Did Cronkite and CBS offer assistance to anti-war movement?
posted at 7:00 pm on May 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Many conservatives still have not forgiven Walter Cronkite for editorializing in early 1969 that the Vietnam War would end in a “bloody stalemate,” encouraging the S to abandon the fight at a time when the Communists appeared ready to throw in the towel. If a recently-released FBI file is true, Cronkite may have gone farther than editorializing. According to an FBI informant, Cronkite offered advice and CBS resources to assist the anti-war activists, including a helicopter to fly Edmund Muskie to a protest that CBS would then cover:
Legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite allegedly collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even pledgingCBS News resources to help pull off events, according to FBI documents obtained by Yahoo! News.
The documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, say that in November 1969, Cronkite encouraged students atRollins College in Winter Park, Fla., to invite Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie to address a protest they were planning near Cape Kennedy (now known as Cape Canaveral). Cronkite told the group’s leader that Muskie would be nearby for a fundraiser on the day of the protest, and said that “CBS would rent [a] helicopter to take Muskie to and from site of rally,” according to the documents.
The claims are contained in an FBI memo recounting a confidential informant’s report on a November 1969 meeting of a Rollins College protest group called Youth for New America. The group was planning rallies near Cape Kennedy on Nov. 13 and 14 — the latter being day of the Apollo 12 launch from Cape Kennedy, which President Nixon would be attending — as part of a nationwide Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam. That protest action culminated in a huge march on Washington on Nov. 15.
The file includes the following testimony, while redacting the name of the activist leader who related the offer to the group, including the informant:
“[Redacted] told group he had been to CBS Channel Six in Orlando prior to meeting to speak to newsmen about Vietnam moratorium activities. [Redacted] related that while at TV station, Walter Cronkite, nationally known radio and television commentator, spoke to him by telephone for approximately forty five minutes and that Cronkite reportedly told [redacted] that CBS would have thirty six hours of coverage on Vietnam moratorium with ‘open mike’ to give demonstrators a chance to be heard. Cronkite noted, according to [redacted], that Senator Edmund Muskie would be in Orlando, Fla., November 13 instant for Democratic fund raising dinner. According to [redacted], Cronkite suggested that [redacted] attempt to Muskie to come [sic] to Cape Kennedy to speak at Kelly Park rally to be held November thirteen instant. Cronkite allegedly told [redacted] that CBS would rent helicopter to take Muskie to and from site of rally at Kelly Park.”
Explosive — if true, which requires a couple of levels of faith. First, the FBI itself may or may not have been telling the truth. This seems like a story that would have been custom-made for the Nixon administration’s paranoia, and more importantly, J. Edgar Hoover’s own dislike of the media. Bear in mind that at this time, the FBI had serious issues of politicization, especially in regard to political dissent and organized opposition to government policies. One cannot dismiss the FBI reports out of hand, but one must also remember the full context of the FBI’s activities at the time.
Second, even if the FBI reliably transmitted what the informant said, the informant may have been creating a tall tale in order to keep the FBI interested. And even if the FBI and the informant were trustworthy, the group leader may have been blowing smoke to support his own power within the group. After all, having a 45-minute conversation with the most trusted name in television news at the time would have been a very impressive feat.
In fact, the entire tale seems so fantastic that Cronkite’s son dismisses it out of hand:
Chip Cronkite, Walter Cronkite’s son, told Yahoo! News it’s highly unlikely that his father would ever have made such an offer. “It doesn’t have the ring of a reliable story to me,” he said. “Particularly at a time when FBI informants often told the FBI what they wanted to hear. I think it would be outside of what we know about Walter Cronkite and CBS News’ practices.”
It seems a little fantastic to me as well. Cronkite may have sympathized with the movement, and may have offered advice — but unless he was working a story, spending 45 minutes talking to a rally organizer doesn’t sound realistic. Neither does an offer to foot the bill for a helicopter to fly Muskie to the rally, a move that the FBI would have exposed as soon as they were aware of it, and one which CBS bosses would almost certainly have refused. Unless Cronkite was prepared to pay for it out of his own pocket (or was blowing some smoke himself), it’s hard to believe.
That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, of course, and it would be interesting to see how deeply Cronkite involved himself in anti-war protests, if at all. This is one piece of evidence, but it’s at best third-degree hearsay. Perhaps we will see more direct evidence later, but at the moment, this is more of a curio than anything else.
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 2 Next »
Why am I not surprised?
Dan. on May 15, 2010 at 7:05 PM
I think we all pretty much know now the the media has an agenda…has been manipulating the public and now exposed won’t be trusted again…
CCRWM on May 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM
The next awesome thing that AZ Gov Jan Brewer could do is to re-name the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism in Tempe.
itsnotaboutme on May 15, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Uncle Walt a Rat Commie Pinko?
Archie Bunker has been exonerated.
portlandon on May 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM
Wasn’t it actually in 1968 when LBJ was still there during the Tet Offensive?
gsherin on May 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Viet Nam, was a pointless proxy war with Red China and the Soviet Union, who could pour in a constant nuisance amount of weaponrt for decades if need be.
Viet Nam was doomed to be nothing but a military meatgrinder, since the nuclear option was off the table, and allowing the war to spread to China (ala Korea) was never a possibility.
Only stopping arms from China and Russia, by force, would have crippled Viet Nam.
And nothing less would have won that kind of war.
If you cannot win, by your own rational rules, from the start, you should do no more than send aid and let the people win their own war.
The folly was taking over from the Frencn after Dien Bien Phu.
profitsbeard on May 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Elites are all the same-Progressives because they know how to run your life, your country better than you.
tim c on May 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM
What this means is Walter tried to influence a US election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie
Humphrey was far behind Nixon in 1968. The election ended up being very close after Humphrey (LBJ’s VP during the war years) turning against the war.
William Amos on May 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM
Video how close election in 1968 was
William Amos on May 15, 2010 at 7:19 PM
I can easily believe this. Look at the media today. There is no mask anymore.
SouthernGent on May 15, 2010 at 7:21 PM
How much stock can you put into what Cronkite, Jr. says. What else would he do but dismiss it?
I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I’m not willing to dismiss this story just because it seems fantastic. This is 1969 we’re talking about. If you were there, as I was, you would know what I mean.
SlaveDog on May 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM
Figures. Cronkite is more of a rat than I suspected. What a jerk.
cubachi on May 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM
Pinko commie bastard.
madmonkphotog on May 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM
What a lame thread.
Americannodash on May 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM
Isn’t he the guy also responsible for the death of McCarthy?
Narutoboy on May 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM
It would be interesting to see the files of others that betrayed our nation in a time of war. North Vietnamese generals said they would’ve surrendered if not for the support that came from the left in the United States. Cronkite was only one, but Fonda, Kerry and Kennedy were prominent in costing 1000s of American lives. Kerry put himself in for the Silver Star and the MSM almost took that scam to the White House. Anti-American corruption has been with us for decades because of the mainstream media as led by the Sulzbergers and the New York Times.
volsense on May 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM
I checked a few leftist boards – not only do they believe that this is true, they believe it makes Cronkite a hero.
Something to keep in mind the next time you hear a liberal decry FOX’s “bias”
18-1 on May 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM
There are consequences to defeat.
The USSR was sending aircraft, tanks, artillery, trucks, clothing, small arms, ammunition, fuel… a long supply line to Vietnam to tie up the US there. It also tied up the USSR there so that they couldn’t expand their sphere of influence. The NVA lost the equivalent of four armies during the conflict, and almost all of the material was supplied by the USSR. Material not being used for the Red Army, not being used to make a better economy and not being used to expand influence. Once the US left, then the USSR could change their outlook and utilize the defeat of the US as a launching point to expand their influence.
Mind you the millions dead in S. Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos are also attributed to this.
After Vietnam you get the Ogaden conflict heating up with Soviet help, the invasion of Afghanistan, helping the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, infiltrating into El Salvadore, the ‘Non-Aligned’ movement of third world countries aligned with the USSR, the Angolan civil war, the civil war in Mozambique, the destabilization of Lebanon due to Iran which went under due to Carter’s mishandling of the Shah and experts thinking that radical Islamists could form a ‘green’ set of buffer states against the USSR.
