MyDD :: What if Bush had been President in October 1962?

What if Bush had been President in October 1962?

by Alex, Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 01:59:21 AM EST

Teddy Kennedy raised this point in a speech last week at George Washington University, relating to the way in which Bush's focus on Iraq instead of Al-Qaeda has actually increased the danger of a nuclear attack on the U.S. I think that if George W. Bush instead of John F. Kennedy had been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's very unlikely that the Unites States, as such, would exist today. Indeed, given the probable effects of a full-scale nuclear exchange between the superpowers on the global climate, there's some doubt as to whether Homo sapiens would exist today. What seems absolutely certain, based on what we know of Bush's character, is that Bush would have invaded Cuba in response to the downing of Major Rudolph's Anderson's U-2 on October 27, unaware (just as Kennedy was) that the Soviets already had nine operational tactical nuclear missiles in Cuba which would have been used to destroy the invasion force, followed by an inevitable escalation to global nuclear war, with the destruction of most major cities of the United States, Western Europe, and the Soviet Bloc.
Later,
Alex

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

I today's world JFK would be considered a neo-con. Read is Inaugural Address. I realize it may be hard to sallow but JFK and GWB seem to follow along the same lines.

They both cut taxes, they both looked the enemy square in the face. Of course you could argue that Kenndy's going into Vietnam could be the same as Bush going into Iraq, but there are many differences and it is a different debate.

"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." - JFK Friday, January 20, 1961

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush

Both men lead by Reagan's, or should I say Kennedy's, principle of Peace Through Strength.
"We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." - JFK 1961

Over the past 30 years the Democratic Party has steadily moved to the left along with the country. The pendulum is swinging back to the right. When it gets as far right as it is currently left I will join you guys. That time is far from now.

by Patrick Henry on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:22:49 AM EST

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

It's true that Neo-Con foreign policy strongly resembles liberal foreign policy in terms of idealism, though it's generally less well-informed about the parts of the world the Neo-Cons hope to democratize; the liberals who ran the Marshall Plan understood Europe far better than Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, et. el. understand the Middle East (especially Iraq, since they were swallowing Ahmad Chalabi's lies without chewing). What Bush is, however, which JFK was emphatically not, was a cowboy.

As to your view of the "pendulum," I think you may be living in the same alternate reality as your president. The nation, and both parties, have been moving rightward since at least 1980. Bill Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president of the twentieth century; his policies had more in common with those of Eisenhower than FDR. In the mean time, the Republicans have moved far to the right even of Goldwater's faction in the 1960's -- old Barry was basically a Libertarian, and wouldn't have had any use for the increasingly influentialChristian Reconstructionists who wish to repeal the bill of rights, establish a religious dictatorship, and impose the death penalty for "apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, 'sodomy or homosexuality,' incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, 'unchastity before marriage.'" Fortunately for the country, and unfortunately for these Taliban wannabes, the shift back to the left appears to be starting now, with the strong probability of Republicans losing control of the Senate and/or White House.
Later,
Alex

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

Why am I so attracted to Cowboys? I love rattling swords with you!

Anyway, writing with a smile on my face, I will continue. We can agree Bill Clinton was much more centrist and much closer to the Democratic Party of JFK. Why are the Dems putting out Kerry and Edwards in this election then? It seems to me they could have made a better choice more in line with American values. Then maybe we can have a debate in Washington instead of a blame Bush fest or the continued Kerry song - "Anything you can do I can better, I can do anything better than you."

I agree that democracy is a series of battles in a war that can't be won, but the Chicken Little routine is getting a little old...the sky is not falling. It is a little paranoid to claim Republicans are going to take your freedoms away tomorrow. But paranoia is what the left has been selling since the 2000 election. It has only helped tip the scale to the right because they have gotten more people evolved with politics and debating the issues our country is facing. This is not a left-right issue it is a people-government issue.

I will have to elaborate further on the pendulum at another time.

