...or an 85-year-old failure still calling himself "Jimmy":
Posted on 06/09/2009 10:59:44 AM PDT by meandog
Well, 54% didn't...
Isn’t she a little old to be going by the name “Katie”? Thats like calling a 50 year old man, “Timmy”.
Good rule of thumb for future generations, the US is a great and wonderful nation that has the greatest military to ever exist. Those are facts that are a sure as grass is green and the sky is blue. Anyone who were to ever say otherwise is a liar and should be dismissed as such and be removed from the ability to influence anyone.
During the Tet Offensive the NVA and Viet Cong threw everything they had at the US forces and by the end of Feb. 1968 Westmoreland claimed that aprox 32,000 Communist troops were killed + 6,000 were captured ( was later found to be over 45,000 killed) The US lost aprox 1,500. The Viet Cong were destroyed and the NVA barely had defensive capabilities left. The war was basically over, all that was left to do was mop up and go home.
However, Cronkite picked the end of February to conduct his "Broadcast from Vietnam". Before leaving Vietnam for New York Cronkite met with Westmoreland and other military leaders who told him just that. On February 27, 1968 Cronkite broadcasted the following:
Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.
We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.
That ended the support for the war at home and gave new life to a defeated enemy extending the war by another 5+ years. That broadcast marked the beginning of the US liberal press dictating the foreign policy of the United States by using a power they were never granted nor are held accountable for abusing, the trust of the American People.
Catty little Couric”
Another ‘media’ person who preaches:
Do what I say-—not what I do!!!
There are so many personalties stuffed into each of these ‘media darlings’ that is it hard to keep track without a scorecard...
Couric isn’t at interesting any more. Her ‘sell by’ date has expired in this house.
...or an 85-year-old failure still calling himself "Jimmy":
Perky is getting old, ugly and fat and even her knee pads are losing their appeal.
I shoulda known.
I was thinking Dan’s eyes spin clockwise and Katie’s spin widdershins.
That was good!!!
“A jealous skank with her claws out.”
Correction: A jealous, ugly, hateful, no-talent, last place,
skank with her claws out.
That’s a laugh. Couric is the nastiest talking head on television. Always has been.
Palin should refuse to be interviewed by these “news” outlets in the runup to 2012.
And she needs to blatantly, truthfully, state why.
I accept your correction of my understatement.
Walter Cronkite was a great help to Hanoi’s General Vo Nguyen Giap. He couldn’t defeat the US on the battlefield, but with his American fifth column he won the war.
No...
that is the difference between a tribe of pygmies
and a woman’s track team.
One of the biggest stories in history, the answer to a “mystery” that everyone wants to know the answer to. You probably won’t even recognize it even though Walter and Dan made it in part because of this lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBpHSyuueMU
She MUST be lecturing from experience, because one of the nastiest things i’ve ever witnessed by a person - was done by Couric. She was interviewing Susan Smith’s husband, years ago. (Susan was the one who rolled her car into a lake, drowing her kids.) Couric, the phoney she is, mocked caring drama as she looked into David’s eyes and asked:
‘’What is it like for you, imagining the faces of your children, pressed up against the window, as the car rolls into the lake?’’
(Yes, I’m sure Couric patted herself on her shoulder that day for having the ‘’bravery’’ to ask ‘’the really tough questions’’. UNETHICAL, STUPID, IMMATURE, SELF-ABSORBED.)
Princeton? Ha! I wouldn’t let her any where near my former 9th grade journalism class!
That reminds me of the story (I don't know if its true or not but I believe it is) about a reporter who once asked Ray Charles what his favorite color was when he was a boy. Charles supposedly answered: "Corduroy!"
The Zapruder film didn’t have sound.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.