That sort of thing was not happening on a large scale before the US defeat in Vietnam, and things were mostly relegated to Cubans wasting Soviet time and money in various hellholes. After that the USSR had a much freer hand. Of course Afghanistan would prove their undoing, but that was not obvious at the start of that conflict. Then comes all the ‘Red’ terror groups – Red Army Factions in Italy, Japan, Germany and elsewhere, along with all sorts of other Communist terrorists. FARC was a minor group until they got trained by Cuba in the mid-1970′s and early ’80s. We can trace the Weathermen through Cuban training, too.
Does anyone remember that old style of hijacking of aircraft before 9/11? Amazing how that never happened to planes belonging to the USSR or its Satellite States, no? We like to think it was the brutality of the KGB, instead of funding and letting terrorists know that the West made much better targets with Soviet help.
The Left doesn’t want to take responsibility for these things the USSR was freed up to do when we left Vietnam. The surge of Soviet power isn’t something the MFM likes to talk about then or now. I remember growing up in a world getting more dangerous by the year… because the USSR was destroying its economy to tie the US down in a fight it couldn’t win unless we could figure out the actual stakes of leaving an ally high and dry.
Cronkite was a symptom.
The disease is still with us.
ajacksonian on May 15, 2010 at 7:38 PM
I remember the mischievous chuckle I had when, as a 9th grader in my HS German I class, I learned the word Krankheit (disease)…and my thoughts immediately turned to a certain newsman. Even as a kid, I found the guy annoying for some reason.
txleadfoot00 on May 15, 2010 at 7:39 PM
The point is not whether Vietnam was an ill-advised war. The point is that Cronkite posed as a paragon of journalistic virtue – the archetypal objective observer – when all the while he was manufacturing news, not reporting it.
What a lying tool.
greggriffith on May 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Those that can, do. Those that can’t become journalists.
Meh, a bit simplistic – not very accurate statements there.
reaganaut on May 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Any right thinking American back then knew that “Crockite”, which is what I always called him, was a liberal POS. Around my house we always called CBS,
Communist Broadcating System”.
Jeff on May 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Hhhmmmmmm…
I wonder what the most powerful and effective piece of propaganda that would easily reach and influence the uninformed masses would be…?
Oh, wait!
Seven Percent Solution on May 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Perhaps those old Soviet Union KGB archives could shed a bit of light on this, which of course might explain the Fifth Column Media’s vampire exposed to sunlight reaction to those archivists.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Well of course they did, how else to you explain Cronkite turning the victory that was Tet, into a loss. The Vietnam war was over for all intents and purposes, until the left with Cronkite leading the way gave life to Hanoi. For this I hope he’s burning each and every day now. Only now after he’s gone does anyone even investigate.
jainphx on May 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM
It makes you wonder what exactly is being taught in journalim schools…
Oh, wait!
Seven Percent Solution on May 15, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Can you imagine the 45 minute phone calls between Walter Cronkite and Jane Fonda…?
Seven Percent Solution on May 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM
I can remember hearing a minister talk about how he observed Cronkite edit part of President Nixon’s speech to totally alter the context of what he had to say, because “He needed to be taught a lesson.” So, is Cronkite a “Great Watchdog,” protecting the people? No, he is just another Lapdog of the mentally and morally bankrupt Progressive movement.
DL13 on May 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM
Is there some assumption that there was once a media that did not have an agenda to promote? The only balance you will find in Journalism is when you have lying b*stards/truth tellers on one side roughly equal to the lying b*stards/truth tellers on the other side.
BL@KBIRD on May 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html – Excerpt from link -
SoldiersMom on May 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Gosh, I can’t imagine why they were “paranoid”. Not only did we have Uncle Walter representing the “mainstream”, we had the social media of the day – cool, hip publications like Ramparts Magazine (that were oh so popular among the elites who drank the kool aid of the “peace movement”) rooting for the Communists to win. Thankfully we have men like David Horowitz and Sol Stern around to set the record straight about the movement they participated in and work tirelessly to expose.
Buy Danish on May 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Some always knew the truth of the left and it’s relation to the MFM, but there was only the networks at the time. Now of course we see the damage they did and are attempting to do. Why is the left fighting for the “fairness doctrine” and control of the internet.
jainphx on May 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM
The important thing is that he was wrong about the stalemate.
We lost!
