AM

I wrote and you excerpted:

the Vietnam War was lost from the start for lack of will to employ the extreme measures I discuss. What president would choose to completely control a South Vietnam in order to change the social fabric while at the same time punishing the North very very harshly? Verdict? Our forces in Vietnam, the soldiers, performed superbly.
But given the lack of will to impliment above policy, the war was NOT one the US could win.

Sherman1864 on July 19, 2009 at 8:18 PM
.
I’m sorry but that is nonsense. We could have won the war early on. Check out historian of the Vietnam War, Mark Moyar, book if you will: Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 by Mark Moyar, Cambridge.

When you apply the word nonsense, no apologies please.
Now, my very point is that America could have won the war, but there was no will to implement the drastic policies I discuss, both militarily and socially. You do not address the social issues per the poor relationship between the South Vietnamese people and a corrupt Saigon. Always a corrupt and elitist Saigon out of touch with the agrarian South Vietnamese. This poor relationship made controlling insurgency impossible. I direct YOUR attention to “Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning (The World of a Combat Division in Vietnam)” by Eric Bergerud and to “A Bright and Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan. Then, why not read “The Tunnels of Chu Chi (The Untold Story of Vietnam)” by Tom Mangold and John Penycate? I believe my comment indicates that yes, America could have won at ANY time, given the will. Putting aside the judgement to go to war in Vietnam in the first place, the complexities of this war were only appreciated upon waging it. Once the complexities became known, the US should have either gone forward with the necessary measures to win, or made a more timely decision to withdraw. As it is, one of the tragedies of this war was a story of half-measures leading to the abandonment of any notion of a free South Vietnam.
In any event, this is a very very complex topic and one I expected would draw fire. I would have been surprised had it not. Discussion of the Vietnam War is most complex. Again, however, I do not accept your simplistic dismissal of my comment as nonsense. You may not agree with my opinion, but it is based firmly on long consideration of the war.

Sherman1864 on July 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM

Excerpt from from the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97:

“Yet condemnation of the media is a dog that won’t hunt. While the media’s professional performance in covering the war left much to be desired, the fact remains that until the Tet Offensive, which prompted a dramatic lowering of de facto US war aims, from seeking a military victory to searching for an “honorable” way out of Vietnam, both the print and broadcast media by and large supported the war, in many cases buying the official and congenitally optimistic line on the war’s course. Moreover, the early skepticism over official prognoses by such bright and ambitious young journalists as Neil Sheehan, Peter Arnette, and David Halberstam was justifiably fueled by the yawning gap between, on the one hand, what they saw in the field with their own eyes–and were told by such US Army advisors as the legendary John Paul Vann–and, on the other, the appreciations to which they were treated by such career optimists as Ambassador Fritz Nolting and Westmoreland’s predecessor, Paul Harkins (who, among other things, called ARVN’s calamitous performance in the January 1963 Battle of Ap Bac “a victory.”

The press justifiably was suspicious of an official reporting system whose integrity was constantly threatened by a near-manic preoccupation with quantification and pleasing superiors. Westmoreland himself concedes that in “those early days the newsmen were sometimes closer to the truth than were American officials, for there can be no question but that Paul Harkins was overly optimistic.”

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 1:25 AM

jcw46 on July 19, 2009

I believe if you view my comment above, you will find three sources mentioned. Rather diverse ones at that. In any event the best book I have ever read on the topic is “Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning” by Bergerud. Having been published in 1994 makes it one of the more “recent” histories of the Vietnamese War. It is very compelling reading and very well documented.
As to “preconceived” notions, I am not sure how that works out logically. How can one have “preconceived” notions about a topic, when such notions were conceived during a long process of study in history and military history?
I can assure you, nothing PREconceived regarding my view of that complex war. My studies are ongoing and my view may change. But I have come to the conclusion that America could have won the war, but did not do what was necessary for that outcome. None of the comments here convince me otherwise, for they are ALL counterfactuals. What IFs . . . .Including my own!IF more control over Saigon, IF no restrictions on our combatants, IF no save havens for the enemy, IF more bombing, IFs them all.
I believe we COULD have won, IF . . . .
As a result of our failure (not the fault of an extremely effective military by any means) we now have a united and destitute Vietnam. Whereas South Korea is a vibrant democratic nation . . . .
A very sad tale for the Vietnamese all around.
Now, my question is how to apply these lessons to Iraq and how to proceed with that war. Very complex. Made more complex by the fact that the most deadly threat to world peace is to be found in the expansion of an Islam bent on the destruction of all infidels . . . .

Sherman1864 on July 20, 2009 at 1:42 AM

Further excerpt from the U.S. Army War College:

Richard Nixon, who blamed Congress for Saigon’s fall, was nonetheless sympathetic:

Congress was in part the prisoner of events. The leaders of the United States in the crucial years of the early and mid-1960s failed to come up with a strategy that would produce victory. Instead, they simply poured in more and more US troops and materiel into South Vietnam. . . . They misled the public by insisting we were winning the war and thereby prepared the war for defeatism and demagoguery later on. The American people could not be expected to continue indefinitely to support a war in which they were told victory was around the corner, but which required greater and greater effort without any obvious signs of improvement.

