- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would Walter Cronkite make it in today's news environment?
Posted on 11/10/18 at 8:25 am to hawgfaninc
Posted on 11/10/18 at 8:25 am to hawgfaninc
Bernie Goldberg explained it very well. The reason you didn't see Cronkite's left wing bias in the nightly news is because network news programs did not commit bias in what they reported. They committed bias in what they left out of the news.
Today, any story that the left spikes from broadcast can be found online, on Fox or on talk radio. Back then if they spiked the story you never found out about it.
Today, any story that the left spikes from broadcast can be found online, on Fox or on talk radio. Back then if they spiked the story you never found out about it.
0
Posted on 11/10/18 at 8:35 am to Ace Midnight
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/24/21 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 11/10/18 at 8:40 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
Ah, the ol Westmoreland body count argument.
No. Peace on very favorable terms for the U.S. and it's South Vietnamese allies in Paris.
And in one of the most cowardly (but bipartisan) displays, not only would the Congress of the United States not allow the President (Ford, at that point) enforce those hard earned provisions, they wouldn't even fully fund a fricking evacuation.
quote:
tells people we are being fed inaccurate information about the war, and we were.
That's fine. But, he also said the war was lost. He should have been fired. That's borderline giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
This post was edited on 11/10/18 at 8:41 am
Posted on 11/10/18 at 9:08 am to Ace Midnight
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/24/21 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 11/10/18 at 9:33 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
Did he say “lost”?
He said the was unwinnable in 1968. He said it must, necessarily, end in a stalemate. (ETA: Which is ALSO bullshite - as the U.S. goals were criminally, by default, the status quo ante - that's how you lose a war by taking victory off the table on Day 1.)
He also said that the VC didn't win Tet in a "knockout" - but neither did we. Nonsense, at best. Treason at worst. We clearly, definitely defeated the VC during Tet - they would never field battalion size units again. The NVA would do all the heavy fighting the rest of the way.
So, Cronkite was either an idiot shooting off his mouth - or worse.
So which was it?
This post was edited on 11/10/18 at 9:34 am
Posted on 11/10/18 at 9:55 am to Ace Midnight
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/26/21 at 7:02 am
Posted on 11/10/18 at 10:04 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
And with LBJ being a big gooey Democrat I don’t see how that paints WC as a big liberal.
Because the left was pushing Bobby Kennedy who (despite he and his brother being neck deep in Vietnam) was running as the anti-War candidate, while Nixon was running as the "End the war by winning it" candidate.
Sure the antiwar movement was against LBJ, but they hated Nixon from some unearthly place. That is where the left is with Trump, today.
Posted on 11/10/18 at 10:10 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
Yeah I don’t have Tet squarely in the win column.
That's extraordinarily poor analysis on your part, then. The VC cohorts were decimated - about 180,000 lost in the entire campaign. By 1970, over 70% of VC units were filled out by northerners - it was no longer even arguably a civil war after that, but one of aggression by the North against the South. At that point, there was very little Communist control over significant portions of the South.
With better vision (and I think Nixon was at least trying portions of this strategy), we could have pivoted to a "seal off" South Vietnam from infiltration and invasion as the primary mission of U.S. forces and put all the nation-building and fighting the VC onto the ARVN at that point and probably had some success (Harry Summers' theory). U.S. losses would have dropped dramatically. Air strikes, artillery and conventional forces were perfect to use against the NVA at that juncture - just keep U.S. forces out of hamlets and compromised places, look the other way while the ARVN did what was necessary and call it a war.
But, that didn't happen. We still won the war, though. Just lost the peace.
This post was edited on 11/10/18 at 10:10 am
Posted on 11/10/18 at 1:23 pm to Ace Midnight
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/24/21 at 2:46 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News