Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where's the Aura? (Without Question, The Best JFK Editorial That I Have Read This Week)
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, November 21, 2003 | CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bedwetter; cameltomyth; castroenabler; christopherhitchens; crackheadpresident; fatteddykennedy; gotclapfrommarilyn; grudgingandtrudging; jfk; liberallarrymushhead; messingwithtexas; murderersandrapists; pt109fantasy; savingface; speedfreak; whitehousebordello; worldwariii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-271 next last
To: Mudboy Slim
I sometimes lurk over at DU.com and seriously wonder what the Leftist world's coming to.

Exactly

221 posted on 11/21/2003 6:33:25 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Henry Fairlie, an English journalist, made many of the same criticisms thirty years ago in his book, The Kennedy Promise. It was an interesting read from someone who was anything but an American-style conservative or Republican.

If you prosper through auras and charisma and television magic, then you fade when your image does. Christopher Booker's The Neophiliacs, a study of English society during the Kennedy era, was a good examination of the phenomenon: great collective dreams are created, grow, burst like bubbles and leave a bitter taste behind.

222 posted on 11/21/2003 6:49:58 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
bttt
223 posted on 11/21/2003 6:59:11 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
Has he faded?

Those who did not live in his time cannot truly gauge his impact, he is only a historical figure not much different than George Washington or William Henry Harrison or Caligula.

But among historical figures some are remembered and some are not. In every generation most are not sure of the current president let alone the record and importance of previous generations. But among the literate? I think Kennedy is still a powerfull voice.

Is that not correct?

224 posted on 11/21/2003 7:13:28 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
A powerful column--but Hitchens is wrong to say that Kennedy installed Diem. He was already in power in South Vietnam when Kennedy was elected.

I remember what I was doing when I heard that Kennedy had been shot. I also remember what I was doing when I first read the news about Teddy's accident on Chappaquiddick.

225 posted on 11/21/2003 7:31:09 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I made an analogy between ocean liners and the US government

Nope. I went back and read the post. No ocean liners. Sorry. So not only are you uninformed, partisan, and a bad writer. You're delusional to boot. Poor Larry.

The government of the United States does not change its policies and committments every time a new President is elected. It's like an ocean liner; except in an emergency it takes miles to change direction.

from Post #135

"Ask not what your country can do for you...."

Was it you who said this was plagiarized? Is this what you were referring to

John F. Kennedy is credited for saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” But it was really his ghostwriter, John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote it. And Galbraith may have lifted the idea from Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, “We... recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for our country in return.”

If so it's a pretty lame criticism

More generally, you say that Hitchens point is that Kennedy's style is what's idolized, not his actions - which didn't amount to much and can be harshly criticized. You agree completely.

And you think that Kennedy, personally, didn't amount to much either - that he was largely the creation of a rich, ambitious, and dishonest father, and was an addled drug addict, incompetent and weak.

Is that a fair summation? I want to be sure before I reply.

226 posted on 11/21/2003 9:38:38 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
You forgot to point out how his screw-up on the naval craft his father bought for him, which cost three men their lives, was spun into a "based on a true story" novel chronicaling his "heroism."

Here is the official account of how PT109 was lost and what happened subsequently.

Report on Loss of PT-109

Do you have any evidence that it is inaccurate or doctored? If so, cite it.

Joe Kenneddy picked a PT boat because they were statistically one of the safeest combat deployments a member of the armed forces could have in WW II

Does the description of combat described above seem to you to be a "safe" combat deployment? If it is accurate would you say that the actions of Kennedy and his men were "heroic"? Have you ever tried to swim for miles in unfamiliar ocean waters? In the dark? In combat?

227 posted on 11/21/2003 10:05:34 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
A powerful column--but Hitchens is wrong to say that Kennedy installed Diem. He was already in power in South Vietnam when Kennedy was elected.

from his article

Can we not at least agree that his zeal for the assassination of President Diem -- whom he had installed at some price in blood

Diem was installed by the Eisenhower administration, in the aftermath of Dien Bien Phu, after a conference which divided the country.

No historian/reporter of Hitchens stature and knowledge would make such a mistake if he were at the top of his game. A sure sign it was Hitchens who was addled and careless - and not just here - but throughout his piece.

228 posted on 11/21/2003 10:27:56 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
You're right on this one. I was complaining about Hitchens rather than defending Kennedy.

On VietNam.
Kennedy continued a policy begun under Truman. We (the U.S.) took the position that Indo-China was vital to our interests, that we could not let it fall to the Communists. At first that meant supporting the French, then it meant installing a government favorable to us. When that government began to fail we began supporting it militarily and financially. Hitchens gets his facts wrong on this one. Kennedy cannot be blamed or credited for this policy. The fact is it began failing almost from the start.

Dallas and the assassination.
The South was not friendly to Kennedy. Much of it was dangerous territory. Nonetheless American Presidents of the time simply did not have the security we now consider normal. They did not think it proper to ride around in bullet-proof vehicles in fear of the populace. You cannot imagine the changes that have taken place in American attitudes and practices as a result of the war in VietNam. How could you? You weren't there.

