The day Terror was released 9/11...1973

[Hayabusa Rider]

On that day the results of the hard work of the Nixon administration and the CIA led to this tyrant overthrowing a democratically elected president. Why? The properly elected Allende was a socialist. The Agency denies ever directly overthrowing the government, but it was like saying you didnt cause a disaster when you rolled a car down a hill into a crowd because you werent behind the wheel.

We caused more suffering to happen than we have seen here. All for a good cause, so we were told.

A warning to all would be liberators.

 

[syzygy]

the usual ignorances at play, eh ? while not justifying pinochet, who alone is responsible for the actions he took, there are some gray areas
about allende that would make cheering for him a little difficult, assuming you're not a marxist sympathiser.

Popular Unity (UP) ?an electoral coalition formed by the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties of Chile, as well as the
Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU) and the Independent Popular Action

a very non-partisan link

with re: 1970 elections . . .. allende was chosen poster boy for a fusion party (popular unity - PU) comprised of various un-savory types with
long and ugly political histories. the cia was invited in by the chilean right to help with the election against an exploitationist populist tide being
hatched by socialists and communists alike.

from the site:

The majority of the Chilean people, they alleged, had shown that they did not want to live under Marxism but in freedom.(

and knowing, well in advance, what previous marxist experiments in governance had resulted in, the people in their fervor appeared
to be dooming themselves to a cure infinitely worse than the disease. most notably, though, is the blatant and un-ashamed manner
these PU folk publicized their marxist ideology, an absolute wretched failure if there every had been one. this is the kind of mindless
utopian-speak that was going to produce pol pot's successes in a few years. ofcourse, pol pot measured his success through the
numbers 'purified'. by that measure, which grew into the low millions, he was a magnificent marxist-leninist success.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy
the usual ignorances at play, eh ? while not justifying pinochet, who alone is responsible for the actions he took, there are some gray areas
about allende that would make cheering for him a little difficult, assuming you're not a marxist sympathiser.

Popular Unity (UP) ?an electoral coalition formed by the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties of Chile, as well as the
Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU) and the Independent Popular Action

a very non-partisan link

with re: 1970 elections . . .. allende was chosen poster boy for a fusion party (popular unity - PU) comprised of various un-savory types with
long and ugly political histories. the cia was invited in by the chilean right to help with the election against an exploitationist populist tide being
hatched by socialists and communists alike.

from the site:

The majority of the Chilean people, they alleged, had shown that they did not want to live under Marxism but in freedom.(

and knowing, well in advance, what previous marxist experiments in governance had resulted in, the people in their fervor appeared
to be dooming themselves to a cure infinitely worse than the disease. most notably, though, is the blatant and un-ashamed manner
these PU folk publicized their marxist ideology, an absolute wretched failure if there every had been one. this is the kind of mindless
utopian-speak that was going to produce pol pot's successes in a few years. ofcourse, pol pot measured his success through the
numbers 'purified'. by that measure, which grew into the low millions, he was a magnificent marxist-leninist success.

Again the radical right uses their crystal ball to view the future and end what they perceive as a threat. Sounds very familiar.


You're ignoring one minor detail, syzygy. Allende won. He was elected. The people of Argentina voted for him. The US has no right overthrowing the duly elected leader of any other nation. People who do such things are terrorists.

Little wonder our country is considered hypocritical around the world. We preach the gospel of democracy but when the practice of democracy leads to results we don't agree with we revert to totalitarianism and terror to get our way.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

As the Bush administration is fond of telling the rest of the world as they murder Iraqi civilians, "There is no excuse for terror."

It seems Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush don't believe they are to be held to the same standards they demand from the rest of the world. From overthrowing duly elected governments to mining harbors to illegally invading nations it's one set of rules for them and another for everyone else.

And you can't see anything wrong with that syzygy? As long as YOUR interests are being advanced?

The ends do not justify the means. A lesson you and the right wing radicals you support haven't been able to learn yet.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy
the usual ignorances at play, eh ? while not justifying pinochet, who alone is responsible for the actions he took, there are some gray areas
about allende that would make cheering for him a little difficult, assuming you're not a marxist sympathiser.

Popular Unity (UP) ?an electoral coalition formed by the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties of Chile, as well as the
Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU) and the Independent Popular Action

a very non-partisan link

with re: 1970 elections . . .. allende was chosen poster boy for a fusion party (popular unity - PU) comprised of various un-savory types with
long and ugly political histories. the cia was invited in by the chilean right to help with the election against an exploitationist populist tide being
hatched by socialists and communists alike.

from the site:

The majority of the Chilean people, they alleged, had shown that they did not want to live under Marxism but in freedom.(

and knowing, well in advance, what previous marxist experiments in governance had resulted in, the people in their fervor appeared
to be dooming themselves to a cure infinitely worse than the disease. most notably, though, is the blatant and un-ashamed manner
these PU folk publicized their marxist ideology, an absolute wretched failure if there every had been one. this is the kind of mindless
utopian-speak that was going to produce pol pot's successes in a few years. ofcourse, pol pot measured his success through the
numbers 'purified'. by that measure, which grew into the low millions, he was a magnificent marxist-leninist success.

Again the radical right uses their crystal ball to view the future and end what they perceive as a threat. Sounds very familiar.


You're ignoring one minor detail, syzygy. Allende won. He was elected. The people of Argentina voted for him. The US has no right overthrowing the duly elected leader of any other nation. People who do such things are terrorists.

Little wonder our country is considered hypocritical around the world. We preach the gospel of democracy but when the practice of democracy leads to results we don't agree with we revert to totalitarianism and terror to get our way.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

As the Bush administration is fond of telling the rest of the world as they murder Iraqi civilians, "There is no excuse for terror."

It seems Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush don't believe they are to be held to the same standards they demand from the rest of the world. From overthrowing duly elected governments to mining harbors to illegally invading nations it's one set of rules for them and another for everyone else.

And you can't see anything wrong with that syzygy? As long as YOUR interests are being advanced?

The ends do not justify the means. A lesson you and the right wing radicals you support haven't been able to learn yet.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

Pretty much describes your entire post. I notice, as did everyone else, that you left out the two Demoidiot Presidents in the time period you covered. It only brings into specific relief the depth of your own ignorance.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy
the usual ignorances at play, eh ? while not justifying pinochet, who alone is responsible for the actions he took, there are some gray areas
about allende that would make cheering for him a little difficult, assuming you're not a marxist sympathiser.

Popular Unity (UP) ?an electoral coalition formed by the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties of Chile, as well as the
Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU) and the Independent Popular Action

a very non-partisan link

with re: 1970 elections . . .. allende was chosen poster boy for a fusion party (popular unity - PU) comprised of various un-savory types with
long and ugly political histories. the cia was invited in by the chilean right to help with the election against an exploitationist populist tide being
hatched by socialists and communists alike.

from the site:

The majority of the Chilean people, they alleged, had shown that they did not want to live under Marxism but in freedom.(

and knowing, well in advance, what previous marxist experiments in governance had resulted in, the people in their fervor appeared
to be dooming themselves to a cure infinitely worse than the disease. most notably, though, is the blatant and un-ashamed manner
these PU folk publicized their marxist ideology, an absolute wretched failure if there every had been one. this is the kind of mindless
utopian-speak that was going to produce pol pot's successes in a few years. ofcourse, pol pot measured his success through the
numbers 'purified'. by that measure, which grew into the low millions, he was a magnificent marxist-leninist success.

Again the radical right uses their crystal ball to view the future and end what they perceive as a threat. Sounds very familiar.


You're ignoring one minor detail, syzygy. Allende won. He was elected. The people of Argentina voted for him. The US has no right overthrowing the duly elected leader of any other nation. People who do such things are terrorists.

Little wonder our country is considered hypocritical around the world. We preach the gospel of democracy but when the practice of democracy leads to results we don't agree with we revert to totalitarianism and terror to get our way.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

As the Bush administration is fond of telling the rest of the world as they murder Iraqi civilians, "There is no excuse for terror."

It seems Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush don't believe they are to be held to the same standards they demand from the rest of the world. From overthrowing duly elected governments to mining harbors to illegally invading nations it's one set of rules for them and another for everyone else.

And you can't see anything wrong with that syzygy? As long as YOUR interests are being advanced?

The ends do not justify the means. A lesson you and the right wing radicals you support haven't been able to learn yet.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

Pretty much describes your entire post. I notice, as did everyone else, that you left out the two Demoidiot Presidents in the time period you covered. It only brings into specific relief the depth of your own ignorance.

Good morning UQ! So good to see you.

I left out the Democratic Presidents since they didn't pre-emptively attack foreign governments they didn't agree with on the scale the right wing radical Republicans did preferring in general to affect change through LEGAL diplomatic means. No drugs for arms for contras for instance.

Since you obviously don't agree why don't you provide us with some of your top secret information to the contrary?

 

[BOBDN]

Suggestion UQ.

Show us all some of your top secret evidence of Democratic Presidents in the time period I used doing something like this:

"In October 1984, the second Boland amendment took effect. It prohibited any military or paramilitary support for the Contras from October 3, 1984, through December 19, 1985. As a result, the CIA and Department of Defense (DOD) began withdrawing personnel from Central America. During this time, however, the National Security Council continued to provide support to the Contras.

In August 1985, Congress approved $25 million in humanitarian aid to the Contras, with the proviso that the State Department, and not the CIA or the DOD, administer the aid. President Reagan created the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office (NHAO) to supply the humanitarian aid. In September 1985, Oliver North began using the Salvadoran air base at Ilopango for Contra resupply efforts.

On October 5, 1986, a plane loaded with supplies for the Contras, financed by private benefactors, was shot down by Nicaraguan soldiers. On board were weapons and other lethal supplies and three Americans. One American, Eugene Hasenfus, claimed while in custody that he worked for the CIA. The Reagan Administration denied any knowledge of the private resupply efforts."

Linkie

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy
the usual ignorances at play, eh ? while not justifying pinochet, who alone is responsible for the actions he took, there are some gray areas
about allende that would make cheering for him a little difficult, assuming you're not a marxist sympathiser.

Popular Unity (UP) ?an electoral coalition formed by the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties of Chile, as well as the
Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU) and the Independent Popular Action

a very non-partisan link

with re: 1970 elections . . .. allende was chosen poster boy for a fusion party (popular unity - PU) comprised of various un-savory types with
long and ugly political histories. the cia was invited in by the chilean right to help with the election against an exploitationist populist tide being
hatched by socialists and communists alike.

from the site:

The majority of the Chilean people, they alleged, had shown that they did not want to live under Marxism but in freedom.(

and knowing, well in advance, what previous marxist experiments in governance had resulted in, the people in their fervor appeared
to be dooming themselves to a cure infinitely worse than the disease. most notably, though, is the blatant and un-ashamed manner
these PU folk publicized their marxist ideology, an absolute wretched failure if there every had been one. this is the kind of mindless
utopian-speak that was going to produce pol pot's successes in a few years. ofcourse, pol pot measured his success through the
numbers 'purified'. by that measure, which grew into the low millions, he was a magnificent marxist-leninist success.

Again the radical right uses their crystal ball to view the future and end what they perceive as a threat. Sounds very familiar.


You're ignoring one minor detail, syzygy. Allende won. He was elected. The people of Argentina voted for him. The US has no right overthrowing the duly elected leader of any other nation. People who do such things are terrorists.

Little wonder our country is considered hypocritical around the world. We preach the gospel of democracy but when the practice of democracy leads to results we don't agree with we revert to totalitarianism and terror to get our way.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

As the Bush administration is fond of telling the rest of the world as they murder Iraqi civilians, "There is no excuse for terror."

It seems Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush don't believe they are to be held to the same standards they demand from the rest of the world. From overthrowing duly elected governments to mining harbors to illegally invading nations it's one set of rules for them and another for everyone else.

And you can't see anything wrong with that syzygy? As long as YOUR interests are being advanced?

The ends do not justify the means. A lesson you and the right wing radicals you support haven't been able to learn yet.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

Pretty much describes your entire post. I notice, as did everyone else, that you left out the two Demoidiot Presidents in the time period you covered. It only brings into specific relief the depth of your own ignorance.

Good morning UQ! So good to see you.

I left out the Democratic Presidents since they didn't pre-emptively attack foreign governments they didn't agree with on the scale the right wing radical Republicans did preferring in general to affect change through LEGAL diplomatic means. No drugs for arms for contras for instance.

Since you obviously don't agree why don't you provide us with some of your top secret information to the contrary?

It's not at all good to see you. There's nothing at all top secret about what you request. All that is required is a 6th grade history class and/or a very basic ability to use a search engine. I'm not here to provide either one to you but I will wish you good luck. You can start with Clinton/cruise missiles/pharmaceutical plants and Carter/south america/central america and middle east/central asia.

 

[308nato]

That Bay of Pigs thing worked out well for Kennedy a decade earlier. A prime example of Democratic "liberation" skills. Willy really straightened out things in Haiti as well.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy
the usual ignorances at play, eh ? while not justifying pinochet, who alone is responsible for the actions he took, there are some gray areas
about allende that would make cheering for him a little difficult, assuming you're not a marxist sympathiser.

Popular Unity (UP) ?an electoral coalition formed by the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties of Chile, as well as the
Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU) and the Independent Popular Action

a very non-partisan link

with re: 1970 elections . . .. allende was chosen poster boy for a fusion party (popular unity - PU) comprised of various un-savory types with
long and ugly political histories. the cia was invited in by the chilean right to help with the election against an exploitationist populist tide being
hatched by socialists and communists alike.

from the site:

The majority of the Chilean people, they alleged, had shown that they did not want to live under Marxism but in freedom.(

and knowing, well in advance, what previous marxist experiments in governance had resulted in, the people in their fervor appeared
to be dooming themselves to a cure infinitely worse than the disease. most notably, though, is the blatant and un-ashamed manner
these PU folk publicized their marxist ideology, an absolute wretched failure if there every had been one. this is the kind of mindless
utopian-speak that was going to produce pol pot's successes in a few years. ofcourse, pol pot measured his success through the
numbers 'purified'. by that measure, which grew into the low millions, he was a magnificent marxist-leninist success.

Again the radical right uses their crystal ball to view the future and end what they perceive as a threat. Sounds very familiar.


You're ignoring one minor detail, syzygy. Allende won. He was elected. The people of Argentina voted for him. The US has no right overthrowing the duly elected leader of any other nation. People who do such things are terrorists.

Little wonder our country is considered hypocritical around the world. We preach the gospel of democracy but when the practice of democracy leads to results we don't agree with we revert to totalitarianism and terror to get our way.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

As the Bush administration is fond of telling the rest of the world as they murder Iraqi civilians, "There is no excuse for terror."

It seems Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush don't believe they are to be held to the same standards they demand from the rest of the world. From overthrowing duly elected governments to mining harbors to illegally invading nations it's one set of rules for them and another for everyone else.

And you can't see anything wrong with that syzygy? As long as YOUR interests are being advanced?

The ends do not justify the means. A lesson you and the right wing radicals you support haven't been able to learn yet.

The usual ignorance at play indeed.

Pretty much describes your entire post. I notice, as did everyone else, that you left out the two Demoidiot Presidents in the time period you covered. It only brings into specific relief the depth of your own ignorance.

Good morning UQ! So good to see you.

I left out the Democratic Presidents since they didn't pre-emptively attack foreign governments they didn't agree with on the scale the right wing radical Republicans did preferring in general to affect change through LEGAL diplomatic means. No drugs for arms for contras for instance.

Since you obviously don't agree why don't you provide us with some of your top secret information to the contrary?

It's not at all good to see you. There's nothing at all top secret about what you request. All that is required is a 6th grade history class and/or a very basic ability to use a search engine. I'm not here to provide either one to you but I will wish you good luck. You can start with Clinton/cruise missiles/pharmaceutical plants and Carter/south america/central america and middle east/central asia.

UQ. I'm hurt! I thought you would have missed me in all the time you were away.

Oh well, that's life. Can't please everybody and there are always those I wouldn't want to please even if I could.

As for Clinton/Carter they don't rise to the level of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush secret ops and illegal overthrow/invasion of foreign governments.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: 308nato
That Bay of Pigs thing worked out well for Kennedy a decade earlier. A prime example of Democratic "liberation" skills. Willy really straightened out things in Haiti as well.

Kennedy was misled by the military. As for Haiti at least they had a fair democratic election and got rid of Papa Doc. But as the US is learning in Iraq there are some cultures which aren't ready for freedom. They have to work it out for themselves. You can't dictate democracy.

 

[Moonbeam]

We could try pumping a couple of hundred billion into Haiti.

 

[308nato]

The Dalai Lama wants us to liberate Tibet.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: syzygy
the usual ignorances at play, eh ? while not justifying pinochet, who alone is responsible for the actions he took, there are some gray areas
about allende that would make cheering for him a little difficult, assuming you're not a marxist sympathiser.

Popular Unity (UP) ?an electoral coalition formed by the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties of Chile, as well as the
Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU) and the Independent Popular Action

a very non-partisan link

with re: 1970 elections . . .. allende was chosen poster boy for a fusion party (popular unity - PU) comprised of various un-savory types with
long and ugly political histories. the cia was invited in by the chilean right to help with the election against an exploitationist populist tide being
hatched by socialists and communists alike.

from the site:

The majority of the Chilean people, they alleged, had shown that they did not want to live under Marxism but in freedom.(

and knowing, well in advance, what previous marxist experiments in governance had resulted in, the people in their fervor appeared
to be dooming themselves to a cure infinitely worse than the disease. most notably, though, is the blatant and un-ashamed manner
these PU folk publicized their marxist ideology, an absolute wretched failure if there every had been one. this is the kind of mindless
utopian-speak that was going to produce pol pot's successes in a few years. ofcourse, pol pot measured his success through the
numbers 'purified'. by that measure, which grew into the low millions, he was a magnificent marxist-leninist success.

Translation. I am the evil I fear. I know truth. Evil is the enemy of truth. I know who is evil. It is OK to kill evil before it becomes evil because it' to become evil. It is OK because I know it will. It is my fear. I know better than God. I am the evil I fear.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

Where is this hook? Does it not rest on the assumption that there is an absolute truth by which somebody could judge, somebody say like God, who had all wisdom and could peer into a man's soul. Or are we talking about a common sense judgment call based on our best guess. If the latter than I think how you come down on the issue tells us how you are. Implicit in your question, I think, is whether Bush is guilty of being misled on WMD or whether his true motives were ulterior and not aired. In order to answer this question then, we would have to look at Kennedy and Bush and ask ourselves what we think of their judgment as human beings. What was the nature of the deception, was there one at all, can being deceived be interpreted as acquiescence to unconscious and perhaps unsavory emotions, or serious and intelligent decisions based on apparently best information that's a lie. Not an easy job, and certainly not one with a foregone conclusion. My own take on the matter is that both were ruled by passion.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

UQ

You have to realize, in the sixties, unlike today, it was the military which lied to the president.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: 308nato
The Dalai Lama wants us to liberate Tibet.

Well, you see?

Now that Bush has made pre-emption and nation building US policy EVERYONE wants a piece!

 

[naddicott]

Allende's daughter wrote some great books. Perhaps if her father had stayed in power she wouldn't have had the same edge to her writing. Perhaps all the CIA was doing by interfering in Chile was an effort to promote the arts. The NEA had much more influence (and budget) back then...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

That Bay of Pigs thing worked out well for Kennedy a decade earlier.

Actually, the Bay of Pigs was planned before Kennedy was elected but ultimately it was his decision to allow it to proceed . . . therefore, he gets credit . . . and I believe historically he actually took the credit.

To date no one has taken credit for Allende/Pinochet, Iran-Contra, Sudharto, or the great big turd being laid in Iraq . . .

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

UQ

You have to realize, in the sixties, unlike today, it was the military which lied to the president.

I'll just have to assume that you do not hold Kennedy to the same standards of responsibility that you are holding our current President to. Seems more than a little hypocritical to me.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

UQ

You have to realize, in the sixties, unlike today, it was the military which lied to the president.

I'll just have to assume that you do not hold Kennedy to the same standards of responsibility that you are holding our current President to. Seems more than a little hypocritical to me.

Kennedy didn't invade a nation with US troops unnecessarily. He listened to his military and some right wing Cubans who all lied to him. When Kennedy realized what they were doing he cut them loose immediately. A course a real leader takes. And please don't compare your current draft-dodger-in-chief with President Kennedy. A man who served his nation in WWII in the South Pacific.

Bush on the other hand started an unnecessary war during peace time so his friends could profiteer from it after being AWOL himself from a cushy position his daddy set up for him with the Texas Air National Guard.

This is the man you people defend. What a disgrace. Both you and him.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

UQ

You have to realize, in the sixties, unlike today, it was the military which lied to the president.

I'll just have to assume that you do not hold Kennedy to the same standards of responsibility that you are holding our current President to. Seems more than a little hypocritical to me.

Kennedy didn't invade a nation with US troops unnecessarily. He listened to his military and some right wing Cubans who all lied to him. When Kennedy realized what they were doing he cut them loose immediately. A course a real leader takes. And please don't compare your current draft-dodger-in-chief with President Kennedy. A man who served his nation in WWII in the South Pacific.

Bush on the other hand started an unnecessary war during peace time so his friends could profiteer from it after being AWOL himself from a cushy position his daddy set up for him with the Texas Air National Guard.

This is the man you people defend. What a disgrace. Both you and him.

Kennedy shifted the blame to the CIA/fired them becuase the op failed. He knew full well what they were doing and he and his brother continued their efforts to overthrow Castro. They were obsessed with it.

Like I said, "One standard for Bush, a different standard for everyone else."

As to your draft-dodging/ AWOL statements it's just more blubbering. One Boston Globe article does not a conviction make. Where were you during Viet Nam?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

UQ

You have to realize, in the sixties, unlike today, it was the military which lied to the president.

I'll just have to assume that you do not hold Kennedy to the same standards of responsibility that you are holding our current President to. Seems more than a little hypocritical to me.

Kennedy didn't invade a nation with US troops unnecessarily. He listened to his military and some right wing Cubans who all lied to him. When Kennedy realized what they were doing he cut them loose immediately. A course a real leader takes. And please don't compare your current draft-dodger-in-chief with President Kennedy. A man who served his nation in WWII in the South Pacific.

Bush on the other hand started an unnecessary war during peace time so his friends could profiteer from it after being AWOL himself from a cushy position his daddy set up for him with the Texas Air National Guard.

This is the man you people defend. What a disgrace. Both you and him.

Kennedy shifted the blame to the CIA/fired them becuase the op filed. He knew full well what they were doing and he and his brother continued their efforts to overthrow Castro. They were obsessed with it.

