Most of the stuff he lists here is either inaccurate or a gross oversimplification, but the part about President Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs is a disgusting lie that no reasonable person could possibly think is even vaguely true. There were not hundreds of CIA agents in the surf at the Bay of Pigs to be killed; there were not even 10 CIA agents in the surf to be killed; there were not even five CIA agents in the surf to be killed. Mamet writes about how his rabbi discussed the need to address the quality of political discourse, and then Mamet spreads this disgusting lie. That is not going to help political discourse.
Fuck you Mamet. You haven’t anything decent in 20 years anyways.
And for the record, I believe it’s widely acknowledged that Kennedy and Nixon were both trying to cheat in 1960. And didn’t Vietnam begin during Truman?
And get this – the hundreds that did die were only Cubans to whom we’d promised air support but Kennedy chickened out because he wanted “plausible deniability.”
Glengarry Glen Ross (movie) - 1992
*Oleanna *(play) - 1992 Wag the Dog (movie) - 1997
*The Spanish Prisoner *(movie) - 1997
*State and Main *(movie) - 2000 The Unit (tv show) - 2006-present
Plus many others that are arguably “decent” but not outstanding. What have you ever done?
We either got in after Dien Bien Phu in '54 under Ike, or after the Gulf on Tonkin incident in '64 under LBJ, depending on how you look at it and who you ask. I can’t think off the top of my head how JFK “got us into” Viet Nam but I’m sure there are legitimate arguments out there. (One of the results of not declaring war is that there’s gonna be some disagreement on when the damn thing started.)
Several of Mamet’s accusations against Kennedy are lies, not just one of them.
Kennedy had enough electoral votes to beat Nixon even if Nixon had taken Illinois, so even if Kennedy had any part of voter fraud in Chicago, (for which there is no evidence), and even if any claimed voter fraud in Chicago was substantial enough to throw the election, (a point never established), Kennedy still would not have “stolen” the election.
Ike got us into Vietnam. Kennedy just stayed the course, (probably mishandling rising opposition to Ike’s chosen puppet as the corruption of the Diem brothers became more obvious, leading to unrest in the South, but not “getting us in”), and Johnson did the actual escalation of U.S. intervention.
Kennedy also inherited the Bay of Pigs from Ike and, while a better response would have been to cancel the attack, his decision to not turn the invasion into a trumped up intervention (a la Iraq) or a needless civil war (a la Nicaragua) was probably the correct one.
(At least Kennedy was literate enough that the idea that he had written a book was not unbelievably far fetched.)
The “in bed with the Mafia” stuff is pretty weak. Sure, the Mafia was pleased to have a fellow Catholic in the WH, but the only way you get “in bed” with a politician is by giving him money, and lots of it. The goombahs would rather have set thier pubes on fire than part with a dime.
Well, as long as you’re backpedaling, did you mean to write a past participle as well? I’ll supply one: “eaten.” Let’s try this again.
A nice rare steak with marsala reduction - 1999
*Three excellent beef tacos *- 2001
*Steamed broccoli *- 2001 Egg McMuffin -2005 A couple of really fresh peaches - 2006
*Vanilla-bourbon gelato * - 2008
Plus many others that could certainly be considered “decent,” but perhaps not outstanding.
On a serious note, I would recommend people read the article. The statement is far less egregious in context. He’s not trying to give a history lesson: he’s just saying that history can be interpreted differently based on the light in which you view it. YMMV.
His dad was a bootlegger, but he wasn’t in the Mafia which was the claim (he was Irish). Also, just because his dad was a “gangster” doesn’t mean that Jack was.
Agreed, but aren’t the accusations against Bush hyperbolic (read as: lies) as well? Has there been some absolute proof presented in Bush stealing the election in Florida, outing a CIA agent, lying about military service, or being in bed with the Saudis that happened outside of Olbermann’s wet dreams? (I’ll give you Iraq, because we know Congress had nothing to do with that at all!)
No one said he was in the Mafia, they said he had mafia connections. The idea that a bootlegger wouldn’t be dealing with the Mafia is hopelessly naive. Also, a lot of the distro that was occurring in that era was controlled by the Jews. I don’t remember the name of the guy but a Jewish businessman as soon as prohibition went into effect had a couple of boats running regularly between Long Island and Scotland. I think it would be naive to believe that Jack didn’t know some gangsters. One doesn’t rise to power like that without a diversified portfolio if ya know whuddImean.
Joe was connected with Meyer Lansky, and JFK with Sam Giancana, but yes, I do agree that there’s no way the elder Kennedy was IN the mafia, and there’s no way the younger one was in bed with them…maybe in bed with Marilyn, sure…