JFK was made by the media and his legend is just that.

From the Bay of Pigs to the Vienna Summit to the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam he was a disaster.

His choice for AG, Robert Kennedy, ran wild with wiretaps on anybody that posed a threat to the Kennedy's. Including Martin Luther King Jr.

As for Civil Rights, his desegregation of 'Ol Miss was an absolute shambles, with his unarmed 'monitors' having to be rescued by the National Guard.

Far from being one of the best Presidents, in fact, he should rank near the bottom and probably would have absent his assassination. He is easily the most overrated President of all time.

If Obama is another JFK that is not a point in his favor.

Dan, one never really knows how any candidate will respond until they take office. Obama or McCain, I have no idea. This will be as close as the 2000 election. Can you imagine what today's media would have done with the Kennedy/Nixon match.

At the age of forty-three, he became the youngest president of the United States.

Just have to be a pedant here. Teddy Roosevelt was only 42yrs 11mo old when he became president, so he beat JFK out by about 5 months as the youngest man ever to serve as president. You can be technically correct and say that JFK was the youngest man ever ELECTED president, as Roosevelt was not actually elected until almost 4 years later when he was 46.

Dave

I am going to vote for Barack Obama, however I know about United States history. John F. Kennedy was much more experienced in government when he ran for President in 1960 than Obama-much! The two men who got their parties nomination that year of 1960 were Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Both of these men won a seat to Congress in 1946, and were friends- believe it or not. How good they were friends is debatable. But they did bunk together on trains in the 1940's on the way to the same events. My point here is that they were the same age, and yet at that time the experience issue was brought up. The experience issue was not really valid and Nixon was only 4 years older than Kennedy. Obama has been in the Senate 3 1/2 years.. John Kennedy in 1960 had been in the Senate for 7 1/2 years, and add to that JFK was a congressman from 1947-1953. So John Kennedy had 14 years Washington experience (Congress/Senate)to 3 1/2 to Obama. Not comparable. JFK had much more experience than Obama, and it showed in the way he knew the issues and his confidence. Obama knows the issues, but he looks sometimes lost on the big stage. Kennedy did not. He looked vibrant and sure. That is how Kennedy beat a popular Vice President Richard Nixon in 1960. Obama does not have the saavy style of JFK in 1960. I am not putting down Obama to insult him since I will vote for him in November. He is a fine man and I think he will be a good President. But you brought up the issue, and anyone who knows history knows that JFK had much more seasoning/experience in Washington than Barack. That is just a fact. Just the way he handled himself in the debates and how sure he was on the campaign trail showed his seasoning. The only thing they had in common is age, but experience? Not close. JFK had twice as much Washington experience as Hillary Clinton, who has been in the Senate 7 years to JFK's 14. What people confuse experience with is age. John Kennedy won his seat in congress in 1946 at 29 years old. So at 43 he was a veteran of Washington. Take care. Nello.

I was not thinking when I wrote Nixon and Kennedy were the same age. That is wrong. Nixon was 4 years older; what I meant was that they were elected to Congress the same year (1946). So my point was how important was experience if they came into office the same year, especially since Kennedy was very informed on internation affairs dating back to the 1930's when he wrote his best selling book. That experience issue was related to age. People thought how can a man of only 43 years old be President. But 14 years in Congress which followed a heroic naval career is not really inexperienced. That was my point. Obama is a good choice for President. I think he will be fine and he is an intelligent man. But to have this article which is well written is also trying to insult President Kennedy. Ike sure pushed the Bay of Pigs on Kennedy. If Obama would have near the Washington experience of Kennedy, he would have had to be elected to Congress in 1994, and be elected to the Senate in 2000. Then he would equal Kennedy's experience. But he was elected in 2004. Way off. But Barack has intelligence and level headed qualities I like. So I will vote for him. But let's be honest. Nello.

The one factor that Obama does not possess that JFK did... which was underhanded and significant.

Joe Kennedy.

Is that overrating it effect Joe Kennedy had?

Perhaps, but early in JFK's political career Joe Kennedy manipulated his early runs for office.

1. Placed another person on the ballot with the same name as JFK's opponant, effectively splitting the vote through deception and handing JFK the victory.

2. As JFK was then known as a best selling author, the truth be told, Joseph purchased a large percentage of the books thus creating the image that JFK was indeed (technically at least) a best selling author.

Hmmm... there are probably more such shenannighans involved but those are the 2 that I can recall. And it's too early in the day for me to dig into other instances. My father told me many years ago that some people are born SOB's but Joe Kennedy was a self made man (he may have borrowed that description from a Lee Marvin line out of the movie "The Professionals"). Witness the whiskey imports during the prohibition which stuffed the Kennedy coffers during those heady years. With that in mind perhaps Obama rises above the Kennedy clan as meeting more challenges with his own moxey than JFK, rather than having the advantageous manipulations handed to him on a silver platter.

But to JFK's credit. He had front line military experience, although the PT-109 story is said to have been bolstered by the spin doctors.

Plus JFK was a completely different political animal than Obama. There is a recent book of essays out detailing some of other "insights" into the JFK elections and Joseph's behind the curtain string pulling. The author's name is George Will and the book is titled "One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation." More importantly does George Will's work hold weight or as the name might imply to some... is this another attack from the right.

Voters need to ascertain and make sound decisions. My only problem is the option to Obama, which as we all know is McCain.
Gee, that's a comforting thought.

Dave,

Opps. I knew that. My goof.

Dan

Sam,

I agree that one can't have much of an idea what someone else will do as president until it happens. The same is true of Supreme Court justices, and most likely of corporate CEOs. Hell, I seriously doubt that the candidates themselves have much of an idea. Those of us on the outside can only guess, and most of us probably go more on gut feeling than on anything else.

I do think that one of the factors to consider is a candidate's stated or implied choice of role models, and that's why I wrote the two articles.

As to the Kennedy-Nixon campaign, my guess is that the media would have had as much fun and engaged in as much distortion as today if the media had been the same. Kennedy probably got his biggest boost during the first televised debate between presidential candidates. Nixon came off as dowdy, Kennedy as having a good media presence. One of the reasons suggested for this is that Nixon had just been released from hospital (he had had a bad case of the flu) and did not wear makeup. His "five o:clock shadow" image still lives long after his death. Nixon's need to counter Kennedy's threat to invade Cuba -- knowing full well that the invasion was already far along in the planning stage and being the point man with the CIA for it -- by pointing out a bunch of reasons why it would be a dumb thing to do, probably put him off his game as well.

