I agree with Chris Mathews on JFK

[Oldstyle]

There is no attempt to posthumously "rehabilitate" Kennedy's stance on Vietnam. He ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and planned to pull out all troops by 1965. BUT, he was not going to make that public, because he didn't want to give the right wing hawks in the GOP any ammo for the 1964 election, AND, he didn't survive to the end on 1963.

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

Wow, you view the Kennedys through quite a prism there, my liberal friend. To say that Kennedy won a wafer-thin victory on election day because of the stances he took against a "dirty" Richard Nixon ignores what went on in Cook County that day in order for Kennedy to win Illinois and take the Presidency. One could make the point that Nixon's later problems with paranoia about election rigging that led to Watergate could be traced directly to what Joe Kennedy and Richard Daly pulled off in Chicago in 1960.

I've heard the stories, but never seen any real proof. It would have never come down to Illinois if Nixon had the courage Kennedy showed.

In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America’s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

A swift series of moves by the state’s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state’s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the state’s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, “If there’s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.”

On 26 October, Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy telephoned Coretta King from Chicago and expressed his concern about the jail sentence handed down to her husband. Kennedy’s brother and campaign manager Robert called Judge J. Oscar Mitchell from New York the following day, reportedly to inquire into King’s right to bail. Later that same day, King was released on a $2,000 appeal bond after nine days imprisonment. In this interview, King concedes that Kennedy “served as a great force in making my release possible.” While King maintained a nonpartisan stance in the presidential race, his father publicly announced he was switching his support from Nixon to Kennedy in light of the Democratic candidate’s call to his daughter-in-law.

King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn’t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

(But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: “I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is… He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase, and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.”

Following reports of Kennedy’s role in King’s release, Republican nominee Richard Nixon was criticized in some circles for his silence. Gloster B. Current, an NAACP official, commented at a conference that “Vice President Nixon may have thrown away a large segment of the Negro vote by his failure to speak out on the King arrest” (“NAACP Says Nixon Hurt in King Case,” Atlanta Constitution, 31 October 1960). E. Frederic Morrow, the first African-American appointed to an executive position in the White House, similarly recalled that Kennedy’s phone call “won the election” and that the newly elected president “had keen, intelligent Negro advisers” that “he obviously listened to”.

Interview after Release from Georgia State Prison at Reidsville Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ

BTW, that intelligent Negro adviser was Sargent Shriver.

You've heard the stories but never seen any real proof? Well of course you've heard the stories. It's not like it's some great secret. Chicago was about as corrupt a city as they come and Richard Daley ran it like his own little fiefdom. I don't think there was ever any real doubt about what happened in Cook County in 1960. Look, if you want to idolize JFK there is much about the man to do so with but please don't pretend that vote fixing didn't go on in Chicago that year because it quite obviously did.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow, you view the Kennedys through quite a prism there, my liberal friend. To say that Kennedy won a wafer-thin victory on election day because of the stances he took against a "dirty" Richard Nixon ignores what went on in Cook County that day in order for Kennedy to win Illinois and take the Presidency. One could make the point that Nixon's later problems with paranoia about election rigging that led to Watergate could be traced directly to what Joe Kennedy and Richard Daly pulled off in Chicago in 1960.

I've heard the stories, but never seen any real proof. It would have never come down to Illinois if Nixon had the courage Kennedy showed.

In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America’s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

A swift series of moves by the state’s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state’s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the state’s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, “If there’s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.”

On 26 October, Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy telephoned Coretta King from Chicago and expressed his concern about the jail sentence handed down to her husband. Kennedy’s brother and campaign manager Robert called Judge J. Oscar Mitchell from New York the following day, reportedly to inquire into King’s right to bail. Later that same day, King was released on a $2,000 appeal bond after nine days imprisonment. In this interview, King concedes that Kennedy “served as a great force in making my release possible.” While King maintained a nonpartisan stance in the presidential race, his father publicly announced he was switching his support from Nixon to Kennedy in light of the Democratic candidate’s call to his daughter-in-law.

King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn’t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

(But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: “I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is… He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase, and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.”

