American University June 10, 2006

[Mark Stapleton]

QUOTE(Brendan Slattery @ Jun 14 2006, 03:32 AM)

Jeez, you idiots can't commemorate a simple speech without throwing in some sleazy Bush hatred. And is this a Kennedy assassination site or a Kennedy idolatry site? Can't tell the difference sometimes. You do realize your "hero" attempted to overthrow and assassinate foreign heads of state, not to mention wiretapped civil rights leaders, right? I thought only Bush and the eeeeeevil Republicans did those things. Hmmm. Oh, and trotting out senile Schlesinger to sing the praises of his old boss? Priceless.

It appears that some folks cannot refrain from becoming disagreeable when they disagree. Where, in any SANE training for the public-relations biz, do they instruct you to ATTACK the very folks you're allegedly trying to convince of your viewpoint?

I would be curious to know whether Mr. Slattery's apparent hatred of JFK stems from what he saw during Kennedy's life, or whether it sprung from what he has read and heard since...i.e, whether his impressions are from someone else's impressions or whether he formed them from watching the events as they unfolded. If they are from secondary sources, they are only as unbiased as the sources themselves.

I don't find any "Bush hatred" in a simple comparison of Mr. Kennedy's speech with the actions of Mr. Bush. If Mr. Bush fares poorly by comparison, does the fault not lie with Mr. Bush's actions? And in all fairness, if Mr. Kennedy's philandering ways compare poorly with Mr. Bush's conduct of his own personal life, is that, too, not the fault of Mr. Kennedy? You can't have it both ways. Each man is equally responsible for his own actions, and those who point out these failures are NOT the enemy of EITHER man if what they state is factual.

I think GWB stands up pretty well when lined up against JFK's famous speeches and remarks. Here are some of my favorites:

"Free societies are hopeful societies....will be allies against those hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat"

"The holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all live in this century. I didn't live in this century."

"I have made good judgements in the past. I have made good judgements in the future."

http://mindprod.com/politics/bushisms.html

You have to admit, he's a far-sighted statesman.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Brendan Slattery]

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty ...

"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

JFK: neocon. Of course, he had the advantage of an adversary that valued life and their own existence. W has no such luxury. Nor was JFK a stranger to using force to remove dictatorial regimes. Were he alive today, he wouldn't recognize his own defeatist party. He sure as hell wouldn't recognize his own brother, or the other Sen from Massachusetts.

[Dawn Meredith]

I think GWB stands up pretty well when lined up against JFK's famous speeches and remarks. Here are some of my favorites:

"Free societies are hopeful societies....will be allies against those hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat"

"The holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all live in this century. I didn't live in this century."

"I have made good judgements in the past. I have made good judgements in the future."

http://mindprod.com/politics/bushisms.html

You have to admit, he's a far-sighted statesman.

I don't get to laugh out loud very often, so Mark: Thanx for the laugh of the week.

He sure does have a way with words; that no-one can dispute!

Dawn

[Duke Lane]

In fact, it doesn't appear anyone here - myself included - happened to call attention to May 29. Jack Kennedy would have just turned 89.

And his birthday party would have been ruined by this report in the International Herald Tribune which shows America's standing in the world at an all time low: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/news/pew1.php

Were he alive today, he wouldn't recognize his own defeatist party. He sure as hell wouldn't recognize his own brother, or the other Sen from Massachusetts.

There is, of course, no way to know these things because, obviously, if he had lived, at least some things would have been different, leading to different things today: a different succession of Presidents dealing with different issues and bringing about different policies, different actions, different perceptions.

Can it be said, in sum, that his death changed the world? To some extent, each and every death does that. The degree to which it influences anything else is directly proportional to the influence the decedent had in life.

But the American University speech was a major part of that campaign to get the Partial Test Ban Treaty adopted---the first ever nuclear arms control treaty. (And I managed to respond without saying anything bad about President Bush.....)

Dan

Quite true, but even the Test Ban was just the first step in JFK's larger goal of General and Complete Nuclear Disarmament. He liked to quote the Chinese proverb that the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Could JFK have accomplished this goal if he had another five years as President? I do not know, but I have a feeling that if a lesser man had proposed a moon landing, no one would have believed him.

I don't know how "great" Kennedy was, but having already reached the office of President - even having been seriously considered for it - shows an achievement far greater than any of us here have attained, and at an age younger than many of us are today as well. So that's definitely something.

Clearly, he did not lack vision whether or not - as we'll of course never know - he had to wherewithal to carry the vision to reality. He also had "what it takes" to make others believe that his vision was possible. A moon landing was the stuff of fantasy ... but more had been achieved in the previous 30 years than in the three centuries before, so why not this too?

On the other hand, some of his other visions - coexistence with Blacks and Reds, for example, and not killing the Yellows - were not so fantastic to others. And so, he died.

... And, of course, we'll never understand exactly why Lee did it, will we ...?

[Terry Mauro]

In fact, it doesn't appear anyone here - myself included - happened to call attention to May 29. Jack Kennedy would have just turned 89.

And his birthday party would have been ruined by this report in the International Herald Tribune which shows America's standing in the world at an all time low: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/news/pew1.php

Were he alive today, he wouldn't recognize his own defeatist party. He sure as hell wouldn't recognize his own brother, or the other Sen from Massachusetts.

There is, of course, no way to know these things because, obviously, if he had lived, at least some things would have been different, leading to different things today: a different succession of Presidents dealing with different issues and bringing about different policies, different actions, different perceptions.

Can it be said, in sum, that his death changed the world? To some extent, each and every death does that. The degree to which it influences anything else is directly proportional to the influence the decedent had in life.

But the American University speech was a major part of that campaign to get the Partial Test Ban Treaty adopted---the first ever nuclear arms control treaty. (And I managed to respond without saying anything bad about President Bush.....)

Dan

Quite true, but even the Test Ban was just the first step in JFK's larger goal of General and Complete Nuclear Disarmament. He liked to quote the Chinese proverb that the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Could JFK have accomplished this goal if he had another five years as President? I do not know, but I have a feeling that if a lesser man had proposed a moon landing, no one would have believed him.

I don't know how "great" Kennedy was, but having already reached the office of President - even having been seriously considered for it - shows an achievement far greater than any of us here have attained, and at an age younger than many of us are today as well. So that's definitely something.

Clearly, he did not lack vision whether or not - as we'll of course never know - he had to wherewithal to carry the vision to reality. He also had "what it takes" to make others believe that his vision was possible. A moon landing was the stuff of fantasy ... but more had been achieved in the previous 30 years than in the three centuries before, so why not this too?

On the other hand, some of his other visions - coexistence with Blacks and Reds, for example, and not killing the Yellows - were not so fantastic to others. And so, he died.

... And, of course, we'll never understand exactly why Lee did it, will we ...?

***************************************************

"On the other hand, some of his other visions - coexistence with Blacks and Reds, for example, and not killing the Yellows - were not so fantastic to others. And so, he died."

"Ooh, what a lucky man, he was..." by Emerson, Lake, and Palmer

He had white horses,

and ladies by the score

All dressed in satin,

and waiting by the door

**Chorus**

ooh, what a lucky man he was,

ooh, what a lucky man he was.

White lace and feathers,

they made up his bed

A gold-covered mattress,

on which he was laid

**Chorus**

He went to fight wars,

for his country and his king

For his honor and his glory,

the people would sing

**Chorus**

A bullet had found him,

his blood ran as he cried

no money could save him,

so he laid down and he died

"... And, of course, we'll never understand exactly why Lee did it, will we ...?"

...And, of course, you surely jest, don't you...?

Good points, Duke.

[Dawn Meredith]

***************************************************

[color=#990000]"On the other hand, some of his other visions - coexistence with Blacks and Reds, for example, and not killing the Yellows - were not so fantastic to others. And so, he died."

"Ooh, what a lucky man, he was..." by Emerson, Lake, and Palmer

He had white horses,

and ladies by the score

All dressed in satin,

and waiting by the door

**Chorus**

ooh, what a lucky man he was,

ooh, what a lucky man he was.

White lace and feathers,

they made up his bed

A gold-covered mattress,

on which he was laid

**Chorus**

He went to fight wars,

for his country and his king

For his honor and his glory,

the people would sing

**Chorus**

A bullet had found him,

his blood ran as he cried

no money could save him,

so he laid down and he died

"... And, of course, we'll never understand exactly why Lee did it, will we ...?"

...And, of course, you surely jest, don't you...?

Good points, Duke.

[/color]

Hey Girlfriend,

Missed you around here. Ter, is this song actually about JFK? I remember hearing it alot when it was out but not really listening to the lyrics (unlike when I was younger knew em all!) Sure sounds like it could BE about JFK.

Dawn

[Terry Mauro]

***************************************************

[color=#990000]"On the other hand, some of his other visions - coexistence with Blacks and Reds, for example, and not killing the Yellows - were not so fantastic to others. And so, he died."

"Ooh, what a lucky man, he was..." by Emerson, Lake, and Palmer

He had white horses,

and ladies by the score

All dressed in satin,

and waiting by the door

**Chorus**

ooh, what a lucky man he was,

ooh, what a lucky man he was.

White lace and feathers,

they made up his bed

A gold-covered mattress,

on which he was laid

**Chorus**

He went to fight wars,

for his country and his king

For his honor and his glory,

the people would sing

**Chorus**

A bullet had found him,

his blood ran as he cried

no money could save him,

so he laid down and he died

"... And, of course, we'll never understand exactly why Lee did it, will we ...?"

...And, of course, you surely jest, don't you...?

Good points, Duke.

[/color]

Hey Girlfriend,

Missed you around here. Ter, is this song actually about JFK? I remember hearing it alot when it was out but not really listening to the lyrics (unlike when I was younger knew em all!) Sure sounds like it could BE about JFK.

Dawn

*********************************************************

Hey Dawnie,

Sorry I missed your call this weekend. I've been trying to cover all bases since my department is being officially decommissioned on 6/19/06. Looks like I'll be heading to UCLA-Santa Monica on June 26th. I'll call you with the particulars, either Saturday or Sunday.

Regarding ELP's "Lucky Man," I believe it may have been off the King Crimson album circa 1971. I remember attending their concert at the Fillmore East, in April or May of 1971, while visiting my parents back in New York, at that time. But, hearing it in my car on the way home from work, sometime in 1976, and being held a captive audience sans the light shows and special effects of their concert, I heard all of the words. I immediately thought of the whole "Camelot" legend surrounding the Kennedy family, especially when hearing the words of the last stanza or verse:

"A bullet had found him,

his blood ran as he cried

no money could save him,

so he laid down and he died"

Which really hit home, and sealed it for me. Whether ELP was intentionally calling reference to the JFK assassination, or not, "A bullet had found him," drove the thought home to me that late afternoon on the 405 FWY. And, if they were referring to King Arthur's Camelot, I don't believe they had gun powder or bullets back in those days, but I could be mistaken?

Ter

[Greg Parker]

Jeez, you idiots can't commemorate a simple speech without throwing in some sleazy Bush hatred. And is this a Kennedy assassination site or a Kennedy idolatry site? Can't tell the difference sometimes. You do realize your "hero" attempted to overthrow and assassinate foreign heads of state, not to mention wiretapped civil rights leaders, right? I thought only Bush and the eeeeeevil Republicans did those things. Hmmm. Oh, and trotting out senile Schlesinger to sing the praises of his old boss? Priceless.

P.S. Has McKinney been indicted yet?

Brendan,

Please point to what you consider the "sleazy Bush hatred". It entirely escapes me. All I see is a Bush policy of pre-emptive war, with the only comment of a personal nature being that Bush "seems a humane man." Real sleazy!

Your allegations regarding Kennedy on the other hand, are quite sleazy.

(Merriam-Webster gives one definition as: 1 a : lacking firmness of texture : FLIMSY b : carelessly made of inferior materials : SHODDY)

You have already been asked to back up your claims, but of course, that's difficult when they are so carelessly made...

As for opening line... "you idiots"... speaks for itself really... about you.

JFK: neocon. Of course, he had the advantage of an adversary that valued life and their own existence. W has no such luxury. Nor was JFK a stranger to using force to remove dictatorial regimes. Were he alive today, he wouldn't recognize his own defeatist party. He sure as hell wouldn't recognize his own brother, or the other Sen from Massachusetts.

Neocon??? Try some research Brendan. Aid programs, the Youth Corps, test ban treaty. As for the "luxury"... yeah... must have been a real luxury knowing millions upon millions could die, as opposed to a few thousand absolute max in a single terrorist act - with that number being achieved only once.

Of course, terorrists were around in the Cold war, too. But that seems to have been forgotten as small potatoes compared to the nuclear threat.

Edited June 17, 2006 by Greg Parker

[William Kelly]

Jeez, you idiots can't commemorate a simple speech without throwing in some sleazy Bush hatred. And is this a Kennedy assassination site or a Kennedy idolatry site? Can't tell the difference sometimes. You do realize your "hero" attempted to overthrow and assassinate foreign heads of state, not to mention wiretapped civil rights leaders, right? I thought only Bush and the eeeeeevil Republicans did those things. Hmmm......

Brendan,

we certainly can't cannonize JFK because he was wrong on a number of points.

Of the entire speech, the part they excerpted for the JFK memorial plaque (at the west end of John M. Reeves Athletic Field) reads:

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war..."

Now that you bring it up and we have to think about it, Only George Bush and the Republicans threw that ideal principel out the window.

Now we have started a war, the world knows it, the President wants it, and we no longer expect another war, just figuring out where the next war will be - Syria, Iran, hey, let's invade Cuba while we're on a roll?

For the entire speech see Dave Ratcliff's Rathouse

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/JFK061063

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[Brendan Slattery]

Jeez, you idiots can't commemorate a simple speech without throwing in some sleazy Bush hatred. And is this a Kennedy assassination site or a Kennedy idolatry site? Can't tell the difference sometimes. You do realize your "hero" attempted to overthrow and assassinate foreign heads of state, not to mention wiretapped civil rights leaders, right? I thought only Bush and the eeeeeevil Republicans did those things. Hmmm. Oh, and trotting out senile Schlesinger to sing the praises of his old boss? Priceless.

P.S. Has McKinney been indicted yet?

Brendan,

Please point to what you consider the "sleazy Bush hatred". It entirely escapes me. All I see is a Bush policy of pre-emptive war, with the only comment of a personal nature being that Bush "seems a humane man." Real sleazy!

Your allegations regarding Kennedy on the other hand, are quite sleazy.

(Merriam-Webster gives one definition as: 1 a : lacking firmness of texture : FLIMSY b : carelessly made of inferior materials : SHODDY)

You have already been asked to back up your claims, but of course, that's difficult when they are so carelessly made...

As for opening line... "you idiots"... speaks for itself really... about you.

JFK: neocon. Of course, he had the advantage of an adversary that valued life and their own existence. W has no such luxury. Nor was JFK a stranger to using force to remove dictatorial regimes. Were he alive today, he wouldn't recognize his own defeatist party. He sure as hell wouldn't recognize his own brother, or the other Sen from Massachusetts.

Neocon??? Try some research Brendan. Aid programs, the Youth Corps, test ban treaty. As for the "luxury"... yeah... must have been a real luxury knowing millions upon millions could die, as opposed to a few thousand absolute max in a single terrorist act - with that number being achieved only once.

Of course, terorrists were around in the Cold war, too. But that seems to have been forgotten as small potatoes compared to the nuclear threat.

JFK's speech was rendered completely obsolete on Sep 11. That's the difference. You can't compare the two men or Adminstrations because they face two different implacable foes. Therefore, using the anniversary to take a cheapshot at W was petty and nonsensical. Last time I checked, W wasn't opposed to aid programs or efforts like The Peace Corps either. Hell, millions flowed into Palestine before the Hamas victory, and millions flow into Egypt to this very day. The Dems offer little more than obstructionism. Incredibly, their plan for "A New Direction for America" never mentions al Qaeda, terrorism, or any aspect of national security. Either they don't believe this is a real war or think it is a matter of indifference which side wins. Which is it?

[Robert Howard]

JFK's speech was rendered completely obsolete on Sep 11. That's the difference. You can't compare the two men or Adminstrations because they face two different implacable foes.

Get the needle out of your arm, Brendan. The reason you come off like such a putz, is because your vocabulary is frankly, Washington-speak. Historian and scholars do not view linear history as a contest between the left and the right, so your commentary on matters regarding Islam vs The West [clash of cultures] gives the lie to the fact that you are at best a Republican cheerleader and incapable or unwilling to make any contribution to rational discussion, and at worst only here to agitate, which is my supposition.

Therefore, using the anniversary to take a cheapshot at W was petty and nonsensical. Last time I checked, W wasn't opposed to aid programs or efforts like The Peace Corps either. Hell, millions flowed into Palestine before the Hamas victory, and millions flow into Egypt to this very day.

That load of drivel would make Herman Goehring proud. In a poll a few months ago, your War President, [as he so affectionately referred to himself] recieved a whopping 2% from the African American community with regards to the issue of trustworthiness, Even Vincent Bugliosi [a proponent of the LHO did it view] wrote of the real story about Florida 2000, had this to say.

