So who's part of the 29%? (2 Viewers)

[DadsDream]

alright - I see it now.

Perhaps history will tell a different tale, indeed.

Do you have any idea, DD, of the amount of information that was made available to the media around the time of the decision or shortly after?

The media, at the time, was kept totally in the dark, except for those CIA photos of the Soviet ICBM sites in Cuba and Kennedy's on-camera announcement of the blockade.

We now know that the Soviet ground commander not only had battlefield nukes and the authority to use them, but the Soviet Navy had sent three submarines armed with nuclear warhead torpedoes to break up our blockade if it turned into a shooting war.

The press, at the time, didn't have a clue. Neither did the CIA or McNamara. But, if the former Soviet officials are to be believed, Kennedy knew because Khruschev had told him.

The reason I ask is that it seems there is a ton of information that implicates Bush through testimony, media, etc.... Does the media today know more than they did 40+ years ago, do you think?

I'd venture to say that there is a ton more information out there. I don't think the media has any more of a clue about the deepest, darkest corners of the CIA and the Pentagon now than it did 40 years ago.

I will say that in the current climate, news people are less likely to be "taken into custody for questioning" by the government than they were during the Cold War years from the late 40s to the late 80s.

Also, why did Kennedy not release this information to exonerate himself?

Because it would have gotten Khruschev killed. Remember, the tactical nukes were a Politburo decision. Khruschev disagreed and went behind their backs and told Kennedy. The NKVD (Soviet Secret Police) would have made Khruschev disappear as though he'd never existed.

And why do you think that Bush would keep such information, if it existed, to himself? His reputation and political party are reeling because of the decisions - what would keep him from releasing the information as soon as he could? Is there a moratorium put on such a release or something?

Like I said, I have no chrystal ball that can see that far.

I remember when they were going to release all of the Kennedy assassination files - there seemed to be a lot of media buzz.

I just wonder why it takes so long for these to come out.

Because the "powers that be" want it that way.

 

[RazorOye]

thx DD - your posts, even if I don't always agree, are always an education

 

[DadsDream]

You're welcome. Hey, did I understand that you're a teacher, RazorOye?

 

[champ76]

You assume that information is only included in history books to be "politically correct"--which is largely a misnomer. History books are changed when new, ground-breaking information comes out. And most survey texts and secondary texts don't go into such detail regarding the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missle Crisis, etc.

JFK took a beating for years over the Bay of Pigs. It would be nice to include a sentence or two putting his decision in context. I don't believe most, or even much, of history books contains things I would call PC. I confess knowledge of only anecdotal evidence of some of the PC information contained in history books that if I were putting one together, wouldn't be included. This tidbit from DD, I would think, is more important.

In the bigger picture, the Cold War was certainly the antecedent for much of what we have in the world and why we are embloiled in some of the messes we are in. Maybe because I remember diving under the desk practicing what to do in the event of a nuclear attack, I am more interested in historical tidbits like that which DD just pointed out. DD further makes the point that presidents and their staffs have far more to deal with than any of us would know, and may never know. Imagine being told by the Soviet leader that he has no control over his military leaders and their response to an action of ours(and not a direct attack on the Soviet mainland) would be met with a nuclear response.

What if JFK though Krushchev was bluffing and went forward? All he had to go on was the Soviet leader's word, which wasn't exactly golden. History would be painting a different picture of JFK had he triggered WWIII.

Fast forward 40 years and imagine the president is told a rogue leader of a middle east country who has previously attacked two other countries, gassed his own population, and violated numerous UN and cease fire provisions, has amassed weapons of mass destruction and there there is a good chance some of these weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists who recently struck your country and killed 3000 people. Imagine being told by your intelligence chief the evidence against this rogue leader is a slam dunk. Do you ignore it and run the risk it's true? Do you take action and run the risk history will judge your decision harshly? It's not a job I want.

 

[champ76]

Champ, here's a few background references about Khruschev and the Soviet tactical nukes.

http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/frauke.grosshennig/Perspectives.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/press4.htm
http://math.info/cmc/?feed=rss2

Thanks, DD. I like to think I am aware of a lot of this, but clearly I'm not.

 

[RebSaint]

Fast forward 40 years and imagine the president is told a rogue leader of a middle east country who has previously attacked two other countries, gassed his own population, and violated numerous UN and cease fire provisions, has amassed weapons of mass destruction and there there is a good chance some of these weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists who recently struck your country and killed 3000 people. Imagine being told by your intelligence chief the evidence against this rogue leader is a slam dunk. Do you ignore it and run the risk it's true? Do you take action and run the risk history will judge your decision harshly? It's not a job I want.

You paint a really nice, neat scenario which might possibly exonerate Bush on Iraq. You're right, from a historical point of view the jury is still out because Iraq has yet to work itself out.