Have a good day

by Patrick Henry on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 05:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

We might have been better-served by nominating Edwards, who had more appeal to independents and conservative Democrats in the primaries -- or even Dean, who, for all his anti-war and pro-gay-rights social liberalism, was a budget-balancing, middle-class-tax-cutting fiscal conservative of a governor. I really like Bob Graham, the anti-War-in-Iraq, pro-War-on-Al-Qaeda hawk, who had a nice, moderate record as Governor and Senator; it's a pity he never really got any traction. His extreme meticulousness (cataloging every detail of his day) strikes me as a virtue in a chief executive, and also would have immunized him somewhat againt Republican attempts to dig up dirt on his past. He's an effective critic of Bush's foreign policy, and to top it all off, has never, in a thirty-year political career that included both top state-wide offices, lost an election in the crucial state of Florida.

I don't think the Republicans are going to take my fundamental freedoms away tomorrow, much as a disproportionately influential minority of them would like to. I do think the influence of that minority on national politics is pernicious, though. It shows up in attacks on our rights such as the top-secret "no-fly list" of suspected terrorists that apparently includes Senator Kennedy and pacifistic Muslim folk singer Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens). I have a huge problem with American citizens being put on a list which they aren't allowed to know that they're on or appeal, and then being denied the right to travel where they wish. We don't know who makes the list, and what criteria they use, which leaves them free to abuse their position any way they please. They might have put Kennedy on there just out of spite; they could easily do the same to anyone who, for example, posted opinions that they didn't like on this blog.
Later,
Alex

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 06:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

In my mind the jury still out on the Cat Stevens case, I am prepared to listen to what the government has to say about not allowing him into the country. As for Kennedy being on the list, I don't believe it; for one thing he is already in the country. Sounds like a scam email story or something.

Overall though I think we can agree on the homeland security thing. After 9/11 I wrote to a morning FM radio show, the KQRS morning show, complaining about security on our shores as allowing the terrorists to win. When it aired the now republican host ridiculed me as well as one of the liberal co-hosts. My main point can be summed up in a quote by Benjamin Franklin, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

That is why I like Bush's approach of bringing the battle to their shore. I believe the people of the Middle East need to be freed from the Dictators that control the region. Iraq is a country in which we had international law behind us and oil fields that might jump-start the economy. Give it time. A year and a half into the Iraq conflict is not long enough to declare victory or defeat. The end goal is real peace in the Middle East.

I will have to touch on Edwards latter, I get caught up on his "Two Americas" speech, which seems to have a socialist tint to it.

by Patrick Henry on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 07:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

The no-fly list isn't just for entering the country; it's for all flights originating at U.S. airports, too. Kennedy being on it is not just an e-mail rumor, it was reported in USA Today a week ago. Given that there's been no government denial since then (at least, not that can be found in a Google News search on "No Fly List Kennedy"), I think it's reasonable to take the report at face value. It is mentioned (as a fact) in numerous other stories, in the Washington Post, LA Times, Charlotte Observer, and various other periodicals (most of the articles are subscription-only, or I'd have posted more links).

As listening to what the government has to say about why they put Yusuf Islam on the list, you'll be waiting a long time; they don't have anything to say except that he may be connected to potential terrorists. The details, of course, are secret. This administration has never shown much interest in explaining itself or allowing the public to hold it accountable for its actions.

A few more points:

Since we support some of the most brutal dictators in the Middle East (notably Hosni Mubarak and al-Saud dynasty), the rhetoric about bringing freedom to the region rings a bit hollow.
Bush declared victory only a month into the Iraq conflict; things have not improved materially since then, but he says he doesn't regret that stupid photo-op a bit.
If the trend in Iraq looked to be moving toward peace, giving it more time would make sense. Since the trend over the last four months has consisted of increasing American casualties, increasingly bold attacks on the Iraqi interim government and our own forces, and increasingly large areas of the country where we and our allies cannot safely set foot -- in short, a trend toward full-scale civil war -- giving our current policies and the leaders who formulated them more time makes no sense.
As to peace, Bush's actions have vastly increased the level of anti-Americanism in the entire Arab/Muslim world, making it more difficult for us to work toward peace. Advocates of democracy in other Arab countries now cannot afford to be associated with the U.S. He has also done precisely nothing about the increasingly bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now, I'm not one of those liberals who romanticizes the Palestinian cause (if there are any of you reading this, I strongly recommend that you read Allan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel before debating the point), but I do think that the Likud party's settlement policy is a continuing disaster for Israel and the region; the U.S. needs to push them to withdraw the settlers from the West Bank. Once that's done, it will be much easier to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Bush's foreign policy circle is dominated by supporters of the Likud block who wish to see the Palestinians expelled from the West Bank and Gaza and those territories annexed to Israel.

