Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Meeeeeow!
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, January 27, 2008

Ramesh Ponnuru's response to Caroline Kennedy's pronouncement that Barack Obama would be a president like her father:
I assume that means that he'll be overrated, not that he'll bring us to the brink of nuclear war.
Pffft! Reowwr! Ssssst!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I assumed it meant someone would be taking potshots at him soon.

Dear NSA/FBI, THAT WAS NOT A THREAT!!!
 
Written By: Hazel Stone
URL: http://thelineishere.org
That was a little catty. I have to say that I agree with Ponnuru.
 
Written By: Jamie
URL: http://
If I were his wife, I’d be keeping a sharp eye on him if he’s all that much like JFK. Does he know any top-level gangsters? D’oh!! He’s a Chicago politician.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
I’ve always considered George W. Bush to be a lot like JFK in his ideology. I’d rate the two of them pretty close together, personally. Of course, Bush has improved in his second term, and JFK never got a chance.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I dunno about you folks, but I bet Obama’s hoping it means the gets to screw some hot Hollywood starlets...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Will he send more combat infantry into Iraq, like JFK did in vietnam?
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
Scott:

As President, Kennedy left the 1,500 Cuban patriots of 2506 Brigade on the beach at the Bay of Pigs without planned air support while Castro moved 140,000 troops with armor, air and artillery. Three of them - Jorge, Mario and Tito - were classmates of mine at Culver. 18 months later, we made a deal with the Soviets never to invade Cuba. Kennedy also sent the first special forces troops into Vietnam.

Jimmy:

I think JFK sent about 16,000 troops to Vietnam before he was killed. IKE warned him about getting into a land war in Asia, but Robert McNamarra and LBJ took the level up to 500,000. It peaked at 560,000 under Nixon, but when I got there in 1971, we were under 50,000 troops in country - mostly logistics support and aviation units.

I doubt if Obama has any idea what to do with the military in Iraq or anywhere else.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
As President, Kennedy left the 1,500 Cuban patriots of 2506 Brigade on the beach at the Bay of Pigs without planned air support while Castro moved 140,000 troops with armor, air and artillery. Three of them - Jorge, Mario and Tito - were classmates of mine at Culver. 18 months later, we made a deal with the Soviets never to invade Cuba. Kennedy also sent the first special forces troops into Vietnam.
which is why my family, and those living here in Miami, never forgave Kennedy or the Democrats. My Grandfather lost his brother in that debacle.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Kennedy was misled by the CIA on the Bay of Pigs, and made clear ahead of time that the US would not directly intervene. Afterwards he didn’t trust the CIA, as this turned into a huge debacle. But broader geopolitical interests were more important than getting involved in this kind of fight, so Kennedy made the right call not to escalate, IMO. Approving the plan without the willingness to escalate if things went wrong was a mistake (it was modeled after the successful coup in Guatamala which overthrew a democratically elected government and replaced with a brutal, repressive dictatorship in 1954 — Castro had studied that case too, something the CIA apparently didn’t consider).

There was a plan in 1962 to use the Cuban Missle crisis as an excuse to overthrow Castro. Luckily that wasn’t tried because the Soviets already had operational nuclear weapons, and the commander in the field said he would have used them in the case of a US attack (which led the Soviets to remove that power from field commanders later on — after this, only Moscow could approve use of nuclear weapons). But even worse than the Bay of Pigs was Kennedy’s choice to let the Vietnam war escalate slowly. That led to the biggest — or perhaps now second biggest — debacle in recent American history.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
That led to the biggest — or perhaps now second biggest — debacle in recent American history.
And what would the first biggest debacle be? (Rhetorical Scott)
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Scott:

Why is it that the CIA only misleads liberals?

Kennedy had been privy to the details of the plan during his presidential campaign. Once he became President, he made major changes to the locations of the landings, restricting them to a single stretch of beach and limiting our air and naval support. During the actual landings, with the aircraft loaded and waiting to launch, Kennedy told the CNO to cancel the planned sorties from the USS Essex, then standing 30 miles off shore. "[T]his turned into a huge debacle" should read, "Kennedy’s decision to abandon the landing force turned into a hugh debacle." Jack & Jacqi were at a black tie event when the CNO asked to commit air support. Kennedy replied, "I don’t want to get involved." Pilots who had practiced with the 2506 for months were furious.

It was a betrayal. Of course, liberals do not understand that concept. To them it is the norm.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Scott:

I take it you think Vietnam was "the biggest debacle in recent American history."

Could you name one battle that America lost in Vietnam? Could you give me the names of any unit in Vietnam that surrendered? Can you name a US military base that was overrun?

No, you cannot. We won every battle. Our prisoners of war were almost all aviators, shot down over enemy territory. No unit ever surrendered. No base was over run.

I hate sports analogies, but I’m going to use one. Imagine a football game in which every time our team has the ball they drive in and score. Every time the opponents get the ball, they run three plays and punt. It’s the end of the 4th quarter with time running out and our quarterback is going to take a knee when our coach calls a time out and forfeits the game.

Our coach was a democrat congress who passed the Case Church amendment to the FY75 defense appropriations bill.

Way to go!

We won, but the democrats couldn’t let Nixon take credit, so they gave it away. By most counts 1.25M died in the war, but over 3M died in the peace.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
"That led to the biggest — or perhaps now second biggest — debacle in recent American history. "
Are you seriously referring to Iraq as the biggest now?

