President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.

[Bfgrn]

Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.

I guess he was a liberal after all.

Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.

JFK did say no when the chips were down.
---------------------------------------------------
We now know—from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005—that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy—who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin—had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
---------------------------------------------------

Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.

 

[mdn2000]

Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.

I guess he was a liberal after all.

Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.

JFK did say no when the chips were down.
---------------------------------------------------
We now know—from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005—that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy—who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin—had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
---------------------------------------------------

Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.

I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba.

JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.

Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.

I guess he was a liberal after all.

Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.

JFK did say no when the chips were down.
---------------------------------------------------
We now know—from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005—that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy—who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin—had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
---------------------------------------------------

Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.

I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba.

JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.

Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.

Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.

Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.

 

[mdn2000]

Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.

JFK did say no when the chips were down.
---------------------------------------------------
We now know—from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005—that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy—who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin—had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
---------------------------------------------------

Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.

I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba.

JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.

Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.

Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.

Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.

Bitter Fruit, read that a long time ago, I also read most the junk about Che, I read the bible of them all as well, Thy Will Be Done the Conquest of the Amazon Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. If you have not read this you do not know your side of the debate as well as I do. Sometimes in life a great book comes along and Thy Will Be Done is that book.

What would Kennedy do had he lived is speculation, I typically dont like to speculate other than to make the point that speculation is pointless and meaningless. I can easily provide examples that twists who Kennedy is, problem with my examples is simple, they are fact. Being fact its easy to manipulate the image.

Kennedy was who he was, a man of his time, a Liberal if you think, but mistaken you are if you believe Kennedy would be called a Liberal today.

I would of liked to see Kennedy handle Cuba, Bay of Pigs was definitely thrust upon Kennedy. 1300 men, I would of gave it a try, given that Eisenhower approved the plan, a general, it must of seemed like a good idea.

Seems like the whole nation lost on the day Kennedy was shot, the Cubans lost a chance of reconciliation. Vietnam, most likely would of been the same, unless Kennedy attacked Hanoi.

Speculation, who cares.

If anyone cares to fact check what I post in regards to Kennedy invest in a copy of Thy Will Be Done, Gerard Colby. Its out of print, killed the year it comes out by the people it exposed. My opinion is that being forced out of print indicates there is some truth to what Colby wrote.

My book is not with me so its impossible to para-phrase or state what I think exactly happened.

So is your post stating Kennedy thought they had a chance with no element of surprise, Kennedy thought 1300 men could take over Cuba. I have to re-read the chapter on the Bay of Pigs, Colby ties it into Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a politician as well as the heir to an empire.

 

[Bfgrn]

I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba.

JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.

Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.

Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.

Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.

Bitter Fruit, read that a long time ago, I also read most the junk about Che, I read the bible of them all as well, Thy Will Be Done the Conquest of the Amazon Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. If you have not read this you do not know your side of the debate as well as I do. Sometimes in life a great book comes along and Thy Will Be Done is that book.

What would Kennedy do had he lived is speculation, I typically dont like to speculate other than to make the point that speculation is pointless and meaningless. I can easily provide examples that twists who Kennedy is, problem with my examples is simple, they are fact. Being fact its easy to manipulate the image.

Kennedy was who he was, a man of his time, a Liberal if you think, but mistaken you are if you believe Kennedy would be called a Liberal today.

I would of liked to see Kennedy handle Cuba, Bay of Pigs was definitely thrust upon Kennedy. 1300 men, I would of gave it a try, given that Eisenhower approved the plan, a general, it must of seemed like a good idea.

Seems like the whole nation lost on the day Kennedy was shot, the Cubans lost a chance of reconciliation. Vietnam, most likely would of been the same, unless Kennedy attacked Hanoi.

Speculation, who cares.

If anyone cares to fact check what I post in regards to Kennedy invest in a copy of Thy Will Be Done, Gerard Colby. Its out of print, killed the year it comes out by the people it exposed. My opinion is that being forced out of print indicates there is some truth to what Colby wrote.

My book is not with me so its impossible to para-phrase or state what I think exactly happened.

So is your post stating Kennedy thought they had a chance with no element of surprise, Kennedy thought 1300 men could take over Cuba. I have to re-read the chapter on the Bay of Pigs, Colby ties it into Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a politician as well as the heir to an empire.

Speculation, who cares.

Of course it is speculation. But who cares? There are 58,000 families who lost a son in Vietnam who still care. And as more information comes out, it supports that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam, not commit combat troops. But he was not going to make it public, especially before the 1964 election and give the right ammo to run against him with.

But there are things are not really speculation. Your statement: 'Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over' couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is Iraq's chance of BEING sovereign ended when Qasim was overthrown by Ba'athists backed by the British government and our CIA. Need you be reminded that Saddam was a Ba'athist.

Thy Will Be Done was published in 1995. Bill Moyers was all over this in 1987. The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers. The same Bill Moyers who was in the Kennedy administration and the recipient of the November 25, 1963 Justice dept memo from Nicholas Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General that: 1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. 2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off...

The real question that hasn't been answered is who was behind President Kennedy's assassination. I think Bobby knew before his brother was buried. Bobby had a phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it."

The best evidence that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam was his murder. Which makes that event the most tragic in our history, especially for 58,000 families, and millions of innocent people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

And WE, the PEOPLE should care. It is supposed to be our government.

 

[mdn2000]

Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.

Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.

Bitter Fruit, read that a long time ago, I also read most the junk about Che, I read the bible of them all as well, Thy Will Be Done the Conquest of the Amazon Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. If you have not read this you do not know your side of the debate as well as I do. Sometimes in life a great book comes along and Thy Will Be Done is that book.

What would Kennedy do had he lived is speculation, I typically dont like to speculate other than to make the point that speculation is pointless and meaningless. I can easily provide examples that twists who Kennedy is, problem with my examples is simple, they are fact. Being fact its easy to manipulate the image.

Kennedy was who he was, a man of his time, a Liberal if you think, but mistaken you are if you believe Kennedy would be called a Liberal today.

I would of liked to see Kennedy handle Cuba, Bay of Pigs was definitely thrust upon Kennedy. 1300 men, I would of gave it a try, given that Eisenhower approved the plan, a general, it must of seemed like a good idea.

Seems like the whole nation lost on the day Kennedy was shot, the Cubans lost a chance of reconciliation. Vietnam, most likely would of been the same, unless Kennedy attacked Hanoi.

Speculation, who cares.

If anyone cares to fact check what I post in regards to Kennedy invest in a copy of Thy Will Be Done, Gerard Colby. Its out of print, killed the year it comes out by the people it exposed. My opinion is that being forced out of print indicates there is some truth to what Colby wrote.

My book is not with me so its impossible to para-phrase or state what I think exactly happened.

So is your post stating Kennedy thought they had a chance with no element of surprise, Kennedy thought 1300 men could take over Cuba. I have to re-read the chapter on the Bay of Pigs, Colby ties it into Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a politician as well as the heir to an empire.

Speculation, who cares.

Of course it is speculation. But who cares? There are 58,000 families who lost a son in Vietnam who still care. And as more information comes out, it supports that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam, not commit combat troops. But he was not going to make it public, especially before the 1964 election and give the right ammo to run against him with.

But there are things are not really speculation. Your statement: 'Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over' couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is Iraq's chance of BEING sovereign ended when Qasim was overthrown by Ba'athists backed by the British government and our CIA. Need you be reminded that Saddam was a Ba'athist.

Thy Will Be Done was published in 1995. Bill Moyers was all over this in 1987. The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers. The same Bill Moyers who was in the Kennedy administration and the recipient of the November 25, 1963 Justice dept memo from Nicholas Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General that: 1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. 2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off...

The real question that hasn't been answered is who was behind President Kennedy's assassination. I think Bobby knew before his brother was buried. Bobby had a phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it."

The best evidence that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam was his murder. Which makes that event the most tragic in our history, especially for 58,000 families, and millions of innocent people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

And WE, the PEOPLE should care. It is supposed to be our government.

Are you insinuating that my ideas of, "speculation" in respect to history are callous in light of the deaths of people in the South East. I will be sure to tell my friend who lived in the refugee camps. He is from Cambodia and chooses to live with us because in his words, "I hate commies", "in communism you work for the commies".

You wish to view Kennedy as you "speculate" what Kennedy would do had Kennedy not been assassinated. That my friend, is not logical.

Bfgrn, my source you seem to dismiss, Thy Will Be done by Colby. Chapter 24 is titled Deadly Inheritance, is that an adequate title for the story of Kennedy and The Bay of Pigs. March 28th, 1961 the book speaks of, a day Kennedy meets with the CIA, specifically Bissell. As I have stated I own a copy, actually two copies of Bitter Fruit, I recently found a Hard back copy. I like the Hard Back books better than paperbacks.

So Bissell goes from Guatemala to Cuba, ch. 24 starts with Kennedy specifically asking if they need air strikes, seems Kennedy had lots of questions.

I think its safe to say that our view on the timeline of events is pretty much exactly the same as the people we are stating are involved.

Bissell seems he needed another success after Guatemala, Bay of Pigs was it. Kennedy had intimated to Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles that he planned to appoint Bissell in July, only three months after the expected victory over Castro (T.W.B.D., Colby pg 348).

Kennedy had much to worry about, it would be a bit tedious to type all of this out, we can say that there was much apprehensiveness. a critical Helms-inspired report. Conflicts in the CIA, conflicts with State Department and the CIA.

There was much the CIA did not tell him: That Colonel J. C. King, thought a CIA officer, had offered $50,000 to the Mafia's John Roselli and Santos Trafficante to have a Cuban agent poison Castro, tht a colleague of King had set up another 'Executive Action" capability, and that the arms drops to the Cuban resistance promised by Bissell had been failing for months. (T.W.B.D., Colby pg 348)

This is where Adolf Berle enters the story, Berle an old mentor of Nelson Rockefeller. So Kennedy turns to Berle, Berle talks to King, Berle than talks to Betancourt, than Berle spoke with Camargo. etc, etc, etc,

So we can go step by step, of what happened, how much diplomacy, planning, memos, all the things we miss in one tiny paragraph.

Unfortunately I have a book, I can not find this book through a google search so anything from the book I would have to type.

Bottom line the Bay of Pigs was a huge operation, it spanned two administrations, between diplomacy, allies, the CIA, the State Department, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Berle, Rockefeller.

There were a lot of players. Kennedy let it unfold with apprehension. At the last minute he stopped the operation. Had Kennedy know all the details, everything the CIA was involved in, would he of taken a different approach, most likely, what that approach would be is a guess.

Thy Will Be Done, is most likely the story exactly as you state with a little more insight to connections with Nelson Rockefeller. I have read the book twice, with foot notes and index over 900 pages, a lot to remember.

This statement of mine is easily proven wrong, it was also wrong to characterize the Bay of Pigs as an invasion, Kennedy stood up to his subordinates, Kennedy was perfectly clear that Kennedy would not commit the Armed Forces of the United States to overthrow Cuba. He was led to believe the people would rise against Castro, that a small force of dissidents with the people would overthrow Castro.

Kennedy was specific, no Armed Forces, the CIA made grave errors and had poor intelligence, they woke Kennedy in the early morning, Kennedy made it clear his position had not changed. I was being sarcastic, there is another word but I cannot spell it, (faicetuos?) Kennedy was strong enough to say no, he was not tricked, he was apprehensive, Kennedy was not afraid and did things as a man in power, Kennedy new enough not to ask "too many" questions, from everything I read Kennedy needed plausible denial, can I "speculate" Kennedy did not ask every question to alleviate his "apprehension", so that Kennedy could claim, "he did not know". Seems reasonable.

Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.

Kennedy did fail at Bay of Pigs, Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs and allowed it to continue. Kennedy was not through with Cuba, the missile crises would follow.

Cuba was part of the Cold War, that is how Kennedy saw it, Kennedy fought the Cold War, the war against Communism. That is why the Bay of Pigs was given a chance by Kennedy, not to mention Cuban exiles were begging for the overthrow of Castro.

Next, Kennedy on Vietnam, Strategy of Peace, 1960, foreign policy.

 

[mdn2000]

The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960

That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.

Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives.

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

For on May 17, 1960, the long-awaited, highly publicized Summit Conference collapsed. That collapse was the direct result of Soviet determination to destroy the talks. The insults and distortions of Mr. Khrushchev - the violence of his attacks - shocked all Americans and united the country in admiration for the dignity and self-control of President Eisenhower. Regardless of party, all of us deeply resented Russian abuse of this nation and its President - and all of us shared a common disappointment at the failure of the conference. But it is imperative, nevertheless, that we as a nation rise above our resentment and frustration to a critical re-examination of the events at Paris and their meaning for America.

So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.

But the truth of the matter is that we were not prepared for any such negotiations - that there was no real success which the Summit could have achieved. For words and discussion are not a substitute for strength - they are an instrument for the translation of strength into survival and peace.

The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.

This is an issue worthy of a great debate - a debate by the American people through the media of their political parties - and that debate must not be stifled or degraded by empty appeals to national unity, false cries of appeasement, or deceptive slogans about "standing up to Khrushchev." For the issue is not who can best "stand up to Khrushchev" - who can best swap threats and insults - the real issue is who can stand up and summon America's vast resources to the defense of freedom against the most dangerous threat it has ever faced.

And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations

As a substitute for policy, Mr. Eisenhower has tried smiling at the Russians; our State Department has tried frowning at them; and Mr. Nixon has tried both. None have succeeded. For we cannot conceal or overcome our lack of purpose and our failure of planning by "talking tough"; nor can we compensate for our weaknesses by "talking nice," by assuming that the righteousness of our principles will ensure their victory. For just as we know that "might" never makes "right", we must also remember that "right," unfortunately, never makes "might."
Thus neither our smiles nor our frowns have ever altered Mr. Khrushchev's course, however he may alter his expression. His real goals have remained unmoved, his interests unchanged, his determination unending. And as long as Mr. Khrushchev is convinced that the balance of world power is shifting his way, no amount of either smiles or toughness, neither Camp David talks nor kitchen debates, can compel him to enter fruitful negotiations.

WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR

So let us abandon the useless discussion of who can best "stand up to Khrushchev", or whether a "hard" or "soft" line is preferable. Our task is to rebuild our strength, and the strength of the free world - to prove to the Soviets that time and the course of history are not on their side, that the balance of world power is not shifting their way - and that therefore peaceful settlement is essential to mutual survival. Our task is to devise a national strategy - based not on the 11th hour responses to Soviet created crises, but a comprehensive set of carefully prepared, long-term policies designed to increase the strength of the non-communist world. Until this task is accomplished, there is no point in returning to the Summit - for no President of the United States must ever again be put in the position of traveling across the seas, armed only with vague, speculative hopes, in order to provide an occasion for public humiliation. And unless this task is accomplished - as we move into the most critical period in our nation's history since that bleak winter at Valley Forge - our national security, our survival itself, will be in peril.
The hour is late - but the agenda is long

For all America - its President and its people - the coming years will be a time of decision. We must decide whether we have reached our limit - whether our greatness is past - whether we can go no further - or whether, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, "the true discovery of America is before us ... the true fulfillment of our mighty and immortal land is yet to come."

Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy.

Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.

 

[mdn2000]

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on Indochina before the Senate, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1954 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

Mr. President, the time has come for the American people to be told the blunt truth about Indochina.
I am reluctant to make any statement which may be misinterpreted as unappreciative of the gallant French struggle at Dien Bien Phu and elsewhere; or as partisan criticism of our Secretary of State just prior to his participation in the delicate deliberations in Geneva. Nor, as one who is not a member of those committees of the Congress which have been briefed - if not consulted - on this matter, do I wish to appear impetuous or an alarmist in my evaluation of the situation. But the speeches of President Eisenhower, Secretary Dulles, and others have left too much unsaid, in my opinion - and what has been left unsaid is the heart of the problem that should concern every citizen. For if the American people are, for the fourth time in this century, to travel the long and tortuous road of war - particularly a war which we now realize would threaten the survival of civilization - then I believe we have a right - a right which we should have hitherto exercised - to inquire in detail into the nature of the struggle in which we may become engaged, and the alternative to such struggle. Without such clarification the general support and success of our policy is endangered.
Inasmuch as Secretary Dulles has rejected, with finality, any suggestion of bargaining on Indochina in exchange for recognition of Red China, those discussions in Geneva which concern that war may center around two basic alternatives

I think it is important that the Senate and the American people demonstrate their endorsement of Mr. Dulles' objectives, despite our difficulty in ascertaining the full significance of its key phrases.
Certainly, I, for one, favor a policy of a "united action" by many nations whenever necessary to achieve a military and political victory for the free world in that area, realizing full well that it may eventually require some commitment of our manpower.

I think it is important that the Senate and the American people demonstrate their endorsement of Mr. Dulles' objectives, despite our difficulty in ascertaining the full significance of its key phrases.
Certainly, I, for one, favor a policy of a "united action" by many nations whenever necessary to achieve a military and political victory for the free world in that area, realizing full well that it may eventually require some commitment of our manpower.

I am frankly of the belief that no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere and at the same time nowhere, "an enemy of the people" which has the sympathy and covert support of the people. As succinctly stated by the report of the Judd Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January of this year:
"Until political independence has been achieved, an effective fighting force from the associated states cannot be expected. ... The apathy of the local population to the menace of the Viet Minh communism disguised as nationalism is the most discouraging aspect of the situation. That can only be overcome through the grant of complete independence to each of the associated states. Only for such a cause as their own freedom will people make the heroic effort necessary to win this kind of struggle."
This is an analysis which is shared, if in some instances grudgingly, by most American observers. Moreover, without political independence for the associated states, the other Asiatic nations have made it clear that they regard this as a war of colonialism; and the "united action" which is said to be so desperately needed for victory in that area is likely to end up as unilateral action by our own country. Such intervention, without participation by the armed forces of the other nations of Asia, without the support of the great masses of the peoples of the associated states, with increasing reluctance and discouragement on the part of the French - and, I might add, with hordes of Chinese Communist troops poised just across the border in anticipation of our unilateral entry into their kind of battleground - such intervention, Mr. President, would be virtually impossible in the type of military situation which prevails in Indochina.

In Indochina, as in Korea, the battle against communism should be a battle, not for economic or political gain, but for the security of the free world, and for the values and institutions which are held dear in France and throughout the non-Communist world, as well as in the United States. It seems to me, therefore, that the dilemma which confronts us is not a hopeless one; that a victorious fight can be maintained by the French, with the support of this Nation and many other nations - and most important of all, the support of the Vietnamese and other peoples of the Associated States - once it is recognized that the defense of southeast Asia and the repelling of Communist aggression are the objectives of such a struggle, and not the maintenance of political relationships founded upon ancient colonialism. In such a struggle, the United States and other nations may properly be called upon to play their fullest part.

Kennedy speaks of independence for Vietnam and without popular support by the people we will fail.

I cut much out so to understand Kennedy and what he knew one must read this speech and must more.

What is clear is Kennedy looked at the Communist threat as war and Kennedy fought that war, Kennedy intended to win the war, not retreat.

Kennedy would not leave Vietnam to Communism.

Four hours devoted to three posts. No google, only a link to JFK's library to cut and paste of Kennedy's speeches included in his book, The Strategy of Peace.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Kennedy was a liberal hawk on defense. So what? Not all liberals were doves.

Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.


note: I'm a liberal (and was a Democrat in 2001-2008) I supported invading Iraq to rid the place of Saddam, and this was before the WMD bullshit arguments that I never pushed as the main reason for invading.

 

[mdn2000]

Kennedy was a liberal hawk on defense. So what? Not all liberals were doves.

Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.


note: I'm a liberal (and was a Democrat in 2001-2008) I supported invading Iraq to rid the place of Saddam, and this was before the WMD bullshit arguments that I never pushed as the main reason for invading.

so you agree the war against Vietnam was a war against Communism that must be fought, as Kennedy fought, with the military, with strength.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960

That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.

Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives.

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

For on May 17, 1960, the long-awaited, highly publicized Summit Conference collapsed. That collapse was the direct result of Soviet determination to destroy the talks. The insults and distortions of Mr. Khrushchev - the violence of his attacks - shocked all Americans and united the country in admiration for the dignity and self-control of President Eisenhower. Regardless of party, all of us deeply resented Russian abuse of this nation and its President - and all of us shared a common disappointment at the failure of the conference. But it is imperative, nevertheless, that we as a nation rise above our resentment and frustration to a critical re-examination of the events at Paris and their meaning for America.

So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.

But the truth of the matter is that we were not prepared for any such negotiations - that there was no real success which the Summit could have achieved. For words and discussion are not a substitute for strength - they are an instrument for the translation of strength into survival and peace.

The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.



And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations



WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR

So let us abandon the useless discussion of who can best "stand up to Khrushchev", or whether a "hard" or "soft" line is preferable. Our task is to rebuild our strength, and the strength of the free world - to prove to the Soviets that time and the course of history are not on their side, that the balance of world power is not shifting their way - and that therefore peaceful settlement is essential to mutual survival. Our task is to devise a national strategy - based not on the 11th hour responses to Soviet created crises, but a comprehensive set of carefully prepared, long-term policies designed to increase the strength of the non-communist world. Until this task is accomplished, there is no point in returning to the Summit - for no President of the United States must ever again be put in the position of traveling across the seas, armed only with vague, speculative hopes, in order to provide an occasion for public humiliation. And unless this task is accomplished - as we move into the most critical period in our nation's history since that bleak winter at Valley Forge - our national security, our survival itself, will be in peril.
The hour is late - but the agenda is long

For all America - its President and its people - the coming years will be a time of decision. We must decide whether we have reached our limit - whether our greatness is past - whether we can go no further - or whether, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, "the true discovery of America is before us ... the true fulfillment of our mighty and immortal land is yet to come."

Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy.

Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.

What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.


John F. Kennedy's loyal White House aides, Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers, titled their 1972 J.F.K. memoir Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye—despite the fact that they had served him since his days as a scrawny young congressional candidate in Boston. So it's no surprise that Americans are still trying to figure out nearly half a century after his abbreviated presidency who Jack Kennedy really was. Was he a cold war hawk, as much of the history establishment, Washington pundit class and presidential hopefuls of both parties—eager to lay claim to his mantle of muscular leadership—have insisted over the years? Or was he a man ahead of his time, a peace-minded visionary trying to untie the nuclear knot that held hostage the U.S. and the Soviet Union—and the rest of the world?

As the U.S. once again finds itself in an endless war—this time against terror, or perhaps against fear itself—the question of Kennedy's true legacy seems particularly loaded. What is the best way for America to navigate through a world where its enemies seem everywhere and nowhere at the same time? What can we learn from the way Kennedy was trying to redefine the U.S. role in the world and to invite Americans to be part of that change? Who was the real John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

The conundrum begins with Kennedy himself, a politically complex man whose speeches often brandished arrows as well as olive branches. This seemingly contradictory message was vividly communicated in J.F.K.'s famous Inaugural Address. While Kennedy vowed the nation "would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty"—aggressive rhetoric that would fit right in with George W. Bush's presidency—the young leader also dispensed with the usual Soviet bashing of his time and invited our enemy to join us in a new "quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all of humanity." It would be hard to imagine the current occupant of the White House extending the same offer to Islamic jihadists or Iran's leaders.

Young Jack Kennedy developed a deep, visceral disgust for war because of his—and his family's—experiences in it. "All war is stupid," he wrote home from his PT boat in the Pacific battleground of World War II. That war destroyed the family's sense of godlike invincibility. His older brother Joe—a Navy pilot—died in a fiery explosion over the English Channel after volunteering for a high-risk mission, and the young husband of "Kick" Kennedy, J.F.K.'s beloved sister, was also killed. As Jack wrote to Claiborne Pell in 1947, the war had simply "savaged" his family. "It turned my father and brothers and sisters and I upside down and sucked all the oxygen out of our smug and comfortable assumptions... Now, after all that we experienced and lost in the war, we finally understand that there is nothing inevitable about us."

But Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their father—to never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson—the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Read more: The Lessons of J.F.K. - Warrior For Peace - TIME

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy

 

[mdn2000]

The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960

That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.

Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives.

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

For on May 17, 1960, the long-awaited, highly publicized Summit Conference collapsed. That collapse was the direct result of Soviet determination to destroy the talks. The insults and distortions of Mr. Khrushchev - the violence of his attacks - shocked all Americans and united the country in admiration for the dignity and self-control of President Eisenhower. Regardless of party, all of us deeply resented Russian abuse of this nation and its President - and all of us shared a common disappointment at the failure of the conference. But it is imperative, nevertheless, that we as a nation rise above our resentment and frustration to a critical re-examination of the events at Paris and their meaning for America.

So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.



The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.



And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations



WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR

For all America - its President and its people - the coming years will be a time of decision. We must decide whether we have reached our limit - whether our greatness is past - whether we can go no further - or whether, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, "the true discovery of America is before us ... the true fulfillment of our mighty and immortal land is yet to come."

Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy.

Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.

What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.


John F. Kennedy's loyal White House aides, Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers, titled their 1972 J.F.K. memoir Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye—despite the fact that they had served him since his days as a scrawny young congressional candidate in Boston. So it's no surprise that Americans are still trying to figure out nearly half a century after his abbreviated presidency who Jack Kennedy really was. Was he a cold war hawk, as much of the history establishment, Washington pundit class and presidential hopefuls of both parties—eager to lay claim to his mantle of muscular leadership—have insisted over the years? Or was he a man ahead of his time, a peace-minded visionary trying to untie the nuclear knot that held hostage the U.S. and the Soviet Union—and the rest of the world?

As the U.S. once again finds itself in an endless war—this time against terror, or perhaps against fear itself—the question of Kennedy's true legacy seems particularly loaded. What is the best way for America to navigate through a world where its enemies seem everywhere and nowhere at the same time? What can we learn from the way Kennedy was trying to redefine the U.S. role in the world and to invite Americans to be part of that change? Who was the real John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

The conundrum begins with Kennedy himself, a politically complex man whose speeches often brandished arrows as well as olive branches. This seemingly contradictory message was vividly communicated in J.F.K.'s famous Inaugural Address. While Kennedy vowed the nation "would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty"—aggressive rhetoric that would fit right in with George W. Bush's presidency—the young leader also dispensed with the usual Soviet bashing of his time and invited our enemy to join us in a new "quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all of humanity." It would be hard to imagine the current occupant of the White House extending the same offer to Islamic jihadists or Iran's leaders.

Young Jack Kennedy developed a deep, visceral disgust for war because of his—and his family's—experiences in it. "All war is stupid," he wrote home from his PT boat in the Pacific battleground of World War II. That war destroyed the family's sense of godlike invincibility. His older brother Joe—a Navy pilot—died in a fiery explosion over the English Channel after volunteering for a high-risk mission, and the young husband of "Kick" Kennedy, J.F.K.'s beloved sister, was also killed. As Jack wrote to Claiborne Pell in 1947, the war had simply "savaged" his family. "It turned my father and brothers and sisters and I upside down and sucked all the oxygen out of our smug and comfortable assumptions... Now, after all that we experienced and lost in the war, we finally understand that there is nothing inevitable about us."

But Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their father—to never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson—the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Read more: The Lessons of J.F.K. - Warrior For Peace - TIME

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy

The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy.

That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.

Lame try.

 

[Two Thumbs]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

That's very conservative.

He also spent big on the military
Started a war that we truly had no business being in.
He cheated on his wife. (it was Monroe, so I can't hold that against him to much)
He family made money of the illegal trade in alcohol.
His Dad wanted Germany to crush England.

yeah, come to think of it, you can keep this warmongering evil capatalist adulterer.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960

That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.

Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives.

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum



So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.



The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.



And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations



WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR





Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy.

Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.

What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.


John F. Kennedy's loyal White House aides, Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers, titled their 1972 J.F.K. memoir Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye—despite the fact that they had served him since his days as a scrawny young congressional candidate in Boston. So it's no surprise that Americans are still trying to figure out nearly half a century after his abbreviated presidency who Jack Kennedy really was. Was he a cold war hawk, as much of the history establishment, Washington pundit class and presidential hopefuls of both parties—eager to lay claim to his mantle of muscular leadership—have insisted over the years? Or was he a man ahead of his time, a peace-minded visionary trying to untie the nuclear knot that held hostage the U.S. and the Soviet Union—and the rest of the world?

As the U.S. once again finds itself in an endless war—this time against terror, or perhaps against fear itself—the question of Kennedy's true legacy seems particularly loaded. What is the best way for America to navigate through a world where its enemies seem everywhere and nowhere at the same time? What can we learn from the way Kennedy was trying to redefine the U.S. role in the world and to invite Americans to be part of that change? Who was the real John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

The conundrum begins with Kennedy himself, a politically complex man whose speeches often brandished arrows as well as olive branches. This seemingly contradictory message was vividly communicated in J.F.K.'s famous Inaugural Address. While Kennedy vowed the nation "would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty"—aggressive rhetoric that would fit right in with George W. Bush's presidency—the young leader also dispensed with the usual Soviet bashing of his time and invited our enemy to join us in a new "quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all of humanity." It would be hard to imagine the current occupant of the White House extending the same offer to Islamic jihadists or Iran's leaders.

Young Jack Kennedy developed a deep, visceral disgust for war because of his—and his family's—experiences in it. "All war is stupid," he wrote home from his PT boat in the Pacific battleground of World War II. That war destroyed the family's sense of godlike invincibility. His older brother Joe—a Navy pilot—died in a fiery explosion over the English Channel after volunteering for a high-risk mission, and the young husband of "Kick" Kennedy, J.F.K.'s beloved sister, was also killed. As Jack wrote to Claiborne Pell in 1947, the war had simply "savaged" his family. "It turned my father and brothers and sisters and I upside down and sucked all the oxygen out of our smug and comfortable assumptions... Now, after all that we experienced and lost in the war, we finally understand that there is nothing inevitable about us."

But Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their father—to never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson—the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Read more: The Lessons of J.F.K. - Warrior For Peace - TIME

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy

The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy.

That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.

Lame try.

What is lame is placing any significance on your book's date of publishing. Kennedy MADE the speeches BEFORE the election for a specific person. To outflank the right and win the election. It was Machiavellian. Did you have the courtesy to even READ the excerpt I posted?

Here's a snippet:

And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson—the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

 

[mdn2000]

What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.


y

The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy.

That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.

Lame try.

What is lame is placing any significance on your book's date of publishing. Kennedy MADE the speeches BEFORE the election for a specific person. To outflank the right and win the election. It was Machiavellian. Did you have the courtesy to even READ the excerpt I posted?

Here's a snippet:

And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson—the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Sorry, I will have to take the word of the President. I have an entire book of his speeches, we all know Kennedy fought in WW II, in the Navy, in danger on a PT boat. So we are expected to believe Kennedy did not understand the threat of Communism. The Communist took East Berlin, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, how many other countries, and we are to believe Kennedy did not fight the Cold war, the speeches were merely for the campaign. Kennedy went to war in Vietnam to fight Communist, Kennedy was not leaving until South Vietnam was secure, had an army, capable of destroying the Communist, Kennedy risked nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, and I am to believe a link over Kennedy's own words and actions.

Sorry, what you quoted makes no sense, contradictory to Kennedy's own words and actions.

 

[Bfgrn]

The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy.

That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.

Lame try.

What is lame is placing any significance on your book's date of publishing. Kennedy MADE the speeches BEFORE the election for a specific person. To outflank the right and win the election. It was Machiavellian. Did you have the courtesy to even READ the excerpt I posted?

Here's a snippet:

And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson—the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Sorry, I will have to take the word of the President. I have an entire book of his speeches, we all know Kennedy fought in WW II, in the Navy, in danger on a PT boat. So we are expected to believe Kennedy did not understand the threat of Communism. The Communist took East Berlin, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, how many other countries, and we are to believe Kennedy did not fight the Cold war, the speeches were merely for the campaign. Kennedy went to war in Vietnam to fight Communist, Kennedy was not leaving until South Vietnam was secure, had an army, capable of destroying the Communist, Kennedy risked nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, and I am to believe a link over Kennedy's own words and actions.

Sorry, what you quoted makes no sense, contradictory to Kennedy's own words and actions.

You have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts. Let's not loose sight of what we are debating; if President Kennedy had lived, would he have taken us down the same road as LBJ did in Vietnam. The answer is no. And his words did not match his actions.

Yes, Jack Kennedy fought in WWII, but it was not against communism. And like most men who saw battle and witnessed the human carnage, he detested war and viewed it with disgust. He considered war the scourge of mankind. You say you believe JFK's word and actions, but his actions did not match his words. During the Bay of Pigs he refused to invade Cuba. During the Berlin Crisis he refused to take any military action when the Berlin Wall was constructed. During the Cuban missile crisis he again refused to invade Cuba against the advice of ALL the people around him. And he had issued an order to withdraw 1000 military advisers from Vietnam by the end of 1963 and intimated to more than one adviser he planned to withdraw AFTER he won reelection in 1964.

I was alive and old enough to remember, Vietnam was a non issue until a couple years after JFK's assassination. LBJ and LBJ alone is responsible for the escalation in Vietnam.

Kennedy's policy in Vietnam was very similar to Eisenhower's and NOTHING like LBJ's.

Vietnam War casualties

USA
By Year

1956–1964 401
1965 1,863
1966 6,143
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168
1974–1998 1178

It is now common knowledge that the 'missile gap' Kennedy created during the '60 campaign didn't exist. It was a deliberate fabrication, along with his bellicose rhetoric to turn the tables on the GOP and make them look like the weaker party on defense. Back then as today. the GOP was 'perceived' to be stronger on defense and military issues. The Democrats were thumped in '52 and '56 in their bid for the White House. JFK was not going to be another Adlai Stevenson.

 

[mdn2000]

Gaither Committee, that is were the Missile Gap theory or analysis came from, under Eisenhower.

So what is your perception on Kennedy's position fighting Communism.

As far as pulling troops out of Vietnam, I went through that in this thread, Kennedy did not issue an order withdrawing troops.

The White House or Department of Defense most certainly had a plan of action to withdraw troops, just as the Pentagon has a battle plan for war against just about every country in the world, having a plan and taking action are two very different things.

Of course Kennedy discussed troop withdrawal, just as Kennedy had a plan to send more troops, all conditional on the security of South Vietnam. All dependent on defeat of Communism.

Whatever is stated about Kennedy's supposed troop withdrawal, Kennedy increased military personal from around a 1000-10000 and specifically stated soldiers may be sent. Kennedy did send the Green Berets, around 500. Hell, it was during Kennedy's time that Robin Moore went to Vietnam and thus wrote the book "The Green Beret". The Green Beret became the basis for the John Wayne movie of the same name.

H-Net Reviews

Joseph G. Morgan. The Vietnam Lobby: The American Friends of Vietnam, 1955-1975. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. xviii + 229 pp. $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8078-2322-4

The AFV initially included anti-Communists from across the American political spectrum, not just conservatives but liberals like Senators John F. Kennedy and Mike Mansfield, and even Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party. Joseph Buttinger, an Austrian immigrant who still held some of the socialist views of his youth, and who went to South Vietnam in 1954 to aid refugees from North Vietnam, had more than anyone else been the founder of the organization. By the mid to late 1960s the socialists and liberals had mostly dropped out, and the AFV shifted to the Right.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

That's very conservative.

no, that's very liberal.

The Peace Corp was not a selfish conservative greed program.

Liberalism made America great. Conservatism has sold America out to the highest bidder.

JFK himself defined himself as a liberal, yet shitheads like you imagine that if you shout a lie enough times, it may become truth.

sadly for you, JFK called himself a liberal.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

JFK himself defined himself as a liberal, yet shitheads like you imagine that if you shout a lie enough times, it may become truth.

sadly for you, JFK called himself a liberal.

It is neither sad (nor particularly true) nor is it relevant.

He could have, theoretically, called himself a fucking Jelly Donut. But that doesn't mean you'd want to eat him.

Well, maybe YOU would.

Dainty to JFK: "Oh my, Mr. President! Cream filling came squirting out!"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor lie-ability, still hard for Dante?


tsk, tsk, tsk, a closeted gay troll scorned.