is that political considerations are now discussed openly. "If a terrorist attack occurs after Obama's [minimal] alternations to the security state GWB created, well the Democrats can kiss power good-bye for a looong time."

When things are framed in this way, what gets thrown out the door is whether the strategy we're pursuing is the most effective one. Instead it becomes a matter of not having either "South Vietnam fall" or "a terrorist attack occur on American soil" on my watch.

Two weeks ago I was up in the Bay of Fundy, which separates Maine from Maritime Canada. Underwater weapon detection devices are being installed at great expense. People on both sides of the border found it laughable; anybody who lives there would know how to avoid them and, besides, there are countless ways to slip across a sparsely uninhabited border. It is, however, one of the most homogeneous populations around, almost everyone is of northern European stock with a smattering of Native Americans. Outsiders are easily identifiable, particularly if they are a different race. It's not getting across the border, it's moving around that is difficult given the likely prospect of racial profiling since two of the 9/11 hijackers entering the U.S. legally from Canada into Maine.

Trouble is, humans are flawed, partial, and tend to filter informations through the lenses of their own prejudices. Leading to heavily scewed journalism and no independent source that the nation as a whole will trust.

-- Christopher1988

Your lead in cancels out your straw man conclusion. "Humans are flawed, partial, tend to filter..." and so on. You should have added, 'and the sky is blue, and sometimes gray'. That would have been equally profound.

But, "trouble is" if all of the above is so, which it is, then why should, would, could you or anyone ever expect or hope or wish that any "independent source" would, could or should be trusted by "the nation as a whole". The "nation as a whole" is made up of those humans you alluded to in your lead in. So, it follows that there is no possibility that "the nation as a whole" would, could or should ever will come together and trust one single "independent source". That's your straw man fantasy, even though, with your own words, you've made it clear that the the possibility of that straw man fantasy ever existing or ever existed is nothing more than a straw man fantasy.

So given that you are setting up your argument based on an impossibility,(which is just kind of stupid) what is your problem with Cronkite being one of those flawed humans speaking to other flawed humans?

Oh, and Cronkite is not responsible for Bill O'Reilly. Get real.

Note the media response to the death of Walter Cronkite and compare that to the wall-to-wall weeks long coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. That will make a very interesting PhD dissertation some day...

Glenn, you're only "two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers" away from being the best gonzo journalist of the 21st century. [compliment]

As Americans we form up a chapter in the history of mankind that is in measure of history quite short but filled with the changes brought on by the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is important to consider the impact of communication and media in American history as it has presented the American experience but also framed and been part of the story.

Newspapers run by Americans during the 19th century chose a range of reporting and editorial that could be quite good or also terrible with the worst of jingoism,bellicosity filled tripe being printed.

This was a part of American political and social experience and in that sense still is today.

The advent of radio and motion picture with sound presented new powers of communication by voice which removed the gates of needing to know how to read a newspaper to get the story.

Radio also provided a wider stage for those who could voice point of views and narrate current events. FDR clearly used radio in ways that previous American Presidents could not have.

By the time WW2 and a man Walter Cronkite came into focus radio was a well understood media,motion pictures presented images that mid 20th century aircraft made possible to move across great distances over land or water. WW2 was the first war to have such a media presence and ability to follow and present. This is where Walter Cronkite earned his credibility and validity of views which later served him and America so well.

Post WW2 along came television which combined radio and motion pictures into one medium. It was a new and not fully understood media which sadly soon succumbed to wretched American commercialization. How many commercials have we watched since then?

Walter Cronkite's life and career spans the 20th century advance of communication media and he was the right guy in the right place at the right time. There will not be another like him because this early 21st century cannot repeat the 20th century. The internet again presents changes that still are being sifted through. Commercialization seeks to control the internet as it did television. The final arrangements still being formed up as to how things will work out. I can write this comment,submit it to GG's UT at Salon and perhaps a few hundred will read it over the course of the next day or two.

Thirty years ago this was not possible to do from where I sit now.

The old 20th century media of which television now is a part are not taking a liking to what the computer and the internet are presenting as new forces. How Walter Cronkite would have fared here in early 21st century becomes a matter of CBS now having much more competition for peoples eyes and ears. Oddly the ability to write and read have come back to the fore again.

One could conclude this 21st century of American communication will be more like that of the 19th century. Lots of voices and points of views and lots of fuzzy facts and half or less truths being found online everyday. It is very easy to end up in factless and truthless ways of thinking and seeing if one is not careful to examine who is clicking submit.

Walter Cronkite perhaps would have embraced the internet as a new way of doing what he did during his long career in American news media--he moved into television when is was still a very new medium. I grew up with him beaming into our rural Wisconsin farm home at 5:30PM Monday thru Friday. My parents did me a great favor.

Thus far this early 21st century seems to have more in common with American affairs of the last third of the 19th century.

Jingoism,bellicose militarism and social conflict between the haves and have nots coming to the fore in ways more like the 1890's then the 1990's.

Walter Cronkite was a great American to be sure and it is not likely another like him will grace American television anytime soon if ever again. We have moved on as Americans to be sure since the 1960's and 70's. Cronkite's pushback on Vietnam likely will not be found on American television these days. So we have become mired in Iraq and now are playing with Vietnam outcomes again in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I doubt we can kill enough Asians to get where WashingtonDC thinks it wants to go. Same problem as Vietnam.Again.

Walter Cronkite. Rest in peace. In honor and respect.