Posted on 11/21/2003 6:43:23 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A short while ago, I chanced to be in Dallas, Texas, making a documentary film. One of the shots involved a camera angle from a big commercial tower overlooking Dealey Plaza and the former "book depository," and it was later necessary for us to take the road through the celebrated underpass. The crew I worked with was younger than I am (you may as well make that much younger) and consisted of a Chinese-Australian, an English girl brought up in Africa, a Jewish guy from Brooklyn and other elements of a cross-section. As we passed the "Grassy Knoll," and looked up at the window, and saw the cross incised in the tarmac, I was interested by their lack of much interest. The event of Nov. 22, 1963 isn't half as real to them as the moment, say, when the planes commandeered by suicide-murderers flew into the New York skyline. Nor, as I realized, is it half as real or poignant to me as the site of Ford's Theater in Washington D.C. Time has a way of assigning value.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
But then he might not have been a viable presidential candidate. I'm not detracting from Kennedy's service. Whatever the motivation, he deserves respect for serving. This is merely my opinion, of course, but I think Joe figured JFK had to acquire a combat record if he was to ascend the political ladder.
Its a matter of history that Jack Kennedy's crooked father managed to manipulate the vote in Cook County Illinois to get his son elected.
And it irritates the hell out of you
What irritates the hell out of me is your demonstrated inability to reason.
Only because Joe did not control Joe Jr. the way he controlled his younger boys.
John Kennedy could easily have obtained a 4-F excuse from all combat...based on his well-known medical problems. That he didn't is a testament to his courage...and is in marked contrast to the behavior of many others - well-known to us all - who chose not to expose themselves to danger even though their problems were far less serious.
You are right about one thing. John had no business being in the navy. He was addicted to speed and there is speculation that the reason his command did not have its engines running, which enabled it to be rammed by a much slower (and larger -and therefore difficult to be suprised by) boat was that he was crashing from a high. In any case Joe realized that his son's political career needed a combat service record in the years ahead, so he bribed people to ignore his son's problems. This is accepted as fact by liberals, because it somehow adds to the myth of his "heroism." His screw-up with the PT would have resulted in a courts-martial for most men. Instead, Joe Kennedy's wealth and influence resulted in two medals.
Again, these are PT boats. The idea that one could be rammed by a destroyer is nearly unthinkable. How many other PT boats with operational engines do you suppose were rammed over the course of the entire war?
As I said in the previous post - you have no idea at all about truth.
I'm not the one who believes in fairy tales. Enjoy the celebrations tomorrow. They will be getting less and less fervent as the years go by. Boomers are getting older, and they are the only concentrated believers in and support for the Kennedy myth. As I said in the previous post - you have no idea at all about truth.
I am no worshipper of the Kennedys. I'm well-aware of Kennedy's personal and political flaws.
But at least he chased Jackie and Marilyn - not Hillary and Paula. At least he was a terrific speaker and an inspiration to an entire generation of young people. At least he knew the facts and had the courage to execute his policies - and to change direction when he felt he'd made a mistake.
These are no small things.
In other words, you can't. As a liberal, why do you come on this site if not to make some attempt at educating us. Merely telling us that we're wrong is unproductive. The author makes some very good points and you have demostrated no ability to refute them.
You apparently. You have added nothing to this thread. Continue trolling if it suits you. There are more of us than there is of you. And every time you post this thread gets bumped to the top.
I did and they did. But I won a few rounds too.
With Mr.Bird, I've discussed some of the issues. With you it doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
I respect that, but it says nothing about his second son's record as a President or as a naval commander. And it counter-balanced by the fact that he was an immoral crook with ties to the mob.
I am no worshipper of the Kennedys. I'm well-aware of Kennedy's personal and political flaws.
And yet you spend so much energy defending him? Why is that?
But at least he chased Jackie and Marilyn - not Hillary and Paula.
Gee, what a glowing recommendation. Favorably comparing a man to Clinton won't win you any points here.
At least he was a terrific speaker and an inspiration to an entire generation of young people.
And this "inspiration" becomes less and less relevant as that generation ages. I'm told that as a football coach Jim Fassel is an inspiration to his players. What does that get him?
At least he knew the facts and had the courage to execute his policies - and to change direction when he felt he'd made a mistake.
The point is not that he did nothing while in office. The point is that he was forced "to change direction" a lot more often than he should have. He was not an inactive president. Just an ineffective one.
Damned with faint praise.
Wrong. You have remained conspicuously silent when I have shown you exactly the type of reasoned debate that you claim to be seeking. The Kennedy myth does not stand up to the smell test and it makes liberals like yourself very uncomfortable when someone points out the truth to them.
I read a book called Kennedy's Wars, by Lawrence Freedman, making the case that he was anti-Communist and belligerant to the core and would never have pulled out. But I remain unconvinced because of other things I've read. He was a smart guy and I honestly don't know what he would have done.
I know that his philandering was increasingly exposing him to blackmail and that might have led to his undoing. Who can say?
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.