# JFK **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 13, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776 "2013-09-13T16:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776/21 "2013-09-14T14:49:56Z")
> [@](#): > > **ralph 124c** : In reality he was an amateur=his posturing in the"Cuban missile Crisis" almost brought the USA annd Russia to war-and assisted in the removal of Kruschev (who might have been a far more moderate Russian ruler that(sic) brezhnev(sic) and Kosygin). No, it was the missiles that were pointed at the United States that were 90 miles off our shores that **almost** brought the USA and Russia to war. It was his posturing and behind the scenes deal making that kept that from happening. I was an adult when that happened and I remember how terrified everyone I knew was until the Russians backed down because of Kennedy’s savvy. He was no amateur(sic) or amatuer either. He was a Pulitzer prize winning author of three books, a decorated naval hero, a Congressman, a Senator, and President for almost three years. I don’t think he should be faulted for being attractive or having an attractive wife. His popularity remained high during his Presidency. As Soviet Premier, Kruschev was no moderate. He said, while banging his shoe on the podium at the UN: “We will bury you.” You don’t get less moderate than that. Kosygin had the title of Premier, but he lasted less that two years. Further, Kruschev’s government had been _removed_ before Kosygin. Breshnev had a diferent job also. He was the party leader. I’m glad that you added “might” to your comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776/22 "2013-09-14T15:03:21Z")
When you take quotes out of context, you strip them of their meaning. Here’s the [missing context](http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/10/14/new-presidents-set-dangerous-precedents/3BkelmrNmJruLMDYzFTauJ/story.html): > [@](#): > > Early in his term, John F. Kennedy bungled the Bay of Pigs and was then roughed up by Nikita Khrushchev at the June summit in Vienna. No “cojones,” critics said. “Now we have a problem in trying to make our power credible,” Kennedy told Times columnist James Reston, “and Vietnam looks like the place.” By “our power,” he meant his own. Having dispatched a few military advisers to help ward off a communist insurgency far away, Kennedy now looked to Southeast Asia as the arena in which to show his nerve. > > But then came the Cuban Missile Crisis more than a year later. Kennedy stood strong not only against Soviet enemies, but against his own inner circle. (Robert Caro’s new book shows Lyndon Johnson seething at JFK’s refusal to attack Cuba.) That Kennedy emerged from the Cuba crucible with unchallenged stature resolved his credible-power problem. He would no longer need to prove his cojones in Vietnam — which is the single largest reason to believe he would not have escalated that conflict into full-blown war. In short, the opposite of what you implied by it. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776/23 "2013-09-14T16:19:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > After all that, there was no way Kennedy could take it back and say _“You know what? Going to the moon was never that big a deal. We should be satisfied with what we’ve already done in space.”_ You’re still missing my point. JFK did not \*have \*to “take it back”; he only had to allow the cutting of the NASA budget until the goals were stretched out past his presidency. He could rah-rah spaceflight until Bobby was sworn in on January 20, 1969 but still get the benefits of both redirecting all but a “sustaining” budget elsewhere AND of maintaining the mantle of “the spaceflight president.” Johnson used his considerable legislative muscle and JFK’s martyrdom to keep the project on track; everyone after him, Nixon included, did PRECISELY what JFK was intending to do from 1964-68: slash the budget while keeping up the fanboy admiration. Don’t overlook that “by the end of this decade” was one to two years past the end of his two potential terms. He didn’t have to be the president whose name went on a plaque on the Moon no matter what his course of action, and he had reaped the political benefit and was prepared to move on. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776/24 "2013-09-15T22:05:46Z")
John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps, which is still going strong and doing a lot of good for the US around the world. He set a bold goal of landing a man on the Moon by the end of the decade; the Apollo program is still one of the greatest accomplishments of human history. He very skillfully handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is still a model of modern crisis management; it could even be said that he saved civilization. After early half-heartedness, he fully committed the US Government to civil rights for the first time since Lincoln. He rebuilt the US conventional military capability, which had deteriorated since the end of the Korean War and had left us dangerously reliant on nuclear weapons. He cut taxes, faced down Big Steel and did much to spur the economic boom of the Sixties. He authorized the negotiations for and signed into law the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which has kept radioactivity out of our air and water for decades now. He honored the arts and literature like no President before him, and he inspired a generation to public service. Kennedy had many faults, to be sure, but he was actually a pretty good President. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776/25 "2013-09-16T10:09:54Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > No, it was the missiles that were pointed at the United States that were 90 miles off our shores that **almost** brought the USA and Russia to war. It was his posturing and behind the scenes deal making that kept that from happening. I was an adult when that happened and I remember how terrified everyone I knew was until the Russians backed down because of Kennedy’s savvy. > > He was no amateur(sic) or amatuer either. He was a Pulitzer prize winning author of three books, a decorated naval hero, a Congressman, a Senator, and President for almost three years. I don’t think he should be faulted for being attractive or having an attractive wife. His popularity remained high during his Presidency. > > As Soviet Premier, Kruschev was no moderate. He said, while banging his shoe on the podium at the UN: “We will bury you.” You don’t get less moderate than that. > > Kosygin had the title of Premier, but he lasted less that two years. Further, Kruschev’s government had been _removed_ before Kosygin. Breshnev had a diferent job also. He was the party leader. > > I’m glad that you added “might” to your comparison. You forgot that the USA had missiles in Turkey, pointed at Russia. So it was tit for tat. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776/26 "2013-09-16T20:54:31Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > As Soviet Premier, Kruschev was no moderate. He said, while banging his shoe on the podium at the UN: “We will bury you.” You don’t get less moderate than that. That was mostly a misunderstanding. The Russian idiom means something more like “We will dance on your grave”. There’s a competitive element but the overall meaning was that communism would outlive capitalism not murder it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk/668776.md?page=1)