Wait, I don't agree with my topic title at all, but I have a quote from a recent Ann Coulter blog entry where she describes Thirteen Days as "a falsely heroic portrayal of JFK's disastrous handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis."
Do you agree or disagree?
The fact that you are alive today and able to write this proves otherwise.
Please, once again note that I do not agree with her at all.
sharewell you did bring this topic, however I wasn't pointing the finger directly at you but those who might want to question that assessment. Its easier to be an armchair president almost 50 years later and dissect his moves and say "couldve' and shouldve" would have occured if the President did "this or that". The point is that you would never know because any different decisions made by the administration would have made the Russians also evalualate things differently.
What we do know is that war was averted and both countries had their fingers on the trigger ready to send the world into a nuclear holocaust if things were to escalate.
What did conservatives expect Kennedy to do exactly? Invade Cuba?
shareWell, I'm not sure if conservatives necessarily expected Kennedy to invade, but the military sure as hell did!! Witness LeMay's line in the movie: "Those goddamned Kennedys are gonna destroy this country, if we don't do something about this!!" LeMay was even quoted, when asked what he would do about Cuba, as saying, "I'll fry it!!"
kennedy's failings were not pro-active..his failings were in allowing other people to set his agenda..many people,including stevenson,felt having nukes in turkey was provacative,and unnecessary..he allowed the military hawks to influence him..he also looked the other way when the CIA made 3 attempts on castro's life ,and initially approved the bay of pigs operation,which he should never have approved..the castro revolution overthrew an oppressive,corrupt government..like most revolutionaries,casto was marxist,but he did not trust nor respect the russians..he came to us FIRST,and we rebuffed him..the mafia was furious at losing their casinos in havana,and due to his father's devil pact with the mob in helping get jfk elected,the president initially used unfair,and illegal means to overthrow castro,thus driving him into the russian's arms for protection..kruschev and the politboro were posturing..whether the missles were in cuba,east germany,or submarines just miles off our coast,any nucleur war would be an apocalypse..kruschev's decision
to remove the missles helped avoid ww3 and of course ruined nikita's career,as he was deposed not long after..jfk was neither the demon nor the hero of this affair..the camelot mystique in the press has papered over his bad decisions that led to the crisis and our later involvement in vietnam..and they gave him a pass on his scandalous personal life ,far worse than clinton or elliot spitzer or many others..jfk's stregnth was that he was an inspirational leader who motivated many people to strive for greatness..his optimism,idealism and long term vision should be lauded..he was,however,a terrible manager,who's on-the-spot decisions were wrong more times than not..
I think the Kennedies acting pretty good under those circumstances and in the face of the facts and tensions of the Cold War. It wasn't perfect, but it never it is. Kennedy wasn't a saint, but I think he and Bobby acted with a good deal of intelligence and conscientious concern for his country, in this case. I think this film doesn't totally whitewash what the Kennedies did or how they acted. I mean, they do play dirty or some deceptive games here. They may be doing it for a greater good, but there's moments here where they show the Kennedies' familiarity with backroom politics and such. Plus, there are times when Bobby does come of as an arrogant hothead, especially how he under-appreciates Adlai Stevenson up until the UN showdown with Soren. Plus, when Stevenson shows his stuff, it kind of reveals how unexperienced Bobby is at this point in his career.
"Religion and Politics: like a divorced couple who still enjoy occasional, casual sex."--Anonymous
I've always felt that, if Kennedy had not died when he did, he would not be looked on so kindly by history. The protestors would have chanted: "Hey hey, JFK, how many boys did you kill today?" instead of LBJ.
Maybe Kennedy's charisma could have made Vietnam more pallatable to the American public, but for how long?
