You cut out the part where he said "suck on this."

But of course, just about all Republicans missed that particular commentary as they were out dodging the draft or obtaining deferments to avoid that same war.

That was then. This is now: “The events of the summer lead to one inevitable conclusion – the surge is working and some troops will be coming home someday.”

You see, if you lose Walter, you’ve lost the war. If you buy Walter’s network – you haven’t.

Walter had courage that Couric, Williams and Gibson will never have

Indeed, wouldn't it be nice if our major media figures (other than Keith) were more courageous journalists and less entertainers?

What a blow hard. Cosmic what? [Deleted-Sitemonitor] Of course the Vietnam war was never about winning to begin with, but as usual,,, money.

I see Curtis LeMay is here.

Dandstaight @ 11:

What a blow hard. Cosmic what? Shit if the politicians had had the guts we could have wiped
the gooks off the face of the earth. Of course the Vietnam war was never about winning to begin with, but as usual,,, money.

Mmmm – For that matter we could have went straight up to China, wiped out those gooks, hit the Godless Commies next and then wait for the right time to head west and conquer the spineless Europeans. Maybe they would have nuked us in the process, but we sure as Hell wouldn’t have lost.

Maybe next time (as long as it’s not about money)?

Or didn't see people drowning and suffering and say "looting" about 500 times/hr.

Dandstaight @ 11:

What a blow hard. Cosmic what? Shit if the politicians had had the guts we could have wiped
the gooks off the face of the earth. Of course the Vietnam war was never about winning to begin with, but as usual,,, money.

the funny thing is, todays politicians (especially the Republicans) are the same ones that where cheering on Vietnam while dodging the draft and obtaining deferments at the same time. Yet, these are the same politicians that are now cheering on the war in Iraq.

Cronkite was and is the Consumate Journalist.......And Keith Olberman is one as well.......all the rest are merely posing and try to act like a journalist.....Their not even close.....

The power that was honest reporting. Sad its dead.

Jibjab says it best http://www.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_news

Ruthless People;

hahahahahahh Now that jibjab is some good shit...thanks, I needed that...hahahahahha regards; JD

The swill that cronkite spewed was in total contravention to the facts of Tet. In fact, Tet was a victory for the US, but the reporting only fueled the anti-war movement to greater heights. It was a major turning point in the support for the war.

scruzman @ 28:

The swill that cronkite spewed was in total contravention to the facts of Tet. In fact, Tet was a victory for the US, but the reporting only fueled the anti-war movement to greater heights. It was a major turning point in the support for the war.

The important factor of the Tet offensive wasn’t that we won (we did), but that it was fought at all. Nobody expected the numbers, the organization, or the weaponry that were used against the S. Viet in that operation. It led to a reexamination of the nature of the resistance that we were fighting.

Not just the news but most of television in the days of Cronkite was more meaningful than it is now. [sigh]

Wow, that Walter Cronkite was some crazy moonbat, huh? Who knew?

Glass half-empty: Cosmic Disaster
Glass half-full: End Times & The Rapture

scruzman @ 28:

The swill that cronkite spewed was in total contravention to the facts of Tet. In fact, Tet was a victory for the US, but the reporting only fueled the anti-war movement to greater heights. It was a major turning point in the support for the war.

You have to be kidding. The victories that the U.S. got in Nam disappeared overnight, often literally. There was no way to win that war and to blame the loss of a war on lack of support would put you in the same area of intelligence as a turnip.

Shit if the politicians had had the guts we could have wiped
the gooks off the face of the earth. Of course the Vietnam war was never about winning to begin with, but as usual,,, money.

Dandstaight @ 11 is absolutely correct. The Pentagon hawks were smartly checked in Vietnam by of all people Richard M. Nixon the disgraced President who was also a WWII Navy Veteran.

Only this time the madmen in charge have the guts albeit, yellow. Bush/Cheney have no qualms about wiping Arabs off the face of the earth. And yes, this war is not about winning but, money. Oil money and plenty of it.

I do beleive Walter Cronkite reported from Europe during WW2...From Korea....From Viet Nam....reported on the assasinations of JFK,MLK,RFKand Malcom X....Reported on the first man on the moon and all of the preceeding space flights....and probably on the resignation of Nixon....this is just a small sample of his expeirence.......I think it's safe to say he has earned his place in US history....nobody ever bought him.

Just an interesting historical note…

The Tet Offensive started on January 30th, the most sacred holiday of the Vietnamese. They expected everyone to be in bed after celebrating the New Year (Lunar) – and it was a pretty good strategy. They caught everyone off guard. They didn’t win that battle (because of us), but it sure was hard fought on both sides.

This tactic was used once before.

There was an American General that attacked an occupying force on Christmas Night, the most sacred holiday of the Americas. He expected everyone to be sleeping in their beds after celebrating the birth of Christ – and it was a pretty good strategy. He caught them all off guard, and he wiped them all out, mostly as they slept.

Remember the famous painting of George Washington Crossing the Delaware? That took place on that night. He was that General.

Don't have the exact quote but I believe it was George Santayana who said:

>>

Those who who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

1905....102 years later the man is proven correct.

Empire of Stupidity: Seven Years in Hell
By Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch.com

Tuesday 04 September 2007

On body counts, dead zones, and an Empire of Stupidity.

On August 22nd, breaking into his Crawford vacation, the President addressed the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, giving what is already known as his "Vietnam speech." That day, George W. Bush, who, as early as 2003, had sworn that his war on Iraq would "decidedly not be Vietnam," took the full-frontal plunge into the still-flowing current of the Big Muddy, fervently embracing Vietnam analogy-land. You could almost feel his relief (and that of his neocon speechwriters).

In that mud-wrestle of a speech, he invoked "one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam.... that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields.'" The man who had so carefully sat out the Vietnam War now proclaimed that Americans never should have left that land. As he's done with so much else, he also linked the Vietnam War by an act of verbal ju-jitsu to al-Qaeda and the attacks of September 11th. 9/11, too, turned out to be part of the "price" we'd paid for succumbing to "the allure of retreat" and withdrawing way back when. ("In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks," intoned the President, "Osama bin Laden declared that 'the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today.'")

Whatever brief respite his August embrace of Vietnam may have given him in the polls, it involved a larger concession on the administration's part. Like its predecessors, the Bush administration and its neocon supporters simply couldn't kick the "Vietnam Syndrome" - much as they struggled to do so - any more than a moth could avoid the flame. Now, they found themselves locked in a desperate, hopeless attempt to use Vietnam to recapture the hearts and minds of the American people.

Dirty Hippie Blogger @ 49:

Oil? Rubber? or dope.

Oil and Dope are the big two!

Joe O. @ 3:

But of course, just about all Republicans missed that particular commentary as they were out dodging the draft or obtaining deferments to avoid that same war.

You mean Republicans like Bill Clinton?

Look, this isn't about Democratic or Republican leadership any longer. We've been without leadership on both sides now for 6 years. One party seemingly voiced the will of the people last November, won the majority and STILL HAVE YET TO ANYTHING.

It's time to be heard and demand a change. Only when we move into the streets as our parents, uncles, aunts or others did in the late 60's and early 70's will this senseless bloodshed be stopped.

That said, I want to emphasize that just because I urge a rather immediate, phased withdrawal of troops, I would not do so without first acknowledging we need to ensure the people of Iraq (especially the 4 million forced out of their country) are able to return to some type of normal lifestyle. That means the U.S. and a U.N coaliton of some significant number must remain behind to help control and enhance Iraqi efforts at law enforcement and the rebuilding of the infrastructure that the U.S. obliterated for no reason.

That is why Bush/Cheney should be tagged as the worst president/veep in our history and top 3 worst leaders in world history. They lied to get us into a pre-emptive war. Tens of thousands of our citizens and theirs have died, millions injured or displaced and billions of dollars lost in U.S. money, as well as Iraqi infrastructure. And yet they continually refuse to be realistic or come clean.

The rough equivalent to the Tet Offensive in Iraq may have been the Battle of Falujah. The United States may have won a Pyrrhic victory in taking that city when they discovered that the resistance fighters of Iraq were not going to go gentle into that good night against the less than benevolent presence of the U.S. military. That battle may have inspired the citizens of Iraq to continue their fight against the occupiers of their country.

Cronkite makes Vietnam sound better than Iraq.

50 years later and another war in between and guess what? It's the same old, same old.
More young lives of who most could only use the military as a means of education and/or employment, while those rich pricks daddy's make a ton of loot of the war.
Stop the war this moment and what happens to all those jobs that support the spending of $2 billion per month? How blind are we ......and with 20/20 vision?

Disgraceful. We should stand up, march and throw every one of these heartless pricks out of office if they don't send their own kids to fight their wars.

Taarak @ 5:

That was then. This is now: “The events of the summer lead to one inevitable conclusion – the surge is working and some troops will be coming home someday.”

You see, if you lose Walter, you’ve lost the war. If you buy Walter’s network – you haven’t.

Taarak, you hit the nail on the head. Uncle Walter's word was gold then, unfortunately one of the major defense contractors bought the station, perhaps one of the biggest conflict of interest in the US.

Miles Tougeaux @ 28:

Anyone remember what the body count was in 1968?

1968 was the worst year (about 16,600), ~19500 was the total at the end of 67.

I'm thinking deaths in Iraq are fewer than in Vietnam due in large part to medical and hospital advancements and the use of body armor. Had the Iraq war taken place forty years ago, the deaths would have definitely rivaled Vietnam figures.

Where oh where is Walter when you need him? All we have are mindless bimbos showing off their boobs. Ever notice that? Can't they even wear something that looks professional? Much less be JOURNALISTS? Thank God for Keith....

I’m thinking deaths in Iraq are fewer than in Vietnam due in large part to medical and hospital advancements and the use of body armor. Had the Iraq war taken place forty years ago, the deaths would have definitely rivaled Vietnam figures.

No it wouldn't because in Vietnam we were also fighting a professionally trained ARMY (NVA) and not just insurgents (vietcong). This is why Bush's Vietnam comparisons were so utterly ridiculous and why his daddy got him in a cushy reserve unit.

At the time Cronkite made that statement, he was one of three of the only news commentators on television. He was also the most respected. Today with the lowly Fox news trawling the bottom for the ignorant and easily manipulated; we can have no such respected anchor. They are all beholding to the industry that helps supply the money for their jobs - the military industrial complex is rapidly becoming the single largest employer and business this country now has.

Forget GM and even the Pharma businesses.... weapons and fear are the sales of the day.

There were actual news reporters in those days.