OldEnglish on May 15, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Yeah, Uncle Walter has been pretty upfront lately that the entire time he was the ‘most trusted man in America’ he was lefty to the core. And if this stunt was tied into trying to rig a Presidential election, then it looks like Document Dan wasn’t nearly breaking the ground he denies having anything to do with. . .now looks more kind of like ‘old school’ CBS just taking another lap.
Wind Rider on May 15, 2010 at 8:00 PM
Oh and Ed, my condolences to you on your finding out that your hero’s, those so called paragons of virtue the journalists of yesteryear, were actually treasonous ba$tards.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 8:00 PM
For once, I would like to see some accountability for the Left’s actions and the resulting millions of dead…
… a ‘slap on the hand’ will not do.
Seven Percent Solution on May 15, 2010 at 8:05 PM
Old English we lost nothing, we never lost a battle in Nam! Nam was given away by the MFM in alliance with Kennedy, Kerry, Fonda, etc. They one day will answer for their treason. 56,000 souls cry out for justice from this scum.
jainphx on May 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM
There was a great reporter called AlGore, working the same war, right ?
Unless he too joins Crockky Jr in denying this FBI story, we won’t know for sure how anti-American the libs are.. and have always been. He needs to strongly deny this story so we know its true.
macncheez on May 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM
We won. The Dems cut off funding for S. Vietnam in 1975, they couldn’t defend themselves, and the NVA swamped them. Operation Linebacker and Linebacker II were war winners.
Akzed on May 15, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Your facts and figures only makes the loss that much worse.
I lived through the whole thing, beginning with the French, right up to the last chopper, and I’m still seething at the treachery and duplicity of all but the men on the ground.
OldEnglish on May 15, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Please look into the Mitrokhin Archive.
This is important.
Cronkite was a traitor.
tetriskid on May 15, 2010 at 8:14 PM
Old English– You are right as far as it goes, but the war was WON, until it was given away. Maybe we are on the same page here, but every time I go to the wall to see the names of buddies and brave men, I get fighting mad all over, and just the mention of people like Cronkite makes my blood boil. Kenndy’s grave should be kept secret from be.
jainphx on May 15, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Many of you here are giving Cronkite way too much “credit” for the way Vietnam turned out. He was much more a follower of public opinion regarding Vietnam than he was a leader. By keeping his mouth shut about getting out of Vietnam as long as he did he tacitly supported the war and the way it was conducted. He was in that regard a useful tool for Johnson and McNamara. It was only after Americans were turning more and more against the war that he joined the “parade”.
As far as the Tet offensive being portrayed as an American loss, when VC casualties were likely much greater than American causalities, well like they say, it’s all relative. There were half a million American troops in South Vietnam at the time [2 and a half times as many as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined] and from the picture that Johnson, McNamara and the military had presented to the American people the VC doing as well as they did should have been impossible. [1968, the year of the Tet Offefsive, was the bloodiest year of the Vietnam War for the American military. Approximately 11,000 Americans were killed and 45,000 wounded. Or more than twice the number of American military killed in Iraq over 6+ years and Afghanistan over 8+ years, combined.] Kind of like some bum fighter staying standing up in the ring with Mohammad Ali for even a couple of rounds when it was thought that he couldn’t last a half a round if he even got in the ring. The American people do not like being lied to on big matters and if/when they find that they were lied too they tend to not be very pleased.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Liberals are always good hiding inconvenient facts.
Jeff on May 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Ah yes, those are exactly the archives I was referring to earlier… This is more than important, so of course the Fifth Column Media will attempt first to ignore, then deny, and finally demonize anyone who brings them up…
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 8:25 PM
I wonder what Katy Couric is doing these days?
d1carter on May 15, 2010 at 8:25 PM
It would, in my humble opinion make a great site for a latrine…
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 8:26 PM
I’ve never needed FBI files to know Cronkite was an enemy collaborationist. I heard all I needed to know from friends who were grunts and chopper pilots in Vietnam who advised me that we did this and won this and Cronkite reported the opposite.