Rather like bringing your GM car to the dealer/repair shop and being told that they will fix your car in a day for $1,000 and then, well it’s going to be another $1,000 and another day and then, wow are you lucky we are finding all these things to fix otherwise you would be breaking down out in the sticks someplace, but another $2,000 and another couple of days and it will be like new! And then you think, well I have already sunk so much money into this I can’t give up now! And then a month and $10,000 later it’s still just another $1,000 and another day and you finally have had enough and tow the car to the junk yard and just barely restrain yourself from going on an armed rampage at the car dealer.

Norman Podhoretz, who believes that American intervention in the Vietnam War was “an attempt born of noble ideals and impulses,” has concluded that “the only way the United States could have avoided defeat in Vietnam was by staying out of the war altogether.” His judgment, in retrospect, appears to be as reasonable as any. The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater, and the US decision to fight there in the 1960s was driven by a doctrine of containing communism that in the 1950s was witlessly militarized and indiscriminately extended to all of Asia. Bernard Brodie observed in the early 1970s that “it is now clear what we mean by calling the United States intervention in Vietnam a failure. . . . We mean that at least as early as the beginning of 1968 even the most favorable outcome . . . could not remotely be worth the price we would have paid for it.”

The key to US defeat was a profound underestimation of enemy tenacity and fighting power, an underestimation born of a happy ignorance of Vietnamese history, a failure to appreciate the fundamental civil dimensions of the war, and a preoccupation with the measurable indices of military power and attendant disdain for the ultimately decisive intangibles. In 1965, Maxwell Taylor confessed that “the ability of the Viet Cong continuously to rebuild their units and make good their losses is one of the mysteries of this guerrilla war. We still find no plausible explanation of the continued strength of the Viet Cong.” Four years later, Vo Nguyen Giap commented that the “United States has a strategy based on arithmetic. They question the computers, add and subtract, extract square roots, and then go into action. But arithmetical strategy doesn’t work here. If it did, they’d have already exterminated us.”

The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 2:13 AM

I believe we COULD have won, IF . . . .
As a result of our failure (not the fault of an extremely effective military by any means) we now have a united and destitute Vietnam. Whereas South Korea is a vibrant democratic nation . . . .
A very sad tale for the Vietnamese all around.

Sherman1864 on July 20, 2009 at 1:42 AM

From U.S. Army War College:

Yet suppose that the United States had retained an air and ground combat presence in Vietnam after 1973, as it did in Korea after 1953 (in contrast to the Paris agreement, which mandated withdrawal of remaining US combat forces from Vietnam, the Korean armistice permitted retention of US bases and combat forces south of the 38th parallel). South Vietnam would have remained a costly and probably permanent military ward of the United States (ARVN never exhibited the level of fighting power achieved by South Korean troops, which were integrated with US units and fought under US command in a war that was largely conventional in character)–a strategic drain on American power in an area peripheral to core US security interests (in contrast to the Korean Peninsula’s critical strategic importance).

Without a continued US military presence after 1973, South Vietnam would surely have been as doomed as it was in 1965 without massive US intervention. “Even if the United States had continued its military assistance at the 1972-1973 level,” concludes Davidson, “the combination of the inherent debilities of the Thieu government and the power and determination of the North Vietnamese would have eventually destroyed the Republic of Vietnam.” The claim that congressional miserliness doomed South Vietnam fails to explain why, in 1975, after a generous 20-year US investment, ARVN folded like a house of cards, abandoning intact to the NVA billions of dollars’ worth of US military equipment.

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 2:20 AM

From U.S. Army War College:

McNamara, more than any other high-level policymaker associated with US intervention in Vietnam, embodied the combination of arrogance and ignorance that plagued the United States in Vietnam from the outset.

Early on in the war Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara remarked that the “greatest contribution Vietnam is making–rightly or wrongly is beside the point–is that it is developing an ability in the United States to fight a limited war, to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire.” Quoted in Norman Podhoretz, Why We Were In Vietnam (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982), p. 80.

If one ponders the mind set of this at all, keeping in mind that tens of thousand of Americans were killed in Vietnam, it is clear that Robert Strange McNamara was a truly evil man.

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 2:28 AM

One thing I do appreciate is the opportunity for discussion and debate offered by this and other blogs on the right.Try having a discussion about Vietnam on a left wing blog and, well, expectations for meaningful dialogue are virtually nil. Try having a meaningful debate about anything and it is almost impossible to avoid developing a rather low opinion of a large segment of America.On the right, we actually find people really reading and recommending books and giving considered opinions. Again, a true breath of fresh air, rather than NPR type stale air. Thank goodness for the internet, for without it, no news but propaganda would be our daily fare. A very distasteful dish indeed.Studies show conservatives tend to cross over to the left blogs to verify for themselves the sad state of affairs over there, while the reverse is not true. Over there it is Truth to Power, but over here it is largely Power to Truth. Again, appreciated.

