Talk:John F. Kennedy

From Conservapedia

"crisis" should read "Cuban Missile Crisis", please.

Not Fair

It is not entirely fair to lay the blame of the failure of the Bay of Pigs squarely at JFK's feet. There was a lot of urging from the CIA and the military NOT to go ahead with American military itervention on behalf of the insurgents. Considering the atmosphere of the world at that time, I can't say listening to them was a horrible idea. Regrettable that the operation was botched, but the reasons why it was botched are not 100% of JFK's doing.

And it's quite interesting that the hawks in his administration that urged him NOT to intervene in Bay of Pigs are the ones who the author of this article quite cleverly insinuates are the reason why Kennedy kept us safe through the Cuban Missle Crisis, as if without them Kennedy would have been inept. If you're looking for the slightest reasons to praise the hawks in his administration, even if it is to just lessen JFK's abilities as an individual, you could have made mention of the hawks being the driving force behind not intervening in Bay of Pigs, and thus applauded them for it in the process (when keeping in mind that not risking such a blatant and overt challenge to the USSR that would not have been necesary and risked TERRIBLE reprecussions...). But it looks like the author of this article was too concerned with finding anything to blame on Kennedy, and thus missed their opportunity to render more praise unto the conservative hawks. Jros83 02:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

To add to the Bay of Pigs discussion, the CIA under Eisenhower actually made the plan, it was recomended to Kennedy once he took office. The way this page reads is as though he is 100% totally at fault for everything. I think he was a do-nothing president that is only popular because he was assasinated, but seriously folks, lets calm down the rhetoric. ALSO: I changed the reference about him being the "youngest president". He was the youngest person ever ELECTED president, but Teddy Roosevelt was actually a year or two younger than Kennedy when he took office. I didn't want to re-write the whole section, but I figured I'd throw in a minor correction. JamesBenjamin 18:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Sordid personal life

Okay, I've tried twice to include something about how Kennedy was a sex fiend and twice they were scrubbed right away. I expect this lionizing nonsense from Wikipedia but I thought the point of this was that conservatives could actually post relevant information about entries of importance without having it waxed by Marxist Wikipedia editors. If I'm missing something, then please tell me why Billdozer

Show us solid, verifyable evidence from official sources that Kennedy was such a man, and we'll include it. Karajou 22:38, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

What's a solid, official source? There isn't an official source that says Bill Clinton was, um, serviced by an intern in the Oval Office, but everyone in the world knows it to be true. Similarly, there were no shortage of witnesses who could attest to JFK's ravenous sexual apptetite. Billdozer

Witnesses came out within weeks testifying as to Bill and Monica's indiscretions; plus there's past indiscretions all over Arkansas, such as Paula Jone's and others lawsuits. These, at the least, made the newspapers at that time. I want to see similar patterns for Kennedy, reported in the newspapers at the time he was a U.S. senator, as well as when he was a U.S. president. Karajou 05:47, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

There are other reliable sources than newspapers. The newspapers wouldn't even have printed Clinton's misdoings if the Drudge Report hadn't forced the case into the open. The press was well aware of what JFK was really like but they protected him, as the press tends to do for left-wing presidents. But good luck finding a JFK biography, even a glowing one, that doesn't at least acknowledge some sort of pattern of sexual misconduct. Billdozer