"Kennedy was misled by the CIA on the Bay of Pigs..."
He had no idea that 1,500 troops were being deployed?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
You can give Kennedy credit for not getting us into WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was probably his finest hour. But his administration was decidedly mediocre on a lot of things. They outright bungled the Bay of Pigs, desegregating Ole Miss, and a number of others.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
Arch, I’m not defending JFK, I don’t think he was a very good President. I just said he believed he had been misled. He had made clear he wouldn’t get involved — he didn’t understand what this could lead to, he was a dilettant at foreign policy. But I agree with Jeff that he does get credit for how he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Vietnam fundamentally weakened the United States, and really had no benefit in terms of the national interest. The fact we won battles and still were stuck in a quagmire shows the futility of such a pointless war, especially when it’s dividing the country at home. I think Iraq will be remembered as a far more costly mistake; I don’t think people realize just how much this has hurt and weakened the US, people are still in denial, though as the dollar plunges, the stock market drops, people are starting to understand. It’s a new world, and the geostrategic reality is the US is not in the commanding position it seemed to be in a decade ago.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
If we credit anyone for averting war over the missiles in Cuba, it should go to the General David Shoup, Commandant of the USMC and winner of the Medal of Honor on Tarawa.

I’m doing this from memory, but I think it’s in Halbersham’s book, the Best & the Brightest. McNamarra & the NSC were advocating at an invasion of Cuba, when Shoup put a transpacancy of a map of Cuba on the overhead projector. He then placed an overlay of the Northeastern US. To the Hawks’ surprise, the island stretched from NY City to Chicago. Removing the US map, he overlayed another transparancy with a tiny dot. The brain trust asked him what that speck was.

He told them it was Tarawa, where he, as commander of the assault force, had lost 1,000 marines. Apparently Harvard and MIT hadn’t taught geography.

After retiring, Shoup went on to be an early critic of the Vietnam War. LBJ, of course, ignored him when he could have shut the whole thing down.

Scott, if you look at most conflicts in which we became involved, you will see a pattern of the military trying to ensure that the civilian leadership understand what they are beginning. The task of the US military is to win the conflict as they did in Vietnam and Iraq. It is the task of the civilian leadership not to start something they won’t allow us to finish.

 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
"though as the dollar plunges, the stock market drops, people are starting to understand."
Right, all because of Iraq. Did you bet all your assets long on that position Scott?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://

Scott, if you look at most conflicts in which we became involved, you will see a pattern of the military trying to ensure that the civilian leadership understand what they are beginning. The task of the US military is to win the conflict as they did in Vietnam and Iraq. It is the task of the civilian leadership not to start something they won’t allow us to finish.
I think I’ve found something I agree with you on — except I can’t call Vietnam a win. I think that was an unwinnable war for a number of reasons, which is why Nixon had to shift to realism and look after the national interest rather than trying to stick with the fight there — it wasn’t worth it. The US was losing too much, becoming internally divided, and, well, foreign policy is about American interests, not what benefits the Vietnamese.

Iraq was a military victory over Saddam’s forces. We should have accepted that, and not try to socially engineer a pro-western liberal democracy. I think Bush has also made the shift Nixon did; Bush in 2003 was talking like JFK, now he seems to be more Nixonian. That’s good, but we need to learn the lesson that winning wars is do-able, shaping the political peace is more difficult. And, of course, in a democracy there isn’t a lot of patience for the latter.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
If we are honest with ourselves, we have to realize that perceptions of those outside, looking in, count. Mr. Obama is less experienced in national politics than Mr. Kennedy was, but does invoke the same kind of excitement that Mr. Kennedy did. But Americans’ perceptions of Mr. Obama may not be the same as our adversaries, nor was Mr. Kennedy’s.

I was 18 when President Kenney was killed and I liked him, but I remember vividly that he faltered on the Bay of Pigs in Cuba by withdrawing the Cuban exiles’ final B-26 bombing runs to take out the Cuban Air Force, backed off of confronting the USSR on the Berlin Wall construction and was judged by Khrushchev in their face to face meeting to be weak which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, according to Mr. Khrushchev’s memoirs.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis buildings were being sand bagged in Florida with fighters and other war material moved there and many very war like measures were instigated. A U-2 plane was shot down and we did nothing and we backed down on inspecting the Soviet ships; they pulled back tarps on the deck of the ships so we could observe they had missiles on them but there was no onsite inspection. We also removed our missiles from Turkey, which while obsolete and were supposed to have been removed per earlier administration orders unrelated to this situation, which looked like a concession to the USSR and did upset Turkey among others. We had to surface a Polaris carrying FBM submarine in Istanbul (the only time we did so under such circumstances - I served in the US submarine service a few years afterwards) to placate the Turks that we had not removed our protective missile shield.

My point is that we would never have gotten into the crisis if our president and leadership was perceived as being strong and would not put up with Soviet scheming. Our present enemies are certainly less rational than the Soviets and have even less an understanding of our politics. The Islamists have stated that America has a weak will to fight based on the actions of both Democratic and Republican presidents; presidents who have not been believed to be weak by the electorate, including that cowboy President Reagan with his withdrawal from Lebanon after the 241 Marines were killed.

Sorry, I don’t want another captivating, enchanting and charismatic but inexperienced president.
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider