Against my better judgement I clicked over to the Rather link, and could not find any "teeth-gritting" there. Maybe I am getting old, but Rather seemed to be pretty accurate in his reporting. The few doubts about the future that he expressed at the end of the piece were reasonable - without them this would have amounted to a puff piece.

After Tet, a clear and major win for the U.S.A., and a total calamity for the Viet Cong (who ceased to exist as a credible force afterward), was turned into an American defeat by Cronkite and his ilk. To this day many can not see the truth of the Viet Nam war for what it was due to the bald-faced propaganda promulgated by the left, and Cronkite's broadcast condemnation of our response to the Tet attacks was a major part of that. Cronkite was a man of substance to a large number of Americans. In comparison, Rather is a small man without many fans, or anyone else who takes him seriously anymore. While Cronkite's actions were viciously anti-American, Rather's were mainly misguided, as I am sure that he believed that a Kerry win would be good for the strength and future of America.

Don't call me a Rather fan, and I will not apologise for him, but in this particulay instance I must judge him not guilty, and I believe that most fair-minded readers will agree.

I think you are right about the Rather article. I'm probably in an over-sensitive mood.

And of course, swimming as I am in the blogstream, I have better sources of information than Rather does. I should make allowance for that, and cut him slack....