40 years from now it might come out more that his administration manipulated and misinterpreted faulty evidence more than what's been proven as fact now. 40 years from now we now may look back at a middle east no better, more violent after having been hit by terrorists several times because of his error in judgement. We don't know. We already know that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, yet you continue to make a connection which doesn't exist. I seriously doubt much will come out which hasn't already which connects Hussein with 9-11--but keep on trying nonetheless.

From where I'm sitting based on what we do know about the history of long, costly occupations and nation-building, not to mention what's happened on the ground in the past few weeks--Iraq doesn't look good. A democratic Iraq is supposed to be the cure-all tonic to pave the way for peace in the middle east. We'll have to see where we are 40 years from now. We do know that hatred of the west emerged out of Imperialistic designs of Europe in the region in the early 20th century. Yet the United States is military occupying a Muslim country in the middle east. Definition of insanity? I think so.

I also think we can fall into this trap of "we don't know anything about a presidency, so we shouldn't criticize" because of the lack of a historical record. I think these exercises have their limitations, like all counterfactual history.

 

[RazorOye]

You're welcome. Hey, did I understand that you're a teacher, RazorOye?

yea, and as big a fan of my own education as I am others

Currently, though, I am not teaching except for co-teaching a couple university courses, which is different from having my own high school classroom. I stopped teaching so I could work on my PhD full time, and moved from Houston where I was teaching in Katy to Univ of Toronto because of the Ed program here at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

So it will probably be another 2-3 years before I am done and before I can get back in the classroom, and it can't happen soon enough! I miss it so much - dream about it a couple nights a week on average.

And this PhD is NOT to become an administrator. I couldn't do that - that's just not my style. I wanna become a better teacher and I thought this way would be the best.

Alright, unsolicited autobiography /off.

 

[DadsDream]

Khrushchev is the perfect example of a national leader whose image has changed in light of declassified information.

In the 1970s and 1980s, History classes taught me that the he was a vain, bellicose, unstable man who pounded his shoe on the table in the UN. His most famous quote was, "We will bury you." Even that is disputed now as a possible mistranslation of his actual words, which could be translated as "We will outlast you" or "We will attend your funeral."

(Notice the shoe on the table here )

In my Military History classes in the 1990s, with the benefit of the revelations of Khruschev telling Kennedy about the Soviet tactical nukes in Cuba, he was portrayed as a man who put on a big show in public to placate the hardliners in the Politburo, but who saved the world behind the scenes at the risk of his own life.

 

[champ76]

You paint a really nice, neat scenario which might possibly exonerate Bush on Iraq. You're right, from a historical point of view the jury is still out because Iraq has yet to work itself out.

40 years from now it might come out more that his administration manipulated and misinterpreted faulty evidence more than what's been proven as fact now. 40 years from now we now may look back at a middle east no better, more violent after having been hit by terrorists several times because of his error in judgement. We don't know.

From where I'm sitting based on what we do know about the history of long, costly occupations and nation-building, not to mention what's happened on the ground in the past few weeks--Iraq doesn't look good. A democratic Iraq is supposed to be the cure-all tonic to pave the way for peace in the middle east. We'll have to see where we are 40 years from now. We do know that hatred of the west emerged out of Imperialistic designs of Europe in the region in the early 20th century. Yet the United States is military occupying a Muslim country in the middle east. Definition of insanity? I think so.

I also think we can fall into this trap of "we don't know anything about a presidency, so we shouldn't criticize" because of the lack of a historical record. I think these exercises have their limitations, like all counterfactual history.

Hey, don't get me wrong. Criticize away. But there is a gap between that and the "worst president in history" label, or worse, "chimpy."

What DD's story tells us is one more reminder of how close to the brink we have come on a number of occasions. Usually there are multiple scenerios that can play out from a number of these; clearly we have been lucky in some respects and had good leadership in others. But it takes two to tango, as my mother used to say, and had Kruschev not backed down himself, had he tried to run the blockade, we only now know what the consequences would have been. On the other hand, most recently, Saddam had the chance to back down, and didn't. In fact, he may have been playing a deadly game of brinksmanship himself, pretending to have weapons he didn't have. We could sit, and wait, running the risk the UN inspectors could do their job(the same outfit, by the way, that had grossly underestimated Saddam's nuclear programs in inspections the decade before), running the risk the oil for food program would fall into such a morass of corruption its desired effects would vanish(and arguably already had), running the risk a weapon of mass destruction did not fall into the hands of someone who would use it on our interests at home or abroad, or we could take action. The argument over Iraq has been distilled down to such a simple one, we forget the terribly complex scenerios present in 2002 and the less than desirable shape of our intelligence agencies on whose advice our leaders have to depend.

The easiest thing is to do nothing, Sometimes it's the right thing. But I am not so quick to fault decisions without all the facts, and I'm afraid it will be a long time before we have all the facts.

