One of the more important posts on sda! Let a bully hit on you and they will keep on hitting.Kennedy got us into deep s--- but had the gonads to get us out again.Bush is the only one around to do the same but God help us when he's gone.We need another Reagan who defeated an enemy without firing a shot.

The continued use of the Camelot motif by journalists (cf. Village Voice) is incomprehensible -- unless attributable to hazy nostalgia or simple intellectual laziness.

I'm a tad confused by the historical slant here...I always thought it was Castro and Khruschev that "brought us the Cuban Missile crisis" and Kennedy who stopped them. Granted JFK F-d up the bay of Pigs invasion...for which Bobby took the fall.

JFK was not the god partisan Liberals make him out to be but he was not a lecherous left wing demon that partisan right revisionism makes him out to be either.

Kennedy was a classic liberal... one modern Conservatives could easily find common ground with...as Barry Goldwater did.

An aggressor usually understands one thing, force, and not just force, but sheer brute force. A willingness to cut his throat without a moments hesitation does a lot to temper that aggression.

The US is now in "talks" with Syria, what does that mean, you didn't learn from history? Appeasing the left won’t work any better than appeasing the enemy.

The US is in talks with Syria!!
Did Syria finally give in to some US demand before this happened?
I knew Israel was talking inderectly but I didnt know the US too.

I liked the title of the book that Ms. Hoffman is writing "Theodore H. White & Journalism as
Illusion". How appropriate to the way the MSM is covering most of this years election news. The book I guess attempts to explains their fascination with the "Camelot" years. Which did not exist, except in the minds of the MSM. I will have to check this book out.

*
ask the kopechne family how they feel about the
oh-so-mythical kennedy/camelot mystique.

*

Kind of interesting how some people pick and choose when it comes to history. The meeting and outcome of the "Big Two" never seemed to show up anywhere. And especially the timing with the Berlin Wall.

Kennedy was a solid and pragmatic president. Fortunately, he learned not to appease aggressors just in the nick of time. Any longer and the advantage gained by Krushchev may have prompted a first strike.
Kennedy did not escape the confrontation unscathed, however, as the US had to halt missile plans in Turkey (I believe it was Turkey but could be corrected) as part of the stand down agreement.
To quote Churchill, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last”.
Kennedy = my favourite Dem Pres

I actually do think that Kennedy meeting Krushchev (sp.) is what led to the Cuban missile crisis.
However, after the meeting Kennedy understood Krushchev but Krushchev was too stupid to understand Kennedy. Kennedy reacted correctly to Krushchev because he understood that he could be dominated. (Don't forget that Kennedy is actually a big guy, Krushchev was a little fat bald-headed fag.)

For an excellent history of this period check out Michael Beschloss' book:
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Years-Kennedy-Krushchev-1960-1963/dp/0060981059/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211555952&sr=1-7

The oft-overlooked aspect is that the US had stationed (older) missiles in turkey that could reach into the soviet union in minutes. The politburo (it wasn't just nikita's doing) responded to this forward placement by trying to do the same in Cuba. The final resolution of the cuban missle crisis was that the US agreed to remove the turkey missiles a few months after the Oct crisis - after the western press had lost interest.

The main point to be learned from the Kruschev/kennedy meeting is that weakness invites aggression.

And that BO should read more books on 20th century american history before he cites examples that actually hurt, not help his argument.

And that being pumped-full of narcotics to deal with back pain and other maladies is not a good idea when you are negotiating the fate of the world (Beschloss has an alarming run-down of what JFK was taking - it's amazing he was able to function at all).

Uncomfortable history for/of the left-liberal progressives: one of their own madmen killed Kennedy dead; no plots/no conspiracies.
...-

"Orwell Today"
"JFK's feelings became abundantly clear during a reunion banquet at Harvard.
When an after-dinner speaker remarked that
he was proud Harvard had never graduated an Alger Hiss
and even prouder that it had never produced a Joe McCarthy,
JFK exploded in anger.
JFK DEFENDS PATRIOT MCCARTHY

Rising at his seat, he shouted,
"How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!"
The other diners lapsed into shocked silence,
and JFK departed without hearing the rest of the program."
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkmccarthy.shtml
...-

" Those questions were answered when Mrs. Kennedy learned that the lone Oswald had killed her husband. She then complained, “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little communist. It even robs his death of any meaning.”"
"What Jackie Did Next"
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_14/review.html

BTW, Nicky K. was no "fag". lberia was the fag/pervert.

WLMR:

JFK was a near-miss president to use the airplane term. Yes, he had the intellect, drive and a defensible classicist liberal philosophy that was suitable for a president to have, but what he didn't have - what it seems the Kennedy's are genetically missing - is the kind of cautious approach a POTUS needs to have as he literally has the fate of the world in his hands.

Of all the characteristics his family has it is their reckless abandon approach to life that makes them unsuitable for POTUS. Thank goodness we only had one get that far.

northbaytrapper:

"Kennedy did not escape the confrontation unscathed, however, as the US had to halt missile plans in Turkey"

Not quite, below is a good discussion with Robert McNamara who was there. The Jupiter missiles stationed in Turkey were obsolete but during the crisis their removal was discussed with NATO and Turkey. Although obsolete, both the Turks and NATO considered removing the missiles as part of the Cuban crisis would be seen as giving in the the Soviets.

Although the missiles were not part of the negotiations, assurances were quietly given to the Soviet ambassador the Jupiter missiles would be unilaterally removed soon after the Cuban situation was over. McNamara mentioned this issue was accurately portrayed in the film "Thirteen Days" which I highly recommend (Kevin Costner notwithstanding).

Interview with McNamara:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/february01/thirteendays4.html

Thirteen Days:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146309/

Most of the points I was going to make are already covered, re: JFK Was a classical liberal- if the Left today had the courage to admit it, they'd spit on his grave, too (and likely do so in their little back-room parties). JFK gave us the largest tax cuts in history, among other conservative moves. He gave us the space progam when even then the Left of the day would have (and still wants to) trash it.

However he also gave us the longest war in US history- Vietnam. And his Democrat successor and the Democrat-run congress worked very hard to lose that war. Of course they avoid mentioning those facts, and try to pin it all on Nixon (and it is seared- Seared! into their limited memories).

Richard Ball said: "The continued use of the Camelot motif by journalists (cf. Village Voice) is incomprehensible -- unless attributable to hazy nostalgia or simple intellectual laziness."

Richard I agree with you that the use of "Camelot" by the MSM weenies is laziness. They look for the fastest, easiest association available for a news item and slap a "brand name" on it. All DemocRat hopefuls are the New Camelot. All Republican hopefulls are the "New Auschwitz". Branding. Like toothpaste.

Remember when the Clintons were the New Camelot? I used to hear that a lot in the early 1990's. As I recall it sort of dwindled away after the Blind Sheik blew up the World Trade Center the first time. It was totally gone by the time Waco rolled around.

But, I must disagree that it is incomprehensible. You think about what Camelot -is-, as a concept. You've got the Perfect King surrounded by his round table of Noble Knights, bringing a Golden Age to the commoners with their strong right arms and a magic sword. It rains every day at 8pm, precisely on the dot.

Madame ET will know this as the Platonic method of government, AKA the clever philosopher/King fixes everything for you, you poor ignorant bastiges.

Camelot is a perfect concept to describe what the Dems are selling. People are stupid and must be controlled. Freedom is a privilege, so don't forget to bend the knee.

what it seems the Kennedy's are genetically missing - is the kind of cautious approach a POTUS needs to have as he literally has the fate of the world in his hands.

Do you think the Bush family has this gene?

"Ask not what your counry can do for you, ask what you can do for your counrty"
He really stirred hearts with that. And the concept is far from what the lib-left envisions for government now.
I have not read enough to know if he actually followed thru, realising 2.5 years was not long enough. Cutting taxes sounds like a good start.

I do not believe the 'Oswald alone ' story.

and guess wot else kennedy gave us

he pissed the jews off and that is wot one of the main reasons they started their missle developement program

and the individual that posted the a lone nut offed kennedy should google James A Files

I DISAGREE!! At least with most of what has been written about JFK. Jack Kennedy has sold more print than all of the other presidents combined. There are at least 4500 titles under "JFK assassination." That's on the assassination alone. Add to that the rest of the family, and you've got the biggest pot-pourri of literature and/or journalism in world history.
A few years ago, I spent some time in Dallas compiling notes on the events before and after Nov. 22-63. Unreal how time and print can distort facts. In hte end, I've elarned that it's best to leave the dead "RIP" God Bless history.

An addendum to Godwin's Law should cover the fact that you can't discuss Kennedy ... any Kennedy for any reason without someone bringing up:
a- The Assassination of JFK
b- Conspiracy theories about it
c- Nonsense about the Cuban Missile Crisis
d- Nonsense about Vietnam
e- Nonsense and BS about Jackie Bouvier

Kennedy never deserved to be put on a pedestal as the Lib/Left have done and continue to do.

Likewise Obamarama may resonate with some people like the charisma of JFK .... but that's about as far as it's going to go! Putting him up there in the demi-god realm as the media is doing is simply setting him up for a long fall.
Platitudes and hokum will fail in the long run.

Thanks John B. I'll have a look. As you can imagine, I've tried to steer clear of Kevin Costner films so I had yet to see it. lol.

I was brought up on a sanitized and polarized story surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Granted, Khrushchev was no angel with his past behaviour towards his own countrymen, but it was only he was also a participant when watching "The Fog of War" that I got a sense that there was more balance and nuance to the story than I had originally appreciated. Read an excerpt from Khrushchev's letter to Kennedy October 26th, 1962 appended below, and consider the sombre and heavy nature of his words regarding the knot of war:

"I see, Mr. President, that you too are not devoid of a sense of anxiety for the fate of the world understanding, and of what war entails. What would a war give you? You are threatening us with war. But you well know that the very least which you would receive in reply would be that you would experience the same consequences as those which you sent us. And that must be clear to us, people invested with authority, trust, and responsibility. We must not succumb to intoxication and petty passions, regardless of whether elections are impending in this or that country, or not impending. These are all transient things, but if indeed war should break out, then it would not be in our power to stop it, for such is the logic of war. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction.
(EDITED)
Mr. President, I appeal to you to weigh well what the aggressive, piratical actions, which you have declared the USA intends to carry out in international waters, would lead to. You yourself know that any sensible man simply cannot agree with this, cannot recognize your right to such actions.
If you did this as the first step towards the unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose."

Kennedy did not "rescue us from a situation"; and he was neither a superhero.

Ok, very wierd. As I heard the news about Ted Kennedy, I got to thinking about big brother Jack's legacy. The three biggest points of this legacy that I could think of were the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile crisis and the initial involment in Vietnam.

Add Marilyn Monroe

Add the Berlin airlift - "Ich bin ein Berliner", i.e. we are all one with the struggle against communism, inspired all of the western world. Not "you're with us or against us" but "we share your struggle, we are one with you".

Add his inaugural speech - as noted above, would hardly fit any party nowadays and certainly would never be said by any politician today.

Add the civil rights movement and standing up for equal education - as a senator, as a president and the bills he introduced that came after he was gone, and his part in the fight to end segregation. Before bussing, before afirmative action, before race riots. The simple idea that education and employment and the justice system and voting and liberty - the basics necessary for an individual to become self-sustaining and a contributor to society - should be colourblind.

Interestingly/ironically, JFK and Dubya share much in common when you think about it:

- both from very wealthy, ultra elite families of privilege

- both from very powerful, politically connected families

- grew up and summered among the wealthiest in the East

- JFK was a decorated combat veteran and Bush used all his family connections to avoid any meaningful military service to his country. Hmmm. OK that one doesn't work.

- large and power interest groups surrounded both of them and ran their campaigns.

- despite their vast distance from the common man and woman, both seem to inspire and connected with the "commoner" more than their opponents, at least during their campaign runs.

