All of it.
http://jackiekilledjfk.webs.com/wherestheevidence.htm
In all seriousness, I was trying to come up with a new conspiracy theory of my own but I just searched and found out that I was beaten to that one. Conspiracy theory competitors are really upping their game these days. I still think I should get extra credit for the CIA operatives and the real meaning of “Patsy”.
He ended the Cold War successfully for the West and the U.S. And the tax structure was at its best and simplest after the Tax Reform Act of 1986, until Bush 41 and Clinton started playing with it.
So you’ve deified Reagan.
Reagan shouldn’t be deified either, but there are still a whole lot of liberals who can’t get over his popularity. Conservatives long ago reconciled themselves to Kennedy being an icon. Liberals should do the same in regards to Reagan.
I consider the entire idea of someone being an “icon” ridiculous.
I once heard on All Things Considered a series of observations about the year 1963: It was the last year those buttons you push to cross the street were actually connected to anything . . . It was the last year anyone told a funny joke about a minister, a priest and a rabbi . . . JFK symbolizes the end of an era, the end of the America Stephen King called “Atlantis” (in Hearts in Atlantis), the end of the Fifties and the start of the Sixties.
No. I haven’t vilified him.
And most liberals don’t deify Kennedy either. Most conservatives don’t deify Reagan. But there are some liberals who have deified Kennedy and some conservatives who have deified Reagan. Kennedy and Reagan, like all people, are flawed human beings. Making anyone into an “icon,” whatever that means, is a bad idea. Everyone has their good and bad points and all those points should be remembered and not shoved under the rug.
You know, I don’t think liberals have deified Kennedy. Kennedy seems like more of a pop culture icon than a liberal or conservative icon.
I actually read history and biographies constantly. That’s why all the JFK worship on the Internet took me by surprise.
And I don’t agree that JFK saved the world from nuclear war (as a couple other posters argued). Kennedy knew damn well that Khrushchev wasn’t going to launch over Cuba. If anything, JFK manufactured the state of emergency that terrified everyone for days.
Seriously, was Khrushchev really willing to start WWIII over Cuba?
Ultimately, you need a hierarchy. Someone has to be king. Humans have no society without a whole big bunch of them. Collectively, the society is no different. The UK has Churchill, E 1, Henry V, etc.
Your nice young catholic white boy war hero, right at the apex of the society’s feel good consumer boom, with the pretty wife fills a role.
No, he was testing Kennedy and the limits of the Monroe Doctrine. He never intended for this to go all the way, but we didn’t know that. ANd things can escalate even when you don’t intend for them to.
For example, Kennedy was willing to invade Cuba to remove the threat. Would Krushchev have gone to war to defend Cuba? If not, then we probably actually missed an opportunity there. But since we couldn’t know…
Exactly. That is why we didn’t support the invaders at Bay of Pigs. It was a cynical move to gain political points for toughness. JFK knew he himself wasn’t going to war over Cuba, though we probably should have. The Monroe Doctrine would have created a good boundary line which Communists must not cross.
Regardless of Kennedy’s or Kruschev’s intentions, a nuclear torpedo was almost launched against the U.S.S. Randolph. Had that aircraft carrier been vaporized things might have gotten serious. :eek:
The Russian submarine B-59 had no external communication (it didn’t hear the U.S. announcement that the depth charges it was being attacked with were non-lethal practice rounds). The Captain and Political Officer had jointly decided to destroy the U.S. warship, but were overridden by the flotilla commander who happened to aboard that sub.
When making a list of Kennedy’s plusses and minuses it’s quite unclear to me that bringing the world to the verge of nuclear war belongs in the plus-column.
Very good point…i visited the memorial 9to the free Cuba Veterans) in Little Havana, Miami. Those guys have every right to be bitter-Kennedy threw them away like trash. Had the USN intervened, Castro and his Gulag would never have happened.
up_the_junction writes:
> Ultimately, you need a hierarchy.
No, you don’t.
To septimus’ point, JFK likely would have executed the same craven surrender/appeasement as did Obama in the recent capture of 10 U.S. Navy sailors. I multiquoted to show my agreement with botsgotme’s similar point. Certain Presidents are good at rhetoric such as “pay any price, bear any burden” or setting “red lines.” Their enforcement is then purely symbolic, rhetorical or worse.
What?
Beats me. LBJ was a far more accomplished politician and President. He achieved more for civil rights than Kennedy could ever have done.
Yeah, but Vietnam, plus the excesses of the Great Society, will always drag down his reputation.