Following reports of Kennedy’s role in King’s release, Republican nominee Richard Nixon was criticized in some circles for his silence. Gloster B. Current, an NAACP official, commented at a conference that “Vice President Nixon may have thrown away a large segment of the Negro vote by his failure to speak out on the King arrest” (“NAACP Says Nixon Hurt in King Case,” Atlanta Constitution, 31 October 1960). E. Frederic Morrow, the first African-American appointed to an executive position in the White House, similarly recalled that Kennedy’s phone call “won the election” and that the newly elected president “had keen, intelligent Negro advisers” that “he obviously listened to”.

Interview after Release from Georgia State Prison at Reidsville Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ

BTW, that intelligent Negro adviser was Sargent Shriver.

You've heard the stories but never seen any real proof? Well of course you've heard the stories. It's not like it's some great secret. Chicago was about as corrupt a city as they come and Richard Daley ran it like his own little fiefdom. I don't think there was ever any real doubt about what happened in Cook County in 1960. Look, if you want to idolize JFK there is much about the man to do so with but please don't pretend that vote fixing didn't go on in Chicago that year because it quite obviously did.

Let's be naive, shall we. Only Democrats would do something like this. Hey, JFK didn't have the Supreme Court to bail him out.

YOU are the one who brought it up, and tried to use it as an excuse for Nixon's paranoia. I guess personal responsibility only applies to Democrats also.

Maybe you should listen to the Nixon tapes.

White House Conversations Reveal Prejudices, Culture War Behind Nixon's Drug War

Washington, DC: "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' or all fronts . . . ." That was Richard Nixon's reaction to his national commission's recommendation that marijuana no longer be a criminal offense, according to Nixon's Oval Office tapes. The year after Nixon's "all out war" marijuana arrests jumped by over 100,000 people.

Highlights of Nixon comments on marijuana:

* Jews and marijuana: "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ."

* Marijuana and the culture wars: "You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us."

* Marijuana compared to alcohol: marijuana consumers smoke "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun." Nixon also saw marijuana leading to loss of motivation and discipline but claimed: "At least with liquor I don't lose motivation."

* Marijuana and political dissent: ". . . radical demonstrators that were here . . . two weeks ago . . . They're all on drugs, virtually all."

* Drug education: "Enforce the law, you’ve got to scare them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the 1960 election, President-elect Kennedy paid a courtesy visit to Richard Nixon at Nixon's condo in Florida. They sat by the pool and talked for about an hour. As he was leaving, Kennedy told Dave Powers; 'You know Dave, it's good for you, me and the rest of the country that that man didn't quite make it'

JFK was right.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've heard the stories, but never seen any real proof. It would have never come down to Illinois if Nixon had the courage Kennedy showed.

In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America’s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

A swift series of moves by the state’s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state’s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the state’s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, “If there’s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.”

On 26 October, Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy telephoned Coretta King from Chicago and expressed his concern about the jail sentence handed down to her husband. Kennedy’s brother and campaign manager Robert called Judge J. Oscar Mitchell from New York the following day, reportedly to inquire into King’s right to bail. Later that same day, King was released on a $2,000 appeal bond after nine days imprisonment. In this interview, King concedes that Kennedy “served as a great force in making my release possible.” While King maintained a nonpartisan stance in the presidential race, his father publicly announced he was switching his support from Nixon to Kennedy in light of the Democratic candidate’s call to his daughter-in-law.

King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn’t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

(But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: “I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is… He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase, and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.”

Following reports of Kennedy’s role in King’s release, Republican nominee Richard Nixon was criticized in some circles for his silence. Gloster B. Current, an NAACP official, commented at a conference that “Vice President Nixon may have thrown away a large segment of the Negro vote by his failure to speak out on the King arrest” (“NAACP Says Nixon Hurt in King Case,” Atlanta Constitution, 31 October 1960). E. Frederic Morrow, the first African-American appointed to an executive position in the White House, similarly recalled that Kennedy’s phone call “won the election” and that the newly elected president “had keen, intelligent Negro advisers” that “he obviously listened to”.

Interview after Release from Georgia State Prison at Reidsville Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ

BTW, that intelligent Negro adviser was Sargent Shriver.

You've heard the stories but never seen any real proof? Well of course you've heard the stories. It's not like it's some great secret. Chicago was about as corrupt a city as they come and Richard Daley ran it like his own little fiefdom. I don't think there was ever any real doubt about what happened in Cook County in 1960. Look, if you want to idolize JFK there is much about the man to do so with but please don't pretend that vote fixing didn't go on in Chicago that year because it quite obviously did.

