The Kennedy Double Standard?

[Steppe Merc]

I'd disagree. I think many people strongly dislike Bush, and I assure many are not wackos.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'd disagree. I think many people strongly dislike Bush, and I assure many are not wackos.

And the point Im making is: Those same people probably hold Kennedy in high esteem.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'd disagree. I think many people strongly dislike Bush, and I assure many are not wackos.

Strong dislike or "absolute indignant hatred"?

[Ronin]

And the point Im making is: Those same people probably hold Kennedy in high esteem.

hey..i don´t hold Kennedy to a high level...

except you know for boning marylin....props must me given were props are due!!!

*high five*

[Al Khalifah]

I'd disagree. I think many people strongly dislike Bush, and I assure many are not wackos.

Many - but not most. At least in America anyway and since America is a democracy that's what counts.

[Petrus]

This is the point I was making.

Even though Kennedy's invasion was not approved by congress, and he didnt even try to go the the UN, people can write it off, yet Bush is an evil man.

Theres tons of justification for the invasion of Iraq, yet very little for the Cuban fiasco, so why is Kennedy remembered for how brave he was during the missle crisis? Will Bush be remembered differently than we see him today.. a great president perhaps? The groundwork has been set. Both Kennedy and Reagan pre-emptively took out threats to America and now they are regarded as great men by their respective parties.

Kennedy marked his time not only because of his actions and decisions, but because of his charisma and his death.

For 40 years, he has symbolized everything positive america can be : dynamism, youth, courage, solidarity, generosity, strong personality, voluntarism, love of life etc ...

His death sanctified this image.

This has absolutly nothing to do with his political engagement within the us, he could as well have been another party member.

But wether right or wrong, he is the most charismatic and the most positive image america has spread of itself around the world.

[Petrus]

And Eisenhower had started the ball rolling in Vietnam too, Kennedy made the involvement more active.

And Eisenhower came after the french that had been fighting communists nationalists in this area since 1945 with a very strong american backup.

I think it is to be compared to Irak situation, with american strongly motivated uno decisions in 1990, the first gulf war under G. Bush I, the low intensity aerial engagement during Clinton administrations then the full scale invasion of G. Bush II.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

For 40 years, he has symbolized everything positive america can be : dynamism, youth, courage, solidarity, generosity, strong personality, voluntarism, love of life etc ...

To bad we now know it was all smoke and mirrors. Now Reagan replaced him as Americas hero

[Petrus]

To bad we now know it was all smoke and mirrors. Now Reagan replaced him as Americas hero

Please note that this is not a judgement concerning your president's personality or realisations, but the image they give of themselves.

I do not think Reagan has replaced him or at least that he replaced him in such a positive view.

That may be due to the fact he was president more recently and that was is remembered about Kennedy is mostly positive, but Reagan appears as much more controvertial and that he was not sanctified by his death as Kennedy was.

His image as an actor also makes him percieved as someone more doubtful.

So yes, Reagan appears as a great man but he does not have a universaly admired personality as Kennedy has.

Please note that i am not trying to judge or to give a political coloration to this post, no provocation intended.

I think the man that appears as being closer, to a european eye at least, to Kennedy is Clinton, positive, brilliant, young and life loving too.

But he also appears as an image of a very segmented country and the attempt of impeachment was percieved as an inquisition which probably sanctified him, increasing greatly his positive image as well as symbolizing the bigotry of a very divised country.

Clinton is a popular man, while Reagan, even if admired by many, will also be meprized by some.

Anyway, neither of those men was confronted to critic situations such as Kennedy has been and this has a great importance for the image politics give of themselves : Kennedy is the only political man in a democratic country to have found himself on the verge of a nuclear war and he ressorted as the winner of this apocaliptic situation.

I am not a political fan, wether concerning ideas or men, but when i think to Kennedy, i see him during his speech in Berlin almost surrounded by soviet forces and i hear his voice shouting "Ich bin ein Berliner!".

Well, i am not German, but those words generate an extremely violent feeling : who would not follow a man like this one? There are only very few men in history that can claim this kind of status and Kennedy is one of those.

To end this post, please note that i do not intend any form of political judgement concerning anyone anywhere, that this has nothing to do with political parties and that it is only the general perception of the image given by political leaders of the past.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I do not think Reagan has replaced him or at least that he replaced him in such a positive view.

IN America he certainly has. Not only does he always win the best president polls but has now even won the greatest american poll

I think the man that appears as being closer, to a european eye at least, to Kennedy is Clinton, positive, brilliant, young and life loving too.

To you guys certainly. You probably hate Reagan. Kennedy was Clinton with much better taste in women .

[Redleg]

To end this post, please note that i do not intend any form of political judgement concerning anyone anywhere, that this has nothing to do with political parties and that it is only the general perception of the image given by political leaders of the past.

I actually had a hateful response to your post written - but just decided to point out the one aspect of the post that contradicts your statements and shows your true colors.

symbolizing the bigotry of a very divised country.

Bigotry and diversity do not go hand and hand - and besides divised is not an english word - so if you did not mean diverse then explain what you mean. Divided is probably what you are looking for - and again you would be just what you are claiming about the United States. Bigotry my ass - politicial manuever and demonizing of a President. Something both politicial parties do - and I see in done in Europe to a similiar degree also


Bah

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I am not a political fan, wether concerning ideas or men, but when i think to Kennedy, i see him during his speech in Berlin almost surrounded by soviet forces and i hear his voice shouting "Ich bin ein Berliner!".

Well, i am not German, but those words generate an extremely violent feeling : who would not follow a man like this one? There are only very few men in history that can claim this kind of status and Kennedy is one of those.

And when I think of Reagan I see him during his speech in Berlin saying"Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall" Which do you had a greater effect on the world?

[Red Harvest]

IN America he certainly has. Not only does he always win the best president polls but has now even won the greatest american poll.

Not really Gawain. The polls are always tinted towards the most recent, many respondents would know little about Kennedy. Kennedy and Reagan are heroes to folks for different reasons. Kennedy took on some social evils and some military ones, Reagan took on mostly military ones. They are both heroes in their own right. Both inspired a generation and lifted the country ouf of a funk. Reagan had the foresight to drive the USSR to extinction with a military build up. That buildup combined with the Voelker's changes to combat stagflation drove an overdue economic boost. However, Kennedy set the national goal to "win" the space race and put a man on the Moon. It was a confidence builder and it was a declaration that we would acheive and maintain technical superiority. So many positives came from it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not really Gawain. The polls are always tinted towards the most recent, many respondents would know little about Kennedy. Kennedy and Reagan are heroes to folks for different reasons. Kennedy took on some social evils and some military ones, Reagan took on mostly military ones. They are both heroes in their own right. Both inspired a generation and lifted the country ouf of a funk. Reagan had the foresight to drive the USSR to extinction with a military build up. That buildup combined with the Voelker's changes to combat stagflation drove an overdue economic boost. However, Kennedy set the national goal to "win" the space race and put a man on the Moon. It was a confidence builder and it was a declaration that we would acheive and maintain technical superiority. So many positives came from it.

Well for once for the most part I agree with you. They in reality were very similar. Both made us proud to be Americans and had a great vision for our future. Reagan though served two terms and accomplished more than Kennedy who unfourtunatly didnt even get to finish his first. If you are correct about polls should Clinton or Bush have won?

[Red Harvest]

If you are correct about polls should Clinton or Bush have won?

Not really. Which Bush? Bush Sr. was a weak president, he did some good but not in areas that are mentioned much--it's tough being a follow up act to Reagan. He was largely regarded as caretaker president (which is not entirely true) who lost the thread...and he mishandled post war Iraq (seems to run in the family... ) Clinton is too soon, and he did not make sweeping fundamental changes that would capture the public imagination--he did encourage a healthy business climate and a balanced budget (and yes, I recognize that part of this was the split in power.) I don't even recall Reagan being as highly regarded immediately following his term as he is today. Often it takes a little distance to put things in perspective. Things like the fall of the USSR, landing a man on the Moon, they happen later and it takes some time for the associated effects to fully sink in, but it is clear who made the decisive push.

Some side notes: Truman is regarded far more highly now than when he left office.

I could be wrong, but everything I've seen so far suggests to me that Dubya will not be well regarded looking back in 10 or 20 years. Following presidents of either party will most likely find it necessary to fix quite a bit of mess that he has created, and in doing so both sides will effectively campaign against his mistakes. He's gotten away with a lot by playing the "I'm a war president" theme. That's unlikely to work down the stretch and a single major setback could ruin his reputation. The intentional polarization used by Dubya will not endear him to anyone and is in marked contrast to Reagan (and Clinton )

It's just a projection, no telling what will really happen. Conditions are present, but random events can easily determine the outcome. And people can change over their terms too.

[Goofball]

I actually had a hateful response to your post written - but just decided to point out the one aspect of the post that contradicts your statements and shows your true colors.

symbolizing the bigotry of a very divised country.

Bigotry and diversity do not go hand and hand - and besides divised is not an english word - so if you did not mean diverse then explain what you mean. Divided is probably what you are looking for - and again you would be just what you are claiming about the United States. Bigotry my ass - politicial manuever and demonizing of a President. Something both politicial parties do - and I see in done in Europe to a similiar degree also


Bah

You might want to back up a step there Red. I don't believe Petrus meant to say "diverse" (as you assumed); I believe he made a typo and meant to say "divided." At least, that word would have made much more sense in that context, and it's only one letter off.

But I might be wrong.

P.S. You have to stop flying off the handle every time somebody uses the word "bigot." Look at it like this: many on the right freely call the homosexual lifestyle things like "disgusting," and "an abomination," and quite often refer to women having abortions as "murderers" because they believe it to be so. And that is their right.

But it's a two way street: some of us on the left think that those type of viewpoints reek of bigotry and intolerance. You may disagree, but it is our belief that it is so, and our right to state that opinion. "Bigotry" is just a word. Don't let it hurt you so much. Especially since in the example of Petrus, it wasn't even aimed at you.

[Redleg]

You might want to back up a step there Red. I don't believe Petrus meant to say "diverse" (as you assumed); I believe he made a typo and meant to say "divided." At least, that word would have made much more sense in that context, and it's only one letter off.

But I might be wrong.

P.S. You have to stop flying off the handle every time somebody uses the word "bigot." Look at it like this: many on the right freely call the homosexual lifestyle things like "disgusting," and "an abomination," and quite often refer to women having abortions as "murderers" because they believe it to be so. And that is their right.

But it's a two way street: some of us on the left think that those type of viewpoints reek of bigotry and intolerance. You may disagree, but it is our belief that it is so, and our right to state that opinion. "Bigotry" is just a word. Don't let it hurt you so much. Especially since in the example of Petrus, it wasn't even aimed at you.

Well when the intolerant use the word bigotry when talking about others - its a hypocritial postion.

If you think I am upset about it - think again. Pointing out the inconsistence in his statement and his word use. Bigotry has a very specific meaning - and in the instance that he used it - even if he meet divided not diverse is still incorrect.

Clinton was impeached by the house and tried by the senate - not because of bigotry - but because of politics. Bigotry implies something else again - and I have already pointed out what the correct use of the word is to you many monthes ago.

[Ronin]

To bad we now know it was all smoke and mirrors. Now Reagan replaced him as Americas hero

does blowing chunks all over a foreign dignatary classify someone as a national hero?...

well i´d never have tough....you learn something every day...

[Red Harvest]

does blowing chunks all over a foreign dignatary classify someone as a national hero?...

I think you might be referring to Bush Sr. rather than Ronnie. Bush had a famous gastric incident while in Japan.

[KafirChobee]

At first, reading through the posts, I saw no intent to respond to this blatantly bias perception ... until I saw that some believe that Ronny (you know the guy that supported Iran-Contra) had somehow superceded JKF as what a President should be.

JFK, was not a saint. He saved us from WWIII, during the missiles of October, because he had the best minds in America working with him to avoid a nucleat confrontation (unlike our present commander-in-chief).

To attempt to degrade a previous Presidency, to promote the virtues of another is pure and unadulterated BULLSHIT. Or, to be more acceptable to our forums' censors - WRONG - as in Hitler was a bad guy, Truman a good guy.

Kennedy haters, or Democrat haters in general, demonstrate one phenomenon - they forgive what their man does (regardless of it's worht to our nation), while attacking the men they hate (Dems) that actually did do something to defend the nation.

I love the right-wing revisionists still attempting to prove that FDR forced us into WWII. Maybe he did - I mean, would you be willing to ignore th "Rape of NanChing", the bombings of London, the rants of Hitler, etc? And, have the power to maybe sway your nation to the fact that it was in danger?

I love how the Iran-Contra affair is ignored in these discussions. How Reagan made the top 10 most important Americans list (History Channel) only proves the ignorance of most americans in what he did, versus his ability to spew BS. I mean, be real, the man didn't even know who he was the last 3 years he was in office - alzhyers (you know?).

So, pass on putting the Kennedys down. All they Kennedys ever did was to create a more perfect union. What did Reagan ever do - aside from establishing the idea that it was OK to create a 20Trillion$$$ debt. After all, he promised to balance a $trillion$ deficit and turned it into a $4Trillion$ one. What a success. What a guy. What a joke.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I love how the Iran-Contra affair is ignored in these discussions. How Reagan made the top 10 most important Americans list (History Channel) only proves the ignorance of most americans in what he did,

I love how your still in denial. He didnt only place in the top 10 he won. Nobody really cares about iran contra. Hell to many Ollie is a hero.

[Redleg]

Kennedy haters, or Democrat haters in general, demonstrate one phenomenon - they forgive what their man does (regardless of it's worht to our nation), while attacking the men they hate (Dems) that actually did do something to defend the nation.

Another case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black.

I wonder if anyone else see's the humor and hyprocisy in such statements.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Kennedy haters, or Democrat haters in general, demonstrate one phenomenon - they forgive what their man does (regardless of it's worht to our nation), while attacking the men they hate (Dems) that actually did do something to defend the nation.

I thought Kennedy was a good president . I liked Trumman also. When republicans defend our nation you call them chicken hawks neo cons and war mongers.

[PanzerJaeger]

Kafir, why do you think so highly of Kennedy after he tried to illegally invade Cuba? Is that not what you rail against Bush for doing? Im really interested to hear your viewpoint.

Also, Iran-Contra is not the scandal some want it to be not because Americans are ignorant, but because they understand exactly what it was. Hostages were released, communists were fought, and guess where all those nasty weapons went? - straight into Saddams war machine, not used in terrorism. Reagan understood how to deal with the democratic obstruction of the time and the country is the better for it.

PS. Your unfounded comment about Reagan's mental health is not only untrue, but petty and hateful.

[Tribesman]

Hostages were released, communists were fought, and guess where all those nasty weapons went? - straight into Saddams war machine, not used in terrorism.
Now that is really confusing , I never realised that Lebanese hostage takers , Irans fundamentalist revolutionary movement or South American death squads were part of Saddams war machine .
What a strange world , terrorists are given weapons , but they don't use them for terrorism .

[Red Harvest]

When republicans defend our nation you call them chicken hawks neo cons and war mongers.

Gawain. That is self serving BS, "republicans defend our nation." I've got news for you, Bucko. There are a lot of non-republicans defending our nation, and they are very insulted by the "only republicans can defend the country" propaganda. What you have just said illustrates the STUPIDITY that is prevalent from the Right anymore whenever this subject arises. It also shows the polarization that they have been creating.

The "chicken hawk" descriptor is spot on, whether or not you support them or their policies. Men too cowardly or selfish to fight in conflicts when they could have or should have. Men who clearly didn't do even their Guard service properly. Men who were running away from the scene during 9/11 (last I checked flying from Florida to Barksdale in Louisiana was not the best way to get to the White House.) Now they have the audacity to pose as the great hero defenders of our nation? Gimme a break.

War mongers...unfortunately, that one fits better than it should. The WMD farce makes that charicature defensible. Strutting around saying, "I'm a war President" to brush off criticism also lends credibility to it. Saying that only conservatives know anything about defending the country isn't helping either.

[Redleg]

Gawain. That is self serving BS, "republicans defend our nation." I've got news for you, Bucko. There are a lot of non-republicans defending our nation, and they are very insulted by the "only republicans can defend the country" propaganda. What you have just said illustrates the STUPIDITY that is prevalent from the Right anymore whenever this subject arises. It also shows the polarization that they have been creating.

Now look at the pot calling the kettle black once again.

The "chicken hawk" descriptor is spot on, whether or not you support them or their policies. Men too cowardly or selfish to fight in conflicts when they could have or should have. Men who clearly didn't do even their Guard service properly. Men who were running away from the scene during 9/11 (last I checked flying from Florida to Barksdale in Louisiana was not the best way to get to the White House.) Now they have the audacity to pose as the great hero defenders of our nation? Gimme a break.

Well while you are making such compairsons - what about Clinton. He was worse then a "Chickenhawk". However Kennedy regardless of his faults was a war vetern who performed his duties well according to all reports. But it seems some Republicans who made president of ran for the office performed their jobs in the military very well - Dole, McCain, and many others. It seems someone gets upset about the demonizing of only the democrates - but does it himself toward the Republicans.

Pot calling the Kettle Black

War mongers...unfortunately, that one fits better than it should. The WMD farce makes that charicature defensible. Strutting around saying, "I'm a war President" to brush off criticism also lends credibility to it. Saying that only conservatives know anything about defending the country isn't helping either.

Neither does saying what you just did in this post - most of it is rant and is just another case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Neither does saying what you just did in this post - most of it is rant and is just another case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black.

When it comes to that Red Harvest is the hands down winner. It occurs in almost every post he makes.

Gawain. That is self serving BS, "republicans defend our nation." I've got news for you, Bucko. There are a lot of non-republicans defending our nation, and they are very insulted by the "only republicans can defend the country" propaganda.

PLease show me where I said democrats dont defend our country. Dont be an ass. FDR was a democrat, Truman was a democrat and JFK was a democrat. I never accused democrats of not defending our country. I said

I thought Kennedy was a good president . I liked Trumman also. When republicans defend our nation you call them chicken hawks neo cons and war mongers.

Now again where in this did I say democrats dont defend us in fact I named to that I thought did a good job of it.

What you have just said illustrates the STUPIDITY that is prevalent from the Left anymore whenever this subject arises. It also shows the polarization that they have been creating.

PS when I was in the Marines I was a registered democrat. Yeah hard for you to believe I know.

[Red Harvest]

Gawain. Lie and twist away. Your implications on these matters, and your affilitiations are quite clear. You do believe exactly what I said. Your posts exude it. All those sensationalistic threads, they destroy your credibility when you say otherwise. The polarizing nature of this President and his supporters is obvious both in this country and throughout the world. It has not been enough to disagree, he has had to villify. Any backlash is portrayed as media bias and "partisanship" or being soft on terror. Dubya and his fanatical supporters have created the conditions, don't whine about the monster you've created.

Why the rant? It's a reaction to the absolute crap that is being thrown out and that has been thrown out for the past 5 years. "Democrats and moderates are weak on defense would let us be invaded by, terrorists in tutu's, blah, blah, blah..."

So when any of us scream ENOUGH! at the top of our lungs and blast the spew for what it is, we get the "pot calling the kettle black" whine from the "shout LIBERAL" crowd.

[KukriKhan]

Have the 2 questions posed in the starter post

"When compared with their feelings towards president Bush and the war in Iraq, is there not a double standard here?"

and

"...Why is their hero worship for one, and absolute indignant hatred for the other? "

been answered?

Who can tell with all the personal sniping taking place here?

Address the issue(s), answer the question(s), do it civilly. Otherwise the topic is non- or counter-productive, and a candidate for premature closure.

Please carry on.