19th July 2009, 6:13 AM
Would you be so kind as to point me to the page with that specific quote? Specifically, I'd like to know when it was made, because as far as I can tell, this quote isn't likely to possess a shred of relevance to Walter Cronkite or the Tet Offensive.
I believe there is fundamental breach in such matters, and furthermore, you're being circular with your logic. The war, at that point, was well in hand by most accounts and the US/ARVN forces had won a huge tactical victory in the Tet Offensive. It was mis-reported as a defeat. Cronkite's statement about the war being 'unwinnable' was based on this misinformation, and his status as a major trusted media figure was a prime factor in popular opinion turning against the war. The rapid erosion of public support was the primary factor in the war becoming 'unwinnable', as the military had to alter its tactics from prosecuting a war with victory as an aim, to prosecuting the war in such a manner that was as acceptable as possible to a public that would not accept it.
It is therefore disingenuous to state that Cronkite's statement was grounded in fact simply because it eventually became true years later. It would be like me saying "I'm thirty years old", and later claiming that I stated a fact because three years later, I was thirty years old. Cronkite's statement was clearly not true at the time the statement was made, and only became true as a result of what Cronkite said and the effect it had on people. Prior to 1968, public support for Vietnam was cautious but marginally favorable. I don't understand why a strictly logical man such as yourself would consider this statement prescient given the full view of the scenario. It is also entirely unlike your comparison comment. Calling creationists 'idiots' will, at most, polarize whoever cares. What Cronkite did was force a major change in public policy based on misinformation and his own personal agenda. It's unethical and almost criminal. It's shouting FIRE in a theatre of millions, and I believe this to be true even if the statement were one I found fundamentally believable. It would be the equivalent of Pat Robertson's religious idiocy causing significant restraint in scientific advancement.
There did come a point at which victory was not possible for the United States, but the Tet Offensive was not that point until the media decided it was.
I believe there is fundamental breach in such matters, and furthermore, you're being circular with your logic. The war, at that point, was well in hand by most accounts and the US/ARVN forces had won a huge tactical victory in the Tet Offensive. It was mis-reported as a defeat. Cronkite's statement about the war being 'unwinnable' was based on this misinformation, and his status as a major trusted media figure was a prime factor in popular opinion turning against the war. The rapid erosion of public support was the primary factor in the war becoming 'unwinnable', as the military had to alter its tactics from prosecuting a war with victory as an aim, to prosecuting the war in such a manner that was as acceptable as possible to a public that would not accept it.
It is therefore disingenuous to state that Cronkite's statement was grounded in fact simply because it eventually became true years later. It would be like me saying "I'm thirty years old", and later claiming that I stated a fact because three years later, I was thirty years old. Cronkite's statement was clearly not true at the time the statement was made, and only became true as a result of what Cronkite said and the effect it had on people. Prior to 1968, public support for Vietnam was cautious but marginally favorable. I don't understand why a strictly logical man such as yourself would consider this statement prescient given the full view of the scenario. It is also entirely unlike your comparison comment. Calling creationists 'idiots' will, at most, polarize whoever cares. What Cronkite did was force a major change in public policy based on misinformation and his own personal agenda. It's unethical and almost criminal. It's shouting FIRE in a theatre of millions, and I believe this to be true even if the statement were one I found fundamentally believable. It would be the equivalent of Pat Robertson's religious idiocy causing significant restraint in scientific advancement.
There did come a point at which victory was not possible for the United States, but the Tet Offensive was not that point until the media decided it was.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR