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 ...
If Kennedy comes across weak... it's because you portray him as weak.
If Kennedy is the President you think he is... defend that. But don't try to lay his foreign policy mistakes at Eisenhower's door. Kennedy deserves better than that from you.
Very likely. Was it unusual to be patrolling with only one engine running? Even on one engine, would it be difficult for a PT to avoid being overtaken by a destroyer? Who is ultimately accountable for the attentiveness of the crew?
The policy of the United States - since at least 1950 - was that it was vital to U.S. interests to prevent a Communist take-over of Viet-Nam. To this end
a) The Eisenhower administration paid up to 80% of the French war effort
b) threatened nuclear war to prevent an all-out Communist victory after DienBienPhu, a threat which resulted in the loss of only half the country
c) Installed a puppet and refused to acquise in the required election after two years
d) paid for the puppets government and army
e) committed a certain number of advisors
When Kennedy took office that policy was failing. He choose to commit additional "advisors" (17,000 if memory serves. I'll have to check). They were not there to fight. There was no official combat between America and VietNam during the Kennedy administration.
That policy also failed at the just before Kennedy was assassinated. What he would have done is unknown.
Despite all this you choose to call it Kennedy's war.
His drug problem is well documented, and nobody can function at peak levels indefinitely on the substances he has taking
Thank you for your expert opinion. In fact, nobody can function at peak levels indefinitely under any circumstances.
This is the primary source of the Kennedy family fotune. Again, there is no disagreement on this
Do a google on Joseph P. Kennedy. You'll find there's plenty of disagreement.
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."
In other words, it's too complicated to summarize. I'm looking at Lawrence Freedman's "Kennedy's War" - 500 pages with 30 devoted to the Cold war, 60 to Berlin and Nuclear Stategy, 100 to Cuba, 25 to alliances and detente, 100 to VietNam, and 100 to Conclusion and Notes. Basically an entire book devoted to America's relations with the Soviet Union under Kennedy.
I guess you think it's all fluff and your summary is more accurate.
You tried to argue that it didn't happen.
In which post or posts did I do that? I suspect this is going to be about as accurate at your claim that I didn't analogize the U.S. government to an ocean liner.
Kennedy was president for less than three years. In that time, he accopmplished very little. Why is this so hard for you to accept
Because I remember that he countered the Soviet threat and inspired the world's peoples with respect for America and American ideals and hope for the future. Not everyone everywhere (that's never possible) but in overwhelming numbers.
Does it bother you that in order to make this point you needed to contradict your earlier points on Kennedy & Viet Nam?
No. If you have a point to make, make it. If you need to share something about old Joe, share it. But don't allude to mysterious information that may or may not exist. Give us more credit than that.
What interests me is your compulsion to return to this thread days later, after it has grown cold. Is it because you don't like it when more that one person is around to disagree with you? Why do you bother with this website in the first place. Clearly its not in the interest of learning.
And why were the Russians so timid with Eisenhower?
I don't think Kennedy was weak and I don't think I portrayed him as such. If you came away with that impression, I now correct it. That does leave Hitchens unflattering portayal of Kennedy as weak, which I disgree with.
If Kennedy is the President you think he is... defend that. But don't try to lay his foreign policy mistakes at Eisenhower's door
Summing up as best I can in a few words.
As a new President, Kennedy continued to execute some of the policies which had been put in place by his predessessors. He found some of those policies inadequate and I believe those inadequacies were inherent in the policies, not in his execution of them.
After some initial mistakes he stood up well to the Soviets.
He initiated policies, such as the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, which served as an inspiration to millions. He and his advisors created a climate which much of the world loved.
His domestic policies were good.
He was not in office long enough to judge the unltimate effect of these policies or to see what he would have done in the face of failure in VietNam.
I returned to the thread the same evening or the next morning. It's you who've been gone for the week-end.
Cite the specific contradiction you have in mind.
I noticed you did not bother to answer most of the questions asked of you then. Is that what you do when the truth becomes inconvenient for you?
Please. At least be man enough to admit your actions. The moderator did not "just happen" to be reading a three day old thread.
So all this comes down to is the fact that you disagree with Hitchens even though over the course of Friday, you have gradually given ground on the accusations that Hitchens levelled.
Eisenhower did support the French efforts in Indo-China, but drew a line. A line that Kennedy chose to cross. Not only did he put in advisors, but he put in troops. And soldiers. Our first casualties occured under Kennedy.
Furthermore, you will not allow this truth to be laid at Kennedy's door. No.. it was Eisenhower's doing. This is bull jive.
The coup that swept Diem from power was Kennedy's doing.
Would Kennedy have ramped up the war. No one knows. One who says no doesn't know. The one who says yes doesn't know. All history tells us is that Vietnam progressed under Kennedy to a point that the Eisenhower administration would not take it. Remember the famous "military complex" speech of Eisenhower... the cornerstone of Oliver Stone's movie.
Yet, Kennedy did have a huge impact on this country. It came at his death. To watch this young, vital man die so senselessly was a tragedy. In his death, the legend grew to mythic proportions. In death, in legend, in Camelot... Kennedy became a god... and that's what Hutchins is disputing... that an average president who seemed to fold in the face of Soviet dominance (except for Cuba--good for him)...There are people in politics and public service because of JFK. JFK has impacted this country and around this time every year, I am forced fed the myth over and over again.
Now, you and I can go around and around arguing back and forth, but that isn't going to solve anything.
Like I said, you can have your Kennedy. Take him, keep his memory burning bright. I'll take Reagan and GWBush. I'm satisfied with the arrangement.
No. If you have a point to make, make it. If you need to share something about old Joe, share it. But don't allude to mysterious information that may or may not exist. Give us more credit than that.
Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.
JOSEPH KENNEDY, SR. • Businessman / Ambassador
edy, Joseph Patrick
This represents a considerable amount of work since google lists multiple references to the same item, many non-usable reference to Joseph P. Kennedy, and books which are not adequately reviewed.
In return for this work I expect you to answer all my previous questions and requests for cititations which you've repeatedly ignored.
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.