The same type of traitor lives on in our media. Consider Gulf War traitor Peter “Baby Milk Factory” Arnett and Jeff Greenfield (Ted Koppel’s waterboy) in collaboration at CNN to create the Tailwind fraud. Then consider Marine washout Dan Rather who had no scruples about forging TANG memos to attack GW Bush. Then consider how the activist Old Media tried to attack and denounce the Swift Boat veterans. Remember how CNN followed our troops ashore during a night beach landing in Somalia… with their TV camera lights trained on our soldiers thus making them easy targets. Then consider the various breaches of secrets by both the NY Times and the Washington Post and Chappy Kennedy’s desire to use Russian assistance to trash Ronaldus Magnus.
viking01 on May 15, 2010 at 8:27 PM
“Despite scores of books on the subject, the why and how of direct U.S. intervention in the Vietnam War remained unclear. When I began research as a graduate student in 1992, I found much of the available literature on the escalation of the Vietnam War contentious and based largely on conjecture. The role of senior military advisers in decisions that led to war was particularly obscure. Only until recently has the full record become available. Recently declassified documents, newly opened manuscript collections, and tapes of telephone conversations between President Lyndon Johnson and his closest advisers made it possible to tell the full story. What I found astonished me. Much of the conventional wisdom associated with Vietnam was highly inaccurate. Far from an inevitable result of the imperative to contain communism, the war was only made possible through lies and deceptions aimed at the American public, Congress, and members of Lyndon Johnson’s own administration. Contrary to Robert McNamara’s claims of ignorance and overconfidence during the period 1963-1965, the record proves that he and others were men who not only should have known better, but who did know better. These men and the decisions they made during those crucial months mired the United States in a costly war that could not be won at a cost acceptable to the American public. I wanted to answer the question of how and why Vietnam became an American war. It was during the period from November 1963 to July 1965 that Lyndon Johnson made the critical decisions that took the United States into war almost without realizing it. The decisions, and the way in which he made them, had a profound effect on the conduct of the war and its outcome.”
- H.R. McMaster, author of “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam.”
The shameful lies that the American people were told about Vietnam over it’s very long and costly length made all but inevitable the backlash against it. The lesson is that if one wants to win a war don’t pick one with limited importance to America and then repeatedly lie to people about the progress being made.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 8:28 PM
From the link :
Now who has been saying this @ his so-called church ?
Hmmmm
macncheez on May 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM
And now we have taken over from the British and the Russians in Afghanistan.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
- Karl Marx
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Many of you here are giving Cronkite way too much “credit” for the way Vietnam turned out. He was much more a follower of public opinion regarding Vietnam than he was a leader. By keeping his mouth shut about getting out of Vietnam as long as he did he tacitly supported the war and the way it was conducted. He was in that regard a useful tool for Johnson and McNamara. It was only after Americans were turning more and more against the war that he joined the “parade”.
As far as the Tet offensive being portrayed as an American loss, when VC casualties were likely much greater than American causalities, well like they say, it’s all relative. There were half a million American troops in South Vietnam at the time [2 and a half times as many as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined] and from the picture that Johnson, McNamara and the military had presented to the American people the VC doing as well as they did should have been impossible. [1968, the year of the Tet Offefsive, was the bloodiest year of the Vietnam War for the American military. Approximately 11,000 Americans were killed and 45,000 wounded. Or more than twice the number of American military killed in Iraq over 6+ years and Afghanistan over 8+ years, combined.] Kind of like some bum fighter staying standing up in the ring with Mohammad Ali for even a couple of rounds when it was thought that he couldn’t last a half a round if he even got in the ring. The American people do not like being lied to on big matters and if/when they find that they were lied too they tend to not be very pleased.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM
============================================================
Cronkite was part of the Cancer that aided and abetted the anti-war effort. He gave comfort to those that were killing Americans and spun lies to make it look worse for us than it was, at the time, in order to achieve his ideological aims. The truth was, according to NVA sources, was we had them on their knees after their failed military objective of the Tet offensive. If it would have been Nixon, instead of Johnson, he would have started dictating terms for a truce. Instead, we had the Quislings, like Cronkite driving down the morale of our troops and those that supported the war effort. Thousands more Americans died, and, after the Communists took over in 1975, over a million South Vietnamese were executed by the Communists. All of their blood is on the likes of Conkrite’s hands.