Later,
Alex

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 02:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

Here is what the Washington Post said, "A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects." Lets not go crazy over this non-story. Again I agree, heighten security on our shores can only hurt our freedoms in the long run.

To your points:
1. Saudi Arabia - Would you suggest we drop diplomacy and attack them? You must be able to understand that our government will do all that it can to make the transition from the inside out instead of using military force. We can talk Egypt later.

We have had a relationship with Saudi Arabia through many Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. I agree that they should not be ignored and they won't be. They have worked with us in the past and I am sure they can't help but see the writing on the wall. Although mixed messages from this country may blur our message during our election cycle.

2. Bush also said from the beginning that this war on terror would not be easy or short. Since the over throw of Saddam he has said the same things. Yes our mission to remove Saddam is over, but the rebuilding was just beginning. It seems nit-picky to harp on that banner posted on the ship. If you wish to shorten this war support a President behind it.

3. If my candidates success in this election rested on Iraq going bad I am sure I would be in constant search for news stories making the country look like a quagmire(actually I hope I wouldn't), but you are missing the good coming out of Iraq. Instead of viewing the Iraqi PM as a puppet of the administration like the democrat leadership has said, I think he is an extremely brave man. Risking his life to bring freedom to the country. Kerry said Ayad Allawi is only putting a positive face on the war in Iraq, but I believe he is doing everything he can to bring democracy to the country.

Your glass half empty mentality does not serve justice to the real effort in Iraq. Contrary to your statements to increasing areas where our troops can't go, actually the insurgents are being held to smaller and smaller regions. According to Allawi Fourteen or 15 of the country's 18 provinces are safe, he said, while the remainder are safe for the most part and face only "pockets" of resistance. This is how terrorism works, they can't fight a military because they are greatly out numbered, and they have to attack civilians.

You can second-guess the Prime Ministers statements, but to throw them out completely is avoiding reality.

4. The road to peace ends in Palestine, no doubt about it, but as far as anti-Americanism in the Muslim world I am not sure you can point out an increase. In fact many Iran-Americans I have heard from say the people love George Bush and want him to go to Iran next. Iran is becoming unstable as the dictatorship is having a harder time controlling the people. With the US next door it is not as if they can come down too hard on their own people. This region is full of people who don't get Internet or cable television and can't speak out against their own leaders.

Worldwide we have made many allies and much progress for peace. Japan's Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi said recently, "Relations between Japan and the US are the best in years." We are working with Japan and China to build strong relationships and sort out thier difference. We are working with India and Pakistan and both are helping us.

The anti-American leadership in France and in Germany is losing support; Jacques Chirac's popularity is dropping. Besides Japan, with the second largest economy, is much more of a world player than France has become.

Thirty-two nations have contributed troops support totaling 25,000 soldiers and the US has 60 allies in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Things are getting better. Inflating the terrorists efforts in Iraq only support their cause.

Maybe my outlook is skewed because I read the Wall Street Journal daily and only skim the MN Star Tribune ever other day, but I don't think you guys take any good news out of the Middle East seriously.

Back to Israel, I haven't read Allan Dershowitz's book, but I see that the main problem is Arafat. If you have read Longitudes and Attitudes by Thomas L. Friedman, he published a letter from Clinton to Arafat after the terrorism resurfaced, I agree with Clinton; Arafat really missed an opportunity to help his people. If the US and world community show no doubt about the direction of the region hopefully these régimes will fall one by one. I see a Palestine state in the future of the region.

For me it is back to work - have a good one.

by Patrick Henry on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 11:23:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your trust in Allawi is misplaced (none / 0)

I am skeptical of anyone who helped Saddam to power in Iraq. Allawi has a lot to prove before I would accept him as an eager democrat. I understand from some of my older books on Iraqi history, that Allawi was deeply involved in Saddam's purges of the Ba'ath Party leadership in the 1970s.

Second, your determination to take his statements at face value lies in direct contradiction to evidence presented by our own military and intelligence agencies. The NY Times reported on the July National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq which concluded that the BEST CASE scenario is that we muddle through continuing to take casualties and making minimal progress on reconstruction. The worst case scenario is sectarian civil war. On the military front, the number and geographic distribution of attacks has increased tremendously since the June 30th handover. There is now an average of around 80 attacks per day by the insurgents (compared to an average of 10 prior to handover). These attacks target the Iraqi national guard, the oil facilities, convoys, the markets, and every other place or institution essential to building a stable society. Without a stable society and a stable government, we don't win.

On a related topic, there is the question of just which Iraqis are on our side. The recent arrest of a former Iraqi general as a double agent for the insurgency is not isolated. In an interview about his abduction and escape in Tal-Afar, Canadian journalist Steve Taylor described how nearly all of the Iraqi national guard and police he encountered in that city turned out to be collaborators with the insurgency. Consider also that there is no political consensus among Iraqi groups on what Iraq should look like. The Kurds want a much more autonomous structure than Sunnis or Shi'as. Even among the Kurd, Sunni, and Shi'a participants in the interim government there is hardly a lot of trust.

If you take nothing else away from my post, let it be this: today in Iraq we are asking Iraqis to fight and die alongside the US for a VISION OF WHAT IRAQ MIGHT BE, not for what Iraq is or what they have agreed Iraq should be. That's a very weak basis to build a strong multi-sectarian Iraqi security force controlled by a peaceful multi-sectarian political structure.

by Hoya90 on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 06:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

We've never pushed for democratization in Saudi Arabia before; where do you get the idea that we're about to start? We have relations with them because they control a supply of oil which we need; that does not make them our friends. Now that the Taliban is gone, SA is the most brutally repressive Islamic regime on Earth, and there's no reason to think that will change anytime soon.
You're conflating the war in Iraq with the "war on terror;" they're not the same thing, and I'm not about to start arguing from the assumption that they are. I support a candidate who understands the difference.
I don't need to search for stories that show Iraq as a disaster and an incipient quagmire; they're all over the place (except for the right wing propaganda machine, of course). We could start with the most recent National Intelligence Estimate.

As to Allawi, taking his statements seriously would be avoiding reality; he's speaking from the same fantasy land where his patron, Bush, lives. His panglossian optimism makes him sound a bit like Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the Iraqi information minister who kept reporting that they were winning right up to the time our tanks rolled into Baghdad:

"Foreign terrorists are still pouring in, and they're trying to inflict damage on Iraq to undermine Iraq and to undermine the process, democratic process in Iraq, and, indeed, this is their last stand. So they are putting a very severe fight on Iraq. We are winning. We will continue to win, and we are going to prevail."
Iyad Allawi
Prime Minister of Iraq
September 19th, 2004
This Week, ABC NEWS

"Yes, the American troops have advanced further. This will only make it easier for us to defeat them."
Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf
(aka "Baghdad Bob")
former Iraqi Information Minister

U.S. military intelligence, by the way, disputes his claim that "foreign terrorists" are pouring into Iraq; they estimate less than 1,000 foreign fighters, no more than 5% of the Iraqi resistance (to give "the insurgency" a more accurate name).

4. Iranian-Americans are not representative of public opinion in Iran, let alone the broader Muslim world, any more than the many Iraqi-Americans who supported the invasion (mostly exiles and refugees from the Hussein regime) represented Iraqi public opinion. One of BushCo's worst mistakes was assuming that Ahmad Chalabi could speak for the people of Iraq; how they could believe that, when he had spent the last three decades out of the country, I can't imagine.

Now, I will concede that Iran probably has the most pro-American population in the region, mainly because their dictatorship, unlike the others, has always been an enemy of the U.S., not a client, so we can't be blamed for the oppression they suffer. (The majority of the population now is too young to remember much about the U.S.-backed dictatorship of the Shah.) Most Iranians also don't give a damn what we do to the primary Iraqi insurgency, because Persian Shiites despise Sunni Arabs, especially after the horrifically bloody eight-year war they fought with Iraq in the eighties. Al-Sadr's Shiite insurgency could be more of a problem for us there, but he's stopped fighting for the moment (see, I have heard some good news from Iraq). The best thing we can do about Iran is to leave it the hell alone; if we don't meddle, the dictatorship there will probably find itself facing a general strike like those that brought down the Communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe some time in the next ten years. (There've been signs of this already, incidents where factory workers in provincial town went on strike in support of university students demonstrating in Tehran. Students can demonstrate all they want without changing a thing, but once organized labor gets in on the action, the government is in serious trouble.)

