So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


Stop being so reasonable!

It is propaganda, just like a lot of Hollywood war films. And the government loves it - censors out what they don't approve of in exchange for renting out military vehicles to Hollywood for next to nothing.

The funny thing is, I hated that the army made a video game recruitment tool. But, to be honest at least it was difficult as $&&% directly in contrast to these big budget titles that make it "immersive" (immersive as in loud noises and yelling) and easy.


>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ghark:
Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.
Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.
Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.

Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.

Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.

How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.

I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.

A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^rychan:
So, it's basically an ant coffin that they get to personalize.

More of a mass-grave, really.


This isn't a mine... it's a tomb.

>> ^rychan:

So, it's basically an ant coffin that they get to personalize.


More of a mass-grave, really.

The only fail here is a failure in BansheeX's sarcasm detector. It's really sad that you cannot tell I was being facetious. You're wasting your time.

Oh and even in jest I didn't say TPers and Libertarians were the same thing. Get your eyes checked (maybe your brain as well while you're at it).

>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.
C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?

There is so much fail in this post, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the tea parties were started by libertarians but have since been hijacked by typical party-line neocons. Only a fraction of people there are libertarians.
Second, fraud is illegal and has been for a long time. Misrepresenting a product is fraud, which is exactly what Goldman did. You seem to think libertarians are anarchists who don't want contract laws to penalize fraud and other laws to penalize coercive behavior like murder. You are incorrect, sir.
Concerning regulations, the problem is quite simple:
If the government insures commercial bank deposits, the risk of losing one's deposit is offloaded onto holder's of dollars (mainly foreign central banks now) not involved in the transaction. With depositors having no skin in the game, banks wanting to make risky investments are more easily able to obtain deposits with which to speculate. To prevent that from happening, the banks have to be restricted on what they can do with deposits when they take FDIC.
Glass-Steagall was a 1933 Roosevelt bill that provided FDIC with restrictions. Clinton and most politicians from both parties were heavily lobbied by banks to keep the FDIC but remove the restrictions, and that's exactly what they did with the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". No longer restricted from doing investment banking and unfearful of losing customers on deposit safety concerns, the inevitable happened.
Libertarians want FDIC eliminated because offloading risk onto other parties changes human behavior. Greed is normally offset by the fear of loss. When you eliminate the fear, all that's left is the greed and shit happens. We only support Glass-Steagall on the condition that we can't get rid of FDIC. Understanding now? Good, only 97% of the population left to go.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.
C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?


There is so much fail in this post, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the tea parties were started by libertarians but have since been hijacked by typical party-line neocons. Only a fraction of people there are libertarians.

Second, fraud is illegal and has been for a long time. Misrepresenting a product is fraud, which is exactly what Goldman did. You seem to think libertarians are anarchists who don't want contract laws to penalize fraud and other laws to penalize coercive behavior like murder. You are incorrect, sir.

Concerning regulations, the problem is quite simple:

If the government insures commercial bank deposits, the risk of losing one's deposit is offloaded onto holder's of dollars (mainly foreign central banks now) not involved in the transaction. With depositors having no skin in the game, banks wanting to make risky investments are more easily able to obtain deposits with which to speculate. To prevent that from happening, the banks have to be restricted on what they can do with deposits when they take FDIC.

Glass-Steagall was a 1933 Roosevelt bill that provided FDIC with restrictions. Clinton and most politicians from both parties were heavily lobbied by banks to keep the FDIC but remove the restrictions, and that's exactly what they did with the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". No longer restricted from doing investment banking and unfearful of losing customers on deposit safety concerns, rampant speculation ensued.

Libertarians want FDIC eliminated because offloading risk onto other parties changes human behavior. Greed is normally offset by the fear of loss. When you eliminate the fear, all that's left is the greed and shit happens. We only support Glass-Steagall on the condition that we can't get rid of both FDIC and interest rate price fixing. Understanding now? Good, only 97% of the population left to go.

If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.

C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?

The movie ran through me
The glamour subdued me
The tabloid untied me
I'm empty please fill me
Mister anchor assure me
That Baghdad is burning
Your voice it is so soothing
That cunning mantra of killing
I need you my witness
To dress this up so bloodless
To numb me and purge me now
Of thoughts of blaming you
Yes the car is our wheelchair
My witness your coughing
Oily silence mocks the legless boys
Who travel now in coffins
On the corner
The jury's sleepless
We found your weakness
And it's right outside your door

Now testify
Now testify
It's right outside your door
Now testify
Yes testify
Its right outside your door

With precision you feed me
My witness I'm hungry
Your temple it calms me
So I can carry on
My slaving sweating the skin right off my bones
On a bed of fire I'm choking on the smoke that fills my home
The wrecking ball is rushing
Witness your blushing
The pipeline is gushing
While here we lie in tombs
While on the corner
The jury's sleepless
We found your weakness
And it's right outside your door

Now testify
Yeah testify
It's right outside your door
Now testify
Now testify
It's right outside your door

Mass graves for the pump and the price is set
And the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set
And the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set
And the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set
And the price is set

Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now controls the past
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now?

Now testify
Testify
It's right outside your door
Now testify
Testify
It's right outside your door

I'm just worried that without some sort of guiding body of law about how you sort the innocent from the guilty, and what sorts of consequences are appropriate for which kind of violation, it can easily wind up being just a handy casus belli to tell people whenever you feel like conquering some new territory.
I share your concern over that, but in practice that kind of system simply does not exist at an international level. The UN is supposed to be an attempt at it, but it is completely and utterly ineffectual in that capacity. Of all the wars and atrocities committed since the UN was founded, how many has it actually opposed by placing soldiers on the ground? In the absence of a good solution(an effective UN), we are left with the alternative of unilateral action against tyrants and atrocities, with all the enormous misgivings that come with that.

Maybe if there had been some sort of Holocaust-level sort of abuses going on I'd have been able to agree with it, but then if there had been, the UN probably would have gone along with it too, and it would've been the whole world working to stop it.
But when Saddam was committing Holocaust-level abuses, the UN did nothing(in part thanks to American vetos if I recall). When a million were killed in Rwanda not only did the UN do nothing, they actively withdrew all but 400 of the troops they already had in the country. Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Cambodia, the whole of Africa and South America, all victims of horrific wars and atrocities that the UN could not or would not prevent or stop.

After the first gulf war, the sole thing that stopped Saddam from repeating his campaign against the Kurds was the unilateral, illegal act of war that was the American enforced no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Saddam's first campaign against the Kurds saw him execute an estimated 2-300 thousand people and destroy 90% of all Kurdish villages. Every single Kurd he could capture was placed in a concentration camp. The women, children and elderly were regularly beaten and malnourished to the point that virtually every last child under the age of 3 died. The men were, without exception, hauled off to pre-dug mass graves to be executed and buried by bulldozer. The concentration camps also had rape rooms, not for the amusement of the guards or humiliation of the prisoners, but with the goal of impregnating the Kurdish women with half arab children in order to breed the Kurdish people out of existence.

Saddam committed holocaust level atrocities and 'illegal' unilateral American intervention prevented him from repeating those acts a second time. In spite of the misgivings I have about unilateral wars, I support the Iraq war on the largest level, in spite of the many lies, mistakes and tragedies that came with it the alternatives were worse.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:

While Saddam was monsterous, there's little room for debate there, his level of monstrocity was miniscule compared to what was happening in Africa. he gassed perhaps, at most, 10s of thousands, African warlords hacked millions to death


Saddam's war with Iran left more than 1 million dead. I don't know the numbers for Saddam's kills with chemical weapons, but Saddam killed a lot more people with conventional arms than with chemical weapons. In his Al-Anfal campaign alone estimates are as high as 2-3 hundred thousand killed, mostly people already taken prisoner shot execution style at pre-dug mass graves. That's nearly a quarter million for just one act of Saddam's brutality against the Kurds. Unknown numbers of countless others that were even suspected of opposing Saddam and their family members were killed as well. He killed 60 random members of his own party's leadership just to ensure that when he took power no-one within his party could oppose him. He was even less discriminate about killing anyone in a suspected position of opposition. I don't want to detract from the monstrosity of what has and is still happening in Africa, but Saddam's reign of terror was I think more difficult to rival than you describe. In Rwanda, probably the single worst genocide in Africa in my generations time saw a body count of around 800,000. By all counts worse than Saddam, but not by as much as I once believed.


If we are to use "level of evil" as a reason to attack a foreign nation, we should do it in order, based on levels of evil, not because he tried to kill someone's daddy.

I agree that would be ideal, but I don't believe we always have the luxury. In the end, the nation as a whole is most interested in it's own best interests, and other considerations are all a distant second. Since I do believe that Iraq is better off for Saddam's removal, I am willing to settle for a mere convergence of American self-interest and Iraqi self-interest. Even if Bush only went in because of his daddy, or more likely to make Cheney some extra cash, I still support the action of removing Saddam from power and believe that was a massive change for the better. I believe that given the alternative between the American invasion and another 10 years of Saddam's rule, the nation of Iraq is immeasurably better off than it otherwise would be today. In other words, I support the war even though I may have entirely different reasons than the American leadership or public for doing so. I support the war even if there are a dozen other places I wish that America would have chosen instead, I still consider Saddam a good choice for removal too.


What I mean is, the most important factor we should consider when making forign policy is what effect that policy will have, both for them and us.

And that I agree with completely. I just consider that in Iraq the actions that Saddam took are much more important than American foreign policy towards him over that time. Whether America supported, ignored or actively opposed him earlier the shear magnitude of the violence and evil Saddam continually used is what should guide the current decision.

newtboy: Thanks for the well thought out response. It's a welcome change to many kneejerk cliche responses others are fond of.


Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy

He was simply a leader among many leaders within the mujahideen. After the Soviets were defeated dozens of different leaders amongst the mujahideen all started fighting with each other for control of the country. So it is just as accurate to describe our support for the mujahideen as support for Osama's enemies. My point is simply that in reality support for the mujahideen was support for the whole which was bad enough. Describing that as support for a specific individual within the mujahideen is not accurate and is in fact very misleading.


True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power.

I think you have your dates a little confused. The 60's-70's predates everybody you mentioned, including Reagan. Saddam didn't even take power in Iraq until 79 and Osama wasn't fighting in Afghanistan until the late 70's. The Soviet Afghanistan war didn't even start until 79. All once again predating Reagan and everyone else mentioned. Anyways, it's all more of an aside issue other than to make clear that Carter was the one around for the beginning of much of the mess.


Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity.

I don't strongly disagree with this, there is a certain amount of fog/unclarity about who knew what and when. But I haven't any problem with condemning aid to Saddam any point after it was known he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, which clearly America did not stop after witnessing. It wasn't until he used them on Halabja and it couldn't be blamed on Iran that America cooled towards Saddam, which in my eyes was also much too late.


I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper.

That much I'm very glad to hear.


I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target.

I couldn't agree more, and for the longest time opposed the second gulf war on nearly that basis alone. Upon listening to more accounts, particularly of the plight of the Kurds, I started to see it a little differently. Saddam may not be my first choice for monsters that need removal, but I must admit that he IS on the list. If he is on my list of monsters for removal, then I support his removal, even if America is only choosing him because it coincides with their self-interest.


Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.

I thought that too, but I've since learnt more about Saddam's rule and discovered that he may not have been the most monstrous dictators in the world, but he was in the very top of the class. In his campaign to exterminate the Kurds he setup concentration camps for them. All Kurdish men in these camps were executed and buried in mass graves. The children and elderly were so mistreated and abused that many died, virtually no children under the age of 5 survived the camps. The women were systematically raped. Not for the guards amusement or to humiliate the women, but to literally breed the Kurdish people out of existence. Oh, and the prisoners in these camps and rape rooms were not limited to the Kurdish people, but anyone even suspected of opposing or questioning Saddam's rule. Saddam was unimaginably more than just a very bad man.


I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.

Agreed, and I'll happily agree to condemn that as well.


American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region.

I agree more with the rest of your paragraph than this start. American foreign policy is not the most important factor, but just one of many vitally important factors.

I again thank you for your reply and can't agree more with your overall assessment of how complicated the issues are and the importance of discussing them beyond the extreme left and right camps that so many seek comfort in.

WALTER CRONKITE IF THERE IS A HELL, YOU BELONG IN IT.

During the Vietnam War, Cronkite was responsible for a massive disinformation campaign to turn America’s victories into defeats (the Tet Offensive) and fabricate out of whole cloth Viet Cong victories that were used to demoralize the American public. He should be remembered as one of the great traitors of American history, right there along with Benedict Arnold.

He was worse than Arnold because he was lying to so many more people. Good riddance to him. He can spend his time now in hell with Robert Strange McNamara.

Walter Cronkite betrayed every one of the 58,000 men who died in Viet Nam. He betrayed every man and woman wounded in Viet Nam. He betrayed every man and woman who served in Viet Nam and he betrayed the people of South Vietnam. He stabbed the Viet Nam vet in the back.

Cronkite went to Hue during Tet '68 fairly late in the battle and saw what he wanted to see, but refused an invitation to see the massacred victims the communists had killed and tossed in a mass grave. He chose the side of the enemy and his reports of lies affected his buddy LBJ in his decision making as well.

When LBJ heard of Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

Cronkite was a self-serving bastard.

WALTER COMMIEKITE IF THERE IS A HELL, YOU BELONG IN IT.