Viet Nam Veteran that remembers…
DL13 on May 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM
Not hard to believe. This is the same network that knowingly used forged National Guard documents in an attempt to influence a presidential election. Again, supporting the lefty.
tommyboy on May 15, 2010 at 8:55 PM
I found a post-mortem article on Cronkite that I was going to delete from my files. It is worth resurrecting.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0709/west072409.php3
An aside: Has anyone else here read Nelson DeMille’s Upcountry? I found it a satisfying novel based on the author’s own experiences in VietNam. The protagonist, at the behest of his former employer, the US Army, takes a “sentimental journey” of sorts back to sites where he was engaged on two prior tours.
onlineanalyst on May 15, 2010 at 8:59 PM
Kenndy fought and won the battle to take the funds away from the South Vietnamese government which caused the down fall of all of east Asia. He was a communist and everything he did proved it.
jainphx on May 15, 2010 at 9:01 PM
I disagree that Nixon was overly “paranoid”. I wish that conservatives would STOP parroting the liberal line about history. People think – “yeah Nixon got impeached” – and they automatically buy into every false tale ever told by liberals about Nixon.
Hell, why do conservatives even do this? Liberals never return the favor even when history proves them wrong – like with the Rosenberg’s being IN FACT Communist spies.
Nixon saw national threats that were certainly real. In his life – Nixon investigated and prosecuted communists. He knew the U.S. was riddled with communist spies – he was correct about this. He knew that the communists were a major force behind the anti-war movement – he was correct about this. He knew the press was a willing accomplice to anti-democratic ideologies which were growing in America – he was right about the press.
He’s still right – because we have the same problems. Recognition of a threat is not paranoia.
HondaV65 on May 15, 2010 at 9:02 PM
Yup, not hard to believe at all, sadly we have MB4 trying to fight the Vietnam war all over again in this thread rather than addressing the actual issue here.
Hey MB4, quit being a bonehead, the issue here isn’t Vietnam, it is the corruption of the Fourth Estate. That good old trustworthy Walter was a significant part of that corruption seems to offend you, to damned bad.
Arguing over who won or lost Vietnam is irrelevant at best and the action of one attempting to obfuscate the real issue being discussed here at worst.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 9:03 PM
By the way – I say in my post above that “people think, ‘yeah Nixon got impeached’.
Before anyone jumps me – I do realize that Nixon was never impeached. Nevertheless – I’m still surprised by the number of people I meet today who believe he was. Thus my comment. I probably should have been clearer about that.
HondaV65 on May 15, 2010 at 9:04 PM
Yup, Nixon was never impeached, he resigned, Bill Clinton was impeached…
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Funny that you should mention that. NRO linked to an article in the WSJ (I think) this past week that questions why the media are curiously uncurious about those released Soviet archives.
ajacksonian: I appreciate your more global view of what was going on while the Left was undermining our efforts in Viet Nam and being the tools of the communists at the same time.
onlineanalyst on May 15, 2010 at 9:14 PM
The Mitrokhin Archive
tetriskid on May 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM
They sure killed an awful lot of American for being “on their knees”.
Croncite was a follower not a leader.
After Tet, tens of thosand of American’s died.
First time I ever heard anything like over a million. We never should have sent troops to Vietnam.
Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954
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. The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.
- The US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97
That is not logical.
I remember too. AUS 1971-1972. What’s morale?
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 9:23 PM
Amen!
onlineanalyst on May 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM
I have bigger criminals to fry: LBJ, McNamara, McBundy. Cronkite was a later day walk on.
The issue seems to be that Cronkite lost the Vietnam war for America. He didn’t.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM
We cant hammer the left with those archives to much, thanks for providing that link again. Sadly I fear that many on the conservative side of the aisle are just as afraid of what those archives hold as those on the left.
Not afraid because they were complicate or accomplices, but afraid because the information might force them to take very serious actions.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM
I’m not the one “trying to fight the Vietnam war all over again. They won. We lost. We never should have gone on that first date.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 9:31 PM
No. The issue here is the extent of the role played not by Cronkite but by the elite media he represents. Cronkite like Dan Rather is not the illness, only a symptom of the illness.
The actual illness is corruption in the mainstream media, the revelation that Walter Cronkite was a part of that cancer has little to do with Walter Cronkite and everything to do with how extensive that cancer is within the mainstream media.
