Reply
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 485
Registered: ‎09-20-2018

Re: Perhaps you should have

[ Edited ]

No, their opinion was not right at all. American forces won every major battle they fought in that war. In just one month (February to March of 1968), American forces repelled a major all-out offensive by both of the military enemies they were fighting, and completely destroyed one (the Viet Cong) and rendered the other one so defeated that they could not mount another major offensive for five years.

 

The US won the war but lost the country of South Vietnam because of the traitorous democrats who stopped all weapons provision to the South Vietnamese military in 1975 as a way to get back at Nixon for Watergate and other shenanigans he pulled while in office. The South Vietnamese had risen to a level of military proficiency that they were defending their country satisfactorily on their own, until they had the rug pulled out from under them when the weaponry stopped coming in.

 

Cronkite was the mouthpiece who provided a false justification to those bastards who gave up on the South Vietnamese. He wasn't alone either...the entire television broadcast news media was the enemy within during that war. They knew that by showing the gruesomeness of war to Americans while they were eating dinner, at some point people would get sick and tired of seeing it and want the war to end.

 

And the Republicans shared in the blame as well...Nixon wrote in his memoirs that he could have ended the war conventionally in days, by bombing the dams and dykes in the north of Vietnam, virtually flooding the northern half of the country that sits below sea level. But, as he wrote, he feared that his legacy would be that of a genocidist, a killer of innocent people, and he did not want to be remembered for that. Which led me to believe when I read that passage that Nixon preferred to be remembered for letting his own country's young men die for nothing and the South Vietnamese people be subjected to a totalitarian communist dictatorship rather than have his name sullied by historians after he died. It was disgraceful.

 

And even though he was so careful to cultivate a beneficial remembrance by historians, he still wound up being remembered in disgrace. He should have flooded the North and ended the war and dealt with the historian consequences, much like Truman did to end the war in the Pacific...at least then if he was sullied in history, he still would have redeemed the sacrifice of the young men who he sent to die in a war he was not willing to end because of his own vanity.

 

The only news person I admired from that era was a guy named Roger Mudd, who became famous later for his work with the History Channel. Mudd had the balls during an interview with Teddy Kennedy during the fall of 1979, when Kennedy was mulling a challenge to Jimmy Carter for the 1980 democrat nomination, to ask Kennedy a question that exposed the shallowness and charlatan nature of the guy. He asked him why he wanted to be President, and Kennedy gave about as incoherent answer as anyone who ever contemplated a serious run for the Presidency ever could. Even if Kennedy ever could overcome the Chappaquidick event, he forever cast the die with that one answer in the minds of a majority of Americans that he did not have the intellectual strength to sit in the Oval Office.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh2iKzBh4E

 

Mudd was very brave to ask that question , even if he didn't know that Kennedy would provide such a tattered answer. Because as any good newsman knows, the roughest questions are the ones that give a candidate plenty of rope to hang himself, which is why most of the left-leaning media never asked obama any rough questions. But Mudd felt America deserved to hear the man's reasoning for wanting to lead the country, even if he would trip himself up in a hornest's nest with his answer. And in so doing, Mudd saved the country from the travesty of having the murderer of a slightly-less-than-innocent young woman occupying the White House as the President.