Friday, November 21, 2003
This weekend being the 40th anniversary of his assassination, the editorial pages of the NYT gave up their Bush-bashing for Bush-undermining and dedicated themselves to praising JFK in lofty terms. This is not really surprising but since it seems to be such a hot topic, let me cash in on it.
First of all, let no one be disrespectful of John F. Kennedy: he was a man of singular abilities to be sure. OK, I've said that.
A favorite tactic of liberal media is to find some kind of liberal "achievement" to compare, of course favorably, to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq specifically and the worldwide war on terror generally. In Kennedy's instance, this is usually the Cuban Missile Crisis. "If only Bush could have handled Iraq like Kennedy handled Cuba," the critics lament. "All would have been well. After all, even with the close shave, we're still here. We won that standoff." Yes, we are still here. And so is Cuba. And so, until a few years ago, was the Soviet Union. What changed?
Kennedy deserves credit for realizing once the missiles in Cuba became operational, there was no use trying to storm the island, or else the Soviets would launch them and there goes world peace. When you have a foe capable of destroying you, should you attack, it might be wise to reconsider and try to get what you want without a war. It's part of looking out for your people.
Nevertheless, the whole reason the war in Iraq was necessary was to avoid the Iraqi dictator getting to that point, and here is where it becomes clear that Kennedy and not Bush falls short. Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? No, but he was trying to get them. Did he have biological and chemical agents? Yes. Had he used them before? Yes. Once he gained these weapons, was there anything to say he shouldn't or wouldn't use them? No. With these weapons at his disposal, Saddam would have been in the position to mock the United States and demand concessions until he was blue in the face. We wouldn't dare to attack him, and we must try to appease him. The attack removed him--if allowed to run its course, the operation will make sure Iraq will never be in a position to threaten the free world again. You think 400 soldiers is a lot? Try invading an Iraq with nuclear weapons. It would have been more than 400 and it would have been more than soldiers.
Kennedy was wise, once it had got to this point, to avoid war with the Soviets over Cuba. But had he followed through his invasion plan and removed Castro, it would never have gotten to this point. Now we have done this and avoided a deadly and tense standoff like that in 1962. Where are the cheers from the media? I'm not expecting them. But at least let's have no more fantasy that we really want another Missile Crisis.
First of all, let no one be disrespectful of John F. Kennedy: he was a man of singular abilities to be sure. OK, I've said that.
A favorite tactic of liberal media is to find some kind of liberal "achievement" to compare, of course favorably, to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq specifically and the worldwide war on terror generally. In Kennedy's instance, this is usually the Cuban Missile Crisis. "If only Bush could have handled Iraq like Kennedy handled Cuba," the critics lament. "All would have been well. After all, even with the close shave, we're still here. We won that standoff." Yes, we are still here. And so is Cuba. And so, until a few years ago, was the Soviet Union. What changed?
Kennedy deserves credit for realizing once the missiles in Cuba became operational, there was no use trying to storm the island, or else the Soviets would launch them and there goes world peace. When you have a foe capable of destroying you, should you attack, it might be wise to reconsider and try to get what you want without a war. It's part of looking out for your people.
Nevertheless, the whole reason the war in Iraq was necessary was to avoid the Iraqi dictator getting to that point, and here is where it becomes clear that Kennedy and not Bush falls short. Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? No, but he was trying to get them. Did he have biological and chemical agents? Yes. Had he used them before? Yes. Once he gained these weapons, was there anything to say he shouldn't or wouldn't use them? No. With these weapons at his disposal, Saddam would have been in the position to mock the United States and demand concessions until he was blue in the face. We wouldn't dare to attack him, and we must try to appease him. The attack removed him--if allowed to run its course, the operation will make sure Iraq will never be in a position to threaten the free world again. You think 400 soldiers is a lot? Try invading an Iraq with nuclear weapons. It would have been more than 400 and it would have been more than soldiers.
Kennedy was wise, once it had got to this point, to avoid war with the Soviets over Cuba. But had he followed through his invasion plan and removed Castro, it would never have gotten to this point. Now we have done this and avoided a deadly and tense standoff like that in 1962. Where are the cheers from the media? I'm not expecting them. But at least let's have no more fantasy that we really want another Missile Crisis.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 7:15 PM 