The relevance Cronkite plays is to give an example of how long the mainstream media has been compromised and the extent of the deception they have been been perpetrating upon the American people.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Ed, I don’t think any lefty bloggers would be as hesitant to believe something. I say let’s run with it and make them scramble to explain for once. After all, CBS is the Rathergate network, “fake but accurate” and all that.
Kafir on May 15, 2010 at 9:37 PM
The Dolchstosslegende (German: Dolchstoßlegende, literally “Dagger stab legend” often translated into English as “stab-in-the-back legend”) refers to a social mythos and persecution-propaganda theory popular in Germany in the period after World War I through World War II. It attributed Germany’s defeat to a number of domestic factors instead of failed militarist geostrategy. Most notably, the theory proclaimed that the public had failed to respond to its “patriotic calling” at the most crucial of times and some had even intentionally “sabotaged the war effort.”
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 9:37 PM
If we pull out of Vietnam then tomorrow we will be fighting them in Hawaii and next week in San Francisco.
- Lyndon Baines Johnson
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 9:39 PM
Same page, indeed.
My fury lies in the fact that well over fifty thousand men gave their lives, only to have their success turned into failure – by those who would not fight.
OldEnglish on May 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM
This is the article about the Soviet archives that I was referring to, which appeared first in The City Journal and was linked elsewhere.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_soviet-archives.html
(I found this link at the WSJ online archives.)
What is amazing in my cursory reading of it was how crass VP Biden and Sen. Lugar were in learning of human rights’ abuses. Another tidbit of importance that appears later in the article is the Soviet Union’s role in the MidEast, a strategy that continues to this day.
onlineanalyst on May 15, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Like I said, trying to fight the Vietnam war all over again. This isnt about Vietnam. It’s about a major figure in the mainstream media who intentionally engaged in disinformation manipulation and deceit that was of a nature bordering on treasonous.
It’s about the mainstream media giving aid and comfort psychologically to enemies of the United States.
More importantly, it shows a consistent pattern of behavior that played out over decades, not a single isolated event.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM
No, pretty much the whole thread is about Walter Cronkite.
We already knew that. No need to dig up little piker Cronkite. The media is far worse now.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM
While my link above has nothing to do with Viet Nam, nor does the one below, the connection between the Soviet Union’s communism and its alliance with current leftists as supporters or political leaders (and their media enablers) has allowed the hegemonic threat to the liberty of people to continue to this day.
http://newledger.com/2010/05/of-history-apathy-and-the-soviet-archives/
onlineanalyst on May 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Like I said, I don’t think there even should have been a Vietnam war.
“Vietnam” is mentioned 5 times in the thread article and was mentioned 12 (don’t hold me to a precise count) times before I even spoke up. For not being about Vietnam, Vietnam is sure mentioned a lot.
If the point was merely that the MSM is biased, then the thread topic might as well have been “Water is wet”.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 9:58 PM
But the media have served as propaganda conduits without ever admitting their role in disinformation or sins of omission. The media control the message and define what goes into history books used to teach our children. We have a president with the flimsiest understanding of accurate history shaping policy based on lies and misinformation. That same president is attempting to shut down dissident voices.
When the networks were limited to the Big Three, Walter Cronkite shaped how Americans learned about current events. His “progressive” ideology and commie-symp leanings did a huge disservice to the nation.
onlineanalyst on May 15, 2010 at 9:59 PM
No it’s not, Walter Cronkite is just a symbol, like a arrow painted on the rings of a giant tree trunk that says… US Revolutionary War took place here.
We’re looking at Walter Cronkite’s actions and saying wow, the mainstream media were communist agitprop in the 60′s.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Pay a little closer attention to the threads title.
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 10:03 PM
just a side note on Unky Walter here but he also thought he was a great sailor too.
Far from it. He was one of those dilettantes who harrumphs that he’s been sailing 50 years when in reality he sailed only one year repeated fifty times. The man couldn’t sail his way out of a wet paper bag. He was as much a blowhard on the water as we was in the newsroom.
May 15th, 2010. And that’s the way it really is.
CatchAll on May 15, 2010 at 10:04 PM
Um, educated conservatives don’t hate Cronkite b/c he “editorialized”, Ed, they hate him b/c he outright lied about the Tet Offensive. Said we were beaten badly when it had actually not been that way at all.
