@Wordsmith:

RE – Nixon’s “transgressions.”

Actually, what Nixon did was out of fear of what the Leftists would do the this country. His methods may have been ham-handed, but his fears have proven to be all too justified. And Nixon at least was an American, unlike some Kenyan imposters.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I won’t wax on poetic about the good and the bad that was the late Walter Cronkite. Sunday morning when I heard the news report that he had died the first thought in my mind was “Good, its about time” I personally never liked the man and always thought he as biased and a liberal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley:

Did you listen to what he says, in his own words?
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck07.20.07.shtml
…about how he had to conceal his true beliefs, which obviously influenced his reporting?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@GaffaUK:

Whereas Nixon interfered with a peace agreement with the enemy which broke down and cost the US five more years of war

Nixon’s transgression aside, what makes you believe the peace agreement would have worked out in ’68? The North Vietnamese only used the Paris Peace Accords to stage political theater.

As for Nixon ‘Peace with honor’ – that was about the US trying to save face and extricate itself from a quagmire whilst leaving the South Vietnamese to face the Commies alone.

After Nixon’s “Christmas bombing” campaign in ’72, your British counterinsurgency expert, Sir Robert Thompson said

“In my view, on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over!…They would have taken any terms. And that is why, of course, you actually got a peace agreement in January, which you had not been able to get in October.”
-The Lessons of Vietnam, by W. Scott Thompson and Donald D. Frizzell

Had Congress honored Nixon’s promise (in writing) to our South Vietnamese allies to provide them with whatever support necessary should the North invade, the outcome of the overall conflict might have turned out differently. With Nixon gone, the North sensed Congress’ lack of will and decided they could invade without suffering yet another military defeat. Would there have even been an invasion had the threat of another bombing campaign and military support by the U.S. been made credible? I doubt it. The North sensed our weakness and exploited it at the expense of South Vietnam.

Vietnam had a lot to do with being a war of perceptions. Read James Q. Wilson’s article, The Press at War. Read statements by General Giap.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Missy

Yep looking at further links you provided – you are right.

Although aren’t the NYTimes, MSNBC & CNN considered left?;) Obama shouldn’t of gotten involved – he should of left this with Bush. Whilst I’m not trying to downplay Obama’s interference – this is still small potatoes compared to Nixon’s interference. Obama interfered with a Status of Forces agreement between the US and an ally which went through anyway. Whereas Nixon interfered with a peace agreement with the enemy which broke down and cost the US five more years of war – and a bodycount that far outweigh anything seen in Iraq. I’m surprised what Nixon did wasn’t bigger than Watergate. And I’m surprise Obama didn’t get into more trouble than he did either.

@Wordsmith
Unfortunately Vietnam wasn’t the last country to go communist do the dominos didn’t stop there. And the US and others had already shown willingness to stand up to communism – e.g. Berlin Airlift, Korea, Cuban Missile Crisis etc. It’s just that Vietnam was such a mess even before US got involved – it’s hard to see how after so many lives were killed – exactly what was achieved and was it worth it in a country involved in a civil war.

@Yonason
Boring. I am more than happy to debate the regular posters on here without you’re nasty little sniping. I have done plenty of research before, during and after such debates. No doubt you pigeon-hole me how you like or throw your shallow insults. Says more about you.

If you want to do some research – have a look at this page – shows your paper-thin tactics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

@George

What is astonishing is that you believe Paris peace negotiations with Communist North Vietnam would have secured peace.

Check my post – I didn’t claim that it would of secured peace. It would of secured peace about as much as the 1973 ‘peace’ agreement. Accept it would of saved over 20,000 US soldiers lives.

As for Nixon ‘Peace with honor’ – that was about the US trying to save face and extricate itself from a quagmire whilst leaving the South Vietnamese to face the Commies alone. You don’t have to lose a battle to lose a war. And although Fonda went beyond the pale – it’s healthy that a country and a free press are able to give their opinions about such a war. In the end Vietnam failed not because of the soldiers, the media or the protestors but by the US leaders – primarily JFK, Johnson & Nixon. Ford was more honourable than most but he was obviously weakened.

Vietnam would have been a better place had US and its allies won – as Iraq is a better place now that Saddam is gone. But not ‘all’ wars are worth the price in human lives to get to that point.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I served in Viet Nam as a marine fighter pilot and I think what Cronkite did was more damaging than what Hanoi Jane did. She was a sexkitten bimbo so had no major influence but Walter was like a member of America’s family. What he said was taken for fact and he helped the flegling liberal anti-war crowd immensely. I saw interviews later in his life and he was arrogant and self important about his role in the war. Tokyo Rose did her best to demoralize the troops in WW II and she was treated as a traitor. WC was not trying to be a traitor but his actions amounted to the same.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I was simply disagreeing with your portrayal of Jain’s comment. Rude? See below.
Now, if you want to give him more of a pass for his “3 minutes”, I have no problem with that. Calling others rabid, because they do not? You bet I do. It’s a cheapshot and smacks of self satisfied smuggness.
As for your frothing at the mouth remarks, you are way off base on that. There was no frothing. Your “I’m so superior to you” attitude on this is quite unbecomming. We get that you don’t see him as bad as fonda or kerry. Others do. For that you smear them?