Like I said, "One standard for Bush, a different standard for everyone else."

And like I said when it became apparent to him what his military was trying to do he told them where to go.

And please, stop trying to compare Bush with President Kennedy. Bush is no John Kennedy. Bush isn't even a Dan Quayle!

As for standards you need to get it straight. Kennedy supported a small group of Cubans who tried to overthrow Castro at the urging of his military and the CIA. When he saw they were only trying to get the US involved in a wider conflict he ended the action immediately. IMO the right thing to do.

Bush started an unnecessary war based on lies half way around the world with Iraq which is costing us American lives, Iraqi civilian lives as well as an almost unestimatable amount of US dollars - hundreds of billions of dollars already with much more to come.

Anyone who would compare the two is a complete fool.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Kennedy was misled by the military.

So does that let him off the hook?

UQ

You have to realize, in the sixties, unlike today, it was the military which lied to the president.

I'll just have to assume that you do not hold Kennedy to the same standards of responsibility that you are holding our current President to. Seems more than a little hypocritical to me.

Kennedy didn't invade a nation with US troops unnecessarily. He listened to his military and some right wing Cubans who all lied to him. When Kennedy realized what they were doing he cut them loose immediately. A course a real leader takes. And please don't compare your current draft-dodger-in-chief with President Kennedy. A man who served his nation in WWII in the South Pacific.

Bush on the other hand started an unnecessary war during peace time so his friends could profiteer from it after being AWOL himself from a cushy position his daddy set up for him with the Texas Air National Guard.

This is the man you people defend. What a disgrace. Both you and him.

Kennedy shifted the blame to the CIA/fired them becuase the op filed. He knew full well what they were doing and he and his brother continued their efforts to overthrow Castro. They were obsessed with it.

Like I said, "One standard for Bush, a different standard for everyone else."

And like I said when it became apparent to him what his military was trying to do he told them where to go.

And please, stop trying to compare Bush with President Kennedy. Bush is no John Kennedy. Bush isn't even a Dan Quayle!

As for standards you need to get it straight. Kennedy supported a small group of Cubans who tried to overthrow Castro at the urging of his military and the CIA. When he saw they were only trying to get the US involved in a wider conflict he ended the action immediately. IMO the right thing to do.

Bush started an unnecessary war based on lies half way around the world with Iraq which is costing us American lives, Iraqi civilian lives as well as an almost unestimatable amount of US dollars - hundreds of billions of dollars already with much more to come.

Anyone who would compare the two is a complete fool.

You're the one who needs to get it straight. Kennedy didn't fire anyone untill after the BoP falied and the only reason he fired them was because it failed. He hardly had any intention of ending the action. See Operation Mongoose.

The comparison is not between Bush and Kennedy. I did not attempt any comparison. I was refuting the ignorance you continuously spew and pointing out the hypocrisy you have when holding Presidents to some "standard" you seem to set.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Damn settle down boys . . . Kennedy had plenty of fudge jobs during his administration . . . but safe to say he resisted the military brass itching to start a nuclear conflict with the Soviets. The strength of Kennedy's character/leadership meant those of us who weren't even a distant thought had a chance to be born and grow up in a somewhat reasonable world. For all of his flaws, Kennedy gets mad props for 1962. Kennedy cut taxes and presided over an ambitious project to the moon.

Bush . . . umm well . . . what can you say about Bush that's positive. You can claim America is safer b/c of his administrations domestic actions since 9/11 but having a rigid policy of secure cockpits would have prevented 9/11. Properly funding INS/Border Patrol would have helped significantly (blame Clinton or the previous Congresses). There's no evidence that invading Afghanistan and Iraq has made the US even marginally more secure. If anything we've just delivered 140K troops and thousands more civilians close enough to the region so they can be targets of attackes.

Bush cut taxes and presided over ambitious curtailments of civil liberties and employment.