Dan

Dan - You need a blog! I enjoy reading your stuff. Is this the only place you post?

Nello,

I wasn't trying to insult former President Kennedy. If that was a result of pointing to history, I could not have changed history to have a different effect. I was trying to point out that the Kennedy myth has overtaken reality, and that before we think of Senator Obama as a latter day Kennedy, we should separate myth from reality.

As you correctly point out, Kennedy had lots more experience when he became President than Senator Obama will have should he be elected this year, and lots more of Kennedy's experience was relevant.

As to President Eisenhower having pushed the Bay of Pigs on candidate Kennedy, we have a different perception of history. As noted in the article, Kennedy complained that Eisenhower had not done enough to oust Castro. I would be interested to know your basis for thinking otherwise

Dan

Andy,

Many thanks. I enjoy writing it. This is the only place I post, I only started on April Fools day of this year, and really appreciate the interaction on BC. Still, if you have any suggestions I will be happy to think about them.

Dan

Good day to start anyway!

Dan,

To your knowledge, has Obama publicly compared himself to Kennedy or cited him as a role model?

Condor,

Yes, Joe Kennedy certainly was a peach. Didn't he actively lobby for the US to come into World War 2 on Hitler's side?

JFK is both a myth and a reality. You focus on the Bay of Pigs disaster, and indeed it was, but JFK stood for, and did, a lot more than that in his short time as President.

His actions, such as the tax cut, put the country back on the track towards prosperity. I find it ironic that Reagan gets credit for inventing the tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. His vision initiated our successful space program -- and we were way behind at that juncture. He faced down the Russians in the Cuban crisis. These are all facts that argue for his greatness, greatness that goes beyond the spin-doctored myth. While he made some mistakes, even some big ones, he also did some brilliant things.

There are a lot of differences between Obama and JFK. What they have in common is charisma and vision. Would Obama be above an expedient lie? Only time will tell.

Doc,

No I don't think so, nor did I intend to say in the article that he had. However, he certainly seems to feel that way, and his abortive attempt to emulate JFK by speaking at the site of the Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech suggests this. JFK's daughter made such a comparison, noting that

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president -- not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

And... JFK put effectivly put the U.S. into Vietnam. And of those young American's to whom he poised the now famous call to rise up and be counted... "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

America's youth did rise up, and thousands joined him on the hillsides of Arlington National Cemetary.*

*(Yes I stole that analogy from Jim Webb's "Fields of Fire").

Is that charisma?

Be it known also that the election was a squeeker, not the imagined landslide of lore. Sound familiar?

And... I have to ask the question.

Who was JFK's speech writer?

We often quote Presidents; but haven't all the 20th century Presidents had speech writers?

If JFK did write most of his material, he had true talent in that department.

And he could deliver well. I read Caroline's talk concerning Obama. He is inspirational. Great, a motivational speaker for President. I will contend after hearing 30 something years of hearing motivational speakers from all walks of life in many settings that it doesn't make a complete package for me.

We should talk about motivational speakers. Lombardi, MacArther, Churchill, FDR, Rockne, Patton, plenty more out there... Demming? Reagan? Come on... there is more to being President than "inspirational" although that is important too, but not the ONLY reason.

Can inspirational speakers lead? Or just inspire.

Make sound, rational decisions? Or just inspire.

Sometimes inspiring leaders are needed. This may be the moment. It just may carry the day.

Condor,

Ted Sorensen, who is now helping Senator Obama, was JFK's principal speech writer and recently wrote a book about how he did so well.

I agree that inspirational leaders are necessary; indeed, it is difficult to be much of a leader without also being inspirational. The reverse is not true, however. Something more than a capacity to inspire is needed, and I am concerned that neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain appears to have whatever that something is. That said, I don't find a hell of a lot inspirational about Senator McCain, and Senator Obama's inspirational rhetoric may well carry the day.

Dan

Condor:
Of course the author of the inaugural address and its famous "Ask not..." business was his main speechwriter, the previously mentioned Ted Sorenson, who's now supporting (and working for) Obama.

Thank you Dan and Leslie for the Sorenson pointer, I will have to review, as is of great interest to me.

Oh and Dan, good writing. It's always a pleasure to read your articles.

As to the George Will point I referred to earlier, if memory serves, is JFK's health. With his varied medical issues, Joe Kennedy (he manipulated well into the JFK administration) had instituted a stash of needed medications at various points along JFK's travels so he would not have been without vital medications, should the need arise.

Mr. Will pointed out, in the interview I heard, that when we talk about health issues concerning Presidents and candidates, it is necessary to know that had the general public been aware of JFK's or FDR's true medical difficulties, they too might have come into question whether their health was a detriment to national security. Remember that FDR was up to his neck in WWII and Kennedy presided during critical moments in the Cold War.

True, the Cold War appeared to be staging at its ugliest, but I well remember sitting in the hallways during my elementary years with my head between my legs kissing my butt goodbye. Apocryphal book and screenplays of the day abounded and were meant to shock the audience with such nuggets as "On the Beach" by Neville, Failsafe and Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove all provided thought provoking fear in the hearts and minds of millions. Cold War was scary. In hindsight it might not be remembered as such, or even glossed over. But the fear was very real. An unhealthy President was not a highly desirable thought to boot. Are we again seeing trying times at this point in history?

Of course in the present era, we too have instability. Russia is looming, China, plus a variety of nuclear capable countries with less than stable governments seem on the rise. Put into a simpler context... Rome too was witness to rises in the forces around their hunk of empire. Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" abounds in perspective, none of it fresh, but seemingly similar.

All I can say really ponder is who will lead and who will advise. And who will be selected to posts with far reaching effect? All of which carry weight.

As with most leadership we all get the same result. I could throw some scripture out there, not as a reference but as a nod to the wisdom of the ages. These war cycles and peace cycles give off a never ending impression never ending and does not allow us as human beings the opportunities to reach true potential, as repeated interruptions maintain a bizarre cause and effect of interruption of the human experience. I dare say that the courses we as individuals have cast upon us globally are both dire and frustrating.

