The Kennedy Double Standard?

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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.

[lars573]

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]

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]

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.

[Ronin]

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

[lars573]

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.

[Azi Tohak]

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

[Ironside]

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]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Azi Tohak]

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]

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.

[Petrus]

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]

I'm no big fan of JFK. Not only did he do that whole stupid Cuban thing, he also got America into Nam.

[Ironside]

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 I'm not good on older US presidents. I was a while ago though.

Azi thanks for the extended explanation

[Goofball]

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]

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.

[drone]

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...

[Redleg]

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.

[Goofball]

You better start using the [SARCASM ON] [/SARCASM OFF] switches, Don. People don't seem to be picking up on it lately...

[KukriKhan]

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]

What? Who? Me? Lies, copper, lies. You'll never pin nuttin on me...

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

Presidents are just people. They all have their good and bad points.

Wait a minute, you're saying Jimmy Carter had good points?

[Steppe Merc]

Well he liked the Allman Brothers and Lynyrd Skynyrd... that's good...

[lars573]

Wait a minute, you're saying Jimmy Carter had good points?

Yeah, the USSR didn't bomb the west cause they had a numbnuts like Carter leading it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.