"I want to add a footnote that the National Lawyers Association has advised me that they are giving serious consideration to using "The Betrayal of America" as a legal foundation to ask the House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings against these five justices."

see link

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcrip...01bugliosi.html

The Dems offer little more than obstructionism. Incredibly, their plan for "A New Direction for America" never mentions al Qaeda, terrorism, or any aspect of national security. Either they don't believe this is a real war or think it is a matter of indifference which side wins. Which is it?

You may have answered your own question, in your comments above. Oh yes, this is a real war but only because our President has implemented the so-called Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. Apparently, it's main success has been to recast the historicity of the geopolitics of the Holy Roman Empire, [see: the Crusades] to the point of looking downright progressive. Such actions are risque even when a nation has a well deserved reputation as a democracy, but the doctrine of pre-emption has already left a warped legacy of what type of Democracy we are living in. You do understand Brendan, the intertwining relationship between politics, money and empire, don'y you?

Now as a result of pre-emption, China could say, invade Taiwan over one of those 'orchestrated provacations' [see Polish-German border pre Sept, 1939] and our Democratic response would be not only hypocritical but a joke. So, in 6 short years of the New American Century, thanks to our Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington we have.

1. A War in Iraq, which is not going well

2. What started as the Patriot Act [see evisceration of Civil Liberties] to ostensibly 'protect us from the terrorist's, has morphed into the NSA Wiretap Program which, we are told was done 'to monitor Al-Qaeda's activities in the US,' and subsequently has been proven to be a flat out lie.

3. An administration which argues about how great it is, while the middle class is disappearing, an democratic principles are in 'decline' a Budget Deficit which can only be described as a joke, Eminent Domain; corporatization of the media.

I live in a stalwart Republican city, and once you get away from the lawyers and the politicos, you cant find one single person who has anything good to say about 'what's happening in Washington,' so don't piss down our collective leg's and say it's raining, get a radio job where you can contribute your voice to the airwaves propulgating the nobility of Republican politics, just make sure you kiss your soul goodbye first.

The truth always comes out even in a society which does not value it. Many American's do not believe it is a real war 'in the sense' that how it is being portrayed by the media is a de facto representation of the underlying reality. If you knew as much about history as you know about flapping your jaws, you might realize that in the real world the myth of December 7th 1941 being a 'surprise attack' has become nothing more than a cheap joke. Pivotal events in World History are not so black and white as to dot every i and cross every T in one blockbuster book, although there have been some exceptions.

When I noticed that your biography just said 'political analyst,' and read some of your less than articulate posts my initial thought was 'what do you expect from a pig, except a grunt.'

The thought, I believe has become a consensus.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Greg Parker]

Robert, well said, mate.

This contrived indignation is designed to lead readers to believe there was actually something in the initial post to be indignant about.

There wasn't. Brendan must know that, and I doubt he himself believes most of what he has said so far.

[Mark Knight]

Robert Howard posted:

When I noticed that your biography just said 'political analyst,'

Actually, Robert, it says "Public Relations"...I assume that's sarcasm, as he apparently doesn't relate well with the public at all, if his posts on this forum are an indication. I don't believe his kindergarten teacher would've checked "plays well with others" on his report card based upon his performance here.

[John Geraghty]

P.S. Has McKinney been indicted yet?

No Brendan, nor will she ever be. The coverage by Fox was nothing short of despicable. They actually ran an article last Thursday that likened the McKinney case to that of the LaCrosse player accused of raping a protestute. Of course Fox favours the young rich white man.

They also ran a story saying that the Congresswoman had entered into a 'sweetheart' deal in order to get her exhonoration, yet they site no soure or any information to back this up.

These slurs are a complete disgrace.

Brendan, It seems to me as though you lack analytical thought.

Ciao,

John

[Dawn Meredith]

P.S. Has McKinney been indicted yet?

Great posts guys.

No, Brendon, McKinney's cases was presented FOR indictment and the grand jury DECLINED to indict.

I believe even Fox did present this news. Remember that old saying, "A grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich"? Well, it's based on the fact that grand jury presentations are from the prespective of the state. Unless the accused asked to be present and answer questions, no defense position is given. Even when the accused is allowed to be present he or she must do so alone- (at least in TX)- and his or her attorney must remain outside the room where GJ is meeting. So whatever "sweetheart deal" is being alluded to here is bull. The Grand Jury CHOOSE not to indict, after reviewing evidence FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE STATE.

Dawn