Posted on 02/26/2008 1:15:37 PM PST by Richard Poe
Cronkite, historically, waited until everyone else already thought the war was going badly. To have his say what everyone else had already said and then call it a CIA plot seems a touch questionable.
My article said a bit more than that. You may want to go back and re-read it, perhaps more slowly and attentively this time. If specific parts of it confuse or puzzle you, please point them out, and I will be happy to explain them.
Angleton's story is puzzling. He famously charged that the CIA had been penetrated by Soviet agents at the highest levels. Then again, some researchers paint Angleton himself as a mole.
At this point, I have not studied the matter sufficiently even to venture an opinion.
The Alibi Club - A great (new) book by Francine Mathews
http://www.amazon.com/Alibi-Club-Francine-Mathews/dp/055380331X
Please add me to your ping list.
>>My article said a bit more than that. You may want to go back and re-read it, perhaps more slowly and attentively this time. If specific parts of it confuse or puzzle you, please point them out, and I will be happy to explain them.<<
I was commenting on that one specific part.
I actually found several parts to be less than logical but the central point is that Cronkite, working for the CIa killed countless Americans in Vietnam by saying the war was not going well.
Since he said this in 1968, the same year a Republican won the White House promising to end the Democratic war in Vietnam this was enough to undercut the crediblity of the whole article by itself, IMHO.
As far as I know no serious researchers have proposed this.
If we define "serious" as "conventional" or "mainstream", then yes, you are correct. No conventional or mainstream researcher, to my knowledge, has proposed that Angleton was disloyal to US interests as defined by the CIA.
On the other hand, quite a few unconventional researchers have raised questions about Angleton's loyalty. Spend a few minutes on google.com, and you will see what I mean.
Unconventional researchers come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. Some are kooks. Some are hatemongers. Some are professional disinformers. But some are just ordinary people whose research has taken them outside the bounds of mainstream opinion on some issue or other.
Most of my writings probably put me in the fourth category. For that reason, I tend to be more open-minded than most to unconventional views. I try to judge researchers by the facts and arguments they bring forth, rather than by their degree of conformity with mainstream opinion.
Regarding Angleton specifically, I can only repeat what I wrote above; I have not studied his case sufficiently to venture an opinion.
Hmmm. If I understand you rightly, you are saying that the majority of Americans opposed the Vietnam War in 1968, and that Cronkite was simply giving voice to popular sentiment. Is that correct?
Interesting post (have but scanned the article), Phil! Thanks for the ping. Bookmark for later read (of article).
Far from it. The "conventional" wisdom is that Angleton was a paranoid flake.
However, if you did a little deeper into serious research that is far from the case.
I have "googled" the topic quite a bit, a well as reading from many other sources. No serious person that I know of has suggested than Angleton was a soviet spy.
A paranoid flake, yes, but not a treasonous or disloyal one; in other words, not a mole. Your statement does not contradict my point.
what's up: "No serious person that I know of has suggested than Angleton was a soviet spy."
The following excerpt comes from a profile of James Jesus Angleton posted on the Spartacus Educational Website:
"Clare Edward Petty, of the ultra-secret Special Investigation Group (SIG)... became suspicious of Angleton and decided to carry out a private investigation into his past. ... As a result of his investigation, Petty concluded that there was an '80-85 percent probability' that Angleton was a Soviet mole."
I'm not sure what point you think I may or not be contradicting.
My point was simply that conventional wisdom does not necessarily denote serious research having been done.
Petty's report was discredited. It is thought that Petty had an ax to grind with Angleton since Angleton had not agreed with the Petty's findings on various CIA officers.
You responded: "As far as I know, no serious researchers have proposed this."
To which I responded: "If we define 'serious' as 'conventional' or 'mainstream', then yes, you are correct. ... On the other hand, quite a few unconventional researchers have raised questions about Angleton's loyalty."
To this, you countered (somewhat irrelevantly, I thought): "The 'conventional' wisdom is that Angleton was a paranoid flake."
To which I responded: "A paranoid flake, yes, but not a treasonous or disloyal one; in other words, not a mole. Your statement does not contradict my point."
Whereupon you stated: "I'm not sure what point you think I may or not be contradicting."
Very well. Let me explain.
You stated that no "serious" person had ever suggested that James Jesus Angleton was a mole. I suggested that your statement would be accurate only if we were to define "serious" as "conventional" or "mainstream". It is plainly evident that quite a few researchers have accused Angleton of being a mole, even though their opinions are not accepted by conventional historians.
Clare Edward Petty is one such researcher. He filed an official report with the Director of Central Intelligence concluding that there was an "80-85 percent probability" that Angleton was a Soviet mole.
You reject Petty's report. You say it was "discredited". That's fine. But it does not contradict my point. Petty -- and many others -- have accused Angleton of being a mole, either for the Soviet Union or for others. All such reports have been "discredited" in the eyes of mainstream historians. Nevertheless, the charges have been made from time to time, by Petty and others, which is all I ever said in the course of this exchange.
It seems we are talking past each other. Do we actually disagree on some point? Or are we just arguing over nothing?
True.
...North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin later wrote in his memoirs:"Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. ... Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence..."
Cronkite reported the opposite. "We are mired in stalemate," he told Americans on February 27, 1968. America's only hope, said Cronkite, was to "negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who... did the best they could".
Cronkite's message reached Hanoi loud and clear. The communists understood that Cronkite spoke for official Washington. In their darkest hour, he gave them hope. They resolved to fight on....
Cronkite’s message reached Hanoi loud and clear.
~~~
Just like Hanoi Jane !
Cronkite made it clear the surge was not working. Note to satan: seat Cronkite next to the boiler.
Anti-Cronkite Sarcasm TorpedoTM ARMED. FIRE!!
...where he was doubtless recruited by the KGB.
Cheers!
Bush sent Porter Goss in to clean out that rats nest. Goss lost and the CIA won.
How do you suppose that happened?
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.