ambi=left

I don’t think the lying by MACV (required by Johnson) prior to Tet can possibly excuse the behavior of the press. There is no excuse in reporting on a crushing victory and painting as a major defeat. None. Had Tet been reported honestly, the war would have been over. As De Borchgrave pointed out, soon after the event large numbers of critical documents were public which the press could have read. They didn’t.

As for the secret bombings, Nixon inherited a mess from Johnson. He had little domestic wiggle room, because Johnson, abetted by the anti-war movement, had destroyed government credibility. Nixon had to win the war, which he did. That it required secret bombings was because of the viciously hostile press and the anti-war movement. It was obvious that the way to win the war was to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and deny the NVA sanctuary in Cambodia. To not do either one was to simply expend American lives without winning. Nixon did both. Furthermore, he bombed Hanoi and mined the harbors. He came into office saying he would win, and he did. It was subsequently thrown away by Democrat Church and buddies.

For Kerry to run on his service in a war which his party forced us to lose (and I see no other way to look at it), and a war which he himself contributed to the climate that led to the loss, is bizarre. He is counting on the incorrect history that the press will drag up (they’re not going to admit to costing us the war in 1968). He is counting on the MSM suppressing the reports of the negative aspects of his in-country behavior and the effects of his anti-war behavior.

In General

One thing I wanted to mention in general – people talked about an echo chamber. What better echo chamber for Kennedy prime that Massachusetts? What better a place to fail to develop political skills as a democrat than there? If Kerry has a political tin ear, look where he spent the last couple of decades.