Over on another thread where the topic was Fox News liberals some wanted to defend CBS News Walter Cronkite when he reported a lie or more accurately got it wrong about the major defeat of the VC and NVA during the Tet Offense of 1968, It was in late February of 68 when Walter Cronkite exposed himself being a liberal and backed stabbed the American soldier in the back. North Vietnam won the war on the streets and living rooms in America, not on the battlefield. We who are old enough to remember, remember how the war was reported on the news during the mid and late 1960's and early 70's. The link to the video below is the actual CBS reporting on the Marines at Con Thien up in l-Corps just a few miles below from the DMZ. Some of you in your 50's, 60's and 70's may remember when you watched this exact CBS special in your living room in 1967. Notice when the program starts, mostly showing wounded and dead Marines. The quickest way to politicize a war back at home. You'll even see an ONTOS !!! the best counter sniper weapons platform ever developed but it would be the ONTOS that got the credit for winning the battle of Hue during the Tet of 68. Even CH-34 Hussie's, helio pilots who flew the HUS loved them because they sat on top of a big radial engine that protected them from small arms fire. You'll hear a Marine complaining about the jamming of the M-16. And you'll see 105's and 155's howitzers and even the big boy the 175 MM gun but it seems they are firing the 175's with reduced powder charges. Well enjoy, this is how the MSM reported on the Vietnam War back in 1967. < https://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.653071 >
It was America's first' television war', and yes it was constantly being misreported, but also we had policy managers like McNamara also constantly lying to our Presidents and exacerbating bad policy decisions all throughout the conflict, so much of the blame lies with both the hawks and the military Establishment as well; with an active press corps it's more than stupid to attempt to whitewash mistakes and pretend they weren't happening; that sowed far more distrust than anything some idiot talking head on the tube could do. This was the primary reason the defeat of the Viet Cong's Tet offensive couldn't be sold as the major win it was; nobody could be convinced they were being told the truth by the military or the government. Another factor was Kennedy completely ms-handling the Diem issue and made it necessary to expand U.S. presence in the first place. As I've said before, the VN conflict was a 'win' for the U.S. and SEATO overall, despite all the sniveling to the contrary. It was the Soviets who ended up bankrupt and the Khrushchev/Brezhnev Doctrine shut down entirely, not just in SE Asia but the ME and Africa as well. All they came away with was a refueling station after all they expended on VN, no puppet colony and major naval base astride one of the most critical trade routes in the world. It never recovered from the defeat; the only base outside the former Soviet Union the imperialists have today is in Syria. When all the foreign policy choices are bad, you have to go with the least bad options, and snivel all you want about Kissinger, the weasel was entirely right in how he and Nixon handled it. Other contributing factors were the Arab defeats in the Arab-Israeli wars, and the 'Oil Crisis'. After 1973 the Soviets even became a western client state, almost totally dependent on western food and refined petroleum imports to survive and come to a soft landing under Gorbachev. We pulled out of VN because it was no longer necessary for us to be there. An added problem was the border conflict between the Soviets and Chinese was becoming serious in 1960; diverting attention away from that situation to VN probably headed off a major war between two nuclear powers as well. Other issues were also in play, but the point is it was never just about Viet Nam's civil war, it had much broader geo-poltical implications as well.
Are we even allowed to mention McNamara's name on the PF without being issued an infraction ? That's one dude I never liked. Probably why I never liked Rumsfeld, he reminded me to much of McNamara. McNamara, the guy who ordered the Army and Marine Corps to adopt the M-16 because Gen. LeMay wanted to dump the M-1 and M-2 carbines and give his airmen something a little more lethal. McNamara who brought an end to the "Brown Shoe Navy" and forced all branches of the service to wear navy oxfords. He took away the Marines green sage herringbone utilities and ordered them to wear army olive drab fatigues. At least we got to keep our utility covers. At least they got the jungle boots right. Won't even mention the Ford Edsel.
I don't think Cronkite ever claimed that we lost Tet on the battlefield. Only that we were paying too high a price for 'winning'. Uncle Ho thought he was winning when he lost only 10 guys to our one. The American people eventually came around to understand that he was right.
Before 1968 nobody knew that Cronkite was a liberal, a very rich liberal. He was looked upon as being a war mongering hawk like most liberals were until how does that saying go ? >" When the going gets tough, the tough get going. "< In reality when the going gets though, liberals throw in the towel and give up. We saw the same thing happen in Iraq. It was Democrats who sent American boys to war in South East Asia. And when the going got tough, they backed stabbed the American soldier while they were still on the battlefield. Cronkite's exact words was that the war was "unwinnable." The American troops who were in-country after Tet disagreed with Cronkite. After Tet the light was now visible at the end of the tunnel and the war was winnable. Cronkite opined about Tet and the war and he got it wrong. If you watched the CBS video that I provided a link to it showed how the war was being told to the American people back in "the world." It starts out showing dead and wounded Marines. That's how the Vietnam War was being reported back then. This would have never been allowed to happen during WW ll. The press was heavily censored during WW ll and it was forbidden for any news reels or photographs of dead American soldiers, Marines or sailors to be published until after the war was won. When the casualties that the Marines suffered at Tarawa was leaked out FDR was getting letters by the gag fulls mostly women calling for FDR to surrender, the cost was to high they were saying. But they didn't protest on the streets.
The losers of the Vietnam War were the Vietnamese people and then Laos and Cambodia. Cambodia was a big loser. The Vietnam War was just one battle of the Cold War. Another big time loser because of the Vietnam War was the Democrat party. It allowed itself to be infiltrated and hijacked by the radical left. Those same radicals are still in control of the Democrat party. Just look at who's in the White House today and who are the Democrat candidates running for the Democrat nomination for President today. Hillary, Sanders are burned out hippies of the counter culture movement of the 60's. FYI: The leadership of the counter culture movement who organized the anti-war and anti-draft demonstrations were never against the war in Vietnam but were against the United States winning the war in Vietnam. According to Richard Nixon the big winner of the Vietnam War was Thailand who had eight years to build up their defense and secure their borders from collapsing to communism. Laos and Cambodia weren't so lucky.
I don't agree. If you look at how the Vietnamese are faring now compared to how they 'prospered' under the French and the U.S., your argument is simply lost. Btw, if you look real deep, those people who led the anti-war movement in the '60s and '70s, the leaders of the Weather Underground, the SDS, the Chicago 8, etc., have all claimed they were "mugged by liberals" and are now neo-conservatives. Most were Jewish and, right on down the line, they are almost all neo-conservatives. And, yes, Ronald Reagan gave them a home in the Republican Party. That didn't escape my notice any more than the Dems who turned Republican in the South after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
Care to name some of those former leaders of the SDS who became neoconservatives ? Right off hand the only leader of the SDS that I know of who became a conservative is David Horowitz. David Horowitz was like the SDS liaison officer to the Black Panthers during the 60's. Tom Hayden, Greg Calvert, Bill Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn, Carl Davidson, Thorne Dreyer, Jacqui Ceballos, Mark Rudd, Joe Hill, Michael Albert, Karen Ashley, Eleanor Raskin, Mark Rosenberg, Robert Roth, Alan Haber, Todd Gitlin, Kit Bakke, Clark Kissinger, Scott Braley, Michael Klonsky, Paul Buhle, Ted Gold, Maurice Isserman, Karl Hess, Carl Oglesby, Robert "Robby" Stern, Phoebe Hirsch, Dan Siegel, ... I just mentioned less than half of the SDS leadership, care to point out which ones became "neoconservatives" and are no longer radical leftist or burning in Hell ? Lets not forget Bernie Sanders (yep, the same Bernie Sanders) and the "Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee" aka "Freedom Riders" of the civil rights movement of the 60's who conspired together with the SDS convincing the SDS to also make it about the draft and you'll get more people at your rallies supporting North Vietnam. Even the "Freedom Riders" gave aid and comfort to America's enemy. The neoconservatives that you saw fleeing to the GOP during the 1970's and early 80's was the Democrats party liberal base during the 1950's and 60's. Some were even socialist but not internationalist socialist but nationalist socialist. Kinda like American progressives, before the radical left hijacked the progressive label, progressives were found in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Some were even socialist but those who were socialist were nationalist socialist, internationalist socialist along with Marxist, anarchist and the radical left were always despised by American progressives. True progressives use science to fix the ills of society. Those hiding behind the progressive label today don't use science but keep calling for change and making (*)(*)(*)(*) up hoping they might once get it right.
A few 'converted' after their experiences in South America, Africa, and Asia and seeing first hand what life in a Soviet puppet colony was like for the average victim of Soviet imperialism. i.e. after traveling outside the Burbs for the first time in their lives and getting an idea of real life for most of the world; not unlike the early 20th century Reds who went to the Promised Land of Leninist Russia and returning to the U.S., which didn't seem so bad after all. Many of the Trotskyites were fanatical U.S. patriots, even as they worked as union organizers and socialists, and implacable foes of Soviet Russia. Some were even working in Naval Intelligence and Communications in the '60's; Dan Rather did a story on them once.
Yes. Most of the Liberals were gone from any leadership positions in the Democratic Party after the 'Super Delegate Rule' was invented in the '80's; by the early '90's none were left, at least I can't think of one. Barbara Jordan was the last I can recall, and she died suddenly. Maybe Lieberman? He left, though. The brie and chardonnay self-styled 'elites' and 'neo-liberals' took over and basically crapped on the Party's traditional base. They now rely totally on 'identity politics', Tammany style corruption and racism now; they have no real platforms with any credibility as far as actually doing anything they claim they will during election campaigns. They're just a post-modern Nazi Party, essentially, the only differences are they have no single Hitler type leader and the race they demonize is a different color is the only thing different about them.
I'm going to use a conservative number, before the 1970's 90% of all Americans were nationalist. Most American socialist were also nationalist socialist. Today nationalist are called "nativist" and if you are patriotic, America is # 1 it's politically incorrect and you are labeled by cultural-marxism as being a racist. Scuttlebutt has been for decades that most CIA operatives and agents are liberals politically not conservatives. Where as the U.S. military Officers Corps is mostly conservative with only 3% identifying as being liberals. Wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of liberals in the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) The SDS, the counter culture movement of the 60's were internationalist socialist. When they gained controlled of the Democrat Party during the 70's they called themselves the "New Left." They are still in control of the Democrat party and the DNC today. Now I personally know Tom Hayden. He doesn't like me and I don't like him. I also know Jane Fonda and I don't like "Hanoi Jane" and she knows it and when she lived in Santa Monica during the late 70's and 80''s she was so scared of me when she saw me walking down the sidewalk she would J-walk and cross the street to avoid me. It was in 2006 or so when I was in the same room with Tom Hayden when he was in a conversation with his former SDS and Weather Underground buds and the discussion was Barack Obama and convincing the DNC to run a black "internationalist" socialist for President. Hayden didn't know I was in the room and was listening. It was the "New Left" that launched Barack Obama's career in politics at the home of the terrorist organization Weathermen / Weather Underground Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn living room over on the south side of Chicago. Fast track to 2008 and I'm sitting in a "Norms" restaurant in Santa Monica freak watching. Freak watching is very entertaining and where you go to watch the freaks are West Hollywood, Hollywood, the west side of L.A. and Santa Monica. California is full of freaks. Tom Hayden is also into freak watching, the freaks are the Democrat base today. But Tom Hayden is stupid and doesn't stand up to see who's close bye or sitting in the booth behind him. Hayden is talking to some of his New Left buds and are saying that they might have made a mistake picking Obama to be the next POTUS. All agreed if Obama does become POTUS, it's just a test run that it can be done. In 2008 the DNC threw Hillary under the bus and ran an incompetent black man for President.
Pretty accurate synopsis. For a collection of clown acts that allegedly were for the 'working class and poor', they made Leona Helmsley look like a Cesar Chavez, which is why most labor fled their little ego party in droves. The 'New Left' was entirely a creation of Soviet Cold War propaganda; those fictions and lies have never died in academia to this day; they're repeated on message boards daily, like pagan incantations and magical spells. The people spouting them don't even know where and when the crap originated. A sample meme is covered in this article: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-32.htm See also this article; the only problem with it is the author thinks the divide started with the 2008 primary, when what he's describing has been going on since the early 1980's. It merely reached a head visible to most in the last few years. Otherwise the article's descriptions of the 'new' Democratic Party is spot on. http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27...ites-and-the-breakup-of-the-democratic-party/ I don't agree with some of his opinions, but the general gist is accurate enough. I don't feel like parsing and deconstructing the stuff I don't agree with, in any case.