The question with Obama is who will he be listening to if he is elected? This is highly important because if he listens to the wrong people we could be in for a monstrous disaster. Obama has to have those he will listen to because he does not have the savvy nor the experience to make determinations of what to do or how to handle a crisis situation. By contrast, if he chooses to listen to those with good experience and common sense, he could do quite well. What it comes down to is who will have Obama's ear?

"The question with Obama is who will he be listening to if he is elected? This is highly important because if he listens to the wrong people we could be in for a monstrous disaster."

In addition, if he listens to the right people and ignores them we also could be in for a monstrous disaster.

Consider Harry Trumam, who ignored the advice of men like General George C. Marshall on matters of foreign policy.

There are a number of mistakes in your blog, I will just point out two.

One, JFK never promised to invade Cuba during his debate with Nixon. Where did you get such an idea? Certainly not from the transcripts of the debates as no such statement is made.

Two, the CIA conducted its own internal review after the disaster at the Bay of Pigs and blamed themselves. I refer you to the CIA IG's report on the matter declassified in 2005.

Vital intelligence was withheld from Kennedy as CIA knew the invasion was doomed. JFK from the beginning made it clear to everyone that there would be no massive military intervention no matter what happened. CIA should have taken him seriously rather than trying to force his hand after the invasion failed.

Kennedy did in fact authorize additional air cover on April 19, but CIA and Pentagon planners bungled the mission. CIA served the president poorly as did the military.

You and your readers can find more accurate information at a site like the National Security Archive.

James,

Thanks for the factual corrections and the excellent citation.

This is in response to Comment #23 by Mr. Grant. I apologize for the length of the response, but feel that it is necessary.

I shall not deal here at any length with President Kennedy's decision to abandon the original landing site at Trinidad, on Cuba's southern coast, with a population of 26,000 and a hotbed of anti-Castro sentiment. Trinidad also had an airfield and a deep water port six miles to the southeast. The ultimate landing site at Cochinos Bay, the "Bay of Pigs," had none of these advantages and had instead multiple disadvantages. These matters are quite well dealt with in Lynch's Decision for Disaster cited in the article, and it would be pointless to deal further with them here. Lynch was one of the main CIA operatives personally involved in the debacle, and his sources of information to which he was not personally privy are well documented.

The National Security Archive maintained by George Washington University is cited in Comment #23 as authoritative. The multiple blockquotes below, unless otherwise noted, are from that source. In some of the quotations, "?" appears instead of a hyphen. I have not deemed it appropriate to muck with the text, and so have not changed that. According to that source, Senator Kennedy sometime between 7 and 12 October 1960

attacked the Eisenhower Administration for "permitting a communist menace ... to arise only ninety miles from the shores of the United States." . . . On October 16 and 21, 1960, Kennedy again attacked Eisenhower's Cuba policy: "If you can't stand up to Castro, how can you be expected to stand up to Khrushchev?" And five days later: "We must attempt to strengthen the non-Batista democratic anti Castro forces in exile, and in Cuba itself, who offer eventual hope of overthrowing Castro. Thus far these fighters for freedom have had virtually no support from our government." (emphasis added)

I think that Senator Kennedy's policies and recommendations for the handling of the Castro regime are probably the most dangers- dangerously irresponsible recommendations that he's made during the course of this campaign. In effect, what Senator Kennedy recommends is that the United States government should give help to the exiles and to those within Cuba who oppose the Castro regime - provided they are anti-Batista.

The vice president's criticism of Senator Kennedy's program for assisting the anti-Castro forces to regain power in Cuba was approved by well-informed people here tonight. They have been saying today that while it may be all right to do that, it is not the sort of thing to discuss publicly, especially in the face of the nation's treaties with Latin America, which specifically forbid economic or political interference in the internal affairs of the American Republics.

MAR 29, 1961: Arthur Schlesinger notes in his journal that "a final decision on the invasion will have to be made on April 4." He feels "the tide is flowing against the project." At a meeting in the Cabinet Room he finds the President growing steadily more skeptical. Kennedy asks Bissell [CIA]: "Do you really have to have these air strikes?" Bissell says his group will work to insure maximum effectiveness for minimum noise from the air and reassures the President that Cubans on the island will join in a rising. (Schlesinger, A Thousand Days, p. 233,234)

EARLY APRIL 1961: The State and Defense departments and CIA reach a compromise on the air plan for the invasion. Limited air strikes will be made on D?2 (two days prior to the invasion) at the time of a diversionary landing of 160 men in eastern Cuba. These strikes will give the impression of being the action of Cuban pilots defecting from the Cuban air force and thus supporting the fiction that air support for the invasion force is coming from within Cuba. The JCS does not favor the D?2 air strikes because of their indecisive nature and the danger of prematurely alarming the Castro force. The pre?invasion strikes are, however, included in the plan with the realization that the main reliance for the obstruction of the Castro air force must be placed on the D?Day strikes. (Aguilar, p.16)

APR 8, 1961: Jacob Esterline and Jack Hawkins, the two CIA subcommanders most directly in charge of the invasion planning, go to Bissell's house in Northwest Washington D.C. and inform him that they want to resign. Their primary concerns are the changes that the White House has ordered in the operation making it far less likely to succeed; "by pruning away at the operation [the politicians] were making it technically impossible to win," they reportedly tell Bissell. Bissell asks them to stay on, arguing that the invasion will go forward with or without them. Reluctantly they agree to his request. (Wyden, p. 160; Thomas, p. 252). . . .From the White House, President Kennedy calls Bissell and says the Saturday air strikes can go forward. He asks how many planes will participate and is told sixteen. "Well, I don't want it on that scale. I want it minimal." Bissell passes the word down for only eight planes to fly. "I believe the president did not realize that the air strike was an integral part of the operational plan he had approved," Bissell later writes in his memoirs. (Bissell, p. 183; Wyden, p.170)

McGeorge Bundy telephones General Cabell of CIA to tell him that the dawn air strikes the following morning should not be launched until planes can conduct them from a strip within the beachhead. Bundy indicates that any further consultation with regard to this matter should be with the Secretary of State. General Cabell and Richard Bissell go to Secretary Rusk's office at about 10.15 p.m. Rusk tells them he has just been talking to the President on the phone and recommended that the Monday?morning air strikes (D?Day) should be canceled and the President agreed.