 

[champ76]

Khrushchev is the perfect example of a national leader whose image has changed in light of declassified information.

In the 1970s and 1980s, History classes taught me that the he was a vain, bellicose, unstable man who pounded his shoe on the table in the UN. His most famous quote was, "We will bury you." Even that is disputed now as a possible mistranslation of his actual words, which could be translated as "We will outlast you" or "We will attend your funeral."

(Notice the shoe on the table here )

In my Military History classes in the 1990s, with the benefit of the revelations of Khruschev telling Kennedy about the Soviet tactical nukes in Cuba, he was portrayed as a man who put on a big show in public to placate the hardliners in the Politburo, but who saved the world behind the scenes at the risk of his own life.

Life is stranger than fiction.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

For the sake of argument, let's assume for a second that GWB has/had information about Iraq that he can't talk about here in 2007, and that 40 or 50 years from now it comes and and "vindicates" him in some way- then, if you are GWB, and your poll #s, reputation etc. are taking as much of a beating as they are, wouldn't you be saying something to the effect of, "Hey, there are things at work here that I can't tell you about. There are things at work here that you won't know about for decades, but then you'll know we're doing the right thing..." or something; instead, he seems barely able to formulate a coherent sentence and generally comes across as a complete bufoon. On another note, why would he say that Bin Laden "can run but he can't hide" and yet, 6 years later, a 6'7" guy hauling a dialysis machine across the desert still hides... I can't imagine a scenario where facts come out 50 years from now that make this acceptable.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

yea, and as big a fan of my own education as I am others

Currently, though, I am not teaching except for co-teaching a couple university courses, which is different from having my own high school classroom. I stopped teaching so I could work on my PhD full time, and moved from Houston where I was teaching in Katy to Univ of Toronto because of the Ed program here at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

So it will probably be another 2-3 years before I am done and before I can get back in the classroom, and it can't happen soon enough! I miss it so much - dream about it a couple nights a week on average.

And this PhD is NOT to become an administrator. I couldn't do that - that's just not my style. I wanna become a better teacher and I thought this way would be the best.

Alright, unsolicited autobiography /off.

- RO, must be nice to have a job you love so much that you dream about it a couple nights a week; what exactly is it that you love so much about teaching??

 

[DadsDream]

I couldn't imagine that Nakita Khrushchev, the shoe pounding, nutcase Commie, was actually the savior of the free world either. Just saying.

 

[RebSaint]

The argument over Iraq has been distilled down to such a simple one, we forget the terribly complex scenerios present in 2002 and the less than desirable shape of our intelligence agencies on whose advice our leaders have to depend.

The easiest thing is to do nothing, Sometimes it's the right thing. But I am not so quick to fault decisions without all the facts, and I'm afraid it will be a long time before we have all the facts.

Arguments for going in?

I would argue that the argument is "complex" because it's changed to suit the political needs of those who decided to go in the first place.

First of all, your slipping back into frankly poor excuses for invading. WMDs could slip into any rogue dictator's hands--the United States SUPPLIED Hussein initially with WMDs. Hussein's regime, albeit dispicable was a nice secular balance to the more radical Islamic fundamentalists--like it or not, but the U.S.'s invasion has opened up sectarian violence and religious extremism which Hussein blunted out.

So was Iraq in the western hemisphere? The two aren't much comprable.

And this idea that Iraq was comprable to the Soviet Union is specious, imo. Iraq didn't have nukes pointed at the United States and I would argue didn't pose an imminent and immediate threat to the U.S. like the Soviet Union. And I seriously doubt it will come out that Iraq had secret terrorist camps in Mexico, Cuba, or anywhere else for that matter. And regarding WMDs, I think if anything substantive were found, you bet we'd know about it because the administration would be vindicated in many respects.

 

[DadsDream]

yea, and as big a fan of my own education as I am others

Currently, though, I am not teaching except for co-teaching a couple university courses, which is different from having my own high school classroom. I stopped teaching so I could work on my PhD full time, and moved from Houston where I was teaching in Katy to Univ of Toronto because of the Ed program here at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

So it will probably be another 2-3 years before I am done and before I can get back in the classroom, and it can't happen soon enough! I miss it so much - dream about it a couple nights a week on average.

And this PhD is NOT to become an administrator. I couldn't do that - that's just not my style. I wanna become a better teacher and I thought this way would be the best.

Alright, unsolicited autobiography /off.

Super, RazorOye! I'm envious.

I was a military instructor for 15 years. Now, after five years off the podium, I do find myself longing to get back into the classroom again.

Seriously, I've been stuck at a crossroads in my life for the past six months and I think it's finally boiled down to going back for my MA and my PhD if I can find a way to live off my military retirement while I do so. Maybe someday, I'll join you and Reb.

Alright, unsolicited autobiography /off. lus-un2: