View Full Version : The Kennedy Double Standard?
PanzerJaeger
11/08/05, 15:05
The American Left holds JFK in very high esteem. In their eyes, and in the eyes of many non-political Americans, he was a visionary martyr for youth, social justice, and liberalism..
Now that brings me to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. If I remember correctly, Kennedy approved a plan to land Cuban nationals living in the US on Cuba to overthrow Castro - they were to be supported by US fighter jets.
Via Wiki,
The Bay of Pigs Invasion (also known in Cuba as La Playa Girón after a beach in the Bay of Pigs where the landing took place) was a United States-planned and funded landing by armed Cuban exiles in Central Cuba in an attempt to overthrow the Cuban socialist government of Fidel Castro in 1961. US-Cuban tensions had grown since Castro had overthrown the US-backed regime of General Fulgencio Batista on New Year's Day, 1959. The Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations had made the judgement that Castro's shift toward the Soviet Union could not be tolerated, and moved to overthrow him. However, the invasion failed miserably and proved to be a major international embarrassment for the Kennedy administration. The resulting fiasco of the invasion attempt has been studied as an ideal case of 'groupthink' and poor decision making.
When compared with their feelings towards president Bush and the war in Iraq, is there not a double standard here?
Both men were facing hostile dictators who hated America and posed a threat, and America had been deeply involved in both countries before the attacks.
The only differences I can see in the political field are the facts that President Bush is a socially conservative Republican, and President Kennedy was a socially liberal Democrat... oh and President Bush succeeded in overthrowing his opponent.
Yet I never hear condemnation of the Kennedy administration by people on the left. In fact, its more of a glorification. Kerry was constantly portrayed as Kennedy-esce. Why is their hero worship for one, and absolute indignant hatred for the other?
(There are some other similarities between President Bush and President Kennedy that I will post here if I can organize my thoughts better.)
Don Corleone
11/08/05, 15:14
They're not the same thing at all. Kennedy was good, he wanted to spread freedom. Bush is evil and just wants to get his oil buddies even richer. I heard he has a chart on his desk that plots numbers of dead American soldiers versus the increase for oil revenues at Exxon-Mobile. Supposedly, he had a point that marked where the war would be stopped, but we passed that in October, 2003.
The only problem is that Cubans are better off under Castro. Then they would have been if the exiles had succeded in over throwing Castro.
Al Khalifah
11/08/05, 16:24
People only choose to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis during Kennedy's time rather than the Bay of Pigs.
Another often forgotten fact about Kennedy (that bares comparisson with GWB) is that he faced serious allegations of electoral fraud in a close run election in TWO states - Texas and Illinois - the one in Illinois being the most serious. Kennedy also continued to support the South Vietnamise government by providing military adivsers and US special forces.
Don Corleone
11/08/05, 16:29
That's not true at all! Anti-communist foreign policy stopped for 3 years! Everyone knows that Eisenhower was a slug, sure. But Kennedy was decent, kind and moral, and he was actually a good friend with the Socialist Workers Parties of the world. That's why Nixon & Johnson plotted together to have the CIA and the mob assasinate him.
the bay of pigs incident was wrong on the us government part....i mean, why is the kind of government in cuba any concern of the US government??
if you dislike a government so much you cut economic and political relations with it(ups..look you already did that)..you don´t invade.
actually in the missile crisis situation kennedy would have a right in my view to invade cuba....you see at that time, there actually were WMD´s there, they weren´t made up....like another situation i can think of ~;)
It was a concern becuase of the mob. They owned some members of the US government. And when Castro took over he was, 1 a hardcore socialist (tantamount to being a serial killer in those days), and 2 kicked the US interests (Casino, factory, and plantation owners) out of Cuba and took their stuff. The Casinos were owned by the mob, and some of the plantations and factories too.
Also the whole reason bay of pigs happened was because of Nicaragua. Where the CIA got rid of a socialist president who confiscated US companies land and gave it to peasants. They did it by training an "army" of exiles and running a propaganda radio station blasting anti-socialist/communist BS 24/7. Lastly they bombed with USAF planes when the exile "army" invaded and marched on the capital. Bay of pigs was basically the exact same plan. It failed because unlike Arbenz (the Nicaraguan president) Castro wasn't scared shitless by the US information war against him. No El-beardo (Castro) stood firm while the "army" of a few hundred landed and the US planes didn't come.
Very good point PJ. Personally, I despise JFK, but I've never put these together.
Ever since I heard the phrase: "America's Royal Family" I've been anti-Kennedy (any of them). But that is beside the point.
Well done,
Azi
Very good point PJ. Personally, I despise JFK, but I've never put these together.
Ever since I heard the phrase: "America's Royal Family" I've been anti-Kennedy (any of them). But that is beside the point.
Well done,
Azi
Then I'm curious how you feel about the current "royal" family of the US. Isn't it the first time in the US when both the father and son has been presidents?
Don Corleone
11/08/05, 17:40
Then I'm curious how you feel about the current "royal" family of the US. Isn't it the first time in the US when both the father and son has been presidents?
Uhm, no. John Adams/John Quincy Adams would have been the first. And William Henry Harrison/Benjamin Harrison were a grandfather/grandson duo.
Then I'm curious how you feel about the current "royal" family of the US. Isn't it the first time in the US when both the father and son has been presidents?John Adams, and John Quincy Adams were father/son right? Also, I believe William Henry Harrison was Benjamin Harrison's grandather.
None of them, including Kennedy or Bush should be referred to as America's royalty.
When I heard the phrase about the Kennedy's it was because the Media was falling all over themselves to suck up. That is what I find nauseating. Note, you won't find any media falling over themselves over the Bush family (okay... maybe FOX news...).
But because the Kennedy's are deified, made to be such great people, that is where the term came from.
No one is born better than I am. That is why I hate royalty. The belief that just because of an accident of birth someone is superior to me? Never.
Azi
Red Harvest
11/08/05, 17:59
Relevance? Perhaps the reason you don't hear much about it has more to do with this happening well over 40 years ago and that Kennedy is dead? Perhaps it is because this was not a declared U.S. military operation, but instead a CIA operation originally planned by Eisenhower's administration?
I've not heard a lot of people defending Bay of Pigs. One similarity I see is with how Bush Sr. handled the Iraqi uprising after the 1st Gulf War. He encouraged that in speeches, but failed to support it with U.S. troops or air cover--that was a fundamental mistake in my opinion at the time, and certainly in hindsight. Kennedy let the invasion collapse when it bacame apparent U.S. troops would have to actively invade to support the exiles.
That's a fairly major difference from the Iraq invasion--it was U.S. troops from the start in Iraq. I'm not sure who/where you refer to when you talk about the "left." In the Backroom that seems to include the middle.
Bahia de Cochinos was a boondoggle for sure. A fundamental problem is that the Cuban population (on the island) apparently was not as eager to get rid of Castro as the CIA assumed, so the groundswell of support for the exiles didn't happen.
I don't know whether the left condemn's the Bay of Pigs invasion or not. It was so long ago that I've not heard many modern discussions of it.
As for the success of the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan): It remains to be seen how these will turn out. The invasions themselves were successful, but the jury is still out on whether they will succeed in producing stable nations.
I do not think the pig bay can be compared to the invasion of Irak.
You can better compare this to the shiite's rebellion in Irak in 1991 when the rebellion was encouraged by american administration before beeing let without support when it was crushed by Saddam.
A comparison of the current situation in Irak and of the current's administration attitude with Kennedy's choice of involvement in Viet Nam is probably more correct.
Steppe Merc
11/08/05, 18:09
I'm no big fan of JFK. Not only did he do that whole stupid Cuban thing, he also got America into Nam.
Uhm, no. John Adams/John Quincy Adams would have been the first. And William Henry Harrison/Benjamin Harrison were a grandfather/grandson duo.
I stand corrected :bow: I'm not good on older US presidents. I was a while ago though.
Azi thanks for the extended explanation :bow:
Both men were facing hostile dictators who hated America and posed a threat, and America had been deeply involved in both countries before the attacks.
The only differences I can see in the political field are the facts that President Bush is a socially conservative Republican, and President Kennedy was a socially liberal Democrat... oh and President Bush succeeded in overthrowing his opponent.
There are a few other differences that you have overlooked. But I'll point out the biggest one:
Cuba: Only a stone's throw away geographically and an ally of the only other global superpower at the time that could conceivably pose a military threat to the U.S. It was definitely within the realms of possibility that given this close proximity and alliance with the Soviets, Cuba could very well have been a jumping off point for either nuclear or conventional attack upon the United States.
Iraq: Thousands of miles away geographically, and shunned even by most other Arab/Muslim nations with no strong allies to bring to bear against the U.S. Not even remotely within the realm of possibility that Iraq could pose any military threat to the U.S. whatsoever. Claims of WMDs and links to the 9/11 terrorists were tenuous at best initially, and have since been proved to be only so much bunk.
So, those are just a few of the major differences that you overlooked, PJ.
Having said that, I should also say the following:
1) I think the Bay of Pigs was ill-advised from the beginning and should never have been attempted. All Kennedy's blundering accomplished was that Castro was looked at as an even bigger hero/protector in the eyes of his people.
2) I certainly do not idolize Kennedy, as he was definitely a man of many faults. I think both he and Bobby were a little too drunk with their power and often overstepped the bounds of its proper use, particularly in the international arena.
Red Harvest
11/08/05, 18:59
A comparison of the current situation in Irak and of the current's administration attitude with Kennedy's choice of involvement in Viet Nam is probably more correct.
And Eisenhower had started the ball rolling in Vietnam too, Kennedy made the involvement more active.
I never understood why the family of a bootlegger was considered "royalty". Goes to show what a little influence and charisma can do for you...
wth, is Don arguing the left side of this argument? That's a first.
IMO, Kennedy was an average president. He tried his best, but didn't always succeed. However, unlike Bush, I believe his intentions were good.
Read his comments again - he is being very sarcastic in his arguement. Not one of support of the left side I think - but of ridicule.
BTW Don If I am correct - a very good job of it I might add. :bow:
You better start using the [SARCASM ON] [/SARCASM OFF] switches, Don. People don't seem to be picking up on it lately...
BTW Don If I am correct - a very good job of it I might add ~Redleg
Yeah, Don Corleone does seem to have his sarcasm fedora pulled down a little closer to his ears today, I notice.
Don Corleone
11/08/05, 21:07
What? Who? Me? Lies, copper, lies. You'll never pin nuttin on me... :pimp:
PanzerJaeger
11/08/05, 21:08
IMO, Kennedy was an average president. He tried his best, but didn't always succeed. However, unlike Bush, I believe his intentions were good.
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. :inquisitive:
PanzerJaeger
11/08/05, 21:10
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.
Oops - Kennedy of course didnt succeed in the Bay of Pigs.. :embarassed:
Gawain of Orkeny
11/08/05, 23:02
Read his comments again - he is being very sarcastic in his arguement. Not one of support of the left side I think - but of ridicule.
BTW Don If I am correct - a very good job of it I might add.
Yes at first I thought someone else was sitting at his computer. ~;) I re read it and started laughing to myself. Presidents are just people. They all have their good and bad points. No one has even mnetioned he was as big a womanizer as Clinton and this guy had a wife to die for. He also had much better taste than Clinton. Ill take Marilyn over Monica anyday. ~;)
Al Khalifah
11/08/05, 23:26
Presidents are just people. They all have their good and bad points.
Wait a minute, you're saying Jimmy Carter had good points? ~:confused:
Steppe Merc
11/08/05, 23:29
Well he liked the Allman Brothers and Lynyrd Skynyrd... that's good...
Wait a minute, you're saying Jimmy Carter had good points? ~:confused:
Yeah, the USSR didn't bomb the west cause they had a numbnuts like Carter leading it. ~;)
Sasaki Kojiro
11/08/05, 23:35
Why is their hero worship for one, and absolute indignant hatred for the other?
To answer your question, there isn't. JFK gets a lot of press because he was shot rather spectacularly. Michael Moore and a few other wackos are the only ones who hate Bush.
Steppe Merc
11/08/05, 23:36
I'd disagree. I think many people strongly dislike Bush, and I assure many are not wackos.
PanzerJaeger
11/08/05, 23:41
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
11/08/05, 23:41
I'd disagree. I think many people strongly dislike Bush, and I assure many are not wackos.
Strong dislike or "absolute indignant hatred"?
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
12/08/05, 09:44
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.
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. :inquisitive:
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.
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
12/08/05, 16:28
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 ~D
To bad we now know it was all smoke and mirrors. ~;) Now Reagan replaced him as Americas hero ~D
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
12/08/05, 17:51
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 .
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
12/08/05, 18:15
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
12/08/05, 18:24
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
12/08/05, 18:29
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? ~D
Red Harvest
12/08/05, 20:13
If you are correct about polls should Clinton or Bush have won? ~D
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... ~D ) 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.
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.
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.
To bad we now know it was all smoke and mirrors. ~;) Now Reagan replaced him as Americas hero ~D
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
13/08/05, 05:26
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
13/08/05, 07:16
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
13/08/05, 07:22
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. ~;)
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
13/08/05, 07:26
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
13/08/05, 07:33
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. :no:
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 . ~D ~D ~D
Red Harvest
13/08/05, 17:35
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.
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
13/08/05, 20:04
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
13/08/05, 20:49
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.
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.
Gawain of Orkeny
13/08/05, 21:38
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.
Ah so you know me better than I know myslef. I praised two democratic presidents and grom that you get I say that democrats dont defend our country even when I point out that I was a democrat myself when I was defending this nation. Get a grip on your hatred for me.
All those sensationalistic threads, they destroy your credibility when you say otherwise.
Example please.
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.
How did GWB come into this conversation? Also I didnt know I was responsible for his election. I never even voted for the man or any other republican in my life. The best you can do is keep calling me a liar. I despise the US government the way it is today both the republicans and the democrats.
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 conservative" crowd. Maybe you should look within yourself and face reality.
In the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, only Cuban Refugees were killed. Big loss.
Not quite GC , Thomas Ray , Riley Shamburger , Leo Baker and Wade Gray were Americans .
KingOfTheIsles
14/08/05, 03:02
As an outsider to the American political system, I can't quite understand. Is there some kind of hero worship of JFK or something? ~:confused:
4 Americans, as compared to what..? 2000, now?
Try 4 compared to less than 2 hundred .
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.
Textbook conservative double-speak: calling somebody intolerant because they won't tolerate conservative intolerance.
Tripe.
Textbook conservative double-speak: calling somebody intolerant because they won't tolerate conservative intolerance.
Tripe.
Tripe (something poor, worthless, or offensive) is the use of the word bigot - if your going to use it, use it correctly. Your comment here also would also fit into the defination of the word tripe by the way.
Then it seems you are leaving out the context of the statement notice the last bit of the sentence Goofball - its a hypocritial postion
But don't let that get in the way of your bigotry toward conservative opinion.
Notice by the way my use of the word bigot used verus how Petrus used the term.
Someone might benefit from learning the defination of the word. (and yes I am being condensending on purpose - especially given your last post).
Bigot is defined as a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
So I guess the point here is that you spout tripe and are a bigot yourself. Care to play little word games with me - I can play right back.
Gawain of Orkeny
15/08/05, 17:57
Hasnt this arguement been going on for like a year now? I keep telling you all this bigot term is thrown about all to easily here and as Redleg keeps saying incorrectly. Most of us are pretty set in out views but this does not make us bigots or intolerant of others opinions. If you say lets hire that guy and I say no hes balck forget it and you say why isnt he qualified and I say I dont care if he is hes black forget thats bigotry.
A bigot is not someoone who refuses to listen to "your" logic.
Lay off the bashing of Tripe , it was good enough for me when I was a kid so why debase it now .
FFS we got it once a week at school , it was far more edible than the leather they served us as beef .
Then again it does stink to high heaven. ~;)
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 are welcome for any hateful comment you wish, but my english is not fluent enough to reply to you correctly, so it will remain a monologue, sorry.
For divided you are right, i thougt in french and translated literally in english.
Concerning Clinton and his impeachment, let me expose a european view of it, not an opinion but a general observation.
Every european could see, daily and during several month, a report on tv news concerning 'the Levinsky affair'.
The motives of this affair - the lie of your president about an adultery relationship - very quickly disepeared to the benefit of the details of the sexual games he had with this woman.
You had during this whole period a very intense political and judicial activity concerning only what seemed to be a pornographic story.
The persons accusing him appeared as claiming christianism and very strict ideas about sex.
This made a general perception of this affair to be that of a man accused of having had sex with a woman and prosecuted only because of this motive, by persons who, in the same time they were claiming their own love of virtue, displayed on a world wide scale a pornographic story.
That's what i meant by 'bigotry', a king of hypocrit conduct of persons obsessed and hysterical in their judgement about sex, but in the same time filling their own life as well as other's lifes with sex, all of this under a religious .
That's what made Clinton appear as a victim of an inquisition or of a political lawsuit and that's also what made him popular in europe : he was seen as the victim of an injustice and his prosecutors as narrow minded fanatics.
This is not due to a supposed euro sympathy concerning adultery, nor to a media-biased report of events, simply to months long pornographic show presented by self-claiming religious persons.
If you ask ten persons in europe about Clinton, maybe you will find one that will know he lied while under an oath, but you will surely find ten of them having precise information about the use of cigar during sexual games.
Although Clinton has not been popular in europe during his legislature, he became very popular after his trial.
That's also the reason that made appear the us as divided : a part of the nation very harshly attacking a man upon what seemed a somewhat unimportant point simply because of his political color.
And no, it is not true that europe have such a level of institutionalized trash system and even if there are always very strong political divisions, those ones are somewhat attenuated by political diversity.
Now, even if this is a off topic, concerning my own political color : you have to be wether red or blue, in the us, to follow a political color even if your own political choices are diversified.
In continental europe there is a much more diversified panel of colors that fit much closer to individual beliefs.
And even if their is generaly a left and a right major parties, those parties extend themselves on a much greater panel than what it does in the us, so i do not think you shall give a us color to a non-us as it will never have a real meaning, wether in the us or outside of this country.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.