USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[roni]

Just Lucky,

Good try. I think he may be incapable of stopping. Perhaps better not to ask again.

Best wishes for a victory in November

Ron

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by tmc

If you are referring to the Cuban Missle Crisis in the first part of you post, your statement is tantamount to saying that the arsonist who pulls a person from the building he set ablaze is a hero. Kennedy was viewed as a weakling by Khrushchev, and when we sent missles to Turkey as a provocation, the missles to Cuba ensued. Kennedy promised to attack Cuba if they shot down any of our U-2's over the island, which they did, and we did not. Kennedy is viewed as a hero because he avoided war, but the truth is he almost destroyed the world due to his hopeless naivete.

Marilyn was certainly much hotter than Monica

and what about the last part, the desegregation- wasn't that more due to a Mr. Martin Luther King than LBJ or JFK.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I'm not slamming Bill.

Steve

Originally Posted by ryberg

think you should be concerned about things such as what of late loose cannon Bill Clinton

He may not even be aware that he is doing it

[roni]

Originally Posted by Rissask

and what about the last part, the desegregation- wasn't that more due to a Mr. Martin Luther King than LBJ or JFK.

Actually, if one was going to assign credit to any one person, the Chief Counsel of the NAACP had more to do with it than any of those three.

Both before and after he was a Supreme Court Justice - appointed by LBJ, I believe.

[melliedee]

The Clintons are pros. Though I too am a bit irked that she has not conceded yet, I have no doubt that both Hillary and Bill will soon make moves to assist in uniting the party. She's already begun with her remarks today.

Besides, it's not like Bill had a heart transplant (though it would be a cool romantic comedy plot for a Democrat to accidently get a GOP heart then fall in love with a real yellow dog and have to fight his "new feelings".)

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by tmc

If you are referring to the Cuban Missle Crisis in the first part of you post, your statement is tantamount to saying that the arsonist who pulls a person from the building he set ablaze is a hero. Kennedy was viewed as a weakling by Khrushchev, and when we sent missles to Turkey as a provocation, the missles to Cuba ensued. Kennedy promised to attack Cuba if they shot down any of our U-2's over the island, which they did, and we did not. Kennedy is viewed as a hero because he avoided war, but the truth is he almost destroyed the world due to his hopeless naivete.

Marilyn was certainly much hotter than Monica

Just a little historical clarifier. Eisenhower had committed to the deployment of the missiles to Turkey.

With the launch of sputnik, the Eisenhower administration and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) faced a credibility issue: how to deal with the fact that the dramatic space exploits of the Soviet Union succeeded in decoupling Western European countries from the United States. Nuclear deterrence and allied perceptions were at the heart of the matter. In the discussions following the Suez crisis in 1956, the United States and the United Kingdom obtained a commitment for 60 Thor missiles to be deployed with the Royal Air Force in Britain. One must recall that at this time the United States was still working on Atlas, its first true intercontinental ballistic missile, and thus could not provide a “shield” over Europe. The other IRBM developed by the US defense establishment was the Jupiter. Feeling the domestic pressure to respond to Soviet superiority in space, the Eisenhower administration agreed first to produce both IRBMs and to provide them to allies in an attempt to shore up European nerves more than defenses.

One of the key deficiencies of Jupiter and Thor was their vulnerability: instead of being placed in a silo, they were raised on a launchpad above ground, with no protection. In the words of congressional investigative committees, their launch sites were “vulnerable to saboteurs armed with hunting rifles.” Further, the missiles’ reaction time was not satisfactory—15 minutes from alert notification. Although USAF personnel were to keep the nuclear warheads separate from the missiles, which were to be operated by host-nation personnel, in reality the warheads were mated to the missiles. Moreover, in order to launch the missile, one only had to pump the volatile mixture of kerosene and liquid into it. Thus it was possible for host nations to launch their own unauthorized nuclear strike, a prospect that congressional investigators complained about and that frightened President Kennedy.

Once the decision had been made to deploy the Jupiters, Air Force general Lauris Norstad, supreme allied commander Europe, had to find takers for these missiles. This task turned out to be as difficult as later cruise-missile deployments in 1989. Due to budget cutting, only 60 Jupiters were deployed—45 to Italy and 15 to Turkey. The deployment to Turkey would later haunt the Kennedy administration. President Eisenhower, already debating the wisdom of deploying missiles so close to the Soviet Union, discounted his own doubts and passed the problem on to the incoming Kennedy administration. Kennedy also questioned the deployment decision but, distracted by other problems and the feeling that Turkish ties to the West and the NATO alliance would be strained, deployed them anyway. Allied insecurity could be relieved only by US nuclear weapons. Interestingly, Italy had accepted the Jupiters to gain additional leverage within the NATO alliance, while Turkey was concerned about weakening US resolve in the face of Soviet aggression and technical superiority.

The deployed missiles soon became a thorn in Premier Khrushchev’s side, especially those in Turkey, which could threaten key cities inside the Russian heartland. Castro’s takeover of Cuba and the Bay of Pigs disaster provided Khrushchev the opportunity to deploy his own IRBMs. This action led to the Cuban missile crisis, but President Kennedy worried that the missiles in Turkey would prove to be a greater liability than asset. During the crisis, the Jupiters were not bargained in a formal sense, but as Nash makes clear, they were part of informal bargaining led by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Their end came quickly and quietly. The Jupiters were dismantled, despite the fact that the military considered them an asset and was not willing to part with them.

The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Jupiters, 1957–1963

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Just a little historical clarifier. Eisenhower had committed to the deployment of the missiles to Turkey.

The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Jupiters, 1957–1963

It is true that Eisenhower started the process, but as your own post shows, it was reversible under Kennedy, who chose to deploy the missiles nonetheless. Had Kennedy not wimped out in the Bay of Pigs, he wouldn't have had to follow through with the deployment to Turkey in order to prove his toughness, as those missiles were never really seen as strategic.

[ryberg]

Keep in mind that I'm not Obama, JL, and I don't assume anybody is going to vote against Obama because of me any more than I assume anybody is going to vote for Obama because of me. Certainly I would strongly advise against either action! But if people are inclined to do either, well that doesn't mean I would limt or change my expression, I don't think.

Look, they're ideas, there are important points to consider no matter what your view, if you're going to be in the discussion at all. I can leave the discussion (and in fact have done so, from time to time) if a number of people just don't want to hear my views. I guess I'll leave it to you all, then, at least for a while, and check back in later.

But I suggest that it's preposterous -- and again, classic sort of Orwellian doublespeak -- to call such criticisms divisive, given the divisiveness of Clinton's actions over the past couple of months, and continuing even past Obama's victory last night.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But I suggest that it's preposterous -- and again, classic sort of Orwellian doublespeak -- to call such criticisms divisive, given the divisiveness of Clinton's actions over the past couple of months, and continuing even past Obama's victory last night.

Steve

Here we get the double whammy of Clinton bashing combined with accusing other thread discussants of nasty Orwellian things.

All this at a time when Obama has been very laudatory toward both Clintons. Apparently not all of his followers, even the most dedicated, can take his lead in this regard.

It is divisive Steve. You may not care since you are not a Democrat, but it is divisive and it ripples out and when one combines your ripples with that of others like you, it hurts our chances in November.

I believe that is the truth.



Amazing, isn't it.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Keep in mind that I'm not Obama, JL, and I don't assume anybody is going to vote against Obama becauseof me than I suppose anybody is going to vote for Obama because of me. Certainly I would strongly advise against either action! But if people are inclined to do either, well that doesn't mean I would limt or change my expression, I don't think.

Look, they're ideas, there are important points to consider no matter what your view, if you're going to be in the discussion at all. I can leave the discussion (and in fact have done so, from time to time) if a number of people just don't want to hear my views. I guess I'll leave it to you all, then, at least for a while, and check back in later.

But I suggest that it's preposterous -- and again, classic sort of Orwellian doublespeak -- to call such criticisms divisive, given the divisiveness of Clinton's actions over the past couple of months, and continuing even past Obama's victory last night.

Steve

Mira, I'm just weary of reading your posts bashing Senator Clinton.

I'm sure I just see it differently than you do. To me a Republican victory assures that more lower income folks will die owing to a lack of health care. That our military resources will continue to be strained to the breaking point. That another response like the one following Katrina will be in the cards. That this country won't have a rational energy policy. etc...etc...etc..

Those are the sort of issues you are not spending time talking about when post after post is almost exclusively hammering on Clinton.

You know what? There are greater problems facing this nation than the Senator from New York's errors and gaffes.

I do enjoy reading your thoughts. I just wish you weren't so seemingly obsessed with the negative influence you feel the Clintons hold.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by tmc

It is true that Eisenhower started the process, but as your own post shows, it was reversible under Kennedy, who chose to deploy the missiles nonetheless. Had Kennedy not wimped out in the Bay of Pigs, he wouldn't have had to follow through with the deployment to Turkey in order to prove his toughness, as those missiles were never really seen as strategic.

I'm a little confused, didn't the deployment of the Jupiters to Turkey begin in '61 well before the missile crisis in Oct. '62?

At least that's what Wikipedia says:PGM-19 Jupiter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[roni]

Rangel criticizes Clinton over non-concession speech
Posted: 04:14 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) — Prominent Hillary Clinton backer Charles Rangel thinks the New York senator could have been "far more generous" during her speech Tuesday night after it was clear Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination.

Rangel, the senior member of the New York congressional delegation and an early supporter of Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in an interview Wednesday Clinton should have been more clear about what her future plans are.

"I would agree that after the math was in before her speech, that she could have been far more generous in terms of being more specific and saying that she wants a Democratic victory," Rangel said in an interview on MSNBC.

"I don't see what they're talking about in prolonging this," Rangel added. "There's nothing to prolong if you're not going to take the fight to the convention floor…I don't know why she could not have been more open in terms of doing up front what she intends to do later."

Rangel also said the entire New York congressional delegation is awaiting guidance from Clinton on what to do, and could be put "on the spot" if the New York senator does not explain herself soon.

"We could be on the spot if we don't get some answers about what does it mean when you say that you are not endorsing — or what does it mean when you say that you haven't — you're not out of the race. It just doesn't make any sense. It's inconsistent with wanting a Democratic victory and not endorsing the Democratic candidate."

[Rissask]

ryberg:But I suggest that it's preposterous -- and again, classic sort of Orwellian doublespeak -- to call such criticisms divisive, given the divisiveness of Clinton's actions over the past couple of months, and continuing even past Obama's victory last night.

Talk about your doublespeak ....that is very slick and wordy- but wouldn't this make more sense :

You term her actions divisive.... which leads you to bash her....so you are being critical and divisive, and she was being critical, and divisive (in your opionion anyway)...all we did was point out we are tired of listening to you being divisive and critical, same as you feel about Hillary.

Ah, the irony!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Mira, I'm just weary of reading your posts bashing Senator Clinton.

I'm sure I just see it differently than you do. To me a Republican victory assures that more lower income folks will die owing to a lack of health care. That our military resources will continue to be strained to the breaking point. That another response like the one following Katrina will be in the cards. That this country won't have a rational energy policy. etc...etc...etc..

Those are the sort of issues you are not spending time talking about when post after post is almost exclusively hammering on Clinton.

You know what? There are greater problems facing this nation than the Senator from New York's errors and gaffes.

I do enjoy reading your thoughts. I just wish you weren't so seemingly obsessed with the negative influence you feel the Clintons hold.

Very much of that negative influence is precisely what you're decrying: the lack of focus on the real issues. We aren't getting to those -- we aren't getting to a contrast between McCain and Obama on those issues, which I also feel are vital, just as you do, and which I also want us to focus on, just as you do -- because of this strange game Clinton is playing, a game which furthermore directly lessens the chances of winning the election and resolving those issues successfully, by the way.

Blame me or call me obsessed all you like, but it ain't me holding the spotlight away from those problems and hurting our best chance to improve things.

Steve

[Jacko]

I believe I understand each of the brothers and sisters of the liberal cabal bastante bien...they each bring something unique and valuable to the table...I see some as the anti- the other...and some that like to play devil's advocate more than anything...and others that many would call a link king...they all got mucho character I tell ya and I love that...and they all care deeply about the future of our nation and the common person....in these things we perhaps find a commonality.......


Soon...we will all be back together again working against the dark side.....