Of course what "chemguy" has written is total speculation. We will never know how much smarter he might have been, about the situation, than Johnson. Kennedy was smart enough NOT to be led around by the collar by the military. Johnson gave them everything they wanted much of the time. Kennedy also learned big lessons from the 'Bay of Pigs,' and the October crisis. And finally, he wasn't trying to put a final heroic ending to his career like Johnson was trying to do. Kennedy was a quick study.
shareChemguy... LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam. The only indication from Kennedy on the matter suggests that he favored withdrawing troops.
shareTo Irishtom99:
I lived through crisis and paid attention to it every day. I've also read more recent accounts of information we now know since the break-up of the Soviet Union. My opinion: Kennedy was clearly a hero in how he handled the situation and his circle of generals/admirals and politicians. If he hadn't followed his own thinking about the situation, insects would now be ruling the earth.
His score: 99/100
Curtis Lemay was a dynamic and strong leader who served his country well.
However his views on Cuba are the best argument for civilians overseeing the military.
He also said that not attacking Cuba was a missed opportunity.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY IS US"
POGO
Curtis LeMay was indeed a dynamic leader and he did serve his country well, however in my opinion he'd have been better off either retiring or being kept in the field (SAC for example) after World War Two, not making policy. He did not (even after the crisis) understand how the nature of war had changed in the nuclear age, and in a member of the Joint Chiefs of staff that's just unforgivable.
As for Kennedy, I don't think much of the platform he ran on or what he did during his first couple years in office. However I think the crisis slapped him back to reality and sobered him up some - it'd have been interesting to see what he'd have done had he been allowed to serve out the rest of his term.
Denny Crane.
Very well put Denny.
The movie's portrayl of Lemay in the crisis, was dead on.
He referred to not nuking the Russians as a "missed opportunity".
Fortunately Kennedy had other advisers who knew better, and we didn't get toasted. (I was 11 years old at the time)
It's a shame that JFK was killed.
I agree, it would have been very interesting to
see what he would have done,had he lived.
Tom Lepone
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY IS US"
POGO
[deleted]
There is nothing in my post about Ann Coulter.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY IS US"
POGO
There is nothing in my post about Ann Coulter.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
No problem, that's what I thought.
Have a good one.
Tom Lepone
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY IS US"
POGO
More like nuke all those douchebags, *beep* invasion.
shareInvading Cuba at that point would have been disastrous, we learned that after the fall of the USSR. The Russians knew that in the event of an invasion of Cuba the first thing the US would have done would be to cut communications. It's an island and they sure didn't have internet and communication satellites back than, so in such an event the commanders back in Moscow would have no way of sending the launch orders and launch codes. The Russians also didn't trust Castro with the authority to launch nuclear weapons so they gave their commanders the authority to decide to launch or not launch the weapons. Meaning in the event of a US invasion of Cuba at that moment it would have been up to some mid-level Soviet military commander to decide weather or not to launch nuclear weapons.
shareLet's face it...Ann Coulter has her head up her a**. In fact, in the 1930's she probilly would have been a supporter of Hitler and would have made a nice little nazi.
share"Let's face it...Ann Coulter has her head up her a**. In fact, in the 1930's she probilly would have been a supporter of Hitler and would have made a nice little nazi."
... just like every other Republican in that era.
But in response to IrishTom, I don't know how fair it is to blame the CIA and "military hawks" for all the troubles you name. You have to remember that Kennedy campaigned very much as a hawk and, in foreign policy issues at least, to outflank Nixon from the right. Remember Eisenhower's oft-quoted "military industrial complex" speech? It was his farewell address, and was aimed at the increases in Pentagon budget he foresaw under Kennedy.
I don't buy the notion that he was bullied by the CIA and Joint Chiefs. He's the President; they do what he tells them, not the other way around, and if he allowed them to push him around then in my opinion that was him abrogating his responsibilities as commander-in-chief, and is still responsible. Various people tried to "bully" Truman into overthrowing the democratic government of Mossadegh, and he told them to shove it; why couldn't Kennedy do the same thing?
Obviously, he wasn't as crazy as they were, particularly LeMay - the Cuban missile crisis highlighted that and soured relations between them for a while to come. But he was very much a hardliner, and I'd say he was indeed responsible for the Bay of Pigs and the other actions you name.
Denny Crane.
Wait, I don't agree with my topic title at all, but I have a quote from a recent Ann Coulter blog entry where she describes Thirteen Days as "a falsely heroic portrayal of JFK's disastrous handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis."
Do you agree or disagree?
ann coulter is mean-spirited and arrogant..but day IS light and night IS dark.
so,lets talk about right and wrong..the record is clear,jfk put the bombers in the air and made clear he WOULD use them if the missles werent removed..the missle crisis came about because of his poor,and illegal decisions to approve assasination attempts on castro and to constantly threaten invasion..he did this not for national security reasons but to get the havana casinos back for the mob,who he was indebted to for the fixed elections of 1960..he looked down his nose at real diplomats like stevenson and let mcnamara lead him around like an acolyte..he was a media creation..worship him if you like,i'll pass.
ann coulter is mean-spirited and arrogant..but day IS light and night IS dark.
so,lets talk about right and wrong..the record is clear,jfk put the bombers in the air and made clear he WOULD use them if the missles werent removed..the missle crisis came about because of his poor,and illegal decisions to approve assasination attempts on castro and to constantly threaten invasion..he did this not for national security reasons but to get the havana casinos back for the mob,who he was indebted to for the fixed elections of 1960..he looked down his nose at real diplomats like stevenson and let mcnamara lead him around like an acolyte..he was a media creation..worship him if you like,i'll pass.
the bay of pigs,the assassination attempts and his refusal to meet with castro happened long BEFORE the missles were installed..castro's contempt and mistrust of the ussr was a matter of record..we ALREADY had nukes in turkey,just minutes from moscow,and the ussr did not use that as an excuse to threaten ww3..i never said that jfk used the blockade because of the mob,but he WAS indebted to them,and as early as the spring of 1961 was already approving illegal means to overthrow or kill castro..it was that conduct that drove castro to ask the ussr for nukes and it was jfk's caving in to the hawks on missles in turkey in early 1961 that set the stage for russian nukes in cuba..as for the transcripts,jfk was the king of spin,and besides,the damage had already been done by then..we had a 10 to 1 superiority in warheads and superior air and navy,there was NO reason th risk armeggedon over this
sharethe bay of pigs,the assassination attempts and his refusal to meet with castro happened long BEFORE the missles were installed..
castro's contempt and mistrust of the ussr was a matter of record.
we ALREADY had nukes in turkey,just minutes from moscow,and the ussr did not use that as an excuse to threaten ww3
..i never said that jfk used the blockade because of the mob,but he WAS indebted to them,and as early as the spring of 1961 was already approving illegal means to overthrow or kill castro..
it was that conduct that drove castro to ask the ussr for nukes and it was jfk's caving in to the hawks on missles in turkey in early 1961 that set the stage for russian nukes in cuba..
as for the transcripts,jfk was the king of spin,and besides,the damage had already been done by then..
we had a 10 to 1 superiority in warheads and superior air and navy,there was NO reason th risk armeggedon over this
first off,eisenhower was on record,while in office,criticizing the cia,the military industrial complex and the the expansion of atomic weapons,and took a LOT of heat for it..second,castro did NOT ask for ussr help after the revolution,
he was quite insistent on the soviets keeping their troops and weapons out of cuba,he feared replacing one master for another..third,jfk was the president,its whiny to be pointing fingers at the bad advice he got..i did acknowledge previously that it wasnt his idea to assasinate castro,or invade cuba or put nukes in turkey..but he DID sign off on them,and must accept responsibility for them..look,im certainly not being an apologist for the ussr,which was imperialistic,antogaonistic and manipulative..and nikita,a decent person at heart,threw gasoline on the fire with his posturing,but the journalists of that day were totally co-opted with this camelot thing..even as a teenager in the 60s(and a liberal democrat to boot)i knew about papa kennedy and his ties to the mob..the mob lost MILLIONS when castro threw them out..by the mid 70s,the mob's vote fixing in illinois and west virginia in the 1960 election was well established,so ,yes,i do believe his cuban decisions were influenced by that debt..sorry for my lousy typing,and thanks for the great debate,i appreciate your perspective,which is obviously well informed..
second,castro did NOT ask for ussr help after the revolution,
he was quite insistent on the soviets keeping their troops and weapons out of cuba,he feared replacing one master for another..
and nikita,a decent person at heart,threw gasoline on the fire with his posturing
i was under the impression that castros revolution occurred in 1959,not 1962..by 1962,all of the things mentioned had happened..again in 1959,thru mid 1961,castro DID make an effort to establish relations with the U.S.,and was rebuffed..the posturing of nikita i was talking about was his ostentatious claims of destroying capitalism(the shoe banging,etc)--again,you keep alluding to the conditions in mid 1962,by which time castro WAS in bed with the russians..i'm talking abou the 3 years leading up to that.. i both love and have great pride in my country,but we have a bad habit of holding other countries to standards we ignore..we wave the monroe doctrine in other peoples faces,then send weapons and troops into vietnam,we draft the geneva convention and execute nazis for war crimes,but then justify beatings and waterboarding for "terrorists"..my point is,jfk may not be the bogeyman,but he contributed to missle crisis with bad decisions,and if his mob debt didnt rule his decision making,its niaive to think it wasnt a major factor..as for the missles themselves,it is now common knowledge that we had several hundred more warheads than the russians,and our bombers,subs and missle system was far superior to theirs..i'm ok with you thinking my theory is ludicrous,but suggesting missles in cuba would make the ussr more dangerous is also ludicrous..the missles were to prevent an invasion of cuba,and was a bit of penis-waving tit fot tat over our turkey nukes..i will always insist that it was NOT a reason to end the world,and jfk had his finger on the button,which is DEFINITELY a matter of public record..
shareIrish tom...
You said "suggesting missles in cuba would make the ussr more dangerous is also ludicrous."
Ha ha ha ha ha! That statement is ludicrous.
What do you think is more dangerous? Someone aiming a gun at you from a skyscraper, or someone with a gun pressed against your head?
Foolish.
[deleted]
If President Kennedy did just one worthwhile thing in his short term as President, helping mankind step back from the Abyss was it. I think if Nixon had been at the helm, we'd be dust
share
Eggman, I did once think as you do, but I actually believe that in matters of foreign policy at least, Nixon was something of a visionary, a statesman at heart with an innate geopolitical savvy. I despise his personal faults and the whole administration he headed with his "dirty tricks", but we must give everyone his due, especially those we dislike.
That's also why I would wholeheartedly agree with Ann Coulter if she stated that day is light and night dark. I might not like her, but I agree with her when she speaks the truth.
Unfortunately for her, she's talking out of her @$$ with this one. Kennedy was a man, end of. He had his faults and was sometimes to be seen disappearing into nightclub toilets with women while leaving detonation codes with a lone security guard. That is breathtakingly bad behaviour from someone in his position, of course. But during the CMC, he and his brother Bobby and other valiants such as McNamara behaved like true statesmen and did everything in their power to preserve, not just world peace, but the world itself, for posterity.
At the end of the day, it's tremendously easy to sit back and say in retrospect that this should have been done or that should have been done. It's also extremely difficult to actually do the right thing without the benefit of hindsight. I personally find that I have a whole host of reasons to detest JFK for his behaviour and the venal ambitions of his thwarted father, but honesty should always have the grace to admit when someone was right. To deny someone his achievements is an exercise in character assassination.