About our allies: most of the nations that support us don't amount to much; the U.S. supplies 90% of the combat troops and has taken 90% of the casualties; most of the remaining 10% are British. Telling the truth about increasing casualty numbers and the widening insurgency in Iraq isn't "inflating the terrorists' efforts" or "supporting their cause;" pretending things are better than they are (the way Bush and Allawi are doing) is not helpful.

Yes, your outlook is skewed; the WSJ is part of the right-wing media, which is not reliable. If you really want to compare the right-wing media to the left-wing media, you need to be comparing the WSJ to Slate or The New Republic; the mainstream media just isn't as liberal as conservatives like to think. Mostly, they have a problem with it because it doesn't always blindly follow their biases.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!

by Alex on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 07:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been President ... (none / 0)

This will have to be quick I have to clean the house before my mother-in-law gets here.

1. You brought up Saudi Arabia; I just think they will be dealt with diplomatically. One reason is because we buy their oil.

2. I see the President's vision, call me an idiot if you wish, but Iraq is part of the big picture in the war on terror. A lot of it is because we had International law behind us and we can exercise our power in order to help diplomacy.

3. Exactly liberal media outlets only cover the bad news or at least out way their reporting. For various reasons including the fact the building of a school or hospital makes for boring news. Baghdad Bob also would have had us believe our troops weren't in Baghdad when we knew they were. Not sure the connection you are trying to make.

To dismiss Allawi statements outright would be equally avoiding reality.

4. I agree Iran is on the road to crumbling. The military estimates on Iraqi support for the US are much higher than yours. As far as the amount of troops from our country vs other countries it seems to make sense that we would be the bulk. We have the military power where they don't. If we had France's support, what military could they provide? We have been defending Europe since WWII.

We cannot lose Iraq on Military grounds; we can only lose it in the hearts and minds of the people of America and the world. Inflating the problems in Iraq hurts that effort.

For analysis from the left I have the NY Times, the Star Tribune and many other major outlets. Why the need to go to Slate(though I do find myself there from time to time), the WSJ is far from NewsMax or other far out right wing mags. All editors of news organizations have a bias and it effects their editorial decisions.

by Patrick Henry on Wed Sep 29, 2004 at 07:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if Bush had been ... (none / 0)

I believe you could argue the same for John Kerry, at least in how he has run his campaign. Would he have stood up to the communist like Kennedy?

by Patrick Henry on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:24:27 AM EST

Re: What If Bush Had Been (none / 0)

That's an easy one . . .we on the East Coast would all of haen incinerated. . . And as for Kerry and the communists, he did his duty and spilled his blood in Viet Nam, unlike Beloved Leader

by MD in MA on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:34:39 AM EST

Re: What If Bush Had Been (none / 0)

Then Kerry must have what it takes to lead this nation - lol.

by Patrick Henry on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

took the words right outta my mouth (none / 0)

i was going to say "we'd all be dead".

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 10:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

God, this reminds me of the old SNL bit.. (none / 0)

What if Superman was a Nazi? What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?

by ChrisR on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 12:34:47 PM EST

Re: What if Bush had been (none / 0)

It's well documented now that JFK's advisors were split into two camps, those that argued for military action against Cuba and those that argued against it. Kruschev eventually blinked, but the hawks were advocating a preemptive strike regardless of what he did. The discussions went on for about a week, and at the start of the week the hawks were dominant, and by the end of the week the tide had turned.

Since there is no dissent or discussion permitted in the GBW White House, it's fair to say that the hawks that were dominant at the start were dominant at the finish of the discussion 5 minutes later. So, the Bush advisors would have recommended a preemptive strike.

And Bush would have immediately bombed Madagascar.

by corax on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 01:42:33 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.