Want to see rabid or foaming? Go look up what the koslims said about Tony Snow when he passed. That is rabid and foaming and no one here did anything even approaching that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Jainphx, I didn’t take the comments hard. I just thought they were overstated in the context of reality… and obviously said with emotion. Just trying to put a better perspective on things. I assure you, I was not only there, but married to a guy holding a #8 lottery draft number by the following year, and with neighbors and friends already *in* Vietnam from 1966 on. I am in no way disassociated with those times in my mind.

I don’t agree with Cronkite’s op-ed one bit. But I do agree with his right to deliver one.

Which brings me to you, HR. There have been editorials and op-eds as long as there has been journalism. However with only three broadcast stations, and only a few hours a day devoted to news, most you saw were in the newspapers. *That* is the reason it was rare… It was a relatively new medium for news. It was only a decade earlier that few homes had a TV at all.

But you seem to place an inordinate amount of emphasis on less than 3 minutes when you weigh that against the reality of annual deaths that were grating on everyone’s nerves before Cronkite ever opened his mouth. I’d say the balance of Cronkite’s culpability lies somehwere in the middle… he certainly fed the anti-war mentality with that 3 minutes, but hardly on the same scale as Harry “the war is lost” Reid and the 24/7/365 for five years solid we’ve endured in recent history. Cronkite didn’t pound this home on every ensuing broadcast.

Cronkite’s under 3 minute op-ed doesn’t even hold a candle to my ire and venom for Hanoi Jane and that despicable character sitting in the Senate, John Kerry. Count me in the rabid hatred column for those.

BTW, tis nice of you to leap to Jainphx’s defense, but I’ve always seen her as more than capable of handling her own during disagreements. Nor was I particularly rude to her, as you seem to think.

So I’ll be bowing out of this little bash fest. I’m thrown in my alternative perspective. Do with it what you like. I’ll be saving my frothing at the mouth for those I feel are larger fish. This one? ho hum… Cronkite died? Pass the cream for my coffee please.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m sorry you took my comments so hard, they weren’t meant to insult you. It’s true he didn’t initiate the anti- war movement , but he sure as hell gave them all the ammunition they needed. He LIED and misinformed America about the war ending defeat that we put on the Cong and NVA. They were contemplating surrender until Cronkite’s treachery, which made the war last another 5 years and, yes he’s to me responsible for all post Tet deaths. Once again I meant you no personal animus, but I was there and I know what he did.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry Mata, but he has blood on his hands as well. The fact that he is dead doesn’t change that. He knowingly crossed the line for political purposes.
He made it a point to help hand our enemies a propaganda victory. Tet wiped out the VC as an operational force and mauled the NVA badly. He wanted to try and demoralize the American people and hurt the war effort . Why, even per your post, such editorials were NOT the norm at that time. So what other explanation is there?
I was surprised to see you go after Jain’s comment by taking it to absurd levels. Distorting a statement to the point of strawman isn’t a valid way to refute. I seriously doubt Jain was blaming him for the loss of the entire war, but you sure tried to claim it was such.
Rabid? More like unwilling to ignore his sins to the extent you are. That hardly makes others rabid. They have a right to be angry and you seem to think if it isn’t the same level of anger as yours it’s excessive or unfair.
Again, Kronkite hurt the war effort in Vietnam by design. Just because he’s wasn’t as bad as olberman or matthews doesn’t change what he did or make him “OK” by comparison.

I would like to say that I DO blame the media for attacks on our soldiers when they use their slanted reporting or comments by dems/far leftists to recruit and create propaganda. Just becuase they indirectly helped the insurgent murder our troops doesn’t mean they have no responsibility at all.
Not to mention their endless dishonest reports of how badly things were going in Iraq were having an effect on the country’s morale and support of the war. This is also part of Kronkite’s legacy. Despite the claim that people don’t listen to the media, that and even the current election shows they do.

As for how he wanted to be remembered, did you really think he’d say he wanted to be remembered as a partisan hack who tossed facts out the window when it suited his agenda? Yes he got some things right, but the weight of what he got wrong is so awful, it’s become his albatross and I cannot forgive him.

Like or Dislike: 0  0