Drug addiction.
Kennedy had a lot of ailments and took a lot of drugs. Various "experts" have various opinions of their effect on him. I can tell you that he never showed any sign of distress or addiction in his public appearances (I personally watched him run and swim in the Pacific ocean from a distance of feet rather than yards and noticed nothing). Nor do most who knew him well say anything about debilitating effects on his mentality.

Mafia connections
Joseph Sr. was a brilliant guy who made money in a lot of ways; stock speculation, shipping, movie distribution, etc. He also seems to have engaged in illegal liquor running. But you believe that his connections to the Mafia were dominant. Scwartz and Kessler your sources?

Policy towards Russia.
Too complicated to summarize.

Bugging the Oval office
A misunderstanding here. I thought bugging the office to be quite reasonable. Therefore I thought Hutchins criticism to be a cheap shot and utterly meaningless.

VietNam again.
No not bullied. The policy he was following had been in place since Truman. It was bipartisan for the most part - except that the Republicans also wanted to blame the Democrats for losing China under Roosevelt. To deviate from it was dangerous; it invited an immediate accusation of being soft on communism or - even worse - of being a sympathizer. And, there was no clear alternative. Letting VietNam go communist was unthinkable. Committing massive ground troops to Asia was unthinkable. Using atomic weapons was unthinkable. So Kennedy did what was considered prudent; he escalated minimally. It wasn't enough - the government of South VietNam collapsed. How he would have responded isn't known.

Generally, you and Hitchens point to the less than stellar achievements of Kennedy - VietNam, Cuba, stalemate in Europe - and conclude he wasn't effective.

That's wrong. It doesn't capture the context or spirit of the times. Containment was our policy. Atomic war was a dreadful possibility just barely removed from reality. Ground war in Asia was to be avoided at all costs. The Russians seemed powerful and growing in strength. Kennedy did well, very well, in inspiring us, in giving us strength and pride. You can see the value of that when Reagan replaced Carter. Why can't you see it in Kennedy? Sure not everyone felt that way about him. Do you think love of Reagan was universal? You'll just have to take my word for it - Kennedy's spirit moved not just Americans but people the world over. Hitchens is flat out wrong in his assessment of Kennedy as fluff.

229 posted on 11/22/2003 12:17:15 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I believe that one the reason the leftists are/were so enamored of the guy, is that they somehow sensed the innate personal nastiness of the guy - the two oncall whores in the WH (Fiddle & Faddle), the drug use, the concealing of Addison's disease. OTOH I don't believe his life was all fun. B & N has a book of his "wit" - the cover blurb has him saying "If I were forced to live my life over, I'd have to have a different father, a different wife, and a different religion."
230 posted on 11/22/2003 12:44:52 AM PST by 185JHP ( Is a Deanbacle what they're gonna get?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carton253
That’s the point I’m making. According to your assessment: Mr. Kennedy was a weak willed, bullied president while Mr. Reagan managed to defeat the enemy Mr. Kennedy cowered before and Mr. Bush is busily defeating those who attacked us on 9/11. I’ll take a Reagan/Bush over your Kennedy any day.

This is probably your central point.

It's a vast oversimplification of history. Wars are fought over many years, with many strategies, and with lots of defeats and victories.
Kennedy may have been bullied and made mistakes but, ultimately, he forced Khruschev to back down - a very significant event in the Cold War. That, together with the inspiration and example he provided, certainly had an effect upon the captive peoples of Eastern and Central Europe as well as free peoples everywhere.
When Reagan came to power, the Soviet Empire was already in dissarray, a victim of the problems inherent in communism and the effectiveness of the policy of containment. It might have survived longer had he adopted a different policy - I don't want to detract from his achievement. But neither do I wish to support your contention that Kennedy did not contribute significantly to the demise of the Russian empire. Conveniently you don't notice that Reagan was not effective in the Middle East.
Bush is busily defeating those who attacked us on 9/11, you say. I hope so - but your judgement on the success or failure of his actions is premature. This also is a decades long battle whose outcome is far from pre-determined. Bush's strategy is bold and I support it. But bold is not always right - and a man's mettle is more accurately measured in adversity than in success.

231 posted on 11/22/2003 8:54:52 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: kabar
The only event that approaches November 22,1963 is 9/11

To that I must add the death of Roosevelt, and someone even older would append Pearl Harbor. But you're absolutely right. These are the seminal events of current American political life.

232 posted on 11/22/2003 9:00:02 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
bttt
233 posted on 11/22/2003 8:43:40 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
It's a vast oversimplification of history.

It's not mine vast oversimplification of history... it's your. I was summing up your posts to me throughout the afternoon.

And I think it is too funny that to liberals, Democrats stood strong against Communism even while they appeased and backtracked and Reagan did nothing but shoot a bullet into the dead corpse.

