July 17, 2009, - 8:22 pm

Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands

By Debbie Schlussel
I just heard the news that former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite died. And perhaps I will be one of the few with the guts to be real and say it: I’m not sad to see this overrated liar go. Buh-bye.
At 92, Cronkite enjoyed a long and glamorous life, unlike many of our late teen and 20-something American troops against whom he editorialized on a nightly basis. They died on the killing fields of Vietnam in no small part because he contributed to the video demoralization of America and the resulting lack of commitment to help our boys win the Vietnam War.
I’m sure that Cronkite will be remembered gushingly by all of the liberal mainstream media robots whom he spawned and who idolize him (and probably many gutless idiots on the right, too). In so many ways, he is their Michael Jackson, minus the creativity and talent. In life, they already exalted Cronkite far, far beyond what he deserved and completely ignored his awful transgressions against our country.

waltercronkitevietnam.jpg

Walter Cronkite Defeated America on TV

But the man they called “The Most Trusted Man in America” was really something far different: The Most Destructive Man in America. And that is how he should be remembered. He had the blood of thousands of American men–some of them really just boys–on his hands.
We may have lost the Viet Nam War on the ground because of half-hearted bureaucrats and politicians, not least among them Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who also recently passed away. But, well before that, we lost the war in a far more important theater–domestic America–because the Viet Cong’s top media general on TV, Walter Cronkite, led many offensives against our troops, every single evening.
Cronkite fought against America while in Vietnam, where he covered the Tet Offensive and lied about it to American wives, parents, and siblings of our boys on the battlefield. While the 1968 Tet Offensive was actually a victory–a tactical defeat for the Communist Viet Cong–you’d hardly know it, since Cronkite covered it as an incredible loss and gave fuel for the anti-war movement’s fire and its allies in the Congress and in Hollywood (Hanoi Jane, anyone?).
And it is in Cronkite’s coverage of Tet that America lost the Vietnam War. Most military historians regard it as the decisive battle in the war because it shifted American public opinion against the war. And Cronkite is the head atop that rotten fish.
A month later, instead of just “covering the news” in this constant lying manner, Cronkite began editorializing and delivered a scathing commentary against America’s war efforts.
Cronkite’s slogan was, “And that’s the way it is.” But if it came out of his mouth, you could be sure of one thing: that’s the way it wasn’t.
The left idolizes this man because they credit him with helping end the Vietnam War. But let’s be honest. He didn’t help end it. He helped lose it. We eventually lost it on the field because we lost it on television, first. Vietnam was the first American war shown nightly on television news. And Cronkite was the Just Lose It crowd’s Commander in Chief in that theater.
Our half-hearted efforts in Vietnam, in large part because of Walter Cronkite’s on-air attacks, have had long-lasting effects, decades later. Even Osama Bin Laden has cited them in his lack of fear in attacking America. He studied our military history, with Vietnam as its cornerstone of cutting and running. That is Walter Cronkite’s legacy. So are the generations of liars who modeled themselves after him and have spent decades on TV news tearing and dumbing down America from within.
I can’t be nice and say that Walter Cronkite should “rest in peace.”
To do so would be to ignore the posthumous wails of the restless ghosts of over 58,000 dead Americans who lost their lives so that Walter Cronkite could be a star and Vietnam could solidify its communist tilt. That’s not to mention our 153,000-plus wounded.
It is the souls of these proud Americans that I pray rest in peace, not that of the man who helped perpetrate their loss. He is soulless.
Only they–Walter Cronkite’s tens of thousands of victims–can forgive this evil man for his transgressions and journalistic crimes against them. Sadly for Cronkite, they’ve gone to a better place.
And he’s rotting somewhere else.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




132 Responses

Interesting that Ms. Schlussel has yet to respond to those who have identified the journalistic and factual problems with her original post. Perhaps it’s hard to defend the indefensible? :)
I’m surprised nobody has been able to produce a single YouTube video of Cronkite “lying” or “committing journalistic crimes” or being a “traitor”. Cmon Debbie, you said he lied constantly. Where are those Youtubes showing him lying??? If he lied constantly it should be an easy task to come up with something we can all look at. Accusations without evidence.
I am concluding that you, Debbie, are just a hack. I believe that you are the one without journalistic integrity. Mr. Cronkite offered images of Viet Nam. He was there. Where are your videos of Cronkite the constant lier???
You also said: “Walter Cronkite, led many offensives against our troops, every single evening.” That’s a serious accusation. OK Debbie, where’s the video of this???
-Random Thoughts

Random thoughts on July 19, 2009 at 1:10 am

Random Thoughts, apparently you are a liberal hack sent here by the Obama thugs or some such commie group or else you would know that Debbie doesn’t post all day Saturday because she is off for the Jewish sabbath. In case you weren’t born yet when Cronkite was broadcasting, there were no YouTube videos.

horselady on July 19, 2009 at 1:21 am

Hey dw, you better look carefully at who your quoting from becuase it clearly says someone’s name that isn’t mine.
(rofl…moron)

Squirrel3D on July 19, 2009 at 1:32 am

Horselady,
I find it interesting that you attack me without really responding to the thoughts and ideas in my posts. School yard name-calling tactics don’t usually win debates. Logic, reason and relevent facts do win. You have presented none of that.
You wrote:
“In case you weren’t born yet when Cronkite was broadcasting, there were no YouTube videos.”
Surely you are joking? Well, I guess this YouTube of Walter Cronkite does not really exist according to you Horselady?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdOb_183d1o&feature=fvstv
Had you bothered to check YouTube.com for contemporary videos with Walter Cronkite, you would have found plenty of them. Too intellectually lazy to check your facts perhaps? No wonder you enjoy Ms. Schlessel’s accusatory, citation-free, proof-by-assertion packed rant.
You accuse me of being a “liberal hack”. As I tried to say in a prior post, nobody who knows me and my politics describes me as liberal. But I guess it’s easier to just call somebody a name rather than debate ideas.
Thank you for informing me that Ms. Schlussel is honoring the Sabbath. I look forward to her response tomorrow.
-Random Thoughts

Random thoughts on July 19, 2009 at 2:19 am

I really don’t feel one way or the other about this Cronkite guy, because I never watched his biased reporting, except to say that I didn’t care for his version of the news he broadcasted about the Tet offensive of 1968.
I happened to have been involved with that little battle called Tet. When I got home soon after and watched his reporting on the subject of Tet, I had to wonder if we were thinking of the same battle that I was so recently involved in
His version was not what I experianced, nor saw with my own eyes.
He was simply a man who could sit in front of a camara and read the news from a typed piece of paper. How that converts him into a “Great Man” who walked on water, as the news has been reporting since his death, beats the hell out of me.
I know of nothing he contributd to the well being of mankind. He socialized with people he reported on, which to me prevents unbiased reportig and he hobnobbed with the rich and famous. I remember seeing photos of him sailing with the Kennedys and Clintons. How can a person be unbiased about his friends?
He cried when Kennedy wa shot, but so did I and millions of others. Guess our tears didn’t count because they were not shed on the 5 ‘O’ clock news.
If he had cured Diabetes, or Aids, or contributed to the well being of mankind, then I could agree with accolades for him, but he was simply a person who could sit in front of a camara and read a printed page well
The only thing that I can think of that he did, that not many others do, is live to be 92 before dying.
Good Riddance Walter

Slyoldawg on July 19, 2009 at 2:37 am

Addressing the two photos linked to by, I believe, Random thoughts: the photo of young Kim Phuc was taken in June 1972, when we had few Troops remaining in Viet Nam. The operation burned her had no American involvement but has used to by the anti-war left to discredit American Troops, who were never even involved as our time left there was scant months away from ending.
Of note is that Ms. Phuc did not remain in the communist mecca but escaped to Canada where she lives today.
As for the infamous photo of South Vietnamese Police Chief Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing he Viet Cong in the streets of Saigon, Eddie Adams, the photographer who took the infamous photo said years later, “The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths … What the photograph didn’t say was, ‘What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?”
Upon hearing of General Loan’s death, Adams said, “The guy was a hero. America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him.”
To dw, yes, General Weyand did admit to being he source of the 1967 New York Times article. But, given it was the New York Times, my guess is that his words weren’t exactly what was reported and were more leveled towards inept White House leadership from Democrats Lyndon Johnson and McNamara.
Regardless, it has no bearing whatsoever on Cronkite’s refusal to report truthfully on the Tet Offensive failures of the Communists, does it?
Your effort to discredit General Weyand discredits Cronkite more!
But, leftists never let facts interfere with their misrepresentations.

Lew Waters on July 19, 2009 at 4:29 am

” Walter Cronkite, led many offensives against our troops, every single evening…
WHAT motherfuckin’ news channel were YOU watching???
i can’t name A SINGLE JEW who went to Viet Nam in my predominantly Jewish neighbourhood—but remember the SCORES OF BODYBAGS coming home to Black, well they were Nigroes then, Irish, Italian and Hispanic families—so HOW DARE YOU talk about “our” troops???
And WHAT did they die for???!!!!
NOT from saving the world for democracy, but to maintain French imperialist interests in Southeast Asia. Wonder if your neo-nazi sycophants realise you’re a Jewess?”
E-R IF I MAY SUM THIS UP IN AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE…GO SUCK SOME GLOBALIST FASCIST C**K. AND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, THIS VIDEO WILL MAKE THINGS A LOT CLEARER ABOUT THAT DEMENTED UNCLE WALTER…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2br0Qj8IFw

NEPatriot on July 19, 2009 at 6:40 am

Well Debbie, you surely struck a nerve with many on this one. I agree, Cronkite was made way more important than he should have been. In the days he was the big dawg, we really only had 3 channels to watch…and since we had him crying at Kennedy’s assassination, and he was there through the turbulent 60′s, and he seemed to be a moral dude, he was accepted as this rock of tele-journalism. Surely he helped sway the nation’s opinion against the war effort. Yet, today I remember just how liberal he was more by the way he took on the democrat causes like phony global warming science and such after his retirement. Still, I’d say you are right about him overall.
That being said, Americans need to realize that Vietnam SHOULD have taught us the folly of fighting such a LIMITED campaign and not really an all out war. We sent in our young men to incredibly hard situations to die and be maimed…all which is part of WAR…but here, we had the weapons and the ability to end this war(?) sooner, if we had had the guts to fight to win…like we did in WW2.
This is also the folly of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan too—as you have noted. We are there, holding back the nationals so they can become what they are, a bunch of muslim barbarians who will be themselves once we leave (mayhem–see Iran, Turkey, etc).
During the times of cold war, we tried to fight like we did in Korea, a limited style war–concerned about not getting to a doomsday scenario with Russia or China as we sent men to die without really going in to win–which would have been more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ah, American wisdom. Cronkite was a voice of the liberals, who was against the rightness of our cause to be sure, but I have ask, “why fight if not to win? and then…if when we get control (Vietnam or Iraq etc), “what is really the end game? the goal we are after?”

