JFK

[JeffIsHereToo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC_B3OBmb0Y

[2007GT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC_B3OBmb0Y

 

He was a quick wit. Whenever they show any of his press conferences, the old lady with the hat is always asking him to look into the activities of the dog catcher or why the lemonade stand on the corner is selling without a beverage license etc. etc. funny stuff.

[svtkeith]

Just wonder how things would have been had he lived.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Just wonder how things would have been had he lived.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7jjF6xuKM

[RUFDRAFT]

Quite a man.

[svtkeith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7jjF6xuKM

 

 

The last real prez.

[Stalwart]

The only real great thing he did was catch a bullet without using his hands. I don't know why people put that guy on a pedestal . . . he was a great politician but not a great human being OR president.

[JeffIsHereToo]

Posted in another thread but I think it's a good read and listen!

 

 

Hear it at:

http://stars2man.blogspot.com/2008/10/kenn...ciety-text.html

 

 

JFK's Warning:

 

"Ladies and gentlemen,

 

The very word secrecy is repugnant, in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it.

 

Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating it's arbitrary restrictions.

 

Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it.

 

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious who wish to expand it's meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

 

That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it is in my control.

 

And no official of my administration whether his rank as high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight, as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

 

For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covet means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation, instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night, instead of armies by day,

 

It is a system which has conscripted, vast material and human resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed.

 

No president should fear public scrutiny of his programs.

 

Because from that scrutiny comes understanding. And from that understanding comes support or opposition, and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspaper to support an administration.. But I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people..For I have complete confidence in the response and the dedication of our citizens when they are fully informed.

 

I not only could not stifle controversy from your readers I welcome it. This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For as a wise man once said, "an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it". We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed. And no republic can survive.

 

That is why the Athenian law decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the first amendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse or entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, and to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mould, and educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

 

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news, for it is no longer far away and foreign, but close at hand and local.. it means greater attention to improved attention to greater understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission, and it means finally, the government at all levels, must meet its obligation, to provide you with it's possible information, outside the narrowest limits of national security."

 

---------------------------

[JeffIsHereToo]

The only real great thing he did was catch a bullet without using his hands. I don't know why people put that guy on a pedestal . . . he was a great politician but not a great human being OR president.

 

Well...disregarding for a moment your lack of tact and respect of our fallen President I'll let your words speak for themselves and other can make their own judgement.

 

However your opinion seems to be different than that of Presidential Scholars and Historians.

 

Back in Feb C-SPAN released the results of its second Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership survey in which participants rated each president on ten qualities of presidential leadership:

 

"Public Persuasion"

"Crisis Leadership"

"Economic Management"

"Moral Authority"

"International Relations"

"Administrative Skills"

"Relations with Congress"

"Vision/Setting An Agenda"

"Pursued Equal Justice for All"

"Performance Within the Context of His Times."

 

Surveys were distributed to 147 historians and other professional observers of the presidency, drawn from a database of C-SPAN's programming, augmented by suggestions from the academic advisors.

 

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/p...hip-survey.aspx

 

JFK came in #6

 

Maybe you can do some summer reading and discover what gaps you may have in your knowledge of JFK and the Presidency in general? Or I suppose you can just continue to bash a man you obviously know very little about... while that may be more fun, you do come off really misinformed and I'd like to save you the continued embarrassment if I can! :happy feet:

 

BTW: there is another thread here on Reagan and while I respect him a great deal there are also areas I disagreed with him. However I'm not about to go in there and post some derogatory comments...especially not some making a joke or mockery of his passing.

[DDT]

Good interviews and Great reads from a Great President..............

[RUFDRAFT]

I'm thinking of a Merle Haggard tune.......

[Stalwart]

Jeffy, I have read a great deal about him, that is where I've come to think of him as just a great POLITICIAN. He wouldn't be so beloved if he hadn't died they way he did . . . he screwed up a great deal. About the only thing I agree with him is on his stand that the way to stimulate the economy and increase government revenues, was to cut taxes.

 

I only read 3-4 books a week and I don't feel compelled to read another "Kennedy was the greatest" story, I only can stomach so much fiction. :D

[JeffIsHereToo]

Jeffy, I have read a great deal about him, that is where I've come to think of him as just a great POLITICIAN. He wouldn't be so beloved if he hadn't died they way he did . . . he screwed up a great deal. About the only thing I agree with him is on his stand that the way to stimulate the economy and increase government revenues, was to cut taxes.

 

I only read 3-4 books a week and I don't feel compelled to read another "Kennedy was the greatest" story, I only can stomach so much fiction. :D

 

 

"Jeffy"?

 

Ok, you got me! The Presidential Historians are wrong and you're right!

 

I'm sorry!

 

[Stalwart]

Gee, historians from liberal arts colleges are always the best to judge . . .

 

I listened to one who on that Survey and he had VERY definite political positions, very far left views.

[ilmor]

First and foremost, I'm sorry that he was killed, because no human life should end in such a way...however - I believe JFK and the Democrats at that time made some serious mistakes during his campaign and presidency which were the catalyst for severe problems that occurred, and multiplied to what we have in the US today, and in large part became the basis of liberalism as we now know it. My parents did not vote for him and I certainly would not have if I had been able at that time. Therefore, I cannot respect him.

 

Yeah, I know Nixon was bad in other ways eventually revealed, but those ways pale in comparison to what I'm talking about.

 

I'm going to leave it at that.

[svttim]

Gee, historians from liberal arts colleges are always the best to judge . . .

 

I listened to one who on that Survey and he had VERY definite political positions, very far left views.

 

 

Well, Unlike Jeff, I was too young to remember JFK. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was right on. Of course, he had a lot of advisors helping im including his brother. I have to agree on the scolars question. They have been caught in too many lies to spread thier agenda. JFK was a man, nothing more, nothing less

[stump_breaker]

His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was right on.

Really? Many would say that the USSR missiles in Cuba were retaliatory because of US nukes in Turkey. Instead of removing them Kennedy was ready to go to nuclear war!

Of course the Soviets backed off and we got to keep our missiles in Turkey even though Khrushchev demanded they be removed. Oh well, it's the winners that write the history books!

.....Khrushchev publicly announces that if the United States removes its nuclear missiles from Turkey, the Soviet Union will remove its missiles from Cuba:

"You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it

is ninety miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America.

But...you have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call

offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us [there is not even 90 miles of distance]...I

therefore make this proposal: We are willing to remove from Cuba the

means which you regard as offensive...[if you] will remove its

analogous means from Turkey...And after that, persons entrusted by the United Nations Security Council could inspect on the spot the fulfillment of the pledges made."

[svttim]

Really? Many would say that the USSR missiles in Cuba were retaliatory because of US nukes in Turkey. Instead of removing them Kennedy was ready to go to nuclear war!

Of course the Soviets backed off and we got to keep our missiles in Turkey even though Khrushchev demanded they be removed. Oh well, it's the winners that write the history books!

.....Khrushchev publicly announces that if the United States removes its nuclear missiles from Turkey, the Soviet Union will remove its missiles from Cuba:

"You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it

is ninety miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America.

But...you have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call

offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us [there is not even 90 miles of distance]...I

therefore make this proposal: We are willing to remove from Cuba the

means which you regard as offensive...[if you] will remove its

analogous means from Turkey...And after that, persons entrusted by the United Nations Security Council could inspect on the spot the fulfillment of the pledges made."

 

 

One has nothing to do with the other. Not saying youre point is without merit. The results speak for themselves

[JeffIsHereToo]

Really? Many would say that the USSR missiles in Cuba were retaliatory because of US nukes in Turkey. Instead of removing them Kennedy was ready to go to nuclear war!

Of course the Soviets backed off and we got to keep our missiles in Turkey even though Khrushchev demanded they be removed. Oh well, it's the winners that write the history books!

.....Khrushchev publicly announces that if the United States removes its nuclear missiles from Turkey, the Soviet Union will remove its missiles from Cuba:

"You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it

is ninety miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America.

But...you have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call

offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us [there is not even 90 miles of distance]...I

therefore make this proposal: We are willing to remove from Cuba the

means which you regard as offensive...[if you] will remove its

analogous means from Turkey...And after that, persons entrusted by the United Nations Security Council could inspect on the spot the fulfillment of the pledges made."

 

"President John F. Kennedy had requested the Air Force evaluate the cancelation and removal of all Jupiter MRBMs upon taking office in 1961 but by October of 1962 the Air Force hadn't yet completed the evaluation of those assets."

 

"The Other Missiles of October"

Eisenhower, Kennedy and the Jupiters 1957-1963

by Philip Nash

 

"The President groused that the obsolete Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy had not been removed as he had planned some months earlier. Replaced by the far more accurate and lethal Polaris ICBM fleet the Jupiter's were of little value and now were being used as pawns by the Russians."

 

"The Kennedy Tapes - Inside the White House"

by Ernest R May

 

Anyway, there is a great taped conversation between Eisenhower and Kennedy before the President announces the blockade and the two Presidents go down the list of possible responses in the end agreeing that Kennedy's response was the right one and the former President pledging his support.

 

BTW: Kennedy did agree to a secret deal, in private, to remove the obsolete Jupiters slotted into Turkey by the project plan under the Eisenhower administration, in exchange for the missiles in Cuba. They were removed about four months later. Nash's book is the definitive reference but you can find plenty of others.

 

Here's a nice account in the National Security Archive at George Washington University:

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm

[ilmor]

[stump_breaker]

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

I don't know if that is 100% accurate but I do agree the Turkey missiles were a rouse because as Jeff pointed out Kennedy was aware there were far better missiles coming out that could do more damage and have better striking distances. Why care about a .22 when you have a .50 cal! Regardless, Castro got the best deal in the end and a lot of advisers saw the concession between the two countries as a defeat. I point to Kennedy's statement -

 

"I consider my letter to you of October twenty-seventh and your reply of today as firm undertakings on the part of both our governments which should be promptly carried out... The U.S. will make a statement in the framework of the Security Council in reference to Cuba as follows: it will declare that the United States of America will respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its sovereignty, that it take the pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, not to intrude themselves and not to permit our territory to be used as a bridgehead for the invasion of Cuba, and will restrain those who would plan to carry an aggression against Cuba, either from U.S. territory or from the territory of other countries neighboring to Cuba."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile...e_note-Faria-22

 

We did not have a nuclear winter that year and the Soviet Union now had a strong ally only 90 miles from our very weak and porous borders. Not that it matters now....

 

I remember my grandmother telling me that Kennedy was despised before he was assassinated. I also remember a story she told about a family member being a POW in Cambodia (if I remember correctly) and upon the assassination of Kennedy, their Cambodian captors being visibly upset and some weeping openly. Who knows. These are just stories passed down and she has long since passed now but I do know she was not a fan of Kennedy's politics.

[JeffIsHereToo]

I remember my grandmother telling me that Kennedy was despised before he was assassinated. I also remember a story she told about a family member being a POW in Cambodia (if I remember correctly) and upon the assassination of Kennedy, their Cambodian captors being visibly upset and some weeping openly. Who knows. These are just stories passed down and she has long since passed now but I do know she was not a fan of Kennedy's politics.

 

OUr grandmothers would have been best friends!

 

BTW:

 

President Kennedy's approval rating at the time of his death was just under 60% according to the Gallap poll and after the missile crisis it had risen to more than 75%.

 

The US only had 16,000 or so troops in Vietnam when President Kennedy was killed and no US soldiers in captivity until 1964. We also didn't enter into Cambodia, officially, until 1970 and there were no US soldiers held as POW's by Cambodia at any time during the war. You need to remember that it was N. Vietnam that invaded Cambodia in 1968 I think, to get rid of the wacky Pol Pot. Of course they did it to set up bases and run outside Vietnam and down for supply routes etc., so finally fed up after bombing didn't work, we sent soldiers in. The Cambodian army was pretty much non-existent and it was the n. Vietnamese we were fighting.

[CobraCrazy]

OUr grandmothers would have been best friends!

 

BTW:

 

President Kennedy's approval rating at the time of his death was just under 60% according to the Gallap poll and after the missile crisis it had risen to more than 75%.

 

The US only had 16,000 or so troops in Vietnam when President Kennedy was killed and no US soldiers in captivity until 1964. We also didn't enter into Cambodia, officially, until 1970 and there were no US soldiers held as POW's by Cambodia at any time during the war. You need to remember that it was N. Vietnam that invaded Cambodia in 1968 I think, to get rid of the wacky Pol Pot. Of course they did it to set up bases and run outside Vietnam and down for supply routes etc., so finally fed up after bombing didn't work, we sent soldiers in. The Cambodian army was pretty much non-existent and it was the n. Vietnamese we were fighting.

 

It was 1979 when N. Vietnam invaded Cambodia to rid it of Pol Pot. No one, China, Russia, the U.S., etc had any objections.

[stump_breaker]

Our grandmothers would have been best friends!

 

How funny.

 

Like I said these were stories from long ago and it may not have been Cambodia but for some reason that sticks in my head as I know it was something to do with the precursor to Vietnam. The rest of the story is as I remember it because she was stressing how our enemy at the time was upset that an American President was killed and their had to be some reason for it, indicating Kennedy was doing something under the table. At the time I was more interested in Camaro's, Jim Beam and girls, not necessarily in that order. Now I wish I had listened more.

 

Every generation has their conspiracy theories.

[stump_breaker]

President Kennedy's approval rating at the time of his death was just under 60% according to the Gallap poll and after the missile crisis it had risen to more than 75%.

 

Besides, if I dip a turd in chocolate, roll it around in almonds and then show it to a person without ever letting them examine it, who is going to say that it's a bad thing?

 

Just saying.....

 

[ilmor]

Besides, if I dip a turd in chocolate, roll it around in almonds and then show it to a person without ever letting them examine it, who is going to say that it's a bad thing?

 

Just saying.....

 

 

Good point!

[DDT]

Besides, if I dip a turd in chocolate, roll it around in almonds and then show it to a person without ever letting them examine it, who is going to say that it's a bad thing?

 

Just saying.....

 

 

Won't be in business long with that attitude??????????????

 

Same thing happened to the Auto Industry.........