"Now, fulfil your destiny, and take your father's place at MY side!"
hi,mack..you make some valid points about nixon's character vis-a-vis his ability...on the CMC,though,and i know many disagree with me,i still feel it was kruschev who ultimately made the "game saving" decision..it ruined him with the politboro(he wound up in virtual exile),but he DIDNT push it..i dont feel that sending a blockade to board soviet ships in international waters is either statesmanlike or preserving peace..i dont think putting our bombers on full alert and subtly threatening a first strike was preserving peace..the russians were imperialistic bullies,hypocrites and dangerously paranoid..BUT,they didnt try to invade cuba,we did(granted,by proxy),they didnt put nukes 30 minutes from moschow,in turkey,we did..they didnt have a history of using nukes on a
civilian target,we did..we certainly werent the villians here,but we werent the heroic peace seekers,either..mcnamara got us into vietnam and dean rusk fanned the red scare fire into nearly armeggedon..long story short,yeah,we didnt push the button,but nither did they--good thread,dudes...
Back a few posts;
"first off,eisenhower was on record,while in office,criticizing the cia,the military industrial complex and the the expansion of atomic weapons,and took a LOT of heat for it.."
Unless he said it elsewhere as well, the only time I remember Eisenhower going after the military-industrial complex was at his farewell address. And whatever he might have said in public, the CIA policy of overthrowing foreign democracies, calling them "communist" and setting up friendly dictators in their place can be traced directly back to his administration. (He also increased troops in Indochina, like every other president until the withdrawal).
"second,castro did NOT ask for ussr help after the revolution,
he was quite insistent on the soviets keeping their troops and weapons out of cuba,he feared replacing one master for another.."
I believe it, the man's a control freak. But his revolution, even if it wasn't specifically Marxist, was definitely left-wing; he opposed foreign businesses and their influence over the Havana government, and advocated redistribution of their lands and other statist policies. There was no way Eisenhower's U.S. would have agreed to that, and since Cuba couldn't stand on its own, it was inevitable that he would fall under Soviet influence whether he wanted to or not (which happened pretty fast, as an above poster noted).
I've heard before that Fidel Castro was a hard-core revolutionary, not really a Marxist or any other kind of political. His brother Raul was the Marxist ideologue in the group, and was instrumental in bringing him over to that type of government.
"third,jfk was the president,its whiny to be pointing fingers at the bad advice he got..i did acknowledge previously that it wasnt his idea to assasinate castro,or invade cuba or put nukes in turkey..but he DID sign off on them,and must accept responsibility for them.."
Completely agree. The buck stops there, damn it - apologists who try to blame the CIA or military for the mistakes are forgetting that the ultimate command authority ultimately rests on the President. (To his credit, I think he actually did take responsibility for the Bay of Pigs).
"If President Kennedy did just one worthwhile thing in his short term as President, helping mankind step back from the Abyss was it. I think if Nixon had been at the helm, we'd be dust"
Not sure where I fall on this one. Nixon's political pragmatism is a matter of public record, but so is his paranoia. I tend to fall on Jackson's side of the argument - he probably wouldn't have wiped out the human race either - but you never know. Just thank heaven George Wallace was never in the White House.
Denny Crane.
MackJackson,
You agree with Annorexia Coulter when she is right? That's only speculation on your part, since you haven't had to test that yet... :-)
It matters NOT if Nixon had expertise in foreign policy matters. Because he set out to overturn the Constitution in so many ways, he amounts to nothing more than a flawed man who should never have been president. Exactly like that lying piece of dirt, and torturing scumbag we just were recently lucky enough to be finally rid of.
shareCoulter is a partisan hack, If your a democrat you can guarantee there is someone like her who will find fault with everything you do no matter how great.
shareAnnorexia Coulter is a 'partisan hack'? I think she'd have to do a whole lot better at her job and as a human being, to raise herself to that level.
shareAnnorexia Coulter. Ol' pencil neck rants and raves about everything left. If Obama said he was donating his life's savings to charity, she'd find fault with that, too.
I wouldn't touch that thing with a six foot pole... gee, I forgot, she is one!
Anyone who takes her remarks seriously is a lost cause and not worth my bodily fluids to spit on them.
Just saw this movie this morning for the first time. I noticed that they made 2 references to the Bay of Pigs, both implying that it was the Joint Chiefs and not JFK that was responsible for it's failure. That is patently untrue. Do you suppose that the insistance of the Russians on an agreement not to invade just might have been based on that original invasion?
shareCaptRon... Absolutely NO ONE subscribes to the belief that Kennedy was not at fault for the Bay of Pigs. NO ONE!
Kennedy himself has admitted to the failure both in public and in private.
No need to start a debate on that matter because there is no one who opposes the view.
Capt Ron. While I agree it's wrong to say Kennedy was blameless for the Bay of Pigs, it's equally incorrect to absolve the CIA and his military advisors of responsibility. The plan had been originated in the Eisenhower presidency, and was accepted by Kennedy early in his term while he was still inexperienced. Now once again, that certainly doesn't make it the right decision to go ahead with the plan, but Kennedy made it known from the beginning that he would not include US planes in the operation. The CIA counted on him cracking under pressure and said the plan would succeed either way, despite the obvious intel that US air support was required. As tragic as the Bay of Pigs was, it was an important lesson for Kennedy. It was after this that he learned his Joint Chiefs far from infallible despite their rank. It also led to attempted crackdown and reform of the CIA, who had run wild during the previous administration. This is all in both White House documents and CIA documents.
And to IrishTom, you clearly seem to know enough about the era to believe Kennedy was influenced on Cuba by his "debt to the mob." The mob felt they were owed due to Joe Kennedy and helping JFK win the election (especially in Illinois), but JFK didn't feel the same way, allowing Bobby to instigate the biggest crackdown on organized crime as had been seen in history. This was one of the main reasons that the mob was infuriated with the Kennedys and felt betrayed. While there is no doubt that mob had interest in Cuba, the main result of that was their cooperation with the CIA in training Cuban exiles and assassination attempts/plans. Kennedy's interest in Cuba was due the the Communist-phobia that dominated policy at that time, and the threat of nuclear weapons.
Puzzlingly, there are more than just a few who hold this belief.
Kennedy handled this situation with a cool head, and an enduring hope to resolve this conflict peacefully... despite the many MANY advisers in the Oval office continually pressuring him that an attack was the only way out.
I am supremely confident that the 1960 election saved millions of lives. Had Nixon been president at the time, I am all but certain that an exchange (perhaps of catastrophic proportions) would have occurred.
Nixon was just crazy, paranoid and nihilistic enough to do it.
The meetings of the group handling the crisis, including the Kennedys, was taped. Many years back, I listened to all of the tapes. The Kennedys did an incredible job, calm and collected, to get us out of that impossible situation.
I guess Coulter would have had us invade, face their tactical nukes which were under the control of the officers in the field, and have our troops vaporized.
I believe that Annorexia Coulter would rather attend the funeral of a soldier, rather than their birthday party.
"I am supremely confident that the 1960 election saved millions of lives. Had Nixon been president at the time, I am all but certain that an exchange (perhaps of catastrophic proportions) would have occurred.
Nixon was just crazy, paranoid and nihilistic enough to do it."
The main reason for the Cuban Missle Crisis is that Kruschev had met Kennedy face to face and mistakenly thought that Kennedy was weak. Not so, of course. Kennedy was a Cold Warrior of the first stripe. But Kruschev would never have made this mistake about Nixon, an implacable opponent of Communist expansion. So the whole deal would not have occured. ie no missles in Cuba.
History is a subject where one must weigh all the facts available, and your personal distaste for Nixon has clearly colored your views and makes them unreliable. In an earlier post you claimed that JFK gave no indication that he would have escalated the Vietnam War. You need to read "The Pentagon Papers." They prove his complicity in the assasination of Diem, and the subsequent coup by the S. Vietnamese military chiefs. This shows that he was willing to back a new government that was more popular with the people and open to trying American ideas and tactics to defeat the Viet Cong. If he had wanted to disavow the war he should have used Diem's vast unpopularity and his regime's corruption and tyrannny, as an excuse to disengage the US from it's "commitment" to S Vietnam. Instead he decide to back a new effort under a new government.