BB on July 19, 2009 at 9:12 am

Squirrel 3D wrote:
“Hey dw, you better look carefully at who your quoting from becuase it clearly says someone’s name that isn’t mine.
(rofl…moron)”
Sorry Squirrel – that should have been Lew Waters. However, namecalling is pretty juvenile, you illiterate asshole slut :g:
Horselady – being Jewish (at least I think you said you were), you should know that the Sabbath ended around 8:30 last night. And guess what? hacks are hacks, no matter what side of the political fence they’re from. And you’re a hack of the highest order. Were you sent here by Ann Coulter?
Lew Waters wrote:
“Addressing the two photos linked to by, I believe, Random thoughts: the photo of young Kim Phuc was taken in June 1972, when we had few Troops remaining in Viet Nam. The operation burned her had no American involvement but has used to by the anti-war left to discredit American Troops, who were never even involved as our time left there was scant months away from ending”.
We coordinated that strike, so it’s hard to say that we had no involvement. It’s true that we were already in the midst of withdrawal, but I hardly think that ~150,000 is “few troops”. It’s of course far less than we had at the peak though.
“To dw, yes, General Weyand did admit to being he source of the 1967 New York Times article. But, given it was the New York Times, my guess is that his words weren’t exactly what was reported and were more leveled towards inept White House leadership from Democrats Lyndon Johnson and McNamara”.
First of all, your guesses are simply based on your bias. I could “guess” that the comments that *you* quote were recollections well after the fact by someone either pandering to their audience or justifying their actions in the war. However, I won’t do what you have done and speculate. And, OF COURSE it was leveled at Johnson and McNamara and perhaps Westmoreland and others. I brought it up to show that he seemed to see things in a similar way to Cronkite and actually presaged the relative success of the Iraq War, even before the Tet Offensive. Also, slandering the New York Times is a cheap tactic.
“Regardless, it has no bearing whatsoever on Cronkite’s refusal to report truthfully on the Tet Offensive failures of the Communists, does it”?
Should I do the same thing as you did and doubt the veracity of the statement? No, I won’t. But, once again, perhaps Cronkite did the nation a favor and saved the lives of many more troops in the long run.
“Your effort to discredit General Weyand discredits Cronkite more”!
Are you kidding me? Where did I discredit him? I was parodying the gung-hos in this thread that say that Cronkite should rot in hell for expressing a similar idea that Gen. Weyland did. It’s clear that he also was afraid that we were mired in a stalemate. And let me post his next statement in that speech, something that you yourself left out:
Now, ___I am in no way blaming the media for the loss of South Vietnam___; the blame, if you can call it that, is very widespread. Thousands of books and articles cover the subject from A to Z: dissembling political leaders, flawed strategy, micromanagement from Washington, pursuing the wrong objective, skewed reporting, ___the wrong war in the wrong place___, violation of the principles of war, and on and on.
Should he be hung for saying that we were in the “wrong war”? Isn’t that supposedly “treasonist” to say stuff like that against our troops? You see where this sort of blather from the Right gets you?
No, I wasn’t discrediting Weyland at all. In fact, he was one of the few to anticipate the Tet Offensive. Here’s what he said, according to the CBS reporter who asked Apple to sit in and witness the confidential interview with Weyland(once again, like Weyland quoting Cronkite, this is just hearsay, unlike the quote in the NY Times article itself, which was witnessed by a the CBS reporter and R.W. Apple of the Times):
“In 1967, when I was a CBS News correspondent in Vietnam, I met an American general at a cocktail party in Saigon. He whispered to me: �Westy just doesn�t get it. The war is unwinnable. We�ve reached a stalemate and we should find a dignified way out.� He was referring to Gen. William Westmoreland, the commander of United States forces in Vietnam.”
So, lots of people said lots of things “off the record”. Some might consider a General saying that a war was “unwinnable” to be treason, especially if you listen to the Right, who declares just about anything to be treasonous these days, but I don’t. One has to wonder if Weyland’s participation in the article was a deliberate attempt to change military policy – in other words, a live grenade that he himself loobed. It certainly seems totally premeditated. Frankly, I say, “Good on him”.
“But, leftists never let facts interfere with their misrepresentations”.
And Rightists never let their biases and seething anger to interfere with their interpretations and torturous twistings of “the facts”. And they conveniently ignore facts nilly-willy and devalue such words as evil by applying them any ole time they want to.

dw on July 19, 2009 at 9:47 am

BB wrote:
“During the times of cold war, we tried to fight like we did in Korea, a limited style war–concerned about not getting to a doomsday scenario with Russia or China as we sent men to die without really going in to win–which would have been more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ah, American wisdom. Cronkite was a voice of the liberals, who was against the rightness of our cause to be sure, but I have ask, “why fight if not to win? and then…if when we get control (Vietnam or Iraq etc), “what is really the end game? the goal we are after?”
You might be interested in this link, an article from 1966 to evaluate whether Cronkite was “agaisnt the rightness of our cause”:
http://current.com/items/90458456_walter-cronkite-covering-vietnam-photo.htm
It’s been said that Cronkite was a hawk in the early years of the war, and this little article seems to support that view. It was basically Tet that really made it clear to him that chances of “winning the war” were slim at best.
And he was probably correct.

dw on July 19, 2009 at 9:57 am

DW: First of all, we don’t really care about your military service or lack there of.
Second, Cronkite was a news reader who became a propagandist. Period. Good riddance.
And keep garbage like links to current off this site. Current–isn’t that a Soros entity?

lexi on July 19, 2009 at 11:13 am

Sorry, but Cronkite didn’t lose anything. Here are U.S. casualty figures by year:
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
We lost about 3,000 troops during the January 1968 Tet offensive. If the enemy was ‘defeated’ in this battle how was he able to kill more than 13,000 additional Americans during the balance of that year? And over 11,000 the next?
Americans weren’t stupid- they didn’t need Cronkite to tell them the obvious.

gregdn on July 19, 2009 at 11:21 am

RANDOM THOUGHTS, thanks for posting the video of Cronkite and his one world government, one world court speech. I posted it on my blog along with Debbies piece on Cronkite. I had no idea what a commie marxist thug this guy really was.

horselady on July 19, 2009 at 11:41 am

Lexi wrote:
“DW: First of all, we don’t really care about your military service or lack there of”.
Thanks for admitting that you really don’t “care about the troops or veterans”.
“Second, Cronkite was a news reader who became a propagandist. Period. Good riddance”.
I guess we can say “Good riddance” to FoxNews as well then, since they’re loaded with “newsreader/propagandists”.
“And keep garbage like links to current off this site”.
Yeah, facts apparently suck on this “site”.
As to horselady, aren’t you one extra “e” away from an accurate handle?

dw on July 19, 2009 at 11:48 am

Hey dw, did you think that up all by yourself or did you have help?

horselady on July 19, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Deb, I agree but you forget to mention the others who died because of LBJ, McNamara and Cronkite (yemach shemo). After we departed Vietnam the Communists murdered some 2.5 million or so Vietnamese, Laotians and Thais. The Khmer Rouge were inspired by our defeat to murder 2 million of their own fellow Cambodians. Let us not forget these victims of the Left. Throw those numbers (first double check what I have written) in the faces of the Leftists and challenge them to defend those murderous, Leftists genocides.
I am sure there were other Leftists regimes at that time who were inspired to do the same because of our defeat but that’s what comes to mind at the moment. Maybe you or one of your readers of your blog can find others and give us a body count total that we can lay at the feet of Cronkite, McNamara, et al.

TheHeebrewHammer on July 19, 2009 at 12:03 pm

“Hey dw, did you think that up all by yourself or did you have help”?
All by myself. And, having seen your blog, I’d have to say that you should drop the “lady” part as well.

dw on July 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm

dw, and thank you for visiting my blog. Liberals all hate my blog because they can see themselves in the Islamist I report on. Hope you caught some of the Beheadings videos.

horselady on July 19, 2009 at 12:10 pm

To gregdn: Sorry, but Cronkite didn’t lose anything. Here are U.S. casualty figures by year:
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
We lost about 3,000 troops during the January 1968 Tet offensive. If the enemy was ‘defeated’ in this battle how was he able to kill more than 13,000 additional Americans during the balance of that year? And over 11,000 the next?
Americans weren’t stupid- they didn’t need Cronkite to tell them the obvious.
————————————————–
Newsflash, gregdn, in war like Vietnam War, some soldiers get killed by friendly fires, stupid mistakes, combat injuries or dying from infectious diseases (malaria is a big killer in southeast Asia, more soldiers got infected by malaria than being wounded in Vietnam).
Keep in mind, casualty mean one who is either killed OR wounded in combat.
Only about 1536 American soldiers were actually killed in the Tet Offensive of 68 and more than 7700 of them were wounded. I would guess half of the wounded returned to action and the rest got shipped back to the “World”.
The full data can be founded here: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html
So, greg, so nice of you for misrepresenting casualty facts. Walter Cronkite can rot in hell. He did more than just reporting news: he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA.

Bobby's Brain on July 19, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Bobby’s Brain, yes he did give aid and comfort to the enemy just as John Kerry did. Today’s liberal media have learned to that very well.

horselady on July 19, 2009 at 12:13 pm

Horselady wrote:
“RANDOM THOUGHTS, thanks for posting the video of Cronkite and his one world government, one world court speech. I posted it on my blog along with Debbies piece on Cronkite. I had no idea what a commie marxist thug this guy really was.”
Horselady, you continue to embarass yourself with intellectual gaps and errors. I did not post the link as you stated. The link I posted was Cronkite’s actual editorial on the war to prove to you that it is possible for Viet Nam era videos to be posted on YouTube, which your prior post said was not possible.
BTW, I see nothing treasonous or evil in that editorial. I see free speech at work. You apparently use free speech to prove that you can make ridiculous, error-filled statements. I concede that point to you. You have proven it well. :)
-Random Thoughts (The first and second amendment supporting “liberal hack”! LOL!)

Random thoughts on July 19, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Sorry dw, but all your diatribe does not change the fact one bit that Cronkite was told what really happened in the Tet of 68 offensive, and refused to report it.
No leftist smokescreen you throw out can change that fact.
It would be too easy to supply later Cronkite quotes that show his acceptance, if not support of liberal neo-com rule.
Even though they would be more relevant to the discussion of General Weyand’s 1967 comments, whether in context or not, even they cannot change the fact that Cronkite was given the truth in the field and refused to report it to the public.
Ramble on all you wish, that fact is unchangeable.

Lew Waters on July 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm

“dw, and thank you for visiting my blog. Liberals all hate my blog because they can see themselves in the Islamist I report on”.
That would be quite a stretch for this Jew.
“Hope you caught some of the Beheadings videos”.
Nah, I gave that up last Yom Kippur. How about some videos of dead babies at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? Or vidios of coverage of 88 year old neo-Nazis shooting security guards at Holocaust museums?
Frankly, I don’t “hate your blog”. I don’t give it that much energy. I try not to validate racist bullshit. And I don’t really patronize batshit blogs more than once or twice. With the possible exception of this one, of course.

dw on July 19, 2009 at 12:27 pm

“Sorry dw, but all your diatribe does not change the fact one bit that Cronkite was told what really happened in the Tet of 68 offensive, and refused to report it”
And your very selective quoting of General Weyland doesn’t obscure the fact that he was of the same mind as Cronkite. Your ignoring of the fact that Weyland was also complicent in “aiding and abetting the enemy”, albeit as an anonymous source, is also telling.
No right wing apologism can alter that. Having said that, I think he was absolutely right for making contact with the CBS reporter and lobbing that hand grenade. He probably saved a lot of american lives.

dw on July 19, 2009 at 12:36 pm

dw, sorry if I credited you with the wrong video, And yes, I did report on the Holocaust Museum shooting. Isn’t it nice that you liberals have another story to add to the OKlahoma bombing when you try to create a moral equivalency between 2 right wing extremists and millions of Islamic terrorists. Yes, millions and I get that number from the Saudi Govt which estimates the number of terrorists and terrorist supporters to be 10% of the Muslim population. At over 1 billion Muslims, that means over 100 million Muslim extremists. Even if you use the very conservative number of 1%, that still leaves over 10 million terrorists running around the world.
Did you know there are at least 52 terrorist camps right here in the U.S.? There have been over 13,000 well-documented Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Not to mention several mall and other group shootings, Jewish center murders, SUV’s driving onto sidewalks to kill people right here by Muslims which the media try to downplay, by not referring to the fact that the perpetrators were Muslims. They didn’t spend much time on the Muslim shooter of the 2 soldiers recently. Old Walter would be proud.
BTW, Islam is not a race. And as the theme of my blog says, “It isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.”

horselady on July 19, 2009 at 12:51 pm

I’m sorry but “Thug-in-Chief” seems coded racism to me. Borrowing from hip-hop culture is quite trendy these days, even by white women with an axe to grind.
Would religious intolerance be more tolerable to you?
I note that even Ms. Schlussel has equated racism with anti-semitism, so I guess I can be forgiven for not making that distinction.
“And yes, I did report on the Holocaust Museum shooting. Isn’t it nice that you liberals have another story to add to the OKlahoma bombing when you try to create a moral equivalency between 2 right wing extremists and millions of Islamic terrorists”.
Nice of you to ignore right-wing murderers who have “disappeared” countless people over the years. I guess it doesn’t matter when their skin is brown or black or Asian (hell, or red, for that matter). And how nice of you to tar all of the largest religious group in the world with the same brush.
And, having waded through a bunch of filth, I found your “coverage” of the Holocaust shooting.
“BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is indirectly responsible for the shooting at the Holocaust Museum”
I guess neo-nazis don’t have to worry about “personal responsibility” in your world. And I guess we’re going to have to come up with a phrase that is to Muslim what anti-semitism is to Jews. Maybe we should just put your site in the dictionary.
How funny that someone who complains about anti-semitism would so rabidly attack another religion.
PS, using your standards, perhaps we can blame you “indirectly” for all of the beheadings that you display on your wite.

dw on July 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm

“but I do hate Islam, which is a political cult. If you can stand to go to my site again, check out the categories called RELIGION OF HATE”
Ahhh, Mother Irony, thy sting is bitter.
Here are a few things for you to check out. There are plenty more, but I’ve got to get ready for work now.
Now, feel free to keep spouting your own cultish brand of hate. personally, I think you’re a disgrace to military spouses everywhere, but that’s just my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximiliano_Hern%C3%A1ndez_Mart%C3%ADnez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mozote_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
That’s just a few. I’d also mention Greensboro, Emmitt Till, The Mississippi 3, numerous lynchings, the aformentioned Oklahoma city bombing, the Atlanta Olympic Bombing, shootings of abortion doctors, and many instances of extreme right-wing killings.
There’s plenty of hate to go around, not only on the Right but also on the Left, not only from Muslims, but from Jews and Christians as well.

dw on July 19, 2009 at 3:04 pm

After reading ALL the comments on this blog, and a bunch of other information, I have come to a conclusion that Cronkite is given far too much credit for “ending the war”.
For liberals, Cronkite represents their Savior. His Far Left associations made him their darling. And he likely marched in lock step with the Anti War Left.
Far from original thought, he was likely doing what was required of him by the Far Left management at CBS – oppose the war.
And the Dan Rather affair over the Bush National Guard story indicates that NOTHING HAS CHANGED AT CBS. Some still swear by the Rather memo.
For Conservatives, far too much credit is given that Cronkite had any serious influence on Presidents and Congress in ending the war. More likely, Cronkite may have been merely echoing Far Left sentiment.
And the Media’s arrogance in REALLY believing that Cronkite had so much influence is self congratulation of the worst kind.

Frank on July 19, 2009 at 4:19 pm

How sad- you STILL don’t understand what the Viet Nam War was all about. Essentially, you are upset with Cronkite because he had the courage to tell the truth. In so doing, he helped pave the way for saving thousands and thousands of lives. If YOU have the courage to post this, I will gladly engage you point by point.
I only wish he had had the courage to speak the truth about the JFK assassination.
Doubting Thomas

Doubting Thomas on July 19, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Being a Vietnam vet, I have to admit that what you wrote Debbie was my first thought at the hearing of his passing. And it is sad to say that so many Americans died for naught because of the Liberal cowardice.
But even sadder is the plight that we left the Vietnamese people in who trusted us. The Liberal left, left these gracious humble people to be murdered by the millions, sent to reeducation camps by the millions, and forced to flee their homeland by the millions too. They treated these people because of their cowardice as those they were less than human, unworthy of American blood or American treasure. And I for one will never forgive them for their inhumanity.
Cronkite, Fonda, Baez, and all the rest can rot in hell for their insensitivity to these people.
Well that’s my rant. Thanks for the article.

08hayabusa on July 19, 2009 at 5:23 pm

dw, I think I understand your position on Cronkite. You will not deny that he falsified facts regarding Tet, but this does not concern you because you believe the war was hopeless, thus Cronkite “saved lives.” My position is that journalists are expected to report facts accurately, even if such facts go against their biases. I can understand disagreement regarding the extent to which wartime requires journalists not to report certain facts. What I find intolerable is the deliberate reporting of falsehoods for any reason, and certainly to undermine a war effort.
One of my main beefs with Cronkite is that he gave aid and comfort to the concept of fact-based journalism as nothing more than opinion journalism–and not even honest opinion journalism, if the ends are felt to be justified. Thus we find that NYT, for example, can no longer be considered anything except a multipage editorial. The “evolution” of journalism in this direction undermines the free flow of information. Further, while journalism schools can indeed teach the mechanics of fact finding and factual story writing, they cannot provide any basis for opinion journalism because the latter requires substantive knowledge. Thus we find crusading opinion piece writers who, most of the time, bring little more substantive knowledge to their work than the infantile leftism they learned in college.
Another major beef I have with Cronkite is the same that I have with you and all other leftists: you are predisposed to believe the US evil and therefore any other force opposed to it to be good. It matters not one bit what your military service has been–such things are irrelevant to this argument. This predisposition is an empirical matter: does it exist or does it not? When I read about your support for Islam, including the cliched canard about “racism,” even though anyone who really cared about Western values would find Islam repugnant, there isn’t much room for doubt.
There was a time when support for communism among the left (carefully cultivated by the USSR and China) was injurious to the West. Now that this horse has been shot out from under the left, it gravitates to apologias for Islam. When ugly truths are obvious to any objective observer, they are pushed aside in favor of the evils of the US.
I’d add that I’m not that passionate a patriot myself. But I have no problem choosing between the US (and the West in general) and totalitarianism of any kind.

skZion on July 19, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Did not even one Vietnam Vet – especially,on that fought at Tet – think to make Cronkite pay for his sins of such propaganda and lies,dishonestly presented as the truth,that helped thousands more unnecessarily die? So many other TV “journalists”, that have believed they are above-at-all, are so long overdue to be made to pay for decades of such endless,relentless Leftist anti-Americanism.And they’re never going to stop unless We The People force them to.

OldSchoolW on July 19, 2009 at 8:14 pm

OldSchoolW, conservatives have yet to learn the lessons regarding non-violent direct action that the left has mastered. It should be possible to torment the likes of Cronkite today–activists could, for example, chain themselves to the news outlet’s office doors, thus preventing business as usual. Alerting sympathetic media so that this can be captured on film is always appropriate. Indeed, the Internet nowadays does not even require the mainstream media to play. When leftist journos have birthday parties, why are the activists not crashing them (on film) with guerrilla theater demonstrating that these journos are traitors with blood on their hands?
The left, you see, works in part through intimidation. Patriotic Americans should use such proven techniques.

skZion on July 19, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Walter Cronkite
R.I.P.

Norman Blitzer on July 19, 2009 at 8:55 pm

doubting thomas: you are upset with Cronkite because he had the courage to tell the truth.
Uh, no. Cronkite DECEIVED the American public with his op-ed journalist styles and political-oriented flair instead of being an objective TV journalist reporting the facts. He picked facts and news that suited his political left views.

Bobby's Brain on July 19, 2009 at 8:58 pm

AMEN– Debbie, I lost many friends in Vietnam. It is time to stand up to these liberal, over-bloated egos that are called journalist. They write and voice opinion, only to please those they can go drink whiskey with and stay on the correct party lists!! The worst kind of cowards in the world!!

texas red on July 19, 2009 at 9:27 pm

Funny dw, you sit there and state that General Weyand was of the same mindset as Cronkite, yet in an hour and a half interview held after the General some statement that may or may not have been printed in context, he never once mentioned he was in agreement with Cronkite and in 2000, stated the opposite.
In support of my “guess” about General Weyand’s words spoken in 1967, an exceprt from the premier edition of Vietnam Magazine from the summer of 1988, “The fundamental reason, as you pointed out in your book On Strategy, was the lack of clear-cut and understandable political and military objectives. That was true from top to bottom. When Clark Clifford took over as secretary of defense after Tet 1968, he found that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had no concept of victory and no plan to end the war. And that was the case in Saigon as well. As you know, a Letter of Instruction is the means by which the president, as commander in chief, issues orders to his commanders in the field for the conduct of military operations. For example, President Rooseveltís Letter of Instruction to General Eisenhower in World War II began, ëYou will invade the continent of EuropeÖ.í But during our quarter-century involvement in Vietnam, no presidentñnot Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Fordñever issued such clear-cut instructions to their military commanders in Vietnam. In 1974, Brigadier General Douglas Kinnard did a survey and found that ëalmost 70 percent of the Army generals who managed the war were uncertain of its objectives.í As he concluded, that ëmirrors a deep-seated strategic failure: the failure of policy-makers to frame tangible, obtainable goals.í It was this lack of a sense of purpose that finally turned the American people against the war. The anti-war movement likes to take credit for itñwhy anyone would want to take ëcredití for the resulting massacre of some three million Cambodians, the consignment of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to forced-labor camps, and the suffering of over a million Indochinese boat people is beyond meñbut I believe theyíre wrong. The turnaround was more pragmatic than ideological. It was the fall of 1967 when polls showed that for the first time more Americans were against the war than in support of it. And I think that shift took place because of public suspicion that the government didnít know what it was doing. When the Tet Offensive hit several months later it merely confirmed that suspicionñespecially when President Lyndon B. Johnson gave up on the war.”

Lew Waters on July 19, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Libs really turn out in droves for their gods. 88 comments!

samurai on July 19, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Excellent and very accurate comment on ‘Uncle Walter’.
His work on WWII, reporting, 20th Century, etc. was accurate and US supportive. Perhaps this is attributable to the fact that he was a member of a community of reporters, and not any sort of lead. But think if Edward R. Murrow had reported defeatism everyday from Britain during the German Air Blitz. Instead, he spoke of courage, tenacity and spirited morale which buoyed, not only America, but the British themselves.
For some self aggrandizing reason, Cronkite took the opposite route on Vietnam. He felt he was treated far more importantly if he could spew defeat and demoralization into every living room each evening. I still remember the words he used: the Americans ‘supposedly killed’, US commanders ‘claim’, etc.
I think of Lord ‘Haw, Haw’, Tokyo Rose and others who broadcast for the enemy: at least they had the decency to take the enemey’s side and risk the consequences. Instead, the traitorous Cronkite fed on the star status his demoralizing disinformation was affording him.
In a time of war, no other country would have tolerated such a backstabber doing the work of an enemy that they could not accomplish on their own. Lincoln wouldn’t have tolerated him nor would Wilson have – he’d have been in prison.
FDR didn’t even have to deal with it – if their was any lying done, which there was plenty of, it was done in his favor. Not even Truman did: when the Korean Was was at it’s worst, the media said nothing rather than disparage the effort.
Cronkite is in a category all his own. Whether he became enamored of the Soviets and thus the communists over the years, it’s hard to tell. However, he was definitely a leftist and his vile commie attitudes followed him well beyond his broadcast days.
In another post, I suggested the North Vietnamese owe him a huge debt of gratitude for their victory and our defeat. A fitting tribute would be for his body to be sent to Vietnam where they would gratefully embalm and display him in their War Museum. I really don’t believe he would be treated very reverently in an accessible tomb in this country.

beboper on July 20, 2009 at 12:53 am

“dw, I think I understand your position on Cronkite. You will not deny that he falsified facts regarding Tet, but this does not concern you because you believe the war was hopeless, thus Cronkite “saved lives.”
Not exactly.
I’m saying that if you say that he cost lives, I think it’s fair to say the reverse, that he could have saved lives. But frankly, I think that the way the war was being managed, he just pushed up the timetable.
“What I find intolerable is the deliberate reporting of falsehoods for any reason, and certainly to undermine a war effort”.
What “falsehoods”? I’d maintain that there’s a significant difference between reporting “selected facts” and “falsehoods”. How about a top General who anonymously and deliberately plants quotes that actually support the same things that Cronkite was reporting? Are you willing to give him a pass? I actually celebrate him for being so forthcoming, even if it was impossible for him to do it publically.
If you think that reporting is totally objective, whether it’s from a Cronkite or a Dan Rather or a Sean Hannity of a Glenn Beck (who’s barely a “journalist”), you’re naive.
What I’m saying is that Cronkite didn’t lose us the war. He was certainly a factor, of that there’s no doubt. But it was virtually an unwinnable war from the beginning. The French found that out before us. and the way that we conducted the war didn’t help. I’m saying that all of these calls for Cronkite to burn in hell are just hate speech. I would say the same thing to leftists who said the same thing about McNamara or Westmoreland.
“One of my main beefs with Cronkite is that he gave aid and comfort to the concept of fact-based journalism as nothing more than opinion journalism–and not even honest opinion journalism, if the ends are felt to be justified. Thus we find that NYT, for example, can no longer be considered anything except a multipage editorial”.
As is The Washington Times, FoxNews and any number of outlets of the right. As is The Huffington Post and Debbie Schlussel. Frankly, I’m sort of like you – I’d prefer to see LESS of it, not MORE. The thing is, you aren’t willing to hold your own side accountable. You and others refuse to even address the concept of a General (and future Army Chief of Staff) giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy through your hated mouthpiece, the New York Times.
“Another major beef I have with Cronkite is the same that I have with you and all other leftists: you are predisposed to believe the US evil”
You know, I’m getting pretty tired of people saying that I believe the US is “evil”. I didn’t sacrifice years of my life defending this country to put up with crap like that from people who might or might not have given the same sacrifice. Frankly, you throw the word evil around like it was candy. You don’t even have any idea of what the word means.
” There was a time when support for communism among the left (carefully cultivated by the USSR and China) was injurious to the West”.
Hmmm, since I was your thin olive drab line against the Communists, better that you stop now before you injure your credibility further. I might have been no higher than a junior NCO, but I was there, freezing in a Northern German foxhole, operating as a track commander and .50 cal gunner and training fellow soldiers in the art of war to the best of my limited abilities.
“I’d add that I’m not that passionate a patriot myself. But I have no problem choosing between the US (and the West in general) and totalitarianism of any kind”.
Nor do I. And I put my body on the line following that very principle. In the 80s when we were standing the Soviets off in Western Europe. Under my Commander-In-Chief, Ronald Reagan.
Lwe wrote:
“Funny dw, you sit there and state that General Weyand was of the same mindset as Cronkite, yet in an hour and a half interview held after the General some statement that may or may not have been printed in context, he never once mentioned he was in agreement with Cronkite and in 2000, stated the opposite”.
I don’t see how you could spin the context of this statement any other way, quoted by the very outlet that you seem to hate:
“Unless a more positive and more stirring theme than simple anti-communism can be found, the war appears likely to go on until someone gets tired and quits, which could take generations.”
He confirmed that he was the source of that statement and he didn’t retract it. This was even before Tet. I don’t see how you could read anything other than stalemate from that statement. And the fact that HE approached the CBS reporter and was willing to hold an interview with two different reporters from two different outlets is another damning fact. Frankly, I’m glad that he spoke the truth to power, even though he had to do it anonymously.
You quoted a rather long passage that supports the “stalemate” and flawed strategy idea that Weyland himself was bemoaning and that Cronkite reported on. And I liked this quote:
” Brigadier General Douglas Kinnard did a survey and found that ëalmost 70 percent of the Army generals who managed the war were uncertain of its objectives.í As he concluded, that ëmirrors a deep-seated strategic failure: the failure of policy-makers to frame tangible, obtainable goals.í It was this lack of a sense of purpose that finally turned the American people against the war”.
Gee, I thought it was Cronkite that turned the American people against the war. I guess professional warriors disagree. PS, I don’t consider Weyland to be one of those 70%. He seemed to recognize a better strategy, one that mirrors the way the surge in Iraq was managed, which has resulted in limited and positive success (and he was key in the Tet Offensive not achieving its MILITARY objective, although it succeeded in its POLITICAL objective. And what about the quote in that very same speech where he specifically said that he didn’t blame Cronkite? Why do you ignore that? Because it doesn’t fit your theories? You know, people aren’t always black and white creatures. The Right sure could use a little nuance, as this whole sad exercise shows.
And finally, bebopper wrote:
” I really don’t believe he would be treated very reverently in an accessible tomb in this country”.
You’d be wrong. It’s only the fringe elements spewing this sort of nonsense. Yeah, his tomb would have to be whitewashed every so often due to defacement by a few crotchety curmudgeons such as they type that lurk here. You know, the kind that devalue a soldier’s service to his country simply because he holds a different opinion and political philosophy. The kind that accuse him of thinking that the country that he served faithfully is “evil”.

dw on July 20, 2009 at 1:52 am

Lew Waters: “It was the fall of 1967 when polls showed that for the first time more Americans were against the war than in support of it. And I think that shift took place because of public suspicion that the government didnít know what it was doing. When the Tet Offensive hit several months later it merely confirmed that suspicionñespecially when President Lyndon B. Johnson gave up on the war.”
Admittedly, that was a profound weakness of the American position. The LBJ administration was anxious to go in – but to do what?
When S. Korea was invaded, it was only after Acheson failed to identify the country as a US strategic interest. It was Truman who hastily decided we would defend S. Korea’s sovereignty when it was in imminent danger of being overrun.
As to goals, in the early days of the Pusan perimeter, we would have gladly settled for a North Korean withdrawal. But after the stunning success of Inchon, suddenly we were emboldened to take the North as well – which set us up for one of the most shocking defeats our military has ever suffered.
Why did we get so confident: victory on the battlefield, strong, confident, arrogant leadership (MacArthur) and positive media PR. Stopping Mac at the 38th hardly seemed possible.
In Vietnam, Tet was that war’s Inchon. North Vietnam was losing the war of attrition – it needed a morale builder for itself and a demoralizer for the South Vietnamese – that’s why the cities were attacked and the political leaderships were assassinated.
Apart from their sporadic massacres, they were repulsed everywhere with huge casualties. In many areas, their underground organizations were destroyed and their supply situations were disrupted and exhausted. The GI tunnel rats came literally within feet of discovering the entire VC infiltration system for Saigon.
At that point, all things remaining the same, we might have gotten the North to get out of the South – which would have been a very satisfactory result.
What was the difference between Inchon and Tet? One word: Cronkite. It was he who colored a well earned victory into a demoralizing defeat. By showing what he wanted to show and captioning the pictures with the most pessimistic descriptions, the public saw only carnage with little military accomplishment. By purposely distorting the reports from the field, he was actively aiding and abedding the enemy.
Johnson should have shut him up months, perhaps years earlier. The other anchors were nothing like this traitorous Cronkite windbag.
That’s Cronkite’s legacy, and all the leftist lib revisionism won’t change it one bit.
PS. Thanks for the service.

beboper on July 20, 2009 at 1:59 am

dw, you’re hopeless, I give up. I only suffer fools for so long.
But, like a good little leftist, you will not let facts interfere with the agenda.

