Kennedy had the brains to avoid a potential nuclear war. The generals like were for it. he resisted them and kept it in check. How many presidents can stand up to the military. He did. Bush did not. Of course the military had already sold him the Bay of Pigs .
Bush is rated in the lowest group of presidents. I think that is over rating him. He belongs in the bottom .
Certainly the Joint Chiefs of Staff very nearly got us all killed (well, you killed, since I wasn’t born yet) but Kennedy’s massive mobilization was hardly the best alternative option.
Most overrated by far is Reagan. Template for the modern Republican politician – low IQ, runaway corruption, infantile religiosity, zero compassion, violent streak, xenophobe, homophobe, racist, corporatist, elitist, plutocrat, indifferent to the environment, fiscally ignorant and incompetent and simplistic.
Most underrated is Clinton. Clinton was absolutely superb in retrospect. He restored the economy that Reagan destroyed. Gave us the only budget surplus we’ll probably ever see again. Excellent on foreign policy – no wars, made progress with Israel/Palestine, completely dominated the Republicans even when they controlled Congress, nade outstanding appointments to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court. He did all of this in the face of the same kind of relentless, juvenile demonization from the right wing media that Obama is getting now, but his effectiveness was never affected by it.
He had the country in great shape when he left office. Too bad W came along and flushed it all right back into the crapper.
Well now, hold on a second. How did Bush encourage Iran to go nuclear? Iran has wanted to go nuclear for decades now. Fact is, any third-world leader with the IQ of a camel wants to go nuclear. Having The Bomb is an excellent way to keep your country from getting invaded. And what was Bush supposed to do? Did you want him to invade Iran?
As for the wars, I’ve always opposed the war in Iraq, but let’s face facts: the war is over. The insurgents still set off the occasional bomb, but for the most part the insurgency has petered out. The Iraqi government is relatively stable, and are taking care of their own security these days. Yes, our troops are still over there, but then again we still have troops in Germany and Japan, for chrissake.
As for Afganistan, I’ve always accepted that war as necessary. We can’t let countries harbor our enemies like that. In fact, I wish we’d declare war on those Somali pirates that keep hijacking ships.
I don’t understand that either, but Bush certainly nuclear armament a priority for Iran with all that Axis of Evil nonsense.
Um, uh…I think that the point is…
But, I think that JFK is overrated. Ove romanticized leads to becoming overrated.
I think Clinton is underrated (except, his cackling sychophants will credit the economy to him, which he had nothing to do with, but, I believe in the clear light of time, he will be one of the great ones).
I think Reagan is underrated, because we still have the spittle being blown about by the ultraleftists.
Best wishes,
hh
A. Kennedy screwed up the bay of pigs thing before the ships even left port, by his fiddling around with the plans. After that, he *really *ruined it.
B. Kennedy almost got us into the war. He was the one that would not accept anything less than complete public humiliation of Kruschev, by demanding that the missiles, 90 miles off of our coast, be removed, while we had missiles less than 2 miles from the USSR. The reason that the Russians put the missiles in Cuba was as a deterrent to the United States in case we got any more ideas to attack the island. Perhaps, also, as a reminder that Operation Mongoose would not be long tolerated. Kennedy didn’t stand up to the generals: he confused them.
Best wishes,
hh
First, Kennedy (knowingly) condemned the Cuban patriot to capture and death (Bay of Pigs)…had he supported the invasion with US Navy planes, Castro would be a footnote to history. Frow what we know now, Kennedy could have called the whole thing off, but figured if successful, the BOP would be a feather in his cap. If not, he didn’t give a crap.
On the face off with Kruschev: yes, he was very foolish, and gave no thought to the grave consequences.
After this, his propaganda staff were able to spin this into a big victory for Kennedy-despite the fact that he almost caused WWIII.
In sum, JFK was bad president and a bad man. His fame rests upon his “martyrdom”, and the skillfull spinning of history by Theodore Sorenson.
Yes, many people I know lost a lot of faith in democratic institutions when they saw how ready the President was to ignore them for a fairly petty partisan advantage. And I’m not the first person to suggest this.
Hostile to the environment, fanboy. 
I’m going to have to differ with your assessment that Clinton’s effectiveness was never compromised by Blowjobgate.
My other problem with Clinton was that he left office without doing anything really brave in his second term. He had all this political capital and goodwill remaining that he did not risk on some great cause. At the time I thought it was a senseless waste – why bother protecting your political capital when you won’t be President ever again? I completely missed that he was preserving it for his wife.
The selfishness of staying with bland, middle-of-the-road policy instead of doing something great in an attempt to build a dynasty bothers me enough to dim my fondness for Clinton.
And now Cuba’s communist and if we had left the Phillippines to their own devices Japan would easily have dominated them.
Who gives a shit?
If we got into a war with Japan it would have been bloodier.
We didn’t get into a war with Japan. There is no possibility we would have gotten into a war with Japan, and even if we had, Japan controlling the Philippines would not have made the slightest bit of difference. These kinds of hypotheticals are inane.
I meant eventually. America and Japan were the two powers in the Pacific-war was predicted long before Pearl Harbor.
The same thing happened to the Kurds in Iraq. The US government (via the CIA) promised the Kurds support in their fight against Saddam Hussein, but the promised help never materialized. The Kurds got massacred as a result. This was in the mid-90’s, under Bill Clinton.
So we should occupy Trinidad and Tobago in case we go to war with Brazil in 200 years? They are likely to be the other power in the Americas, after all.
No, it was under G.H.W. Bush in 1991, in the months after the first Iraq war ended. It was not Clinton. He didn’t take over until '93 and the no fly zones had been set up by then.
A lot of countries have been communist at some point in the last hundred years. Fortunately, it’s a problem that tends to solve itself: living under a communist regime usuaully turns a population against communism.
As for the Philipines, you’re overestimating the danger Japan presented in the 1890’s. The more likely colonial power would have been Germany or the United Kingdom. But so what? Why would it matter to the Filipinos which country took over their country? If it was wrong for Japan to do it, why was it right for us to do it?
We kept Cuba as a satellite for a long time. And it was Yanks who slaughtered the Moros in the Philippines. I don’t know a lot about the era, but I think you are talking out of your arse.
Cuba still is Red.
They wouldn’t have been any better colonial masters thus why not defend our strategic interests and annex the Philippines?