- very very narrow electoral win rife with controversies: Joe Kennedy has been accused of having mafia friends stack and buying the vote in the north; Bush's "election" in Florida was at best incompetence among Republican appointed election officials and at worst a stolen vote and Bush ended up being appointed by the Republican majority on the Supreme Court which also, interestingly, decreed that the evidence be destroyed.

- regardless of how they "won", both beat out incumbent vice presidents in good economic times and their victories are said to have benefitted from a great disconnect by that VP and the general population

- both JFK and GWB Jr. cut taxes and built up the military.

- both started what turned out to be disastrous and divisive and controversial and overly-expensive wars that distracted American finances and resources and focus from the larger war on communism, on the one hand, and on terror, on the other.

Maybe, if Kennedy had not been assisinated, he'd go down in history in the same way Johnson did and Bush will because of poorly fought and poorly thought out war. Maybe Democrats would have turned on him the way Republicans have turned on Bush, and Republicans would have gone from hating Kennedy to Kennedy Derangement Syndrom the way Democrats hate the incompetent Bush beyond any sense of proportion.

But he died so instead we are left with many legacy achievements, each of which outshines any moment in Bush Sr, Clinton or Bush Jr's presidencies.

Meant to say:

"...each of which outshines all the moments in Bush Sr, Clinton or Bush Jr's presidencies put together."

people my age watched it all unfold. there is more bs about that era than truth. 4500 items re the killing of jfk should let us know that few of them would be completely accurate.

Actually Ted .. you should add that JFK did not initiate any of those efforts of circumstances you mention and seem to wish him credited for.

What he did was follow populist sentiment... often leading to fiasco ....

Vietnam ..... fiasco
Castro ..... fiasco
Bay of pigs .... fiasco
Berlin .... nothing but rhetoric
Organized crime .... fiasco

Civil Rights Campaigns in the US South ... should have demanded the law be enforced much sooner than he did

In fact Kennedy made so many major mistakes that no one has been able to repair the damage since.
I am not saying that any presidents since have been notably better ( exception Regan ) but I lived through ALL of this crap.

And just for something to think about ... Would JFK have done anything different from GWB in the same circumstances?

I doubt it.

Point being that leftards who lionize JFK are just as much WRONG about him as they are when they DEMONIZE GWB.

"Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”"

The first of two Democratic debates I was able to stomach Obama said that he would meet with the Iranian leader in the first year. At the time when Billery was the presumed candidate I thought that this was the final nail in Obama's coffin(like invading Pakistan (our ally) wasn't enough).

Regardless of your views on certain wars, surely any sane person can recognize the faults in sending your Commander and Chief to speak with this type of phony. This isn't the old Star Trek, hopefully Obama doesn't think he can go to Iran, boink Amedinjads wives, use a couple of karate chops then end the trip with an inspirational speech about freedom( even Obama can't deliver a speech like James T). We're talking about Moslims not Klingons, and Kirk hated Klingons.

Now that I think about it, were there any Klingon Starship Captains? NO
,
Live Long and Prosper!

The link takes you to the Belmont Club. Follow it's link t the actual article. Very good read.

Phantom @ 12:14,

Yes, you have it. The kleft, statist, or socialist philosophy of government is the Platonic "philospher king" form.

The opposite of this is the libertarian philosophy of government.It is the political right, conservatives, that espouse this philosophy the most, within the functioning of a modern state.

In fact, this is a yard-stick to measure "Republican" or "Conservative" party politicians. McCain does poorly; Bush Jr. does poorly too. Harper ... well let's await a majority before we judge.

I explained to my socialist sister in the UK that I am, politically, a libertarian, a rarely used term in the UK. "That's like a right-wing anarchist".

Ted

Re; JFK and civil rites

I read an interesting article done a democatic-JFK fan who stated that "JFK supported black's right to equality, even tho they were black" (not an exact quote). This qualification stood out for me, as when you need to qualify your position it means that you are not being honest.

