U.S. bombing of the Hanoi-Haiphong area in retribution for the North Vietnamese invasion provoked fresh editorial skirmishing between Administration critics and supporters. While the differences were as sharp as in the late '60s, hawkish editors and columnists seemed scarcer than before. Generally the hawks backed bombing as the means to hasten the U.S. pullout from Viet Nam, while doves dwelt on the dangers of deeper involvement in the fighting and confrontation with Moscow.
What was "an exercise in folly and futility" to the New York Times seemed "a courageous, nonpolitical act" to the San Diego Union. The Los Angeles Times warned that...
To continue reading:
or
Log-In
