Posted on 09/23/2004 12:14:28 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
Baton Rouge, La. A renowned photojournalist and a decent man died this week. Eddie Adams's most famous image, of course, was the photograph he took on February 1, 1968, outside a Buddhist temple in Saigon, then the capital of the Republic of Vietnam. It showed the summary execution of a Vietcong "suspect" by a South Vietnamese officer. Adams, a legendary Associated Press photographer, subsequently won the Pulitzer Prize. The picture -- politicians, commentators, generals and historians have claimed -- "lost the war" for America.
As with most photo icons, the real story is different from the mythology; unfortunately, the myth is so compelling that reality seems an unwelcome intruder into the frame. But the job of the news photographer is to try to tell the truth as near as possible with film, tape or pixels, and Eddie Adams deserves the record to be set straight.
It's also important to understand how the public reacts to "shocking" photos from war -- in 1968 and in 2004.
*SNIP*
Second, in time of crisis, public opinion generally rallies around the president's policies if our commander-in-chief shows decisive leadership. (Such was the case with Clinton in Somalia, when he chose to get out decisively.) President Johnson was depressed by the Tet offensive; he practically hid in the White House. By the mid-summer of 1968, it was clear that the war was indeed drifting and that nobody planned either to lead us to victory or call the boys home. That, and not a single visual image, was why most Americans turned against the war.
Do what? Decisively indecisive is a good thing?
This nutburger is trying to spin Clinton's Somalia waffle into some sort of profile in courage moment.
Somalia is a prime example of a time when we had a President who sent troops to die. Bush sends troops to win.
The guy's not taking a side, he's merely observing the truth, not praising or damning Clinton's decision.
BTW - From what I understand that little innocent Viet Cong in the pic spent that morning terrorizing and killing families along some nearby city blocks.
Nevermind, I found it.
I don't think that statement supported what Clinton did. Notice for one thing, that he refers to him as "Clinton" rather than "President Clinton". His statement seems derisive, rather than supportive.
I'm also reading the entire column as a suggestion to GWB that he shouldn't let things like the videos of the murdered hostages influence his decision making. As long as he behaves decisively, Americans will support him no matter what kind of gruesome images or reports the MSM uses to try to influence popular opinion.
I believe that this guy had just killed some civilians. He was hardly a "suspect". Today he would be equivalent to the goons in Russia who machine gunned children.
Actually, what was being referred to by me was the silliness that deciding to cut-and-run rather than fight and win is hardly a decisive act of courage. It was a cowardly act.
Clinton's "decision" to run was not a decisive one (meaning a decision made in accordance with principle and resolution), it was a demonstration of weakness.
BTW - From what I understand that little innocent Viet Cong in the pic spent that morning terrorizing and killing families along some nearby city blocks.
Right....and nobody ever mentions it, but Marshall Law was in effect.
Actually, this isn't a "photo", but an individual film frame. Immediately after the shot, the guy falls straight down, and a stream of blood comes out like a water faucet. It was clearly selected because the bullet had already been fired, not photographic luck.
I seem to remember that he was a Cadre leader sent in
to kill the Saigon chief of police and his family.
The Chief, General Ngoc Loan delivered swift justice.
Note the S&W.
source - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Nguyen%20Ngoc%20Loan
Loan, as the director of the South Vietnam's police, wanted to destroy the forces of the Vietcong guerrilla. The Vietcong captain that Loan executed had been seen killing a policeman and his family. Nguyen Van Lem was captured, his hands bound, he was brought in front of a group of journalists. Loan pulled out his revolver and immediately executed the prisoner. Loan's actions were misinterpreted, the public was shocked by this scene which had a huge negative impact on its opinion.
Previous FR Thread General in '68 Vietnam execution dies (July 14, 1998)
And then there's the photographers' own words
Yet quite possibly the most interesting part of this story is explained by Eddie Adams, the photographer of "Saigon Execution". Mr. Adams explained that most people who saw "Saigon Execution" merely saw a scared, cowering man being executed in cold blood, but what they didn't see was the eight South Vietnamese that this Vietcong prisoner had murdered, including a policeman and his family, just previous to his capture and execution. Adams puts his infamous picture of what many considered to represent everything that was wrong with the war into perspective in an article in TIME magazine.
"The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?" (http://www.atomiq.org/archives/000418.html).
On a different occasion Mr. Adams even said that he wished he had never taken the picture. His photograph caused everyone to misinterpret the actions of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, and upon the General's recent death, he said that, "The guy was a hero. America should be crying."
The guy was a soldier, "operating" in civilian clothes. Executing him was legal in SVN - the error was doing it in a public venue, with a U.S photog at the scene.
Executing him would still be legal under the Geneva coventions. He was an illegal combatant (not in uniform) who killed civilians in time of war (an atrocity). He got what he deserved.
God rest both of their souls.
God grant us the wisdom to learn from the madness of the 20th century. So called 'liberalism' ain't it.
General Loan died of cancer a year or two ago, here in
the US. CAlifornia I think.
As the use of armor in Iraq has shown, Clinton's responsibility for the deaths of those rangers consisted in great part of his utter lack of any sense of proper support and logistics, things almost as important to master as having trained the troops that need them. After all, we lost Vietnam on logistics and public relations, not on the battlefield, a truth which even such an otherwise astute observe as Charles Krauthammer seems to have no understanding of. We've got to get Fox to take a look at "A Better War," and get Sorley on.
Tru dat.
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.