Then later I read an article by a pundit that met Bobby in 1964 who said that Bobby confesset to him the he(bobby) did not take civil rite seriouly till after John's death. I'm glad that black's benifited thro John's actions, just that they appear to have been purely political actios, rather than those of HONEST CONCERN

GYM:

I have no issue with you accusing Kennedy of using civil rights as a political tactic. What politician doesn't? And how do we tell what was genuine and what was political tactic? One way is obviously to look at their history: JFK became a senator campaigning on civil rights issues, took action on these in the senate and then furthered that agenda when president; Mike Harris campaigned for years on spending cuts, tax cuts, fighting unions and acted on that. Political tactic to contrast agaist the NDP or fundamental belief? Does it matter: in either case they acted and delivered on what they had long campaigned for.

By contrast, you have RFK and Harper. RFK saw the opportunity in picking up his brothers torch to get elected. How many years did Harper campaign on issues like "nation" or GST cuts?

GYM:

I have no issue with you accusing Kennedy of using civil rights as a political tactic. What politician doesn't? And how do we tell what was genuine and what was political tactic? One way is obviously to look at their history: JFK became a senator campaigning on civil rights issues, took action on these in the senate and then furthered that agenda when president; Mike Harris campaigned for years on spending cuts, tax cuts, fighting unions and acted on that. Political tactic to contrast agaist the NDP or fundamental belief? Does it matter: in either case they acted and delivered on what they had long campaigned for.

By contrast, you have RFK and Harper. RFK saw the opportunity in picking up his brothers torch to get elected. How many years did Harper campaign on issues like "nation" or GST cuts?

Ted:

If you'd been actually listening, the answer to your rhetorical question about Harper would be obvious.

2) If Dubya is so dumb, why was he able to win a second term?

If he's stupid, how would you describe the candidate that finished second in the popularity poll among US voters?

ted

so let me git this straight, harper's politicing is is "on the fly" to effect polls, harris and rfk were precocieved to effect the polls, and they differ how?????, other than timing

when you have people like JFK (or any one of any political conviction)doing politicaly expedient things it has to give one cause to wonder what their true character is, and when will come to haunt the people.

BTW; a news release a few months ago had an item about a FBI report that M Muroe's death had a rfk element to it, I found that rather interesting as I was an rfk fan

I have about 20 books on the jfk/rfk assasinations and have read about 30 in total

Posted by: northbaytrapper at May 23, 2008 11:19 AM

Kennedy was a solid and pragmatic president.

He didn't have much of a chance to have a long history though...

To quote Churchill, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last”.

"Diplomacy: The art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a stick."

Ted (re: JFK's accomplishments): "Add the Berlin airlift"

You might want to check your facts (not that it's ever stopped you before). The Berlin airlift ran from June 1948 to April 1949, during which time Kennedy was a very junior member of the House of Representatives, having been parachuted into a safe Democrat seat when the incumbent John Curley left to become mayor of Boston. This was years before he got into the Senate, or had "Profiles in Courage" written for him (but for which he claimed all the credit). He had nothing - zero, zip, nada - to do with the airlift.

His famous "I am a jelly doughnut" speech was made after the erection of the Berlin Wall, but as others have noted, all he provided was rhetoric; it took Reagan, Bush 41, and Gorby to bring it down.

Was JFK a horrible president? I don't think so; he did some good things - facing down the steel cartel, cutting taxes, the Cuban missile thingy. But he also made large mistakes - Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and, of course, as many have said, stealing the 1960 election through massive voter fraud in Chicago and Detroit. (Nixon won 92 out of 101 counties in Illinois, for example, but somehow - hi Richard Daley! - Kennedy won the state.)

As has been said about the deaths of certain actors, Kennedy's assassination could be considered a "good career move".

Gord Tulk said:
"JFK was a near-miss president to use the airplane term. Yes, he had the intellect, drive and a defensible classicist liberal philosophy that was suitable for a president to have, but what he didn't have - what it seems the Kennedy's are genetically missing - is the kind of cautious approach a POTUS needs to have as he literally has the fate of the world in his hands."

Gotta disagree there...that condemnation of a nuclear nation leader being too rammy for the job should go to Kruschev and Castro...I WILL NOT blame Kennedy for reacting correctly to the nuclear threat THEY created.

If you want to talk about caution, I can tell you Goldwater would have reduced the USSR to ashes by now ;-)