Let's be naive, shall we. Only Democrats would do something like this. Hey, JFK didn't have the Supreme Court to bail him out.

YOU are the one who brought it up, and tried to use it as an excuse for Nixon's paranoia. I guess personal responsibility only applies to Democrats also.

Maybe you should listen to the Nixon tapes.

White House Conversations Reveal Prejudices, Culture War Behind Nixon's Drug War

Washington, DC: "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' or all fronts . . . ." That was Richard Nixon's reaction to his national commission's recommendation that marijuana no longer be a criminal offense, according to Nixon's Oval Office tapes. The year after Nixon's "all out war" marijuana arrests jumped by over 100,000 people.

Highlights of Nixon comments on marijuana:

* Jews and marijuana: "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ."

* Marijuana and the culture wars: "You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us."

* Marijuana compared to alcohol: marijuana consumers smoke "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun." Nixon also saw marijuana leading to loss of motivation and discipline but claimed: "At least with liquor I don't lose motivation."

* Marijuana and political dissent: ". . . radical demonstrators that were here . . . two weeks ago . . . They're all on drugs, virtually all."

* Drug education: "Enforce the law, you’ve got to scare them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the 1960 election, President-elect Kennedy paid a courtesy visit to Richard Nixon at Nixon's condo in Florida. They sat by the pool and talked for about an hour. As he was leaving, Kennedy told Dave Powers; 'You know Dave, it's good for you, me and the rest of the country that that man didn't quite make it'

JFK was right.

You won't get an argument from me that Richard Nixon was some saint. What you will get an argument from me on is that JFK was. Calling Nixon "dirty" and ignoring what the Kennedys and Richard Daley pulled in Cook County in 1960 is rather ridiculous.

You've chosen to turn this discussion into an examination of Richard Nixon's rather warped personality because you don't want to admit that Kennedy was guilty of election fraud. It's just another example of the forty year deification of JFK. This whole idea that Kennedy was secretly planning to pull all US troops out of Vietnam despite his continuing escalation of our involvement there is just a part of that deification. I'm sorry but there isn't any indication that was Kennedy's intention at all. He believed in the domino theory and he believed we needed to fight back against communism.

 

[ginscpy]

I bawled like a baby when I firstheard of JFKs shooting in a 3rd grade classrom

Bigger than 9/11

I know whatcha mean. I was with 5 other cheerleaders in a station wagon headed for our rival's school where we were to lead cheers for their team in a show of good sportsmanship, which was done every year between the two schools.

We were told to say nothing about what we heard on the radio about the President's shooting as our sponsor turned down a reporter saying no way could the President have survived the shot.

We were crying like crazy, but when the car stopped, we did our best to be good actresses. We had to lead yells to less-than-enthusiastic students, but sportsmanship held us together for that 20 minutes, when we were done, we went back to the car and started crying again. On the way back to our school, they announced he definitely had died.

We were the most lugubrious lot of little ladies you ever saw all the way home.

It was a sad day for America.

No - I did'tcry when I hearadoftrheshootingogfJKF. More likestunned and wonderinig ///////////////////////wtf was going on .



Got the news that JKF had died of his wounds.

Then went to recesss. Was in a state of numbness the entire day even thouhg I was 10.

 

[whitehall]

God help us if we ever allow a president to appoint his own brother in charge of the Justice Dept. Liberals like Matthews knew back then that JFK was a weak man in a lot of ways but they imagined that he was a hero. The Russians started the Berlin Wall on his watch and JFK took a trip to Germany, called himself a jelly donut in German and went home to rave reviews in the media while the Germans were wondering what the hell happened. Bobby authorized the illegal evesdropping of MLK's phone and the media ignored it. Bobby was so fixated on killing Castro that it bordered on insanity. JFK authorized the CIA to organize an illegal Cuban invasion army and then he lost his nerve and abandoned them at the Bay of Pigs. Kruschev saw JFK as a weak dilettante and it set the stage for the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and Devcon2. In the meantime the CIA welcomed back a traitor who defected to Russia and then lost track of him until he turned up in the book depository building in Dallas. The entire JFK administration was an incoherent mess that ended up in a tragedy.

 

[Bfgrn]

You've heard the stories but never seen any real proof? Well of course you've heard the stories. It's not like it's some great secret. Chicago was about as corrupt a city as they come and Richard Daley ran it like his own little fiefdom. I don't think there was ever any real doubt about what happened in Cook County in 1960. Look, if you want to idolize JFK there is much about the man to do so with but please don't pretend that vote fixing didn't go on in Chicago that year because it quite obviously did.

Let's be naive, shall we. Only Democrats would do something like this. Hey, JFK didn't have the Supreme Court to bail him out.

YOU are the one who brought it up, and tried to use it as an excuse for Nixon's paranoia. I guess personal responsibility only applies to Democrats also.

Maybe you should listen to the Nixon tapes.

White House Conversations Reveal Prejudices, Culture War Behind Nixon's Drug War

Washington, DC: "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' or all fronts . . . ." That was Richard Nixon's reaction to his national commission's recommendation that marijuana no longer be a criminal offense, according to Nixon's Oval Office tapes. The year after Nixon's "all out war" marijuana arrests jumped by over 100,000 people.

Highlights of Nixon comments on marijuana:

* Jews and marijuana: "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ."

* Marijuana and the culture wars: "You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us."

* Marijuana compared to alcohol: marijuana consumers smoke "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun." Nixon also saw marijuana leading to loss of motivation and discipline but claimed: "At least with liquor I don't lose motivation."

* Marijuana and political dissent: ". . . radical demonstrators that were here . . . two weeks ago . . . They're all on drugs, virtually all."

* Drug education: "Enforce the law, you’ve got to scare them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the 1960 election, President-elect Kennedy paid a courtesy visit to Richard Nixon at Nixon's condo in Florida. They sat by the pool and talked for about an hour. As he was leaving, Kennedy told Dave Powers; 'You know Dave, it's good for you, me and the rest of the country that that man didn't quite make it'

JFK was right.

You won't get an argument from me that Richard Nixon was some saint. What you will get an argument from me on is that JFK was. Calling Nixon "dirty" and ignoring what the Kennedys and Richard Daley pulled in Cook County in 1960 is rather ridiculous.

You've chosen to turn this discussion into an examination of Richard Nixon's rather warped personality because you don't want to admit that Kennedy was guilty of election fraud. It's just another example of the forty year deification of JFK. This whole idea that Kennedy was secretly planning to pull all US troops out of Vietnam despite his continuing escalation of our involvement there is just a part of that deification. I'm sorry but there isn't any indication that was Kennedy's intention at all. He believed in the domino theory and he believed we needed to fight back against communism.

Hey buddy, YOU were the one who:
A) Brought up Nixon
B) Tried to blame his paranoia on Kennedy

I don't doubt some votes were captured in 1960, but I also don't doubt it was not the first time it happened...or the last.

You have ignored my posts on Vietnam and refused to read the linked articles. Instead, you continue to say what you feel JFK would have done. Consider this; in the 1,000 days of his administration, President Kennedy refused to use military force when confronted with 3 crisis; the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the erecting of the Berlin Wall.

President Kennedy ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops (NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM #263) from Vietnam by the end of 1963. But, he didn't survive to the end of 1963, so everything that followed was NOT JFK's policy, it was LBJ's.

I suggest you learn more about the man. I have studied him for 50 years.

Here is an excerpt of what was considered a radical speech in 1963; the President of the United States praising the Russian people and calling for world peace. It probably cost him his life...

Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

 

[daveman]

in his book.

Larger than life.

What if? Jfk had lived??

Probably would have been no Vietnam War quagmire.

My generations FDR .........

That is utter bullshit. Bay of Pigs happened under JFK. JFK STARTED the escalation of the Vietnam war and LBJ just continued his plan. If JFK would have not been assassinated then we would have been in Vietnam full force earlier!

Another exampple of Chris Mathews being a dishonest media hack!

Leftists sure do like to rewrite history. Of course, that's the only way they can hide their failures.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's be naive, shall we. Only Democrats would do something like this. Hey, JFK didn't have the Supreme Court to bail him out.

YOU are the one who brought it up, and tried to use it as an excuse for Nixon's paranoia. I guess personal responsibility only applies to Democrats also.

Maybe you should listen to the Nixon tapes.

White House Conversations Reveal Prejudices, Culture War Behind Nixon's Drug War

Washington, DC: "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' or all fronts . . . ." That was Richard Nixon's reaction to his national commission's recommendation that marijuana no longer be a criminal offense, according to Nixon's Oval Office tapes. The year after Nixon's "all out war" marijuana arrests jumped by over 100,000 people.

Highlights of Nixon comments on marijuana:

* Jews and marijuana: "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ."

* Marijuana and the culture wars: "You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us."

* Marijuana compared to alcohol: marijuana consumers smoke "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun." Nixon also saw marijuana leading to loss of motivation and discipline but claimed: "At least with liquor I don't lose motivation."

* Marijuana and political dissent: ". . . radical demonstrators that were here . . . two weeks ago . . . They're all on drugs, virtually all."

* Drug education: "Enforce the law, you’ve got to scare them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the 1960 election, President-elect Kennedy paid a courtesy visit to Richard Nixon at Nixon's condo in Florida. They sat by the pool and talked for about an hour. As he was leaving, Kennedy told Dave Powers; 'You know Dave, it's good for you, me and the rest of the country that that man didn't quite make it'

JFK was right.

You won't get an argument from me that Richard Nixon was some saint. What you will get an argument from me on is that JFK was. Calling Nixon "dirty" and ignoring what the Kennedys and Richard Daley pulled in Cook County in 1960 is rather ridiculous.

You've chosen to turn this discussion into an examination of Richard Nixon's rather warped personality because you don't want to admit that Kennedy was guilty of election fraud. It's just another example of the forty year deification of JFK. This whole idea that Kennedy was secretly planning to pull all US troops out of Vietnam despite his continuing escalation of our involvement there is just a part of that deification. I'm sorry but there isn't any indication that was Kennedy's intention at all. He believed in the domino theory and he believed we needed to fight back against communism.

Hey buddy, YOU were the one who:
A) Brought up Nixon
B) Tried to blame his paranoia on Kennedy

I don't doubt some votes were captured in 1960, but I also don't doubt it was not the first time it happened...or the last.

You have ignored my posts on Vietnam and refused to read the linked articles. Instead, you continue to say what you feel JFK would have done. Consider this; in the 1,000 days of his administration, President Kennedy refused to use military force when confronted with 3 crisis; the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the erecting of the Berlin Wall.

President Kennedy ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops (NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM #263) from Vietnam by the end of 1963. But, he didn't survive to the end of 1963, so everything that followed was NOT JFK's policy, it was LBJ's.

I suggest you learn more about the man. I have studied him for 50 years.

Here is an excerpt of what was considered a radical speech in 1963; the President of the United States praising the Russian people and calling for world peace. It probably cost him his life...

Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

With all due respect, it is YOU that is saying what he thinks Kennedy "would" have done and it is I who has pointed out what he "did" do. His order to withdraw 1,000 "advisers" came before the US backed coup and assassination of Diem. With the removal of Diem, everything in Vietnam changed. Kennedy was asking for a review of all options open to the US in Vietnam RIGHT before he left for Dallas. As I said before...this deification of JFK by crediting him for intending to pull out of Vietnam simply isn't based in fact.

 

[Bfgrn]

You won't get an argument from me that Richard Nixon was some saint. What you will get an argument from me on is that JFK was. Calling Nixon "dirty" and ignoring what the Kennedys and Richard Daley pulled in Cook County in 1960 is rather ridiculous.

You've chosen to turn this discussion into an examination of Richard Nixon's rather warped personality because you don't want to admit that Kennedy was guilty of election fraud. It's just another example of the forty year deification of JFK. This whole idea that Kennedy was secretly planning to pull all US troops out of Vietnam despite his continuing escalation of our involvement there is just a part of that deification. I'm sorry but there isn't any indication that was Kennedy's intention at all. He believed in the domino theory and he believed we needed to fight back against communism.

Hey buddy, YOU were the one who:
A) Brought up Nixon
B) Tried to blame his paranoia on Kennedy

I don't doubt some votes were captured in 1960, but I also don't doubt it was not the first time it happened...or the last.

You have ignored my posts on Vietnam and refused to read the linked articles. Instead, you continue to say what you feel JFK would have done. Consider this; in the 1,000 days of his administration, President Kennedy refused to use military force when confronted with 3 crisis; the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the erecting of the Berlin Wall.

President Kennedy ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops (NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM #263) from Vietnam by the end of 1963. But, he didn't survive to the end of 1963, so everything that followed was NOT JFK's policy, it was LBJ's.

I suggest you learn more about the man. I have studied him for 50 years.

Here is an excerpt of what was considered a radical speech in 1963; the President of the United States praising the Russian people and calling for world peace. It probably cost him his life...

Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

With all due respect, it is YOU that is saying what he thinks Kennedy "would" have done and it is I who has pointed out what he "did" do. His order to withdraw 1,000 "advisers" came before the US backed coup and assassination of Diem. With the removal of Diem, everything in Vietnam changed. Kennedy was asking for a review of all options open to the US in Vietnam RIGHT before he left for Dallas. As I said before...this deification of JFK by crediting him for intending to pull out of Vietnam simply isn't based in fact.

You have posted what you feel President Kennedy would have done, with NO documentation or proof...NONE. You REFUSE to read the links I provided where there is information from people who were there and deeply involved in the decisions. John Kenneth Gaibraith was one of his most trusted advisers. I suggest you read THIS.

And THIS

Excerpt:
Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right—under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race—Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."


You posted words from President Kennedy: "But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake..."

They were from an interview he did with Walter Cronkite in September 1963. Are you unaware of what Kennedy said before your quote, or are you being deceitful?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3uaXp8DAk]Cronkite Interview of JFK - YouTube[/ame]

"In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people."

 

[Too Tall]

in his book.

Larger than life.

What if? Jfk had lived??

Probably would have been no Vietnam War quagmire.

My generations FDR .........

On what do you or Chris Matthews base that theory? Kennedy believed in the "domino theory" and was committed to fighting communism. He OK'd the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He sent 1,200 "advisers" and increased the aid to South Vietnam's military in the form of more money and hardware. He OK'd the CIA's removal of Diem.

If you really knew the history of FDR by the way, you'd know that he was working behind the scenes to involve the US in World War II long before we actually joined the conflict. It appears that Kennedy was taking the same road in Vietnam as FDR did with Germany and Japan.

Except that you are wrong, he was actively reducing military presence in Vietnam before he was assassinated. Almost as soon as he was dead, the new president (Known as Asshat Mcfuckface) OK'ed full military presence in Vietnam, pretty much jump starting the war JFK was attempting to avoid.

JFK was NOT reducing military presence in Vietnam before he was assassinated.

He (JFK) sent Sec of Defense Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor to Vietnam on Sept 21, 1963 and they reported in a statement by the White house on October 2, 1963 that, in their judgement, "the major part of the US military task(Vietnam) can be completed by the end of 1965." They also stated that the training of the Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 military assigned to South Vietnam can be withdrawn.

US Military spokesman in Saigon reported that 1,000 US servicemen will be withdrawn from South Vietnam beginning December 3, 1963.

JFK was assassinated November 22, 1963 before any troops were withdrawn.

 

[Photonic]

On what do you or Chris Matthews base that theory? Kennedy believed in the "domino theory" and was committed to fighting communism. He OK'd the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He sent 1,200 "advisers" and increased the aid to South Vietnam's military in the form of more money and hardware. He OK'd the CIA's removal of Diem.

If you really knew the history of FDR by the way, you'd know that he was working behind the scenes to involve the US in World War II long before we actually joined the conflict. It appears that Kennedy was taking the same road in Vietnam as FDR did with Germany and Japan.

Except that you are wrong, he was actively reducing military presence in Vietnam before he was assassinated. Almost as soon as he was dead, the new president (Known as Asshat Mcfuckface) OK'ed full military presence in Vietnam, pretty much jump starting the war JFK was attempting to avoid.

JFK was NOT reducing military presence in Vietnam before he was assassinated.

He (JFK) sent Sec of Defense Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor to Vietnam on Sept 21, 1963 and they reported in a statement by the White house on October 2, 1963 that, in their judgement, "the major part of the US military task(Vietnam) can be completed by the end of 1965." They also stated that the training of the Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 military assigned to South Vietnam can be withdrawn.

US Military spokesman in Saigon reported that 1,000 US servicemen will be withdrawn from South Vietnam beginning December 3, 1963.