234 posted on 11/24/2003 4:48:32 AM PST by carton253 (To win the War on Terror, raise at once the black flag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: wtc911
The world is at your fingertips. I do my own research.

Not that you would actually bother supplying it...

235 posted on 11/24/2003 6:55:55 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: kabar
I feel honored.

Don't. Anybody who would equate the Kennedy assassination with 911 is beneath my contempt.

236 posted on 11/24/2003 6:57:06 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Does the description of combat described above seem to you to be a "safe" combat deployment? If it is accurate would you say that the actions of Kennedy and his men were "heroic"? Have you ever tried to swim for miles in unfamiliar ocean waters? In the dark? In combat?

You are missing the point. Had Kennedy performed his job adaquately, there would never have been the need for "heroism." As has been pointed out here, in the entire course of WW II, exactly one naval vessel was lost due to ramming: Kennedy's PT boat. PT's were light, fast, highly-maneuverable torpedo boats. In order for a much larger, slower, noisier destroyer to ram a PT, either the PT must be disabled, of someone had to screw up. Badly. The report indicates that the engines were fine. Kennedy screwed up. Three men died because of his screw up. And he was rewarded for this incident with a medal? Please.

237 posted on 11/24/2003 7:12:48 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: carton253
It's not my vast oversimplification of history... it's yours. I was summing up your posts to me throughout the afternoon

Your summation has the same flaws as Hitchens summation of Kennedy's flaws.

But that's partly my fault.

Hitchens wants to say that Kennedy accomplished far less than his reputation implies and that that reputation is based more on charm and rhetoric than substance.

That can be debated rationally.

But Hitchens was careless with facts and characterizations as in

"President Diem -- whom he had installed at some price in blood" (Eisenhower installed Diem)
"willing to solicit Mafia hit-men for his foreign policy" (Eisenhower solicited the Mafia for the Castro hit. Kennedy didn't find out about it until a year after he became President)
"a president willing to risk nuclear war to save his own face" (John Foster Dulles recommended nuclear strikes after Dien Bien Phu. Perhaps Eisenhower acquised - it's not clear. In any case the threat of nuclear use to prevent Soviet agression was standard U.S. policy)
""Kennedy's War." (Kennedy was continuing a policy begun in the Truman era, a not unreasonable thing to do - especially for a newly-installed President with a strong anti-Communist bent)
and so on...

It irritated the hell out of me - especially since I knew Hitchens was smart enough to do better. So I figured I'd respond in kind - with carelessness and insults - to anyone who bought that kind of s**t.

No apologies. I had a good time doing it. :)

And I think it is too funny that to liberals, Democrats stood strong against Communism even while they appeased and backtracked and Reagan did nothing but shoot a bullet into the dead corpse

Each side seeks to denigrate the achievement of its opponents. What else is new in politics?

238 posted on 11/24/2003 7:20:34 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Kennedy cannot be blamed or credited for this policy.

Not sure which I like better. This one, or the old "...but he would have gotten us out, had he lived." Doesn't matter. In either case, it's his war.

I can tell you that he never showed any sign of distress or addiction in his public appearances (I personally watched him run and swim in the Pacific ocean from a distance of feet rather than yards and noticed nothing).

Thanks for your expert opinion. Did it occur to you that you observed Kennedy immediately after he go a fix? In any case it matters not. His drug problem is well documented, and nobody can function at peak levels indefinitely on the substances he has taking. Remain in denial if you wish.

He also seems to have engaged in illegal liquor running.

This is the primary source of the Kennedy family fotune. Again, there is no disagreement on this.

Policy towards Russia.
Too complicated to summarize.

In other words, "I either can't defend his amateurism behavior that led Kruschev to disrespect the man and the country, or I have no idea what I am talking about."

A misunderstanding here. I thought bugging the office to be quite reasonable.

LOL. You tried to argue that it didn't happen. Go ahead and change your tune if you must.

VietNam again.

Who comitted the troops? Refresh my memory.

Kennedy was president for less than three years. In that time, he accopmplished very little. Why is this so hard for you to accept.

239 posted on 11/24/2003 7:30:48 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The report states that

a)Ross was the lookout
b)Kennedy was at the wheel
c)They were patrolling on one engine at idle
d)It was dark
e)The destroyer was first spotted at a distance of 200-300 yards, and bearing down on them at high speed
f)Kennedy attempted to turn towards the destroyer in order to fire his fish but was rammed first

I'll repeat

Is the report innacurate or doctored?

If not then why do you disagree with it's findings - which do not charge Kennedy with a screw-up? I'm sure its authors were well-aware that destroyers were larger, noisier, and slower than PT boats.

I doubt your claim that only one vessel was lost to ramming in WWII but I'll have to research it.

And how about a reply to the latter part of #227. After reading the report do you still claim that PT duty was "safe"? Or are you going to weasel about "statistical"?

240 posted on 11/24/2003 7:36:13 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-271 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson