What is important to the New York Times? And WHY?

In his memoirs in 1995, Genl. Giap, who headed North Vietnamese forces from just after the end of WW2 until his retirement in the 90's, the general wrote that the Tet offensive of 2/68 was so destructive to the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, and it was such a complete shock that this could happen, that he planned to seek terms for conditional surrender.

Then he heard Walter Cronkite talk about Tet and Vietnam. This is the money line Cronkite delivered about this huge american victory.

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.

Should private citizens, whose salaried job is ultimately selling commercial time, have the MEANS to change the course of history with so great a misjudgment of FACTS? (To my knowledge he has never acknowledged this error, or its effect on history and the USA)

And now the NY Times comes today ...

Continue reading "What is important to the New York Times? And WHY?" at VIllagers with Torches »