JFK was assassinated November 22, 1963 before any troops were withdrawn.

The point was that was what he was actively doing.

Dying before being able to do it doesn't mean he wouldn't have.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hey buddy, YOU were the one who:
A) Brought up Nixon
B) Tried to blame his paranoia on Kennedy

I don't doubt some votes were captured in 1960, but I also don't doubt it was not the first time it happened...or the last.

You have ignored my posts on Vietnam and refused to read the linked articles. Instead, you continue to say what you feel JFK would have done. Consider this; in the 1,000 days of his administration, President Kennedy refused to use military force when confronted with 3 crisis; the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the erecting of the Berlin Wall.

President Kennedy ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops (NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM #263) from Vietnam by the end of 1963. But, he didn't survive to the end of 1963, so everything that followed was NOT JFK's policy, it was LBJ's.

I suggest you learn more about the man. I have studied him for 50 years.

Here is an excerpt of what was considered a radical speech in 1963; the President of the United States praising the Russian people and calling for world peace. It probably cost him his life...

Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

With all due respect, it is YOU that is saying what he thinks Kennedy "would" have done and it is I who has pointed out what he "did" do. His order to withdraw 1,000 "advisers" came before the US backed coup and assassination of Diem. With the removal of Diem, everything in Vietnam changed. Kennedy was asking for a review of all options open to the US in Vietnam RIGHT before he left for Dallas. As I said before...this deification of JFK by crediting him for intending to pull out of Vietnam simply isn't based in fact.

You have posted what you feel President Kennedy would have done, with NO documentation or proof...NONE. You REFUSE to read the links I provided where there is information from people who were there and deeply involved in the decisions. John Kenneth Gaibraith was one of his most trusted advisers. I suggest you read THIS.

And THIS

Excerpt:
Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right—under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race—Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."


You posted words from President Kennedy: "But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake..."

They were from an interview he did with Walter Cronkite in September 1963. Are you unaware of what Kennedy said before your quote, or are you being deceitful?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3uaXp8DAk]Cronkite Interview of JFK - YouTube[/ame]

"In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people."

As I said before...everything changed when Diem was assassinated two months AFTER Kennedy gave that interview to Cronkite. The "Government" that Kennedy is referring to when he spoke with Cronkite is the Diem government. In October of 1963 that government no longer existed because Kennedy gave his support to a coup to oust Diem. Kennedy was asking his people to give him a list of all our options going forward for Vietnam shortly before he left for Dallas. That isn't the action of a man who's made the call to pull out...that's the action of a man who is undecided on what to do going forward. He very well MAY have decided to pull out. He very well MAY have decided to commit more troops. Nobody can say one way or the other which is why I look at attempts by people like yourself to say with "certainty" what Kennedy would have done in regards to Southeast Asia with a great deal of bemusement.

 

[Oldstyle]

Except that you are wrong, he was actively reducing military presence in Vietnam before he was assassinated. Almost as soon as he was dead, the new president (Known as Asshat Mcfuckface) OK'ed full military presence in Vietnam, pretty much jump starting the war JFK was attempting to avoid.

JFK was NOT reducing military presence in Vietnam before he was assassinated.

He (JFK) sent Sec of Defense Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor to Vietnam on Sept 21, 1963 and they reported in a statement by the White house on October 2, 1963 that, in their judgement, "the major part of the US military task(Vietnam) can be completed by the end of 1965." They also stated that the training of the Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 military assigned to South Vietnam can be withdrawn.

US Military spokesman in Saigon reported that 1,000 US servicemen will be withdrawn from South Vietnam beginning December 3, 1963.

JFK was assassinated November 22, 1963 before any troops were withdrawn.

The point was that was what he was actively doing.

Dying before being able to do it doesn't mean he wouldn't have.

I respectfully disagree. What he was "doing" was replacing Diem and then looking at his options. What he would have "done" from that point on is unknown. Dying before being able to do it doesn't mean he would have.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah but it's all speculation. It could be that time travelers from the future did it to prevent a future nuclear holocaust........

 

[oreo]

I'm only surprised someone actually read a book that assclown wrote.

I didn't know Criss Mathews could write--- Upps--forgot--he was Jimmy Carter's speech writer--which consisted of "I'll never tell you a lie"--60 times in one speech. Carter didn't even need a teleprompter to get through a speech--because he said that so often--LOL

 

[Bfgrn]

With all due respect, it is YOU that is saying what he thinks Kennedy "would" have done and it is I who has pointed out what he "did" do. His order to withdraw 1,000 "advisers" came before the US backed coup and assassination of Diem. With the removal of Diem, everything in Vietnam changed. Kennedy was asking for a review of all options open to the US in Vietnam RIGHT before he left for Dallas. As I said before...this deification of JFK by crediting him for intending to pull out of Vietnam simply isn't based in fact.

You have posted what you feel President Kennedy would have done, with NO documentation or proof...NONE. You REFUSE to read the links I provided where there is information from people who were there and deeply involved in the decisions. John Kenneth Gaibraith was one of his most trusted advisers. I suggest you read THIS.

And THIS

Excerpt:
Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right—under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race—Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."


You posted words from President Kennedy: "But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake..."

They were from an interview he did with Walter Cronkite in September 1963. Are you unaware of what Kennedy said before your quote, or are you being deceitful?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3uaXp8DAk]Cronkite Interview of JFK - YouTube[/ame]

"In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people."

As I said before...everything changed when Diem was assassinated two months AFTER Kennedy gave that interview to Cronkite. The "Government" that Kennedy is referring to when he spoke with Cronkite is the Diem government. In October of 1963 that government no longer existed because Kennedy gave his support to a coup to oust Diem. Kennedy was asking his people to give him a list of all our options going forward for Vietnam shortly before he left for Dallas. That isn't the action of a man who's made the call to pull out...that's the action of a man who is undecided on what to do going forward. He very well MAY have decided to pull out. He very well MAY have decided to commit more troops. Nobody can say one way or the other which is why I look at attempts by people like yourself to say with "certainty" what Kennedy would have done in regards to Southeast Asia with a great deal of bemusement.

Hey Oldstyle, when McNamara said in 2007: "Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them"...did he know Diem was assassinated in November, 1963?

Kennedy told Mike Mansfield in the spring of 1963 that he now agreed with his thinking “on the need for a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam”. After the meeting with Mansfield, Kennedy told Kenneth O’Donnell that when he pulled out of Vietnam in 1965: “I’ll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m re-elected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.” (18)

Kennedy met with Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor on 2nd October, 1963. Kennedy told McNamara to announce to the press the immediate withdrawal of one thousand soldiers from Vietnam. Kennedy added that he would “probably withdraw all American forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965”. When McNamara was leaving the meeting to talk to the white house reporters, Kennedy called to him: “And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots too.” In his statement to the press McNamara softened the President’s views by stating that in his judgment “the major part of the U.S. military task” in Vietnam could be “completed by the end of 1965.” (27)

Diem and Nhu were murdered on 1st November, 1963. The news reached Kennedy the following day. According to David Kaiser, Kennedy “left the room in shock”. (28) Despite this news, Kennedy made no move to change or cancel his troop reduction. As his aides, Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers pointed out: “The collapse of the Diem government and the deaths of its dictatorial leaders made the President only more skeptical of our military advice from Saigon and more determined to pull out of the Vietnam War.” (29)

It has been suggested by William Colby, Frederick Nolting, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon that Kennedy had ordered Diem’s assassination. There is no evidence for this view. In fact, the behaviour of Diem was giving Kennedy a good excuse to withdraw support for his government. Kennedy knew that Diem was incapable of providing a coalition government that would gain the support of the South Vietnamese people. Robert Kennedy argued against the assassination of Diem as it would leave the government in the “hands of one man that we don’t know very well.” (30) The Kennedy brothers were aware that the man who took control in South Vietnam would probably be no better than Diem at establishing a coalition government. The assassination of Diem was therefore not part of Kennedy’s policy to withdraw from Vietnam.

18. Kenneth P. O’Donnell & David F. Powers, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1972 (page 16)

27. Kenneth P. O’Donnell & David F. Powers, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1972 (page 17)

28. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 275)

29. Kenneth P. O’Donnell & David F. Powers, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1972 (page 17)

30. Edwin O. Guthman and Jeffrey Shulman, (eds.) Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words, 1988 (page 40)

The Vietnam War and the Assassination of JFK - The Education Forum