Replies

Care to point out the revisions? I find nothing controversial in Hitchens' statements.

Kennedy was a tremendously flawed president. That cannot be refuted, even setting aside his "personal" problems. He was solid on the domestic front, regardless of his motivations. The civil rights movement and the notion of a little restraint on taxation were aided by his administration.

But on the foreign policy front, as Hitchens states, Kennedy often had us on a high wire without a net. One could argue that our evasion of incineration is testimony to Kennedy's talents; I would argue we were closer than ever because of his faults.

Every President is tremendously flawed - as is every human being. That's why we can still argue about the wisdom of decisions made not just 40 years ago, but a 100 or 200 years ago.

Kennedy, like all other Presidents, faced intense criticism from both the right and the left, which limited his options. That's where Hitchens fails; he doesn't remember and doesn't describe context.

"Kennedy was a tremendously flawed president. That cannot be refuted, even setting aside his "personal" problems."

John F. Kennedy was a moment in time, an image that could only last with his passing, a man who, sans any bullets fired in Dallas, would not have lived long regardless. Had he served out his term(s), he might have led us into better domestic and worse foreign policies; he most certainly would have become merely a fairly decent President.

What is remarkable about the man is what everyone in popdom and the media continues to project into his dead image, the constant striving of the media to concoct an American Royalty where none need exist. Indeed, what is remarkable about JFK is that the frozen image of him and the controversy of his death have far outlived anything remarkable about the man himself.

A pretty-boy President with mammoth health problems and some shady connections slain slightly before his time becomes a legend in the idle minds of those who know too much and think too much of themselves to tell what they know.

It's truly a shame he was assassinated. Had he lived, the Kennedy "mystique" would have withered long before now and Teddy would...well, we won't go there. But he wouldn't be what he is today.

Michael

At one point I grew curious about the standard liberal contention that - had he lived - Kennedy would have pulled out of Viet Nam before things escalated out of control.

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?