Lew Waters on July 20, 2009 at 3:51 am

For a lengthy list of Crank-ite verbatim quotes, read:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/07/20/walter-cronkite-review-gawd-almighty-shout-truths-liberalism

Shy Guy on July 20, 2009 at 4:20 am

dw:
“”[skzion]: Another major beef I have with Cronkite is the same that I have with you and all other leftists: you are predisposed to believe the US evil”
[dw]: You know, I’m getting pretty tired of people saying that I believe the US is “evil”. I didn’t sacrifice years of my life defending this country to put up with crap like that from people who might or might not have given the same sacrifice. Frankly, you throw the word evil around like it was candy. You don’t even have any idea of what the word means.”
Let’s note what dw omitted from my original post, following the line he quoted:
“It matters not one bit what your military service has been–such things are irrelevant to this argument. This predisposition is an empirical matter: does it exist or does it not? When I read about your support for Islam, including the cliched canard about “racism,” even though anyone who really cared about Western values would find Islam repugnant, there isn’t much room for doubt.”
Actually, dw, I do not throw the word “evil” around like candy. I have been interacting with leftists of varying degrees of stridency, for years, and I have noted repeatedly that the left really does have a predisposition to think of the US as force for evil. I deliberately use this word because I think it has an appropriate emotional loading. I used your evident sympathy for Islam as relevant evidence to bolster my empirical claim.
I do not know why you did military service (or whether you did–one cannot assume that leftists are reporting honestly on their service), but you very clearly are predisposed to side with a group so long as it is in conflict with the US. You are like a biased jury member.

skZion on July 20, 2009 at 6:54 am

Thank you Debbie for posting the truth.
The sad thing is the Communists have not only taken over in Vietnam but in the United States. We may soon be facing what Cambodia went through.

Burt on July 20, 2009 at 7:11 am

I’ll one more thing. The reason I use the word “leftist” as opposed to “liberal” in reference to you, dw, is because there are some liberals who actually are not biased against their own country. Netherlands, for example, would hardly be considered a bastion of social conservatism. The amazing support for Geert Wilders seems to come mostly from his message that Islam takes away Western liberty, including such things as women’s rights and gay rights. This is what I would have expected from liberals, as opposed to leftists.

skZion on July 20, 2009 at 7:42 am

Good for you Debbie!
Walter Cronkite was a good reporter until he let is own prejudices and bias enter into his reporting in Vietnam for the two weeks he was there during the Tet offensive. His misreporting of what was the complete defeat of the Viet Cong and the overall defeat of the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam was long term disastrous. His short speech upon his return advocating a negotiated cease fire was a seminal event that has done as much damage to the US for its myopic and inaccurate policy proposal as any single episode of the cold war. A reporter now making a leap to foreign policy decision maker on TV undermining the elected officials who`s responsibleness are far more than his sound bites.
It led to the Congress surrendering South Vietnam in 1975.The deaths of millions in Cambodia and SE Asia. It started the substitution of factual reporting for advocacy journalism by unqualified reporters. It led to the dumbing down of informing the general public regarding issues of life and death and the defense of the US. Western civilization has been undermined contrary to its great principles of a free press being kidnapped by such people as has been the case with the present media and it`s reporting of the war on terror.

Floyd on July 20, 2009 at 7:48 am

As you can see here: http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html
IF there was only 269 Jewish deaths out of over 58,000…then you KNOW that there ain’t that many Jews that were in the Army back then…PERIOD!
All the Jews i knew were getting deferments @ CUNY, which was FREE at the time, so they were in a WIN WIN situation. And there would’ve been more Blacks on the list were it not for Mohammed Ali!

EminemsRevenge on July 20, 2009 at 7:53 am

“No Vietnamese ever called me a ‘nigger’.”
But they were calling US that at home as they lynched our brethren and beat down and hosed our compeers on the street…and all y’all rednecks act like Viet Nam was some badge of honour???
MY uncle was asked to re-up in ’66, THEY even offered him a commission, but word was already out with the troops by then…only FOOLS went to Viet Nam!
You can revise history all you want, but Amerikkka got its ass kicked in Korea as well as Viet Nam…and let’s not forget Lebanon under the false moshiach, Reagan.
The ONLY WAY Amerikkka can win another war is to airlift some Crips & Bloods to Afghanistan.

EminemsRevenge on July 20, 2009 at 8:14 am

You know, eminem, statistics can be twisted any way, that anyone wants. So I’m calling BS on that angle…Using the premise of the “unfair” to blacks aspect that you hear so often regarding Vietnam, if you use the numbers you present, then the number of black casualties was 12.06 percent or just about the same as the general population distribution by race.
Perhaps I can say that the war was “unfair” to Catholics since we had the highest death toll by religious breakdown.. There’s no accounting for how someone will or can turn “statistics” into a “meaningful lie” if it suits them.
There were even numbers on that list for Jehova’s Witnesses and Quakers- both of which would get an automatic consciencious objector status. So how will ou twist that one?
There was a roughly equal number of American Indian casualties as there are Jews. How would you twist that one around?
Many people claim that the draft targeted young people, minorities, etc and let others out of the conflict- check the stats from the site you referenced. again- you’ll see that most of the casualties were in the REGULAR forces (i.e volunteers) by a factor of at least 2 over draftees, and that the largest number of casualties was in the 30-39 year old bracket. Guess there were a lot of “FOOLS” according to your logic back then. Again, a case where facts are twisted based on “agenda perception”…
As for your “Jewish” comment, well, I went to the source, so to speak- my husband spent three combat tours of Vietnam in the USAF. He was at Phu Cat, Korat in Thailand, and Da Nang over those three years, and he says that there were many servicemen who were Jewish, in fact his WSO (that’s the radar operator or Weapons System Officer) who was killed when their plane took two hits from anti-aircraft fire was Jewish, and from Queens NY.
As for the “N word comment v. Vietnamese using it”- I’m sure they had their own equally offensive word- this article from that LIBERAL bastion of news, the San Francisco chronicle quotes this – “The Asian activists compound the problem by absolving the immigrants of blame for their racist attitudes. The immigrants, we are told, pick up racist views from the American media. Yet this is at odds with the fact that Asian immigrant prejudice toward African Americans and Latinos is more widespread and at a higher intensity than amoug U.S. natives. Quynh Tran, in her Stanford University study of Vietnamese immigrant high school students, found that students who grew up in the United States were less prejudiced toward blacks than were students who immigrated at a later age.”
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/pub/RaceRelations/ChronNM.html – this wa san Editorial by Matloff, a professor at UC Davis and atthe tiem, chairman ofit’s affirmative action comittee….
and again, going back to the source, I asked hubby- he learned enough Vietnamese while there to know when he was being insulted or how to insult back- he says the Vietnamese word for the “N” word is “Thong dụng” (there is a carat over the o that I can’t mimic from the keyboard.
Hubby says that loosely translated it means “dark money” or in effect “slave/property/human commodity”…
So I’m gonna call BS where I see it.

Mistress_Dee on July 20, 2009 at 8:50 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field