Cabell and Bissell protest, arguing that the ships as well as the landings will be seriously endangered without the dawn strikes. The Secretary indicates there are policy considerations against air strikes before the beachhead airfield is in the hands of the landing force and completely operational and capable of supporting the raids. Rusk calls the President and tells him of the CIA men's objections but restates his own recommendation to cancel the strikes. The Secretary offers to let the CIA representatives talk to the President directly but they decline. "I don't think there's any point," Cabell tells Rusk. "I think I agree with that," Bissell also says. In his memoirs, Bissell writes that "I view this decision of Cabell's and mine as a major mistake. For the record, we should have spoken to the president and made as strong a case as possible on behalf of the operation and the welfare of the brigade." The order canceling the air strikes is dispatched to the departure field in Nicaragua, arriving when the pilots are in their cockpits ready for takeoff. . . . The Joint Chiefs of Staff learn of the cancellation at varying hours on the morning of April 17. Realizing the seriousness of the cancellation of air strikes, CIA officials try to offset the damage. They warn the invasion force of likely air attacks and the ships to expedite unloading and to withdraw from the beach by dawn. A continuous cover of two B?26s over the beach is laid on. At 0430 hours, General Cabell calls the Secretary of State at his home, reiterates the need to protect the shipping by providing air cover, and makes the request to the President by telephone. The President disapproves the request for air cover but authorizes early warning destroyers, provided they stay at least 30 miles from Cuban territory. (Bissell, p. 184; Wyden, pp. 198?201; Aguilar, pp.20?21)

Dan,
You are missing the point. You made the bald statement in your blog that Kennedy promised an invasion of Cuba in his debate with Nixon. No such statement is made in the debate. You were and are wrong. The quotes you cite of Kennedy calling for strengthening the anti-Castro Cubans do not speak of an invasion. I notice your quotes of Bissell (a biased source if ever there was one) include his remarks that the Cuban people are ripe for an uprising, which did not happen. That was bad intelligence provided to the president by CIA. As noted in my post the CIA's own Inspector General conducted a wide ranging review and blamed the CIA for the disaster at the Bay of Pigs.
Now let's go back to your blog where we find early on the following quote:
"The invasion had been planned with great secrecy during President Eisenhower's administration and, as planned, would have been a far more vigorous effort with substantial air power directed against the Cuban air force and with a reasonably high likelihood of success."
The JMARC document of March 1960 stated the principles by which Eisenhower was operating. There we find this quote:
"to bring about the replacement of the Castro regime with one more ... acceptable to the U.S. in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention." Plainly, the Eisenhower people intended to keep the operation covert. The NS archive also includes the following:
"JAN 10, 1961: The New York Times publishes a front page story entitled "U.S. Helps Train an Anti Castro Force at Secret Guatemalan Air Ground Base." Written by Paul Kennedy, the article reports that "Commando like forces are being drilled in guerrilla warfare tactics by foreign personnel, mostly from the United States."
That was ten days before Kennedy took office. So much for the "great secrecy" of Eisenhower that you speak of. You accuse the Kennedys of lying to keep the operation covert and that is quite true, however it also plain that that was a guiding principle of the project approved
by Eisenhower. Indeed in a White House meeting of Jan. 3 1961 (also from the NS archive) we find the following: " During the meeting, President Eisenhower offers that he would move against Castro before the 20th (of January) if the Cubans provided him a really good excuse. Failing that, he says, perhaps the U.S. "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." (Memorandum of Meeting with the President, January 3, 1961, 1/9/61)" So the great Eisenhower considering manufacturing an incident to deceive the American people into a war with Cuba!
You also fail to mention the Joint Chiefs of Staff report on the operation of March 1961 in which they stated the operation had only a "30% chance" of success, even with four days of air support. This was the major reason Kennedy rejected Bissell's original plan.
While JFK rejected the original landing site, he did not choose the Bay of Pigs. Bissell and Bissell alone made that choice. Even when Kennedy reduces the size of the air strike, Bissell makes no attempt to dissuade the president otherwise. Your response fails to address the fact as I stated that JFK ordered an additional air strike on April 19, which was bungled by the CIA.
But I believe the discussion of air support is largely irrelevant. Given the fact that the Cuban exiles were facing Castro's army of well over 200,000 men, it's rather hard to imagine what good air support would have done in those circumstances. That still leaves us with 1500 men on the ground facing 200,000. Not very good odds. All the air support in the world would not have helped. That is something that should have been obvious to all concerned including JFK.
The CIA was simply wrong in its estimate that the Cuban people were ready to rise against Castro. Had CIA relied on open sourcing then, they would have known from an opinion poll conducted by an American firm in early 1960 that Castro was very popular in Cuba.
Thank you for citing the April 8 meeting between Bissell, Esterline and Hawkins. That makes it quite clear that Bissell was told by his principal planners that the invasion as planned was doomed. Nonetheless Bissell presses on and at no point tells JFK the operation is doomed. It was Bissell's obvious intention to push JFK into a doomed operation and hopefully force him to launch a full scale American invasion. Bissell's actions here are simply outrageous. The president should have been told.
He should also have been told that CIA had discovered the Russians had prior knowledge of the invasion. And the CIA knew the Russians knew. But again they failed to provide this vital information to the president. See: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/soviets.htm

James F. Grant, I like your synopsis of Eisenhower. Who, as documentation will prove, completely ignored the Geneva convention after WWII was over, in regards to German Wehrmacht troops. Not SS, mind you, but the German army. Effectivly killing many through starvation, exposure, and the turning back of trainloads of Red Cross medical supplies.

An expose' at this point in history on Eisenhower's behaviour during and after the war would be a welcome insight to that period in American history.

Condor,
I'm afraid you are right. As more material is declassified I think we will be presented with a very unflattering portrait of Eisenhower and perhaps most of our recent presidents. In the context of the time, Eisenhower's actions and inactions I think were governed by motives of revenge as well as the desire to utterly crush Germany to the greatest extent possible. General Chuck Yeager stated in his memoirs that he and other pilots were ordered to strafe German civilians just prior to the invasion of Germany. I gather there is probably more similar stuff still locked away....

JFK was a good president, and I think Obama can be a good one too.

If we are to accept the impact of what nuance provides we will accept that most likely Obama doesn't believe that everything that Kennedy did was good AND that he would do it precisely the same. We probably should assume that he admires how this young man inspired a nation that was going through a lot of turmoil and disillusionment much like ours is at present.

As some have said, Senator John Kennedy was more experienced in government than Senator Barack Obama, and probably for this reason he was a more solid candidate in 1960 than Senator Obama. He knew Washington politics better and was more saavy in the role of Presidential candidate. Was this experience? Yes. President Kennedy's family was known to the general public long before 1960, when his father Joseph P. Kennedy was appointed Ambassador to the Court of St. James in 1938. When Jack Kennedy ran in 1960, even the Roosevelt and Truman generation knew he was the son of Joe Kennedy-which was good and bad for the Senator, but it still made him more familiar with people. For this reason of familiarity, Senator McCain can make more verbal blunders than Senator Obama, and it likely will not to hurt him as much. A candidate who is known and is more familiar with the general public is given certain allowances for blunders. Although I cannot think of any blunders Senator Kennedy made in 1960. The fact that people knew who Senator Kennedy's father was meant John Kennedy had to forge his own identity, yet still benefit from the connection to his father. He did this with intelligence and charisma which cannot be overstated. Also, Joe Kennedy made himself less visable in 1960, knowing how polarized the opinions of people were about him. Senator Obama is a good candidate and I am going to vote for him, but his poll numbers seem to reflect the doubts people have about him as an unknown candidate. He really has shown up out of the blue. His surge in Jan/Feb. of this year is why he is the presumptive nominee. My point in all this is that Senator Obama has to be very careful to walk the path which will get him the Presidency, yet do and say as little as possible to reach that goal. Taking chances is not something he will do. Experience helps in that he would know more what to say and what not to. This is why Jack Kennedy was more decisive, since he could be without it being as much of a detriment to him as it would to Senator Obama. Also politics have changed a little since 1960. If a candidate changed his mind like McCain and Obama have done, that would not have flown as well as it seems to now. Nowadays the networks control the stories also, so policy is not the issue anymore. Now we get sensationalism and endless clips controlled by the media. Eventually people are going to have to put an end to the media controlling the election as it does adn go back to reporting on the issues. In 2008 we are all used to politics and politicians being chameleons. Politicians change their mind daily. But the role of Senator Obama is to walk the safe path and keep his name associated with issues and not sensationalism. This is where the experience of Kennedy came to play. He knew exactly what to say and what not to say by just being around it for so many years. Obama has had to have a crash coarse. But he is doing well. He has the same intelligence and charisma that Jack Kennedy had, but he is going to have to earn the Presidency this fall, and part of this earning is making the right decisions. I also think he will pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. That would be the smartest decision in my mind. Take care.

"Senator Obama Ain't No John F. Kennedy -- Really?"

Well, all in all, some would consider that a good thing. Some people considered JFK a poor to mediocre Executive, but a charming Prince. We shouldn't confuse one with the other.

Some think JFKs domestic policies were merely conventional while his foreign policies were counter-productive. For example: Cuba. The half-ass nature of the Bay of Pigs invasion was sure to fail and at the same time harden positions on both sides of the issue. It couldn't have been better contrived if it had been a conspiracy between Castro, the Mafia and the Cuban exile princes of vice living in Miami, who were the beneficiaries of the failure.

Most USA citizens, though disappointed at Castros treachery in declaring fealty to communism felt that he was more a nationalist than an international terrorist and were desirous of some kind of reconciliation. The failed invasion ended that and led to decades of fruitless and costly antagonism.

Most USA citizens knew for at least 9 months before JFK admitted it that the Russians were sending missiles to Cuba: the photos of tarp-draped rockets on ships had been published prominently. JFK cynically withheld acknowledgment for political advantage, risking global annihilation in the process.

But he was a handsome devil and 90% of us guys (and women too, one suspects) heartily approved of him boinking Angie and Marilyn and Judith and a bunch of others too numerous to mention. In that he acted as our proxy and we cheered him on.

He was an American Prince Philip, sufficiently more flamboyant to move us ahead in the International Sex Sweepstakes. A worthy activity. But he probably shouldn't have had any actual responsibility for national policy.

President Kennedy was very equipped to be President. Besides Ike, he was one of the most equipped. The man studied international law under Lasky, and he traveled extensively as a young man around Europe pre-WW2.. He was always interested in foreign policy and kept that up as Congressman and Senator. Johnson did not know much about foreign policy, and look at the quagmire he put us in. Kennedy was a great President in most of our definitions, except in length of term. But you cannot fault him for being shot by Oswald.

I think Obama is a horse's ass (for now). But, he is the best horse's ass in the horse's ass race. I don't think much better can come out of a popular candidate and we certainly would never support someone who was on the fringe (which is the only place an actual great candidate would be).

I will vote for Obama.

President Kennedy was a fine President. What was he supposed to do? The Bay of Pigs was a disaster because the CIA planned it wrong. Kennedy then saved the world from disaster in 1962, when other President's would have committed more of a risk. I thought his foreign policy and domestic policy show someone who mastered the White House. The economy improved under JFK, and foreign policy by November of 1963 when he was shot in Dallas now had the "Test Ban Treaty". That is a pretty good job. On both fronts. Insult President Kennedy all you want. Both fronts he did well. And even the added bonuses like Man on the moon and the Peace Corps and Alliance for Progresss. The man was a great President, and he was only in there 2 years 10 months.

"Johnson did not know much about foreign policy, and look at the quagmire he put us in."

Actually, Kennedy put us in that particular quagmire.

But Ol' Hound Ears did exacerbate the quagmire...

In Comments # 23 and 27, Mr. Grant took issue with certain remarks in this article concerning the JFK 1960 campaign and the situation in Cuba. I have written a new article, published in BC today, amplifying my position on the matter.

Dan

President Johnson made it a quagmire in my mind. President Kennedy put advisors into Vietnam, yet wanted to pull out of Vietnam once he saw it was not going to be successful. I think the situation is more if Kennedy sent advisors in, is that starting the quagmire? Or would the man who succeeded him and who thought we could win the war (who escalated the war) be the one responsible? I think the one who turned it into a quagmire is the one who made it a quagmire, and that would be LBJ. Look at the issue from 1963 standards when JFK was President also. Everyone was afraid of the spread of communism. Now revisionism has all the answers; but at the time some people thought Kennedy was soft on communism. Now people say he was a hawk. Revisionism. You cannot have it both ways. LBJ is the one who thought we could win the war in Vietnam. The Gulf of Token resolution was not created during President Kennedy's administration.

Before he died, Kennedy had sent over 16,000 troops and over $500 million of the taxpayer's money to Vietnam; that was a significant commitment of the US to the war in anyone's book.

LBJ escalated the war, sure (I was one of LBJ's first victims, arriving incountry only a few months after Kennedy died), but by the time Kennedy was dead, we were so committed LBJ had to follow through and escalate further.

Clavos, Kennedy's numbers were not that significant in comparison to Johnsons. Kennedy did put in 16,000 in 63, yet in 65 under Johnson it was 190,000 with the Token situation, and in 1968 it was at half a million. So Johnson escalated big time. So by those numbers alone the Kennedy numbers are scant compared to what Johnson escalated to. 16,000 was not something Johnson could not withdraw from. Kennedy was going to withdraw- which is clear. By 1965 Johnson had 12 times more than Kennedy had in 1963, and in 1968 it was 40 times more. I am not sure those numbers in the Kennedy administration era meant that Johnson had to increase to it's peak of 40 times more than that. Seems like Johnson was solely responsible for the Vietnam war disaster, not Kennedy. We can say it was Kennedy's fault but he did what probably most President's would have done to scope out the situation. He would have been accused of treason if he sat back and let events happen in southeast asia.

"Seems like Johnson was solely responsible for the Vietnam war disaster, not Kennedy."

Wrong. Kennedy made the initial commitment, and never gave any indication or took any action that signaled he was about to withdraw before he died.

As far as responsibility for the war turning into a disaster, one has to look at William Westmoreland and his field officer corps for that.

Even us grunts knew, as early as November 1965, after Ia Drang, that the war was being conducted stupidly. Johnson wasn't planning the tactics when nearly two hundred GIs were ambushed and killed the day after the battle had been "won" by US forces, and the NVA supposedly "routed."

JFK on Vietnam:

"Further he said in a private comment to the White House aide, Kenneth O'Donnell, "In 1965, I'll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I'll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don't care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy scare on our hands, but I can do it after I'm reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected." It was very important for President Kennedy not to let the public know his withdrawal plans. In a very confusing press conference on 14 November 1963, he said the Honolulu conference that was to come, would concentrate on "how we can intensify the struggle, how we can bring Americans out of there. Now that is our object, to bring Americans out of there."

From the book "Brothers:The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" By David Talbot.


Sure Clavy.

Hmmm... not confusing at all, Pablo. Kennedy's strategy was to try and build the REPUBLIC of Vietnam's forces enough to handle the war themselves-Johnson's was to create a combination manpower-sump/economic stimulus (at the time, U.S. made gear was made...in the U.S., not China or France) and emphasize S. Vietnamese dependence on the U.S...(Proven by his actions). His strategy really WAS "Bolster 'em until they can fight it themselves, then withdraw." in other words, the "Confusing" press-conference isn't confusing at all, unless your pov is a two-sided "Stay forever/withdraw Now" decision set.
I'm also kind of confused about the alleged "Commie sympathizer" thing- Kennedy proved he wasn't a Comsymp when he made Kruschev piss himself over the missiles in Cuba, and again when he made his speech at the Berlin Wall.
If anyone in the Kennedy Administration could be reasonably called a pinko-commie-in-American-Drag, it was Johnson, who turned Kennedy's self-help programmes into long-term, corrupting, vote-buying, schemes that helped to reinforce and create a permanent underclass in America loyal to a single political party-paid for in large part by holding a "Limited war" just big enough to keep the factories going and the unemployed young men off the streets. The ROE used under Jolly Johnson (according to my father, who debriefed B-52 pilots until his release in 1966) included such brilliant moves as dropping thousands of pounds of iron-bombs on what amounts to empty jungle, because the bombers were not to be sent against the ports where Russian arms were coming in to be distributed, the silt-machines that kept those ports open, the warehouses where they were stored, the NVA Air-Bases where the Migs were, or the other strategic assets you would normally expect to be sending Strategic Bombers on twenty-four to forty-eight hour flights to drop bombs on...

If there is any justice (based on the condition one uncle of mine came home, and the nightmares his surviving brother, who did two tours there, brought home-along with the bits of metal...) Westmoreland, McNamara, and Johnson are in hell, watching Jane Fonda excercise tapes in a jungle drive-in from the inside of the devil's own tiger-cages between beatings and electrocutions.
For Eternity.

""Further he said in a private comment to the White House aide, Kenneth O'Donnell,..."

'Nuff said.

Clavos,

I know your a little slow on the draw, so let me spell it out for you. You said:

"Kennedy made the initial commitment, and never gave any indication or took any action that signaled he was about to withdraw before he died."

JFK said:
"f I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy scare on our hands, but I can do it after I'm reelected."


Comprende?

Probably not. hehehe

Pablo,

Can you spot the grammatical error in your last comment that will irritate Clavos far more than any of what you actually said?

Actually, Doc, the irritating effect of his execrable grammar was more than offset by the fact that, as expected, he totally missed the point of my #14.

Sublime...

Why are you guys talking about Pablo's grammar? His point was well taken. I thought his grammar was fine. This was said in respect. All of you have good grammar and are well informed people.

President Kennedy was miles ahead of Barack Obama in July of 1960 compared to Senator Obama. He was sure of himself and knew all the policies better than Nixon did. Obama is a brilliant man, but he is no Jack Kennedy. We are so eager for another JFK that we are trying to make everyone into him. We hoped Bill Clinton would be a JFK, but he came up short in charisma and charm. Obama does not have the humor of President Kennedy or the experience. The experience issue about Kennedy has been overused. When he ran in 1960, he had been in Congress since the mid 1940s. He was elected the same year as Nixon I think, and he ran against Nixon. Obama has been Senator a few years. Obama as experienced as President Kennedy?? Really????

another point. sorry I had to write another comment. People assume that because President Kennedy was 43 years old when he was elected that he was inexperienced. This is why in 1960 the Republicans used this claim. Yet Kennedy and Nixon were indeed (I just looked it up) elected to Congress the same year 1946. So Kennedy was experienced but he was elected to Congress at the age of 29... He was very young for Congress so he came in at the youngest age he could. But if you think about it, if a man is elected to Congress at the age of 36... well when he runs for President 14 years later he is 50. Good age to run. The age of Kennedy made people use the experience excuses, but he had just as much as Nixon, who did not do much as Ike's VP. Which is exactly what Ike said in a Press Conference. Kennedy was experienced. Obama is not.

President Kennedy had his faults, as do we all. He was young, and his myth still far outshines his reality. As he said in a 1962 address at Yale,

The greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, pervasive and unrealistic.

- John F. Kennedy, Yale University, June 11, 1962

I believe the myth matched reality with President Kennedy. I think he was great in many ways. His spirit and his committment to this country were unmatched in his time, and his aloof and introspective way was something we had not seen ever. He was a very curious man who learned constantly and never stopped growing; which is the great thing about the Kennedys in general. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. said about President Kennedy, he was an "idealist without illusions". What he gave the country from 1960-1963 was invaluable and not possible under any other President. It is hard to put spirit and charisma and leadership on paper, but he was all of that and more. If people read about the Kennedys, you can see how unique John Kennedy was as a leader and statesman. He had aspirations to teach or write when he was younger, rather than politics. Politics was something which was expected of his older brother Joe (who was a delegate to the 1940 convention). When Joe died, Jack was obligated to run for office-although I do not think he was forced to run. Jack Kennedy was more aloof and shy than most of the Kennedys. From my reading, I am not sure Jack Kennedy was a lover of politics. I do not think he loved serving in Congress or the Senate really. I think winning the White House made all the difference for him and excited him, and with all his intelligence and skills, that is where his greatness came out. He did not like the dealings of politics or the backroom talk or the back slapping, but he knew that the political machine could get him to be President in the long run so he dealt with it- The Presidency JFK said was "where he could do the most good for the most people" as his friend and aide Dave Powers said. As President, he excelled and that was where he was at his best. I think President Kennedy had to be in the top spot to excell in politics, otherwise he would have been bored. His brother Teddy on the other hand loves politics, which is evident in his 46 years in the Senate. Either way is great, I am just explaing how I think President Kennedy was. Many books talk of JFK beaming with pride watching Teddy mingle in crowds. He had said Teddy was the best politician in the family. If I had to put one quality of President Kennedy down which made him different from most politicians it is his aloofness. His presidency was unique because he did not see the world as a politician. I think he actually saw the world the way it really was. He loved books and understood what a book meant and knew what the writer was saying. Most of us read books, but most people do not love them like John Kennedy. This ability to see what a person means probably helped him understand the country as a spectator. A lot of politicians see the world as what is their reality and not the people who elected them. I think President Kennedy had a unique perspective into the country and people and his time. I think he was keen on people, and his instincts about them were exact on most every step he made. He was very needed in 1960 as in anytime; he knew what the people wanted instead of most politicians, who do things for what they themselves want and for the political gain or loss. When he died, the perspective he had of the nation of greatness was lost. We went back to LBJ, who was a career politician and did things the Washington way. I wrote way too much.

Very perceptive comments from Mr. Giolli. He either is a historian or works for the Kennedy Library! One complaint however: Paragraph breaks would help me read it. But I enjoyed it. I do not think I ever heard JFK described that way. Sort of makes sense.

JFK did not like politics? He was so good at it! He didn't seem very shy.

Oh no I am not a historian. Not by a long shot. I have read about the Kennedys for years, but a historian would be much more complete historically than I have been. I was just commenting on Dan Miller's article since it was very interesting and complete, and the comments sections led us to ask about Kennedy in comparison to Obama. Incidentally, Someone else told me about the paragraph breaks and how I do not use many. I have that problem often on the internet. By the way, I do think Obama has great qualities. The trip to the Middle East was great, but I think the speech in Berlin was a bit presumptuous for a Presidential Candidate- unprecedented. But that is not really a big deal. I will vote for him. I think he will make a fine President, and he looks like a good man. As a man and leader, Senator Obama looks like he could be a great President like President Kennedy was. That is why people in the country and elsewhere seem to be excited. As someone once said about JFK "it is not the feeling that he was great in 1960, but the feeling of potential greatness that really got people excited". Take care.

Here, Mark:

Oh no I am not a historian. Not by a long shot. I have read about the Kennedys for years, but a historian would be much more complete historically than I have been. I was just commenting on Dan Miller's article since it was very interesting and complete, and the comments sections led us to ask about Kennedy in comparison to Obama.

Incidentally, Someone else told me about the paragraph breaks and how I do not use many. I have that problem often on the internet.

By the way, I do think Obama has great qualities. The trip to the Middle East was great, but I think the speech in Berlin was a bit presumptuous for a Presidential Candidate- unprecedented. But that is not really a big deal. I will vote for him. I think he will make a fine President, and he looks like a good man.

As a man and leader, Senator Obama looks like he could be a great President like President Kennedy was. That is why people in the country and elsewhere seem to be excited. As someone once said about JFK "it is not the feeling that he was great in 1960, but the feeling of potential greatness that really got people excited".

Take care.

See? It's easy. Try it.

Clavos, Very good job with the paragraphs. Thank you. Take care.

Clavos, if people think Obama could be a great President than why are his numbers so close to McCains? He has not broken free. If he was seen as another Kennedy or Roosevelt he would be winning by 30 points.

Terry,

Actually, those words are Mark's, in comment #55. I merely separated them into paragraphs to show him how it's done, as he apparently doesn't know how.

I definitely do not think Obama will be a "great president" if he's elected.

Commenters:
I also saw the comments saying that Obama has potential greatness. How? What is missing with Obama is JFK heroism. I think people reach when it comes to Obama. But who does have the Kennedy heroism? John McCain!
Joseph.

Clavos,
Mark's comments about the Kennedy period were much more true to life than your inserts. I am a historian at Univ. of TX. ;I know the subject matter!
I NOW see how you reinserted his insert with the paragraph breaks. I missed that small tidbit the first time I saw the article. I thought you made his insert. Sorry I goofed...
Your inserts are reitorating what is said on numerous websites regarding Vietnam. My advice? Try being less insecure on the net about Dan Miller and Pablo and Mark, and be more knowleageable in book smarts. And if you are not knowledgeable, for God sake read a book! Learn your own information. Vietnam websites have erroneous facts.

Terry:
I noticed myself in earlier blogging [on this article] how Clavo insulted Pablo for some small quotation error. Why worry about it I thought? Clavo has issues probably. Pablo never responded. He took the high road. I would suggest doing the same. Go up 15 comments and see what Clavo said. It is better to ignore negativity. Responding to Clavo gives him what he wants. "Ignorance breeds ignorance".

So what if Clavos insulted Pablo. If Pablo writes things which are not true than he should be insulted grammatically! Right? Clavos' attitude of attacking grammatically to undermine what a person says politically is common usage on internet blogs by those who want to do it. Go for it Clavos. Pablo does not have feelings.

Mark Gioli: were you around when JFK was president? I was, and I didn't have any of those notions. I LIKED JFK, as many people did, but I thought he was an opportunist and appeaser with weakly-held principles. He lost me completely when he vigorously denied Russian missiles shipped to Cuba for 9 months while we all could see the U2 photos of tarp draped missiles on Russian ships in Cuban ports. Just on Cuba alone he made several major errors: he should have resisted the emasculated Bay Of Pigs fiasco, should have just suborned Castro, should have revealed the Russian missiles sooner and should have made a tough deal with K yielding Turkish missiles for a better quid pro quo.

In a way, the JFK legend was lucky he was assassinated. He could have screwed up more, and might have been beaten in 1964 by a republican.

Terry,

I'm not quoting "Vietnam websites."

I fought in that war.

John McCain is not heroic, merely stoic. He didn't resist while a POW, or organize a resistance, or attempt an escape. He just endured. That's stoicism.

The constant inflation of McCain to hero diminishes the REAL heroism of POWs who did what the Geneva Convention allows of POWs: the right to attempt escape. Many REAL hero POWs died for their efforts, such as the River Kwai POWs, the Great Escape POWs, etc. Heck, my father-in-law was a greater hero: he escaped from 3 Nazi prison camps and returned to the fight. He got a praise filled letter from Gen. Eisenhower for his accomplishments. And he never bragged about it or even mentioned it.

I wouldn't be mean about McCains pose as a hero except that he and his disciples keep blathering about his POW experience. He should be careful since he could be subject to a swiftboating at a critical time in the campaign. His POW skirts are not clean and some other ex-POWs have it in for him.

Clavos,
The facts you use are from the Vietnam websites. They are inaccurate. As a matter of fact, all of you are inserting some inaccurate facts. I am looking at the inserts and I note that all of you {including Bliffle and Mark and Clavos} are exaggerating some important items. Not false claims, but exaggerations. It would be nice to have objective inserts.

"The facts you use are from the Vietnam websites. They are inaccurate."

Which facts, Terry? Don't just generalize; explain exactly which "facts" I've stated are inaccurate, how, and why.

Nothing I've written in this thread came from a "Vietnam website."

As an historian at UT, I'm surprised you can't spell "reiterating."

Clavos,
Spelling is not my strong suit as knowledge apparently is not yours. My father was a terrible speller, yet was Professor Emeritus. Part of being educated is knowing your weaknesses and learning. Correcting people when you yourself do not have the facts only makes you look angry or bitter.
Your facts are wrong about Vietnam. You should try and read a book instead of looking on the net for your information. The internet is inaccurate. Like I tell my students: DO THE WORK YOURSELF!

Isn't it nice to see grown men argue. Neither of you are looking very educated. Cut this out and enjoy the article!.
Terry,
your students would be very proud to see your comments on here.

One more time, Terry,

You say:

"Your facts are wrong about Vietnam."

WHICH facts?

HOW are they wrong?

What's your proof that they're wrong?

Surely, even a pointy-headed "professor" knows that, if you're going to say someone is wrong, you have to be specific and prove it.

Otherwise, you've said nothing.

He did say something Clavos he said "Look it up"!

Both of you should calm down and come back when you are well rested.

The article here is pretty good. Kennedy and Obama are both urbane and good looking and stylish. Obama is similar to Kennedy minus the experience.

Clavos, have you done your homework yet and looked up your false info?

I am kidding Clavos! I hope you guys try and enjoy the web. When it becomes a macho contest then it gets a little boring. Bye.

"John McCain is not heroic, merely stoic. He didn't resist while a POW, or organize a resistance, or attempt an escape. He just endured. That's stoicism."

The heroism was his attitude and courage. He did what he had to for this country. Not many people would have had the strength to persevere at the Hanoi Hilton. What would resistance do? He was a smart man to not resist.

It strikes me that by declining early repatriation offered because his father was an admiral, intended by his captors to show that was willing to desert his comrades in arms and accept special privilege, shows substantial strength of character and more than mere passivity. Ditto his other conduct referenced in the article.

One of the points I tried to make in the article was that although merely "forgetting to duck" does not make one a hero, subsequent conduct as a POW can.

Dan

Excellent points Dan. I agree. John McCain in my mind showed great heroicm. I think McCain and JFK have more in common than McCain and Obama honestly. As much as I am not really a fan of John F. Kennedy, when it comes to his wartime experiences, JFK was heroic. Some even say he was reckless, but cowardly the Kennedys were not.
I might not be a fan of the Kennedys, yet even his detractors can say that the Kennedy family went for the glory in everything they did. After Kennedy was a Lt. in the Navy, he comes home and forges ahead great liberal programs in the 1960's. That is where he hurt his legacy. Big spending.
What I see which separates Obama from Kennedy is committment to America. Kennedy proved that he loved his country with his wartime service.. Obama never proved it. You always had the feeling that the Kennedys would die for their country in wartime without a doubt. So even though I disagree with them, part of me admires them.

John Kennedy was reckless. If you read a book about JFK called "JFK Reckless Youth"; Kennedy on PT 109 thought that PT boats should be gunboats. He was tired of being shot at by Japenese sniper fire in the Blackett Strait, so he got a surplus 37mm antitank gun and had it tied to the forward deck with mounts, the legs of the cannon had to be tied down with ropes since there was no other way to do it. The crew by all accounts was astonished to mount this big gun to the deck. This is interesting in light of the fact of his calm and cool reasoning during the Cuban Missile Crisis 19 years later.


Now I know he was thinking about his safety however, this is rather reckless and foolhardy.


Another story which happened which shows Kennedy's recklessness. The PT boats would go on patrols near Russell Island in the South Pacific and come back at dawn to the dock. Kennedy and another PT boat onetime were racing to the homestretch. Well Kennedy won the race, but ran into the corner of the dock. The engine stalled after he won and was throttling down. Later people near the dock learned to run to the beach when Kennedy's PT boat came coming to the dock. Kennedy's nickname became "Crash Kennedy".
He was a heroic guy but very reckless. Does recklessness and heriocs go hand in hand? Was this recklessness part of what made him go in an open limousine in Dallas in 1963? Who knows.