Sherman1864 on July 20, 2009 at 6:24 AM

You have been busy Joe Blogg!
.
Thank you for investing the time necessary to post these quotations and references. I’ll print them out for a close reading and consideration later today.
.
I recall that Patrick O’Rourke opined upon the publication of Robert McNamara’s memoir, In Retrospect in 1995 that “it would have been better for the country if McNamara had condensed his memoir down to the length of a suicide note”.

Mike OMalley on July 20, 2009 at 7:23 AM

Thank you also Sherman1864 for the time you too have invested. Your postings are going to be printed out for close reading and consideration too.
.
I agree with your observations posted on July 20, 2009 at 6:24 AM.
.
This brings us back to Chronkite. I’ll quote Neo-Neocon’s post on this topic from yesterday.

And then you have what I think are the three most important press failings of all, of which Cronkite was guilty as charged, their staying power reflected in his inordinate pride about his stance that persisted in the face of a book like “The Big Story” (one wonders whether Cronkite had ever read it):

There was no willingness to admit error or correct erroneous reporting after the fact. The classic example was the Associated Press’s continued assertion that sappers had entered the U.S. Embassy building in Saigon more than twelve hours after it was clear the attack had been repulsed on the grounds.

…By the time of Vietnam, it had become professionally acceptable in some media to allow reporters to “explain” news, not merely report it…

…In their commentary on events in Vietnam, reporters “projected” to the American public their own opinions and fears based on incomplete data and their own inclinations.

Has any of this changed today? I think things have gotten worse, if anything; the MSM failures illustrated by the press coverage of Tet have become institutionalized in the intervening years.
.
Tet was a turning point all right, but in a very different way than Cronkite envisioned it: it marked the beginning of a special and destructive type of MSM hubris, in which our own media—without realizing it was doing so, and without meaning to—became, effectively, the propaganda arm of the enemy.

.
I’ll recommend a academic work in this regard Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age by Jim A. Kuypers PhD, who teaches political communication at Virginia Tech.
.
You read Dr. Kuyper’s concise summary here:
Media Bias and Bush’s War on Terror
.

It should trouble us all that for the second time within living memory of the Holocaust that powerful “peace movements” have emerged to undermine American military resistance to grave evil. It seems to me that there is a greater than remote risk today that our failure of will shall lead to death tolls that will dwarf those caused by our betrayal of South Vietnam.
.
One might imagine that some future historians will find that the serial mendacity of America’s MSM will have play a material role in bring on the horrors to come.

Mike OMalley on July 20, 2009 at 7:53 AM

Some people sure type a lot trying to convince that Vietnam wasn’t a bad idea. It was.

No one person you can blame for the outcome, as much as you have always depended on that.

Moesart on July 20, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Some people sure type a lot trying to convince that Vietnam wasn’t a bad idea. It was.

No one person you can blame for the outcome, as much as you have always depended on that.

Moesart on July 20, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Ohhhh … I forgot. You’re right Moesart. We are wrong. And we can know that you’re right because Walter Chronkite said so. And we can know that Chronkite was right because Sheehan and Halberstam of the New York Times told Chronkite!

Mike OMalley on July 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM

You guys are forgetting the Vietnamese general who wrote the book and said that we won. And then suddenly went home anyway.

My take on the bible is that God’s actual words are the ten commandments, and even they were rewritten by a man named Constantine. The rest of the book is written by good men. Otherwise, I would not be eating lobster or pork.

Ezekiel laments the missed chance at redemption and may have his opinion on the matter. I don’t share it.

dogsoldier on July 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Now he really is sitting at the right-hand of Satan.

ex-Democrat on July 20, 2009 at 12:13 PM

You guys are forgetting the Vietnamese general who wrote the book and said that we won. And then suddenly went home anyway.

dogsoldier on July 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

We didn’t suddenly go home. The Tet Offensive was in early 1968. The majority of American troops were killed after the Tet Offensive.

American troop levels and killed in RVN at/after the Tet Offensive:

(End of year) (number) (killed)
1968 – 536,100 – 16,511
1969 – 475,200 – 11,527
1970 – 334,600 – 6,065
1971 – 156,800 – 2,348
1972 – 24,200 – 561
1973 – 50

Joe Bloggs on July 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Well, Walter. “That’s the way it is” may have worked in the 1960′s. . . . but not today. Just ask Dan Rather. Oh wait, you can’t. You’re dead!

kens on July 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Cronkite is truely the Father of TV news. How’s that working for you?

Lovemm on July 20, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5