Kodiak, re: You make me laugh.
Always glad to lighten someone's day. If I have to be a "longwinded lightweight," or "hypersensitive," or "sniffling or sanctimonious," then that's a small price to pay.
Of course you're not one to engage in ad hominem attacks. Well, maybe a little, in a passive/agressive sort of way. Of course your review of your posts and belated emphasis on the reasons why the article you posted seemed so important to you will have to be assessed by others. Your view on that, and mine, have already been posted. I reiterate that, in order to elevate the level of discussion, we should refrain from personal attacks on each other, no matter how much fun that might be.
I will, therefor, address the only paragraph of your post that had any substance, ie.:
As for the press, they are supposed to report the truth, but they, encouraged by their editors and their colleagues, chose to report their "truth", that is, their own problems with the bloodshed and destruction of the war, and became the best ally that Ho Chi Minh ever had. It was a shameless affair on their part, start to finish. That is pretty much an incontrovertible fact.
The press reported at the time, and belatedly, that morale was bad, that the enemy wasn't going away, that many more Americans were destined to die in pursuit of an elusive and possibly unattainable goal, that the Vietnamization of the war was going badly, that there was substantial discord in our own military concerning the doability of the mission and that this country needed to reevaluate out costs and benefits in "staying the course." Remember the famous Walter Kronkite statement that he'd been there and returned and questioned our mission there.
Maybe the "truth" WAS finally reported by the press. And maybe that "truth" WAS the "best ally that Ho Chi Minh ever had." In that regard I guess the press was an ally of Ho. After all, if we'd have continued to believe the Johnson and Nixon led government lies, the war would have gone on longer.
That's MY view, but more importantly, what is YOUR point? What was the "press'" ulterior motive? What was the error that the press reported? How did that lead to some damage to American interest that, in retrospect, we can identify? Is this the same press that gave Bush a free ticket to get out of jail for about a year because so many of us were screaming USA! USA! USA! while we headed for the edge of the cliff? Just what is your point and what was the "shameless affair" that's so "incontroveratbly" established?
Help a brother out, will ya, even if the brother is too emotional, too hypersensitive and a lightweight? But remember, just cause you say it, don't mean it's true. I'd appreciate some logic and facts to back up the broad conclusions of "incontrovertable facts." |