I’m glad this has come out. Too bad it hadn’t before “Saint Walter” died, all those tributes made me puke at the time.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on May 15, 2010 at 10:07 PM
MB3 was much funnier.
Cronkite wasn’t a “little piker”. He directly influenced more people in America in 30 minutes than Bill O’Really or Keef do today in double the time.
Del Dolemonte on May 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM
May he rot in Hell tormented by the men who lost their lives while he undermined them at home. May he never know a moments peace for all eternity the rotten bastard.
TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Cronkite was NOT a piker, he was as powerful a pers
onage as Johnson. Johnson refused to run for re-election because he said he lost Cronkite. Don’t insult all of us that lived it by saying he was a little piker. What is your reason to try and down play Cronkite’s importance, you make me very suspicious of your motives.
jainphx on May 15, 2010 at 10:13 PM
And then also got some stupid “Commodore” title from the Coast Guard. He also claimed to be a “ham radio operator” but according to a ham friend of mine he only passed the Novice. Code-Only back then.
Del Dolemonte on May 15, 2010 at 10:14 PM
As I already said if it wasn’t about Vietnam then Vietnam was sure mentioned a lot. It wasn’t about Global Warming and Global Warming was never mentioned.
You previously said –
So if you want to go by just the title then it was about Walter Cronkite as the thread title is Did Cronkite and CBS offer assistance to anti-war movement? and Cronkite is mentioned 6 times in the thread article.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Bullsh*t.
Another lie.
Uncle Walter led the anti-war parade. Period.
Because Cronkite declared that the war was lost (kinda like Harry Reid, huh?), Johnson decided that he wouldn’t seek a 2nd term, that the war was truly lost and that any attempts he made as Commander-in-Chief to pursue victory wouldn’t be supported by the American people who were then being led by Cronkite on a peace march.
Tet was an American victory and wiped out the army of the North Vietnamese.
Even General Jiap admitted it.
Right up until 2008, a good deal of the American people were being lied to by the MSM and didn’t even realize it.
And then came Obama…
Jenfidel on May 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Nothing to see here, move along… right comrade MB4….
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 10:18 PM
I would like to read the ex-Soviet files on this, there might be more to this story than even the FBI report
Cromagnum on May 15, 2010 at 10:19 PM
That is not even logical.
Johnson said a lot of things. His losing Cronkite is as in even losing Cronkite, who had previously been an enabler. He had already lost most Americans.
Where and when in RVN were you?
Suspicion of motives is what liberals do.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Jenfidel on May 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM
The fact that the left is no longer trying to hide their agenda is very telling. The MFM is also showing their hand, I just pray that the vast majority of America learns that.
jainphx on May 15, 2010 at 10:22 PM
He was paranoid. Listen to the tapes that were uncovered. He told his staff that if he didn’t ban (insert name of the newspaper here) from the White House, he’d have them fired immediately. He probably had a right, reason to be paranoid.
Narutoboy on May 15, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Say goodnight, Gracie.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 10:23 PM
If Nixon had a reason to be paranoid (other than his own personal quirks), no-one’s ever discovered it.
The only wrongdoing he ever committed was the cover-up of the Watergate break-in.
If we could hear tapes from the Oval Office today, I have a feeling Obama’s ramblings would make Nixon sound like George Washington.
Jenfidel on May 15, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Looks like you already said it…
doriangrey on May 15, 2010 at 10:27 PM
dorian’s right.
You’re carrying a lot of water for the Left on this thread and make no mistake.
Jenfidel on May 15, 2010 at 10:27 PM
You sound like a liberal.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 10:27 PM
You are just being silly and your sentence is incomplete.
MB4 on May 15, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Not paranoid about anything he did personally. Paranoid about what other people were doing to him. He didn’t even commission the break in, right? From what I know, he got involved afterwords and then tried to cover it up.
Narutoboy on May 15, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Most of politics and Americans politics isn’t logical.
Or haven’t you noticed?
Johnson was elected in ’64 by a huge margin and Americans were ready to give him a 2nd term until he announced he would not run (“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the country.” Pure delusion!)
…which is why we suspect you of being a Liberal: every time the subject of Vietnam comes up, you play the Max Cleland/John Kerry card.
Jenfidel on May 15, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »