April 10, 1963 A bullet from a high-powered rifle was shot through the window of Major General Edwin A. Walker's home, narrowly missing the General. The Warren Commission Report would later claim Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot with the same rifle he would use to assassinate Presdient Kennedy in November. Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly wrote a two page note to his wife (written in Russian) implicating himself in the General's assassination attempt.
April 17, 1963 "We believe that Communist progress has been blunted and that the situation is improving.
We believe the Communists will continue to wage a war of attrition, hoping for some break in the situation which will lead to victory.
We do not believe that it is possible at this time to project the future course of the war with any confidence."
National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the CIA and U.S. Military
April 24, 1963 "We don't have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at almost any point. But I can't give up a piece of territory like that to the Communists and then get the American people to re-elect me." - President Kennedy to journalist Charles Bartlett.
April 24 Lee Harvey Oswald moves to New Orleans. His wife, Marina Oswald moves in with Ruth Paine.
Events, mysteries, enigmas, movements, meetings, lies and planning begin to swirl and foam into the maelstrom.
Catching up with the Oswalds: Lee and his Russian wife go on the move and evidence starts to mount for the Warren Commission to later discover and use to claim he is the lone gunman.
MARCH 1963
March 2, 1963: The Oswalds move to 214 West Neely Street.
March 9-10, 1963: LHO takes photographs of the home of General Edwin Walker, a right-wing activist.
March 11, 1963: The Militant, a prominent left-wing publication, publishes a letter signed L.H., probably written by LHO.
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped.
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons.
March 31, 1963: Marina takes the infamous "Backyard Photos" of LHO.
You don't get more progressive than KPFA in Berkeley or KPFK in Los Angeles. So when those radio stations stopped begging for money for an hour and broadcast Peter Staudenmaier flapping his mouth about the harm conspiracy theorist do to the liberal and progressive agenda, I felt he was in need of a response.
It took the self proclaimed anarchist a while to get to his main point. He doesn't like Michael Moore documentaries, especially Fahrenheit 9/11. This in itself fires off a conspiracy theory: Any negative media about 9/11 must get beat down. Even our liberal icons must pay the piper and insult and, not try to refute, but mock any 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Mr. Staudenmaier warms us up to his theory with some really bad examples: The Reichstag Fire was a government conspiracy, you asshole. The Nazi Party was caught and called out, so it wasn't the Jews after all.
The Assassination of President Kennedy was not a random act of some 24 year old loner who decided to bring a rifle to work and shot the President as he drove down Main Street.
Lee Harvey Oswald was proven to be on the CIA payroll. He was a Marine who defected to the Soviet Union, changed his mind and moved back to the United States with a Russian wife, no questions asked. AND... the Dallas newspaper published the Presidential parade routed , unbeknownst to any loner who worked in the Texas School Book Depository, that routed was changed from whisking the President safely on to the Stemsons Freeway to making the right turn and left turn down a little side street and stopping directly in the line of fire… whatever that may have been.
50 witnesses said the bullets came from behind them on the infamous grassy knoll… 50 is a lot of people. (Mr. Staudenmaier really hates when conspiracy theorists use …)
Staudenmaier mumbles insults at Michael Moore's film and conspiracy theorists in general and says we are all simplistic and think the world would be a better place if the 'cabal' could be stopped.
Well, I do believe the world would be a better place if the conspiracy to steal the election of 2000 did not work and Bush, Jr. /Cheney did not enter the White House. Any arguments from the left?
I also think the nation would be a better place if Bush, Sr. never got anywhere near the White House and was not allowed to take part in any secret hostage negotiations with the Iranian Fanatical Islamic Government in 1979…
And yes, I believe the entire world would have been better served had JFK not been assassinated.
History is on the side of those labeled conspiracy theorists. It is amusing that even these liberal, left-wing radio stations felt obliged or were 'tricked' into broadcasting Mr. Staudenmaier's self immolation.
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the 88th Congress:
I congratulate you all--not merely on your electoral victory but on your selected role in history. For you and I are privileged to serve the great Republic in what could be the most decisive decade in its long history. The choices we make, for good or ill, may well shape the state of the Union for generations yet to come.
Little more than 100 weeks ago I assumed the office of President of the United States. In seeking the help of the Congress and our countrymen, I pledged no easy answers. I pledged--and asked--only toil and dedication. These the Congress and the people have given in good measure. And today, having witnessed in recent months a heightened respect for our national purpose and power--having seen the courageous calm of a united people in a perilous hour--and having observed a steady improvement in the opportunities and well-being of our citizens--I can report to you that the state of this old but youthful Union, in the 175th year of its life, is good.
In the world beyond our borders, steady progress has been made in building a world of order. The people of West Berlin remain both free and secure. A settlement, though still precarious, has been reached in Laos. The spearpoint of aggression has been blunted in Viet-Nam. The end of agony may be in sight in the Congo. The doctrine of troika is dead. And, while danger continues, a deadly threat has been removed in Cuba.
At home, the recession is behind us. Well over a million more men and women are working today than were working 2 years ago. The average factory work week is once again more than 40 hours; our industries are turning out more goods than ever before; and more than half of the manufacturing capacity that lay silent and wasted 100 weeks ago is humming with activity.
In short, both at home and abroad, there may now be a temptation to relax. For the road has been long, the burden heavy, and the pace consistently urgent.
But we cannot be satisfied to rest here. This is the side of the hill, not the top. The mere absence of war is not peace. The mere absence of recession is not growth. We have made a beginning--but we have only begun.
Now the time has come to make the most of our gains--to translate the renewal of our national strength into the achievement of our national purpose.
I.
America has enjoyed 22 months of uninterrupted economic recovery. But recovery is not enough. If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run strength of our economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate of growth and full employment.
For this would mean tens of billions of dollars more each year in production, profits, wages, and public revenues. It would mean an end to the persistent slack which has kept our unemployment at or above 5 percent for 61 out of the past 62 months--and an end to the growing pressures for such restrictive measures as the 35-hour week, which alone could increase hourly labor costs by as much as 14 percent, start a new wage-price spiral of inflation, and undercut our efforts to compete with other nations.
To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential--the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes.
For it is increasingly clear--to those in Government, business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's success--that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.
Now, when the inflationary pressures of the war and the post-war years no longer threaten, and the dollar commands new respect--now, when no military crisis strains our resources--now is the time to act. We cannot afford to be timid or slow. For this is the most urgent task confronting the Congress in 1963.
In an early message, I shall propose a permanent reduction in tax rates which will lower liabilities by $13.5 billion. Of this, $11 billion results from reducing individual tax rates, which now range between 20 and 91 percent, to a more sensible range of 14 to 65 percent, with a split in the present first bracket. Two and one-half billion dollars results from reducing corporate tax rates, from 52 percent--which gives the Government today a majority interest in profits--to the permanent pre-Korean level of 47 percent. This is in addition to the more than $2 billion cut in corporate tax liabilities resulting from last year's investment credit and depreciation reform.
To achieve this reduction within the limits of a manageable budgetary deficit, I urge: first, that these cuts be phased over 3 calendar years, beginning in 1963 with a cut of some $6 billion at annual rates; second, that these reductions be coupled with selected structural changes, beginning in 1964, which will broaden the tax base, end unfair or unnecessary preferences, remove or lighten certain hardships, and in the net offset some $3.5 billion of the revenue loss; and third, that budgetary receipts at the outset be increased by $1.5 billion a year, without any change in tax liabilities, by gradually shifting the tax payments of large corporations to a more current time schedule. This combined program, by increasing the amount of our national income, will in time result in still higher Federal revenues. It is a fiscally responsible program--the surest and the soundest way of achieving in time a balanced budget in a balanced full employment economy.
This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion will increase the purchasing power of American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends--induce more investment, production, and capacity use--help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year--and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort.
I do not say that a measure for tax reduction and reform is the only way to achieve these goals.
No doubt a massive increase in Federal spending could also create jobs and growth, but in today's setting, private consumers, employers, and investors should be given a full opportunity first.
No doubt a temporary tax cut could provide a spur to our economy--but a long-run problem compels a long-run solution.
No doubt a reduction in either individual or corporation taxes alone would be of great help--but corporations need customers and job seekers need jobs.
No doubt tax reduction without reform would sound simpler and more attractive to many--but our growth is also hampered by a host of tax inequities and special preferences which have distorted the flow of investment.
And finally, there are no doubt some who would prefer to put off a tax cut in the hope that ultimately an end to the cold war would make possible an equivalent cut in expenditures--but that end is not in view and to wait for it would be costly and self-defeating.
In submitting a tax program which will, of course, temporarily increase the deficit but can ultimately end it--and in recognition of the need to control expenditures--I will shortly submit a fiscal 1964 administrative budget which, while allowing for needed rises in defense, space, and fixed interest charges, holds total expenditures for all other purposes below this year's level.
This requires the reduction or postponement of many desirable programs, the absorption of a large part of last year's Federal pay raise through personnel and other economies, the termination of certain installations and projects, and the substitution in several programs of private for public credit. But I am convinced that the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic problems in this Congress. For we cannot for long lead the cause of peace and freedom, if we ever cease to set the pace here at home.
II.
Tax reduction alone, however, is not enough to strengthen our society, to provide opportunities for the four million Americans who are born every year, to improve the lives of 32 million Americans who live on the outskirts of poverty.
The quality of American life must keep pace with the quantity of American goods.
This country cannot afford to be materially rich and spiritually poor.
Therefore, by holding down the budgetary cost of existing programs to keep within the limitations I have set, it is both possible and imperative to adopt other new measures that we cannot afford to postpone.
These measures are based on a series of fundamental premises, grouped under four related headings:
First, we need to strengthen our Nation by investing in our youth.
The future of any country which is dependent upon the will and wisdom of its citizens is damaged, and irreparably damaged, whenever any of its children is not educated to the full extent of his talent, from grade school through graduate school. Today, an estimated 4 out of every 10 students in the 5th grade will not even finish high school--and that is a waste we cannot afford.
In addition, there is no reason why one million young Americans, out of school and out of work, should all remain unwanted and often untrained on our city streets when their energies can be put to good use.
Finally, the overseas success of our Peace Corps volunteers, most of them young men and women carrying skills and ideas to needy people, suggests the merit of a similar corps serving our own community needs: in mental hospitals, on Indian reservations, in centers for the aged or for young delinquents, in schools for the illiterate or the handicapped. As the idealism of our youth has served world peace, so can it serve the domestic tranquility.
Second, we need to strengthen our Nation by safeguarding its health.
Our working men and women, instead of being forced to beg for help from public charity once they are old and ill, should start contributing now to their own retirement health program through the Social Security System.
Moreover, all our miracles of medical research will count for little if we cannot reverse the growing nationwide shortage of doctors, dentists, and nurses, and the widespread shortages of nursing homes and modern urban hospital facilities. Merely to keep the present ratio of doctors and dentists from declining any further, we must over the next 10 years increase the capacity of our medical schools by 50 percent and our dental schools by 100 percent.
Finally, and of deep concern, I believe that the abandonment of the mentally ill and the mentally retarded to the grim mercy of custodial institutions too often inflicts on them and on their families a needless cruelty which this Nation should not endure. The incidence of mental retardation in this country is three times as high as that of Sweden, for example--and that figure can and must be reduced.
Third, we need to strengthen our Nation by protecting the basic rights of its citizens.
The right to competent counsel must be assured to every man accused of crime in Federal court, regardless of his means.
And the most precious and powerful right in the world, the right to vote in a free American election, must not be denied to any citizen on grounds of his race or color. I wish that all qualified Americans permitted to vote were willing to vote, but surely in this centennial year of Emancipation all those who are willing to vote should always be permitted.
Fourth, we need to strengthen our Nation by making the best and the most economical use of its resources and facilities.
Our economic health depends on healthy transportation arteries; and I believe the way to a more modern, economical choice of national transportation service is through increased competition and decreased regulation. Local mass transit, faring even worse, is as essential a community service as hospitals and highways. Nearly three-fourths of our citizens live in urban areas, which occupy only 2 percent of our land--and if local transit is to survive and relieve the congestion of these cities, it needs Federal stimulation and assistance.
Next, this Government is in the storage and stockpile business to the melancholy tune of more than $16 billion. We must continue to support farm income, but we should not pile more farm surpluses on top of the $7.5 billion we already own. We must maintain a stockpile of strategic materials, but the $8.5 billion we have acquired--for reasons both good and bad--is much more than we need; and we should be empowered to dispose of the excess in ways which will not cause market disruption.
Finally, our already overcrowded national parks and recreation areas will have twice as many visitors 10 years from now as they do today. If we do not plan today for the future growth of these and other great natural assets--not only parks and forests but wildlife and wilderness preserves, and water projects of all kinds--our children and their children will be poorer in every sense of the word.
These are not domestic concerns alone. For upon our achievement of greater vitality and strength here at home hang our fate and future in the world: our ability to sustain and supply the security of free men and nations, our ability to command their respect for our leadership, our ability to expand our trade without threat to our balance of payments, and our ability to adjust to the changing demands of cold war competition and challenge.
We shall be judged more by what we do at home than by what we preach abroad. Nothing we could do to help the developing countries would help them half as much as a booming U.S. economy. And nothing our opponents could do to encourage their own ambitions would encourage them half as much as a chronic, lagging U.S. economy. These domestic tasks do not divert energy from our security--they provide the very foundation for freedom's survival and success.
III.
Turning to the world outside, it was only a few years ago--in Southeast Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America, even outer space--that communism sought to convey the image of a unified, confident, and expanding empire, closing in on a sluggish America and a free world in disarray. But few people would hold to that picture today.
In these past months we have reaffirmed the scientific and military superiority of freedom. We have doubled our efforts in space, to assure us of being first in the future. We have undertaken the most far-reaching defense improvements in the peacetime history of this country. And we have maintained the frontiers of freedom from Viet-Nam to West Berlin.
But complacency or self-congratulation can imperil our security as much as the weapons of tyranny. A moment of pause is not a promise of peace. Dangerous problems remain from Cuba to the South China Sea. The world's prognosis prescribes, in short, not a year's vacation for us, but a year of obligation and opportunity.
Four special avenues of opportunity stand out: the Atlantic Alliance, the developing nations, the new Sino-Soviet difficulties, and the search for worldwide peace.
IV.
First, how fares the grand alliance? Free Europe is entering into a new phase of its long and brilliant history. The era of colonial expansion has passed; the era of national rivalries is fading; and a new era of interdependence and unity is taking shape. Defying the old prophecies of Marx, consenting to what no conqueror could ever compel, the free nations of Europe are moving toward a unity of purpose and power and policy in every sphere of activity.
For 17 years this movement has had our consistent support, both political and economic. Far from resenting the new Europe, we regard her as a welcome partner, not a rival. For the road to world peace and freedom is still long, and there are burdens which only full partners can share--in supporting the common defense, in expanding world trade, in aligning our balance of payments, in aiding the emergent nations, in concerting political and economic policies, and in welcoming to our common effort other industrialized nations, notably Japan, whose remarkable economic and political development of the 1950's permits it now to play on the world scene a major constructive role.
No doubt differences of opinion will continue to get more attention than agreements on action, as Europe moves from independence to more formal interdependence. But these are honest differences among honorable associates--more real and frequent, in fact, among our Western European allies than between them and the United States. For the unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion. But the basic agreement of this alliance on fundamental issues continues.
The first task of the alliance remains the common defense. Last month Prime Minister Macmillan and I laid plans for a new stage in our long cooperative effort, one which aims to assist in the wider task of framing a common nuclear defense for the whole alliance.
The Nassau agreement recognizes that the security of the West is indivisible, and so must be our defense. But it also recognizes that this is an alliance of proud and sovereign nations, and works best when we do not forget it. It recognizes further that the nuclear defense of the West is not a matter for the present nuclear powers alone--that France will be such a power in the future--and that ways must be found without increasing the hazards of nuclear diffusion, to increase the role of our other partners in planning, manning, and directing a truly multilateral nuclear force within an increasingly intimate NATO alliance. Finally, the Nassau agreement recognizes that nuclear defense is not enough, that the agreed NATO levels of conventional strength must be met, and that the alliance cannot afford to be in a position of having to answer every threat with nuclear weapons or nothing.
We remain too near the Nassau decisions, and too far from their full realization, to know their place in history. But I believe that, for the first time, the door is open for the nuclear defense of the alliance to become a source of confidence, instead of a cause of contention.
The next most pressing concern of the alliance is our common economic goals of trade and growth. This Nation continues to be concerned about its balance-of-payments deficit, which, despite its decline, remains a stubborn and troublesome problem. We believe, moreover, that closer economic ties among all free nations are essential to prosperity and peace. And neither we nor the members of the European Common Market are so affluent that we can long afford to shelter high cost farms or factories from the winds of foreign competition, or to restrict the channels of trade with other nations of the free world. If the Common Market should move toward protectionism and restrictionism, it would undermine its own basic principles. This Government means to use the authority conferred on it last year by the Congress to encourage trade expansion on both sides of the Atlantic and around the world.
V.
Second, what of the developing and non-aligned nations? They were shocked by the Soviets' sudden and secret attempt to transform Cuba into a nuclear striking base--and by Communist China's arrogant invasion of India. They have been reassured by our prompt assistance to India, by our support through the United Nations of the Congo's unification, by our patient search for disarmament, and by the improvement in our treatment of citizens and visitors whose skins do not happen to be white. And as the older colonialism recedes, and the neo-colonialism of the Communist powers stands out more starkly than ever, they realize more clearly that the issue in the world struggle is not communism versus capitalism, but coercion versus free choice.
They are beginning to realize that the longing for independence is the same the world over, whether it is the independence of West Berlin or Viet-Nam. They are beginning to realize that such independence runs athwart all Communist ambitions but is in keeping with our own--and that our approach to their diverse needs is resilient and resourceful, while the Communists are still relying on ancient doctrines and dogmas.
Nevertheless it is hard for any nation to focus on an external or subversive threat to its independence when its energies are drained in daily combat with the forces of poverty and despair. It makes little sense for us to assail, in speeches and resolutions, the horrors of communism, to spend $50 billion a year to prevent its military advance--and then to begrudge spending, largely on American products, less than one-tenth of that amount to help other nations strengthen their independence and cure the social chaos in which communism has always thrived.
I am proud--and I think most Americans are proud--of a mutual defense and assistance program, evolved with bipartisan support in three administrations, which has, with all its recognized problems, contributed to the fact that not a single one of the nearly fifty U.N. members to gain independence since the Second World War has succumbed to Communist control.
I am proud of a program that has helped to arm and feed and clothe millions of people who live on the front lines of freedom.
I am especially proud that this country has put forward for the 60's a vast cooperative effort to achieve economic growth and social progress throughout the Americas--the Alliance for Progress.
I do not underestimate the difficulties that we face in this mutual effort among our close neighbors, but the free states of this hemisphere, working in close collaboration, have begun to make this alliance a living reality. Today it is feeding one out of every four school age children in Latin America an extra food ration from our farm surplus. It has distributed 1.5 million school books and is building 17,000 classrooms. It has helped resettle tens of thousands of farm families on land they can call their own. It is stimulating our good neighbors to more self-help and self-reform--fiscal, social, institutional, and land reforms. It is bringing new housing and hope, new health and dignity, to millions who were forgotten. The men and women of this hemisphere know that the alliance cannot succeed if it is only another name for United States handouts--that it can succeed only as the Latin American nations themselves devote their best effort to fulfilling its goals.
This story is the same in Africa, in the Middle East, and in Asia. Wherever nations are willing to help themselves, we stand ready to help them build new bulwarks of freedom. We are not purchasing votes for the cold war; we have gone to the aid of imperiled nations, neutrals and allies alike. What we do ask--and all that we ask--is that our help be used to best advantage, and that their own efforts not be diverted by needless quarrels with other independent nations.
Despite all its past achievements, the continued progress of the Mutual Assistance Program requires a persistent discontent with present performance. We have been reorganizing this program to make it a more effective, efficient instrument--and that process will continue this year.
But free world development will still be an uphill struggle. Government aid can only supplement the role of private investment, trade expansion, commodity stabilization, and, above all, internal self-improvement. The processes of growth are gradual--bearing fruit in a decade, not a day. Our successes will be neither quick nor dramatic. But if these programs were ever to be ended, our failures in a dozen countries would be sudden and certain.
Neither money nor technical assistance, however, can be our only weapon against poverty. In the end, the crucial effort is one of purpose, requiring the fuel of finance but also a torch of idealism. And nothing carries the spirit of this American idealism more effectively to the far corners of the earth than the American Peace Corps.
A year ago, less than 900 Peace Corps volunteers were on the job. A year from now they will number more than 9,000--men and women, aged 18 to 79, willing to give 2 years of their lives to helping people in other lands.
There are, in fact, nearly a million Americans serving their country and the cause of freedom in overseas posts, a record no other people can match. Surely those of us who stay at home should be glad to help indirectly; by supporting our aid programs; .by opening our doors to foreign visitors and diplomats and students; and by proving, day by day, by deed as well as word, that we are a just and generous people.
VI.
Third, what comfort can we take from the increasing strains and tensions within the Communist bloc? Here hope must be tempered with caution. For the Soviet-Chinese disagreement is over means, not ends. A dispute over how best to bury the free world is no grounds for Western rejoicing.
Nevertheless, while a strain is not a fracture, it is clear that the forces of diversity are at work inside the Communist camp, despite all the iron disciplines of regimentation and all the iron dogmatisms of ideology. Marx is proven wrong once again: for it is the closed Communist societies, not the free and open societies which carry within themselves the seeds of internal disintegration.
The disarray of the Communist empire has been heightened by two other formidable forces. One is the historical force of nationalism--and the yearning of all men to be free. The other is the gross inefficiency of their economies. For a closed society is not open to ideas of progress--and a police state finds that it cannot command the grain to grow.
New nations asked to choose between two competing systems need only compare conditions in East and West Germany, Eastern and Western Europe, North and South Viet-Nam. They need only compare the disillusionment of Communist Cuba with the promise of the Alliance for Progress. And all the world knows that no successful system builds a wall to keep its people in and freedom out--and the wall of shame dividing Berlin is a symbol of Communist failure.
VII.
Finally, what can we do to move from the present pause toward enduring peace? Again I would counsel caution. I foresee no spectacular reversal in Communist methods or goals. But if all these trends and developments can persuade the Soviet Union to walk the path of peace, then let her know that all free nations will journey with her. But until that choice is made, and until the world can develop a reliable system of international security, the free peoples have no choice but to keep their arms nearby.
This country, therefore, continues to require the best defense in the world--a defense which is suited to the sixties. This means, unfortunately, a rising defense budget--for there is no substitute for adequate defense, and no "bargain basement" way of achieving it. It means the expenditure of more than $15 billion this year on nuclear weapons systems alone, a sum which is about equal to the combined defense budgets of our European Allies.
But it also means improved air and missile defenses, improved civil defense, a strengthened anti-guerrilla capacity and, of prime importance, more powerful and flexible non-nuclear forces. For threats of massive retaliation may not deter piecemeal aggression--and a line of destroyers in a quarantine, or a division of well-equipped men on a border, may be more useful to our real security than the multiplication of awesome weapons beyond all rational need.
But our commitment to national safety is not a commitment to expand our military establishment indefinitely. We do not dismiss disarmament as merely an idle dream. For we believe that, in the end, it is the only way to assure the security of all without impairing the interests of any. Nor do we mistake honorable negotiation for appeasement. While we shall never weary in the defense of freedom, neither shall we ever abandon the pursuit of peace.
In this quest, the United Nations requires our full and continued support. Its value in serving the cause of peace has been shown anew in its role in the West New Guinea settlement, in its use as a forum for the Cuban crisis, and in its task of unification in the Congo. Today the United Nations is primarily the protector of the small and the weak, and a safety valve for the strong. Tomorrow it can form the framework for a world of law--a world in which no nation dictates the destiny of another, and in which the vast resources now devoted to destructive means will serve constructive ends.
In short, let our adversaries choose. If they choose peaceful competition, they shall have it. If they come to realize that their ambitions cannot succeed--if they see their "wars of liberation" and subversion will ultimately fail--if they recognize that there is more security in accepting inspection than in permitting new nations to master the black arts of nuclear war--and if they are willing to turn their energies, as we are, to the great unfinished tasks of our own peoples--then, surely, the areas of agreement can be very wide indeed: a clear understanding about Berlin, stability in Southeast Asia, an end to nuclear testing, new checks on surprise or accidental attack, and, ultimately, general and complete disarmament.
VIII.
For we seek not the worldwide victory of one nation or system but a worldwide victory of man. The modern globe is too small, its weapons are too destructive, and its disorders are too contagious to permit any other kind of victory.
To achieve this end, the United States will continue to spend a greater portion of its national production than any other people in the free world. For 15 years no other free nation has demanded so much of itself. Through hot wars and cold, through recession and prosperity, through the ages of the atom and outer space, the American people have never faltered and their faith has never flagged. If at times our actions seem to make life difficult for others, it is only because history has made life difficult for us all.
But difficult days need not be dark. I think these are proud and memorable days in the cause of peace and freedom. We are proud, for example, of Major Rudolf Anderson who gave his life over the island of Cuba. We salute Specialist James Allen Johnson who died on the border of South Korea. We pay honor to Sergeant Gerald Pendell who was killed in Viet-Nam. They are among the many who in this century, far from home, have died for our country. Our task now, and the task of all Americans is to live up to their commitment.
My friends: I close on a note of hope. We are not lulled by the momentary calm of the sea or the somewhat clearer skies above. We know the turbulence that lies below, and the storms that are beyond the horizon this year. But now the winds of change appear to be blowing more strongly than ever, in the world of communism as well as our own. For 175 years we have sailed with those winds at our back, and with the tides of human freedom in our favor. We steer our ship with hope, as Thomas Jefferson said, "leaving Fear astern."
Today we still welcome those winds of change--and we have every reason to believe that our tide is running strong. With thanks to Almighty God for seeing us through a perilous passage, we ask His help anew in guiding the "Good Ship Union."
State of the Union Address: John F. Kennedy (January 14, 1963)
Once again, the young President shows the world how to be President of the United States of America.
He had little more than one year to live... but during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he kept the Military Industrial Complex from taking over our government... at the time.
London sources said yesterday that Secretary of State Rusk would canvass French and West German views on the status to be accorded East Germany in case his negotiations with Moscow approach a Berlin settlement. Mr. Rusk intends to raise the topic at the NATO meeting this week in Athens. Washington and London have already agreed that no trace of legality should be conferred on the East German regime, but Mr. Rusk wants to work out a full Allied position on East Germany before negotiating the subject with the Russians.
President Kennedy got a cool response when he addressed the annual meeting of the United States Chamber of Commerce and told the business men that his Administration did not want to set prices. In an effort to ease bitterness aroused by the steel price episode, he said he hoped it would mark a turn for the better in Government-business relations. But the only time he was interrupted by applause was when he said: "We in the National Government have a large stake in your profits." And the chamber's president, Richard Wagner, said pointedly that both business and labor must be free to make decisions without Government intervention.
The Atomic Energy Commission has become the first Federal unit to give its employees and job applicants the right to confront their accusers in security cases. The step could lead to revised security policies in other agencies.
The Justice Department brought its first action to have a Southern voting official held in contempt for failing to register qualified Negroes despite a court order barring discrimination.
A belief is growing within the Administration that the United States should not hold further atmospheric nuclear tests after the current series. These tests are expected to have a total explosive force equal to about one-fifth of all the nuclear energy unleashed by American blasts since 1945.
Maj. Gherman S. Titov, a man of relatively few words, directed some of them at earth-bound diplomats, frantic stockbrokers and New York traffic. The Soviet astronaut visited the United Nations, where Adlai E. Stevenson asked him whether it would be feasible for the Security Council to tour outer space. "Have you got things settled here on earth?" Major Titov countered. At the Stock Exchange (where he was both cheered and booed) he commented: "Everything was very clear in outer space. Here, nothing is clear."
May 2, 1962
The East Germans, displayed some new military equipment as their troops goose-stepped in Berlin's Marx-Engels Platz. The parade included a squad of ground-to-air missiles said to be of the type that allegedly downed Francis Gary Powers' U-2 plane. This was the first indication that Moscow had given such arms to a satellite state.
The Yugoslavs sprang a surprise, too, by parading twenty new Soviet-made T-54 tanks. Belgrade sources suggested they had been purchased in a straight commercial deal.
The West made an arms deal of its own. Britain, West Germany, and the United States will finance the development of Britain's revolutionary P-1127 strike and reconnaissance plane, which would be able to take off and land vertically.
President Kennedy's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy recommended greater Government activity, influence and power in collective bargaining. The panel proposed rewriting a section of the Taft-Hartley Act to give the President more authority and flexibility to deal with industrial conflicts that threaten national interests. Specifically, an emergency dispute board would be empowered to recommend settlement terms and the President would be allowed to require a resumption of work for eighty days without going to court.
President Kennedy's relations with the American Medical Association were less than harmonious. He and seven A.M.A. leaders discussed the best way to finance old-age medical care, but both sides agreed later that neither had made the slightest dent in the other's views.
Mr. Kennedy signed a bill authorizing $32,000,000 for expanded educational television.
Mayor Wagner called at the White House to give President Kennedy a list of suggested Democratic nominees for New York's fall election.
Thurgood Marshall finally gets Senate hearing.
May 3, 1962
India accused Communist China of creating conflict and tension among Asian nations. It was believed to be the first time in the Chinese-Indian Himalayan border dispute that India had openly criticized Chinese relations with other Asian nations. An Indian note to Peiping sharply rejected the often-repeated contention by the Chinese that they were non-aggressive.
President Kennedy's free trade proposals created a heated debate and a policy reversal at the United States Chamber of Commerce convention in Washington. A resolution on the domestic-relief provisions of the President's bill was killed by protectionist-minded delegates, but then reinstated.
The first megaton-range explosion was set off by the United States in the current Pacific nuclear tests. The Atomic Energy Commission said that a detonation in the "low megaton yield range" took place at about 2 P.M. (E.D.T.) in the vicinity of Christmas Island. A megaton is equivalent to the explosive force of 1,000,000 tons of TNT. It was believed that the explosion had the force of a few megatons. The two previous explosions were of less than a megaton.
Stahr quits Army post to head Indiana University.
Kennedy intervenes in fight over food agency.
Kennedy farm bill stalled again in committee.
Titov and Glenn to call on Kennedy today.
May 4, 1962
The dispute between the United States and West Germany over American talks with the Soviet Union appeared to be nearing a solution. Secretary of State Dean Rusk insisted at Athens, that the West Germans must agree to negotiate with East Germans. They agreed it would be "well worth exploring."
President Kennedy ordered the military to cut back orders for nuclear warheads by several thousands, according to Pentagon sources. Existing stockpiles will not be altered and the reduction will mostly affect small, battlefield-type weapons.
A Presidential emergency board recommended wage increases for 500,000 non-operating employees of the nation's railroads. It classified the increases as "non-inflationary." It also asked for a change in the spirit with which railroads and non-operating unions had been facing labor problems.
Major Gherman S. Titov and Lieut. Col. John H, Glenn, Jr. discussed their space experiences in Washington before a group of international scientists. Major Titov provided some new details of his twenty-five-hour flight.
Congressional Republican leaders called for a Congressional investigation of the Department of Agriculture. The Billie Sol Estes scandal of Texas was mentioned prominently. Senator Everett Dirksen told a news conference that the Estes scandal was only a symptom of a basic sickness in the department.
Senator John Tower of Texas gave the Peace Corps its first blast on Capitol Hill since the Nigeria post-card incident eight months ago. He charged that a 65-year-old constituent, Mrs. Janie F. Clethcer, had been subjected to abuse and dropped without justification from training in Puerto Rico.
President hears Gorbach on Austria's aims.
Kennedy moves to quiet Reserve-cut fears.
Kennedy urges stronger attack on school segregation.
May 5, 1962
The United States fired a middle-size nuclear device, its fourth in the Pacific tests.
New Orleans gave President Kennedy an enthusiastic welcome on his arrival to deliver two addresses. Almost a quarter million people cheered him. Fears that his civil rights policies might provoke hostility proved groundless.
The President chose the ceremonial opening of a huge New Orleans wharf as a dramatic setting to promote his plans for liberalized trade. He said the country was moving toward full trade partnership with all free nations. To facilitate this, he urged Congress to pass the Trade Expansion bill intact. The United States, he warned, faced an economic choice: "trade or fade."
An Agriculture Department employee confronted his superiors at a news conference and charged that officials had shown "favoritism" to the indicted Texas financier, Billie Sol Estes. To the employee's face, a key official immediately branded the story "a complete lie." The department had called the conference to let the employee speak.
United States ordered G.I.ís in Vietnam to lie.
U. S. worried by reports of India's buying MIG's.
May 6, 1962
The United States committed five fully equipped Polaris missile-firing submarines to the North Atlantic alliance yesterday. At a secret session of the NATO Council meeting in Athens, Secretary of Defense McNamara also said that the entire Atlantic Polaris force--expected to total forty-one submarines--would be pledged to NATO. The five already committed carry eighty nuclear missiles. The immediate effect of the Administration's action was to create a NATO nuclear deterrent.
American military sources supported Laotian charges that Communist Chinese troops temporarily invaded northern Laos last week to help Pathet Lao forces capture Muong Sing.
A leading House Republican said that the Administration's Trade Expansion bill must be revised "in many details" to win broad bipartisan support. Representative John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin said he believed the Ways and Means Committee--of which he is the second-ranking G.O.P. member--would go a long way toward making needed changes. President Kennedy called Friday for passage of the bill undiminished by crippling amendments in order to forge a true trade partnership among free nations.
John B. Connally, Jr., former Secretary of the Navy in the Kennedy Administration, led a field of six Democrats in the Texas gubernatorial primary. Former Major General Edwin A. Walker was running last.
Kennedy to name W.C. Battle envoy to Australia.
May 7, 1962
The United States yesterday exploded the nuclear warhead of a Polaris missile fired by a submarine in the Pacific. It was the fifth test in the current series and the first time this country had set off an atomic warhead carried by a long-range missile. Its force was not disclosed, but a regular Polaris is said to have the explosive power of 500,000 tons of TNT.
Americans at the NATO talks in Athens said France, which has been at odds with Washington on nuclear policy, would share fully in a new system of Allied consultations on the uses of American atomic forces in Europe. French acceptance of United States proposals for sharing nuclear information was called one of the meeting's major results.
At the NATO parley, it was disclosed that American World War II Victory ships loaded with tanks and other arms had been stationed off Southeast Asia, where they could give support to any United States action in South Vietnam.
In Laos, royal troops were reported quitting the provincial capital of Nam Tha after major attacks by pro-Communist units.
It is apparently good men like Tom Wicker that frustrate me most and I can not understand... over time, they had to know what they reported about the Assassination of President Kennedy was wrong... but they never said anything... and I understand if they were fed false info, etc... but at some point... they had to look in the mirror and admit that the officail story just does not work...
Wicker's reporting for the New York Times on 11/22/63 was what he hung his reputation on... I know it was not his entire life... but his life was certianly lived in the shadow of that day... as all of our lives have been... so in the end... he did more harm that good with his reporting.
“He was the great orator of the white New Left,” Todd Gitlin, a Columbia University professor who was the president of S.D.S. from 1963 to 1964, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “His voice was a well-practiced instrument.”
...Mr. Oglesby’s speech “Let Us Shape the Future,” delivered at an antiwar rally in Washington on Nov. 27, 1965, is considered a landmark of American political rhetoric. In it, he condemned the “corporate liberalism” — American economic interests disguised as anti-Communist benevolence — that, he argued, underpinned the Vietnam War...
“For all our official feeling for the millions who are enslaved to what we so self-righteously call the yoke of Communist tyranny,” Mr. Oglesby said that day, “we make no real effort at all to crack through the much more vicious right-wing tyrannies that our businessmen traffic with and our nation profits from every day.”
He bet the ranch on the movement,” he said. “He transplanted his world, radically. I think part of his power as an orator was that you could sense that he was bringing his whole self into this. He was at stake. It wasn’t a role; it was a life.”
His book The Yankee and Cowboy War was a major influence on my conspiracy theory worldview.
Not sure what the conundrum has been. If you simply take about 1/2 hour and listen to the actuall tapes of President John Kennedy and his advisers discussing the withdrawal options from Vietnam in 1963... it is pretty clear what JFK was going to do... withdrawal from Vietnam... if there is a debate, it is over 1964 (pre-Election) or 1965 (post-Election).
Could someone please call Texas... that's where our history books are written.
From The New York Times archive: August 15, 1961 -
"As an uneasy quiet prevailed on the border between East and West Berlin, the East German Communists tightened their squeeze on the Western sectors early today. The East German Interior Ministry announced that vehicles from West Berlin must have permits to cross into the Communist zone. (pg. 1:8)
Adenauer said the West might have to decide on a total trade embargo of the Soviet bloc if Moscow did not agree to reasonable negotiations with NATO. (1:7)
President Kennedy was said to have decided on vigorous protests and propaganda on Berlin. But extreme countermeasures were ruled out as too likely to lead to war. (1:6-7)"
It is the 50th anniversary of what has become know in the history books as The Berlin Crisis of 1961. As part of the terrorist-corporate media's rewriting of those American history books, we have lots of badly researched and false analysis in the Press (TV, radio, books, websites) of President Kennedy's handling of the political crisis. This weekend, our conservative pundists are slobbering all over the latest revisionist histoy book by Frederick Kempe.
President Kennedy faced crisis after crisis in the early 1960's as the military industrial complex fought to take hold of the reigns of power in America. By 1963, JFK was a different man, a different President than he was on his Inauguration Day. He had been through the fire of handling these crisis and by 1963, had become the great President we still honor today... just listen to his speeches from 1963... it would have been a very different America if he had not been assassinated in Dallas in November of that year.
Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:34 PM This thread concerns Kennedy's "Berlin policy," and the recently published book by Frederick Kempe, "Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth." The Kempe book revives a very important issue, one that author Richard Reeves analyzed in depth 18 years ago in his book, "President Kennedy: Profile of Power." I thought I'd start this thread, to put the matter in context.
In my opinion, understanding what happened in Berlin in the "summer of '61" (and in what is called "the Berlin Crisis") is critical to understanding what followed in the Kennedy administration in the area of JFK's foreign policy towards Cuba and--consequently--Berlin figures as another marker on the road to Dallas.
I have not read Kempe's book (just yet) but those interested in this subject should be aware that the basic situation JFK was facing in Berlin is narrated (and analyzed, in considerable detail), in author Richard Reeves' 1993 book "President Kennedy: Profile of Power." What is known as the Berlin crisis began on 6/4/61, when JFK met Khrushchev in Vienna (at what is sometimes referred to as the "Vienna Summit"), and Khrushchev delivered an ugly, fist-banging ultimatum: that he was going to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany, that access to Berlin (located over 100 miles inside East Germany) would then be controlled by East Germany (and the Communist regime of Walter Ulbricht) and the west be damned.
Kennedy was faced with this ugly ultimatum and the problem of what to do about it. For a brief while, what actually happened in Vienna, and the full extent of Khrushchev's ultimatum was not made public.
What happened next: The hawks in JFK's administration clustered around former Secretary of State Dean Acheson who, on 6/28/61, wrote a critical memo that defined the parameters of the situation. Acheson decided that Berlin was the place to face down the Soviets,once and for all. Acheson's memo instructed Kennedy to "prepare for war. . .nuclear war." Siding with Acheson were the JCS AND Vice President Johnson--yes "and Vice President Johnson". Moreover, the JCS sought authority to use tactical nukes to defend West Berlin (can you believe that? Well, its true).
Kennedy sought to find a way to avoid war, and to maneuver around this dangerous situation, and convince Khrushchev that he meant business. His brain trust consisted of Sorenson, Schlesinger, Mansfield---and a young MIT whiz named Thomas Schelling, an expert in game theory. (You can buy his books on game theory on Amazon).
As events unfolded, Kennedy learned (to his distress) that Khrushchev did not care what Kennedy said--only what he did. So: Kennedy basically had to bluff Khrushchev--publicly--but the stakes were huge and the risks were terrible. A strategy had to be devised that projected the credible appearance that Kennedy would in fact go to war over Berlin, without actually going to war. For Kennedy, it was touchy, scarey, and just plain awful. He had to tread a very fine line.
JFK went on TV on July 25, 1961, calling for increased money, calling up reserves, increasing draft calls, etc. There were also very serious (and secret) back channel communications, involving Bobby Kennedy and the Russian spy Bolshakov.
The bottom line: Kennedy made the decision that what counted (i.e., what he ultimately wanted) was Western access to West Berlin--that he could not be responsible for what East German did in its zone (i.e., the Soviet Zone). In other words, JFK made the decision that the U.S. would not go to war to protect the "freedom" of East Berlin--just the freedom of West Berlin. That's where he drew the line.
Most important: JFK was able to "walk in the other guy's shoes." He understood that East Germany was hemorrhaging at the rate of 2,000 per day. So he understood that the East German government was going to have to do something about that.
Kennedy was (apparently) hoping that the East German government would simply seal off their own border, and solve their political problem that way. And in fact, Senator Fulbright, in a national TV appearance on "Issues and Answers," signaled that that would in fact be acceptable to the U.S.
The public response to JFK's 7/25/61 speech was very positive. Hugely positive, in fact.
Behind the scenes, much of JFK's strategy was dictated by his conferring with Thomas Schelling. (All this is spelled out in Reeves).
During this very dangerous period, after the July 25, 1961 nationwide TV address (but before the Wall went up [8/14/61] which marked "the end" of the Berlin Crisis ), Bobby Kennedy thought the chances of a major nuclear war were one in five. Yes, one in five. It was that serious.
The "resolution" of the crisis was the erection of the Berlin Wall on 8/14/61. As explained by Reeves, that avoided a nuclear war in Europe. No question about it.
Its all spelled out in Richard Reeves; and you've got to read BOTH the text, AND the footnotes.
The Berlin Crisis --starting on 6/4/61 and ending on 8/14/61--is every bit as hair raising as the Cuban Missile Crisis the following year. But Kennedy played it down, after it was over. No proclamations were made. Just two key news stories--one in the NY Times and the other in the Washington Post--explaining the "real-politik" of the situation, and that the Wall marked the end of what had been a dangerous situation.
From a memo in my files that I wrote three years ago. . .:
QUOTE: I've read through Reeves' chapters (and all the footnotes) very carefully, and now have a much greater understanding of what happened between June 4 and August 14 (1961) It seems clear to me that "the Berlin Crisis" is almost as dramatic as the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the details are not known because many of the most fundamental documents (including the official record of the JFK-Khr meeting of June 4, 1961) were not available until the 1990s, and both Schlesinger AND Sorenson hid the true nature of the frightening way Khrushchev behaved on June 4, in delivering his ultimatum. (So did Hugh Sidey, who also--apparently--had access to the official notes of the meeting.) Again, Reeves' book was not written until 1993, and the other key sources on which he relies. . .. UNQUOTE
Here's another passage:
QUOTE:
Anyway, nuclear war was avoided because of some very sophisticated maneuvering by JFK (and Sorenson, and Schlesinger, and probably RFK, too) that was on a par with-and completely equivalent to--the strategic maneuvering and tactical thinking that JFK again employed during the much more well known Cuban missile crisis, which commenced fourteen months later, and lasted for the famous period known as "13 days." UNQUOTE
And another:
QUOTE: "However, in the lead-up to the climax--which extended through must of June, and into July (and which ended with a major nationwide TV address by JFK on the address of 7/25)--former Secretary State Dean Acheson (who was called in as an adviser) weighed in with a critical memo (6/28/61)--a very hawkish document recommending that JFK prepare for nuclear war over Berlin. The JCS wanted to use nukes, too. In the key meetings, LBJ sided with Acheson and the JCS.
In this [memo], I cannot possibly adequately summarize the complex situation, but the story of how JFK maneuvered through this diplomatic and military minefield is all laid out in Reeves' 1993 book--IF you not only read the text, but also the footnotes.
What I learned from this is that its not possible to understand how JFK/RFK approached Cuba (with Mongoose, starting in October/Nov 1961) if one does not understand what happened in the 10-week period between June 4 and August 14, and which must have been a thoroughly terrifying experience (and a prelude, of course, to what happened in October 1962, when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba). UNQUOTE
Here's some more background. During the crisis (and apparently as part of the strategy), JFK authorized Joseph Alsop to air his personal views in a Saturday Review article. The headline of the Alsop Saturday Review article: "The Most Important Decision in U.S. History—And How the President is Facing It"
Now, focus this language (QUOTING ALSOP, reporting Kennedy's thinking):
* * * The decision, as Alsop phrased it, was “Whether the United States should risk something close to national suicide in order to avoid national surrender.” UNQUOTE
Kennedy knew he had to avoid appeasement, or even the appearance of it. "What he said to insiders: If he wants to rub my nose in it. . its over."
"It's over" meant just that--that if, after all JFK did, Khrushchev insisted on "taking" Berlin (via the use of its proxy, the East German government) there would indeed be war.
From my notes on JFK's 7/25/63 Berlin Speech:
JFK addresses the nation—and played his hand, to show how serious he was, designed to make Khrushchev "pay attention":
--tripled draft calls --Personal sacrifice neccessary --fallout shelters --More $ for military (put in details)
I don't know how this data is treated in Kempe's book (my copy is on order from Amazon). What I'm laying out here is how author Richard Reeves dealt with this remarkable situation in his really excellent 1993 book--and remember, that was 18 years ago.
There's little question in my mind that the prospect of nuclear war was very serious--as I said above, Bobby Kennedy estimated the chances at 1 in 5.
There's also no question that JFK's key adversary, politically, was former Secretary State Dean Acheson (supported by the JCS AND Vice President Johnson). Acheson, in the aftermath, viewed Kennedy as an "uninformed" young man, who was "out of his depth," etc. When Kennedy navigated the dangerous Cuban Missile Crisis, 14 months later, he (Acheson) called the positive outcome "pure dumb luck."
(If you want to understand the nature of "political forces" that were allied against Kennedy, it wasn't just people like Lyman Lemnitzer and Curtis Lemay. One cannot ignore Acheson.)
So much for what you will find in Reeves book. . now, here are some of my own views.
DSL PERSONAL VIEWS ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BERLIN CRISIS AND SUBSEQUENT CUBA POLICY
FIRST: Kennedy's failure to "knock down the wall" (and other such crazy ideas) was viewed, by the top political/military leadership, as on a par with his failure to send in the Marines in connection with the Bay of Pigs. So to those people, by August, 1961, Kennedy was an out and out appeaser, and it looked this way:
--March 1961: Kennedy failed to go into Laos with troops, as advocated by Sec State Dean Rusk
--April 1961 Kennedy failed at the Bay of Pigs
--August 1961 Kennedy failed to knock down the Berlin Wall
To me, this kind of "analysis" is sheer lunacy, but. . and here's where I am heading. .
SECOND: when it came to Cuba, and the fall of 1961. . I don't believe that John Kennedy was going to risk another brush with thermonuclear war because of what he viewed as a revolutionary out-of-control Marxist in the Caribbean, whose associate, Che Guevara, was fomenting revolution in South America.
Consequently--and this is just my opinion--understanding what happened in Berlin (circa 6/4/61 - 8/14/61) is essential to understanding the "moral calculus" or "ethical calculus" that motivated Kennedy in deciding --if necessary--to treat Castro (personally) as a military target and overthrow his regime, rather than risk a rerun of the frightening experience he (and brother Robert) had just had in Berlin. (And can you blame them?)
So that, imho, explains his calling in Tad Szulc, and asking: "What would you say if I gave the order to assassinate Castro?" etc. He simply had no intention of losing his presidency by being "tolerant" of a Marxist regime 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
What's amazing to me, once you read Reeves, is how Sorenson played it down, in his book, and even in Counselor, his recently published memoir published just a year or so prior to his death. I think that he simply didn't want to let the world know that Kennedy had played nuclear poker. Again, that's my opinion.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading Kempe's book, but I don't think I will agree with his conclusions, at all.
There's little question in my mind that, as historian Robert Dallek correctly has said (and Dallek probably has pored over all the same documents that Reeves had, and to which Kempe had access) that this was THE single most dangerous crisis (other than the Cuban Missile Crisis).
I really do not believe that how JFK viewed the "world stage" and the rapidly evolving events, and the problem posed by his own recalcitrant military can be properly understood without appreciating the super-charged Berlin crisis (6/4-8/14/61), and how it ended without a war (on 8/14/61) BECAUSE OF "the wall."
As JFK said on 8/14/61: "Better a wall, than a war" (from memory).
I agree. We're here today, and the map of Europe looks the way it does, because of how that crisis was handled.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
Kempe talks of his visit to East Berlin, and his traverse through Checkpoint Charlie. I had the same experience, but at a much earlier time. As I write this post, I have in front of me my passport from 1961, when I was briefly living in Paris, and in general, was touring Europe in a VW "bug" that I purchased when I first arrived. The Wall was big news--all over the world--and I and a companion, a Fulbright Scholar, set out from Paris and went to Berlin. We entered East Germany on August 30, 1961 (at Helmstedt) and were in Berlin in a few hours. As U.S. citizens, we had the right to go into the "eastern zone," and that's what we did. I have some vivid memories of that day--just two weeks after the Wall went up. Checkpoint Charlie--the crossing point on the Frederichstrasse, looked exactly as it did in the movie "The Spy That Came in from the Cold." Parked nearby were the U.S. tanks, that had been involved in the famous standoff. As we passed through Checkpoint Charlie, off to one side were men with microphones, taking down everyone's license number. We spent several hours in East Berlin (which was akin to a poor section of Brooklyn) with some buildings emblazoned with large posters of Soviet astronaut Yuri Gargarin, and then returned to the glass and steel beauty of West Berlin. It was a memorable experience.
Of course, at the time I had no idea of the behind the scenes policy debates that were going on. Or how close the world had come to the outbreak of a nuclear war in Europe.
August 13, 1961: To halt the exodus of East Germans to the West, Communist party brigades and East German soldiers early today blocked the border between East and West Berlin. All means of exit roads, subways and elevated lines, were closed. East German commuters who work in West Berlin will be barred from reaching their jobs tomorrow. East German troops took up guard posts at the Brandenburg Gate and elsewhere. (pg. 1:1)
The Kennedy Administration believes that the Berlin dispute can be talked out peacefully later this year. But there is concern for the cohesion of the Western alliance in the coming weeks, when pressures for a quick settlement are expected to increase. (1:2-3)
Troops in East Germany have sealed the border between East and West Berlin, shutting off the escape route for thousands of refugees from the East.
Barbed wire fences up to six feet (1.83 metres) high were put up during the night, and Berliners woke this morning to find themselves living in a divided city.
Train services between the two sectors of the city have been cut, and all road traffic across the border has been stopped.
Thousands of angry demonstrators quickly gathered on the West Berlin side of the divide. At one crossing point, protesters tried to trample down the barbed wire, only to be driven back by guards with bayonets.
The West German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, appealed for calm, saying in a broadcast to the nation this evening: "Now, as always, we are closely bound to the Germans of the Russian zone and East Berlin.
"They are and remain our German brothers and sisters. The Federal Government remains firmly committed to the goal of German unity."
There has been outrage from the international community at the abrupt decision to cut off one side of the city from the other.
A Foreign Office spokesman in London said the restrictions were contrary to the four-power status of Berlin, and therefore illegal.
The American Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, called it a "flagrant violation" of East-West agreements, and said there would be a vigorous protest to Russia.
The tide of people fleeing East Germany has grown to a flood in recent days, as the Soviet Union has taken an increasingly hard line over breaking away from the three Allied powers and forming a separate peace treaty with East Germany over Berlin.
Nearly 12,500 people left East Germany this week - over 2,000 more than the previous week.
The East German government has been taking desperate measures to stem the flow. Yesterday, border guards were intercepting trains near Berlin and interrogating passengers. Those who arrived in Berlin said only one in 10 was allowed through.
There had been rumours of a decisive crackdown on refugees since the East German parliament met yesterday and approved new, unspecified measures against them.
The rumours provoked an even more frantic exodus. Just before the borders were closed, the numbers more than doubled, with some 3,000 East Germans fleeing to the West in just 24 hours.
-President signs bill extending Social Security benefits to five million people and permitting people to retire with benefits at age 62.
-President signs most comprehensive Housing Bill in history, initiating aid to middle income families and mass transportation users, and increasing urban renewal and elderly housing.
In his speech the President addresses the new foreign aid program and the need to overturn communist regimes in order to end social and economic injustice.
Kennedy's take on how to win the world over to our side had more to do with social and economic justice than bombers and troop deployments.
Following his assassination in 1963, America did not continue to follow along his path...
If you want the short version... skip to 12 minutes in.
The real hilarity with the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg's leaking them to the press, is they caught the Nixon White House in the middle of forging and changing some documents to obfuscate the Kennedy Years.
And they weren't the only ones, try and piece together the NSAM trail from JFK's White House... it is riddle wrapped in an enigma.
History records that Khrushchev spoke and stormed and hollered. There may have even been some shoe banging. Kennedy listened and squirmed and wondered what the hell was going on with this guy.
The meeting was behind closed doors, like so many things back then. The perception from the meeting was Khrushchev perceived JFK as young, inexperienced and weak, weak enough to build a wall in Berlin and send missiles to Cuba.
Kennedy’s experience was one I think Americans aren’t used to, he listened, he didn’t like what he heard, but he too, took the measure of his man, and the egalitarian statesman Kennedy was raised to be came to the surface. He did not bang his shoe on the Viennese table tops, but when it came time for the sound bite over the future of Berlin:
Khrushchev: “Force will be met by force. If the US wants war, that's its problem." "It's up to the US to decide whether there will be war or peace." Kennedy: "Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be a war. It will be a cold, long winter."
And a long cold winter it was.
But as we have learned from our history, the leaders of the two most powerful nations on earth were not calling all the shots. By 1964, both man was no longer on the world stage. JFK was assassinated in 1963 and Khrushchev was removed from power a year later.
The Vienna Summit is a fascinating study for students of history and diplomacy and for politicians. How did both men approach the summit? How did both men handled themselves and each other? What were the results?
History is still being written, new books and new archive documents are coming out every year. What I find interesting is that the two men did not blow up the world as some thought possible, instead they managed to bring a lasting peace and a road map to future peace between Soviet Union and the United States.
Khrushchev wept upon hearing the news of JFK’s assassination... Maybe he knew that forces larger than him and the young leader he met in Vienna were on the move and in the end, neither man was the maker of his final destiny… or that of his nation.
I could think of a lot worse scenarios if these two men were not at the helm of their nations in 1961.
It is the 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's first Presidential year... 1961.
Here is a nice piece of history from 50 years ago today, June 2, 1961: President Kennedy speaks to the French Press (and even takes some questions in french).
Audio recording of President John F. Kennedy’s remarks at a Press Club luncheon held at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. In his address the President thanks the French people for their hospitality during his visit and famously introduces himself, stating, “I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris—and I have enjoyed it!”
President Kennedy then acknowledges three major changes in the world since World War II: economic growth and reconstruction in Europe, increasing concerns about nuclear warfare, and new global threats to human liberty and economic stability.
The President’s speech is followed by a press question and answer session on various topics, including the President’s scheduled meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, mutual security between European nations and the United States, and the strengths of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Part of the question and answer session takes place in French.
The recording cuts off abruptly during one speaker and contains some distortion.
It is the 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's first Presidential year... 1961.
Here is his inspiring We Choose To Go To The Moon speech delivered at Rice University on May 25, 1961.
The stuff dreams are made of...
And here is a fascinating historical addendum to this speech released by the John F.Kennedy Presidential Library today... a declassified White House conversation JFK had with NASA Administrator James Webb discussing the future of the US space program.
The Kennedy Administration begins to leave its paper trail of National Security Action Memorandum that will twist through the dark forest of American foreign policy in the 1960s.
There are clues in these NSAMs and what becomes of them... including how they are preresented in history... that can lead us back to 11/22/63... if we dare to look.
Two minutes and 42 seconds later, the engine burn ended, and Shepard was traveling faster than any American before him: 5,134 mph. The capsule separated from the booster rocket, and he was weightless. He took control, firing retrorockets on NASA's commands, adjusting the Mercury's position on all three axes."
The Freedom Riders were split between two buses. They travelled in integrated seating and visited "white only" restaurants. When they reached Anniston on 14th May the Freedom Riders were attacked by men armed with clubs, bricks, iron pipes and knives. One of the buses was fire-bombed and the mob held the doors shut, intent on burning the riders to death..."
Operation 40 was a Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored undercover operation in the early 1960s, which was active in the United States and the Caribbean (including Cuba), Central America, and Mexico.
It was created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in March 1960, after the January 1959 Cuban Revolution, and was presided over by Vice-president Richard Nixon.
The group included Frank Sturgis (who would later become one of the Watergate burglars); Felix Rodriguez (a CIA officer who later was involved in the capture and summary execution of Che Guevara); Luis Posada Carriles (held in the US in 2010 on charges of illegal immigration, he is demanded by Venezuela for his key role in the execution of the 1976 Cubana Flight 455 bombing); Orlando Bosch (founder of the counterrevolutionary Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations, CORU), that organized the 1976 murder of Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier); Rafael 'Chi Chi' Quintero; Virgilio Paz Romero; Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz; Bernard Barker; Porter Goss; and Barry Seal.
Members took part in the April 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion directed against the government of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
It is the 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's first Presidential year... 1961.
"On the night of 16-17 April 1961, when the relatively young President needed the advice of the armed forces as the Bay of Pigs invasion was turning into an unmitigated fiasco, the tension between President Kennedy and Admiral Burke was palpable.
As told by Admiral Burke’s biographer, the late E.B. Potter, in the early-morning hours of 17 April, President Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, in white tie and tails, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer and Admiral Burke, in dress uniforms with medals, left the East Room, where the annual Congressional Reception had just concluded, headed for the Oval Office.
There, Richard M. Bissell of the CIA informed President Kennedy that although the situation was bad, it "could still take a favorable turn if the President would authorize sending in aircraft from the carrier."
"Burke concurred," wrote Potter. "Let me take two jets and shoot down the enemy aircraft," he urged. But President Kennedy said "No," and reminded them that he had said "over and over again" that he would not commit U.S. forces to combat. Apparently, he did not want the world to find out what it already knew, that the whole expedition had been conceived, planned, and armed by the United States.
According to Potter, "Burke suggested sending in a destroyer. Whereupon Kennedy explodes. ‘Burke.’ He snapped, ‘I don’t want the United States involved in this.’ ‘All in all, Mr. President,’ Burke snapped back, ‘but we are involved."’
All in all, not a pleasant exchange.
Admiral Burke continued as Chief of Naval Operations for three-and-a-half more months. On 1 August 1961, having completed an unprecedented third term, he relinquished his office to Admiral George W. Anderson. The change of command took place at the U.S. Naval Academy, where Admiral Burke had begun his naval service 42 years earlier."
If it is not simply ignored, it will be interesting to see how the 21st century American media report on the 50th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion. This Republican Party inspired debacle that festered and grew in the anticipation that Richard Nixon would be President of the United States in 1961, introduces to the world stage all the main players in the eventual assassination of President Kennedy in 1963.
If anyone is still interesting in the who and the why President Kennedy was shot in Dallas, Texas, I won't say look no further than, but I will say start by looking at the above exchange from E.B. Potter's biography of Admiral Burke and at the Taylor Commission.
Here are two interesting links about the 50th anniversary of Bay of Pigs invasion:
Republican politicians reversed any progress made by President Kennedy's Alliance for Progressand stopped democratic, progressive governments by any means necessary, creating even more revolutionary, anti-American fervor... leading of course to whatever the hell happened during the Ronald Reagan years.
So now we are sending President Obama, hat in hand to try to compete with the Chinese... or worse, lobby for the nuclear energy industry.
We weren't there for Latin America when they needed us and we had something to offer... so what makes us think that they are willing to listen to us now... when we have nothing.
If the nations of Central and South America had any sense at all, they would turn their backs on the United States once and for all, before we infest their countries with our cancerous, corporate fascism. I hope they don't buy whatever snake oil President Obama is trying to sell them... and if he really is just down there as a salesman for the American nuclear energy industry... well, I wouldn't be surprised.
As I posted before, JFK's Presidency is on Twitter... @Kennedy1961
The John F Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston has begun chronicling the former US president's 1,000 days in office on the micro-blogging website Twitter.
Today's tweet is about Social Security and the JFK Administration's attempts to bring what will become Medicare (after his assassination)into the Social Security System.
Here is a little run down of health care events going on in February of 1961 as President Kennedy attempts to bring that evil socialized medicine to the elderly.
February 4, 1961 The American Medical Association established its Political Action Committee (AHPAC). Its purposes included information to be provided physicians and others regarding Government activities affecting the medical profession. It especially involved a drive to prevent the passage of a health insurance program as then being advocated.
February 9, 1961 The President's Health Message was the first of its kind ever to be devoted exclusively to the need for a health care program.
February 13, 1961 H.R. 4222, the Health Insurance Benefits Act of 1961, proposing a program along the lines set forth by the President, was introduced by Representative King of California. S. 909, a companion bill, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Anderson. The House bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
February 20, 1961 President Kennedy submitted draft proposals to Congress for improvements in old-age, survivors and disability insurance programs.
(And just for good measure... let's check in on Lee Harvey Oswald in 1961... remember folks, Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, but on February 13, 1961, started writing to the U.S. Embassy asking about coming back to America...)
The John F Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston has begun chronicling the former US president's 1,000 days in office on the micro-blogging website Twitter.
The account @Kennedy1961 began posting tweets on Thursday about the former president's actions and words as they unfolded 50 years ago.
I wonder how far they are going to go with this... will we get tweets from The Warren Commission after the assassination?
I would think following the Lee Harvey Oswald time-line during the Kennedy Administration would be helpful, too.
For example, that curtain rod' carrying son-of-a-bitch was in Minsk when Kennedy gave his Inaugural Address.
Our little, home grown, lone-gunman, ex-Marine was getting home sick after defecting to the Soviet Union and he began taking the steps that would bring him back into the United States.. no questions asked... and on a collision course in Dallas, Texas.
January 4, 1961: LHO rejects Soviet citizenship, but asks that his residence permit be extended. In his diary, he confides thoughts of leaving Russia for the first time.
"In the Wisconsin primary campaign—the critical first test—the senator from Massachusetts faced Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, a hero of liberals going back to the 1948 Democratic National Convention speech in which he declared: "The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights."
As his friend, ally and aide Harris Wofford recalled, "[Shriver] badly wanted Kennedy’s nomination to come through liberal support, not through an alliance with Southern conservatives.” While the young senator was being pulled to the right by many of his allies, “Shriver hoped Kennedy would find himself responding to a convention and a campaign in which the liberal wing gave him decisive support.”
To achieve this end, Shriver came to Madison as his brother-in-law Jack’s campaign’s coordinator in the critical 2nd Congressional district. Well aware that Humphrey was a favorite in the region—especially with the liberal community that clustered around the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison—Shriver set out to build Kennedy’s credibility as a liberal."
People like Shriver and Harris Wofford were the true promise of JFK's Camelot. They were trying to forge a new America during the second half of the 20th century. They blazed a parth and made a lot of gains and left a wonderful legacy, but America didn't continue to follow.
50 years ago today, John Kennedy took the oath of office of President of The United States.
He tried very hard to put America on a safe and sure coarse. The forces of evil that eventually took over America moved in decisively. He was assassinated before his first term ended. America never recovered.
It is the 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's first Presidential year... 1961. Here is his farewell address to Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I have welcomed this opportunity to address this historic body, and, through you, the people of Massachusetts to whom I am so deeply indebted for a lifetime of friendship and trust.
For fourteen years I have placed my confidence in the citizens of Massachusetts--and they have generously responded by placing their confidence in me.
Now, on the Friday after next, I am to assume new and broader responsibilities. But I am not here to bid farewell to Massachusetts.
For forty-three years--whether I was in London, Washington, the South Pacific, or elsewhere--this has been my home; and, God willing, wherever I serve this shall remain my home.
It was here my grandparents were born--it is here I hope my grandchildren will be born.
I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has made to our national greatness.
Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.
For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: "We do not imitate--for we are a model to others."
And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in this nation's executive mansion.
They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes for the future.
Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.
But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.
"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities
For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.
History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.
Courage--judgment--integrity--dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay Colony and the Bay State--the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.
And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.
Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.
On November 25, 1963 President John F. Kennedy was buried at Arlington Cemetery. The forces of evil had won the day. They also won the world... what have they down with their victory?
The words from this scene from Oliver Stone's JFK ring true today... instead of the assassination of a President in 1963, they could be talking about the state of politics in America, 2010.
The 50th Anniversary of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy is approaching. He announced his candidacy on January 2, 1960, so every campaign speech is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
Election Day, November 8, 1960 saw a close race and the winner wasn't announced until November 9th. JFK waited until Nixon conceded before declaring victory.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I have received the following wire from Vice President Nixon. In that wire he says, "Senator John F. Kennedy, Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. I want to repeat through this wire the congratulations and best wishes I extended to you on television last night. I know that you will have united support of all Americans as you lead the nation in the cause of peace and freedom during the next four years." I reply to the vice president-- I sent him the following wire: "Vice President Nixon, Los Angeles, California. Your sincere good wishes are gratefully accepted. You are to be congratulated on a fine race. I know that the nation can continue to count on your unswerving loyalty in whatever effort you undertake, and that you and I can maintain our long-standing cordial relations in the years ahead. Sincerely, John Kennedy."
I received also a wire from President Eisenhower which says, "My congratulations to you for the victory you have just won at the polls. I will be sending you promptly a more comprehensive telegram suggesting certain measures that may commend themselves to you as you prepare to take over next January the responsibilities of the Presidency. Signed, Dwight D. Eisenhower.: And I have sent to President Eisenhower the following wire: "I am grateful for your wire and good wishes. I look forward to working with you in the near future. The whole country is hopeful that your long experience in the service of your country can be drawn upon further in the years to come. With every good wish, signed, John Kennedy."
May I say in addition to all citizens of this country, Democrats, independents, Republicans, regardless of how they may have voted, that it is a satisfying moment to me and I want to express my appreciation to all of them and to Mr. Nixon personally. I particularly want to thank all of those who worked so long and so hard in this campaign on our behalf and who were generous to me in my visits throughout the country and who were generous enough to support me in the election on yesterday. To all Americans I say that the next four years are going to be difficult and challenging years for all of us. The election may have been a close one, but I think that there is general agreement by all of our citizens that a supreme national effort will be needed in the years ahead to move this country safely through the 1960s. I ask your help in this effort and I can assure you that every degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the long-range interests of the United States and to the cause of freedom around the world. So now my wife and I prepare for a new administration and for a new baby. Thank you."
Interesting that this 50th anniversary got so little attention from the American Press. Have we forgotten JFK 50 years on? His historic Democratic Party campaign did not play in this year's campaign. I don't remember any Kennedy quotes, inspiration or stories from candidates in 2010.
The Golden Age of the Democraic Party, a friend of my called that era.
JFK did not get to serve his four years, but his prediction that the 1960s would require a supreme national effort...came true... an effort that we failed at as I look back 50 years... the promise... the promise of the Democratic Party. It is always so bright and strong and is always pulled down and stomped on by the Republican Party... that is the history of my political life time, anyway.
History is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try to hold fast is to be swept aside. - John F. Kennedy
"In the Constitutional Convention, in your suburb of Philadelphia, there was a painting of a sun behind the desk of General Washington low on the horizon, and many of the delegated wondered whether it was rising or a setting sun. And at the conclusion, Benjamin Franklin stood up. He said, "We now know. It is a rising sun, and the beginning of a great new day." - Senator John F. Kennedy on the eve of his elecion to the Presidency 1960
I find ot a bit odd that the Democratic candidates this year totally ignored President Kennedy, who 50 years ago ran his victorious and very close campaign for the Presidency. Some of the Congressional candidates today could learn a lot from his wit, intelligence, charm and bravery on the campaign trail.
We will shortly see if the Democrats are going to stay on top in Washington, DC this election year as America is still trying to battle back the same forces of Republican evil that killed JFK. The same issues are at stake. There is clearly a choice between the progressives and the conservatives... the middle ground is still a killing field of trench warfare. It is time to take a side.
The 50th Anniversary of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy is approaching. He announced his candidacy on January 2, 1960, so every campaign speech is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
On October 27, 1960 Senator Kennedy was on the move in the industrial Northeast in Michigan and stopping in New York City and Brooklyn before heading the next day to Pennsylvania.
He is having a lot of fun in this speech and so is the audience.
"...Let me say to you young Nixonites - all eight of you - (response from the audience) - let me say this: In this 20th Century both of our candidates, both parties have put up various candidates, and I believe that where we stand now and where we are going in the future can best be judged by where we have been. Hear the Republican slogans, Stand Pat with McKinley, Return to Normalcy with Harding, Keep Cool with Coolidge, A Chicken in Every Pot with Herbert Hoover, Repeal Social Security with Alf Landon, and "Had Enough?" with Thomas E. Dewey. (Applause)
Who have we run in the 20th century? Woodrow Wilson and the New Frontier, Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal - (applause) and Harry Truman and the Fair Deal - (applause) - and every one of their domestic programs had their counterpart in the international policy. The 14 points of Woodrow Wilson was the counterpart of the New Freedom. The Four Freedoms of Franklin Roosevelt were the international counterpart of the New Deal. Technical Assistance, Point IV, The Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, were all the international counterpart of the Fair Deal. Now, in 1960, the choice lies between the candidate who in this most revolutionary time runs on the slogan "You've never had it so good", versus the candidate and a party that runs on the slogan of the New Frontiers of the future. (Applause)"
The 50th Anniversary of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy is approaching. He announced his candidacy on January 2, 1960, so every campaign speech is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
On October 14, Senator Kennedy had already spent the day campaigning throughout Michigan when he arrived late at night to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and made an impromptu speech to students on the steps of their Student Union building.
His short remarks are considered the germ of the Peace Corps.
[There is a very funny moment near the end of the speech... worth a listen.]
"I think in many ways it is the most important campaign since 1933, mostly because of the problems which press upon the United States, and the opportunities which will be presented to us in the 1960s. The opportunity must be seized, through the judgment of the President, and the vigor of the executive, and the cooperation of the Congress. Through these I think we can make the greatest possible difference.
How many of you who are going to be doctors, are willing to spend your days in Ghana? Technicians or engineers, how many of you are willing to work in the Foreign Service and spend your lives traveling around the world? On your willingness to do that, not merely to serve one year or two years in the service, but on your willingness to contribute part of your life to this country, I think will depend the answer whether a free society can compete. I think it can! And I think Americans are willing to contribute. But the effort must be far greater than we have ever made in the past.
Therefore, I am delighted to come to Michigan, to this University, because unless we have those resources in this school, unless you comprehend the nature of what is being asked of you this country can't possibly move through the next ten years in a period of relative strength..."
The 50th Anniversary of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy is approaching. He announced his candidacy on January 2, 1960, so every campaign speech is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
On September 27th he gave five speeches across Ohio. In Akron, he discussed the differences between Democrats and Republicans... still rings true today.
"...The difference between Mr. Nixon and myself is the same difference that has existed for many years between the Republican and the Democratic Parties. I said on Sunday in Cleveland that I could not think of a single idea which the Republican Party had produced that constituted major new legislation on behalf of the people. The Cleveland paper today attempted to correct the record, and they mentioned the child labor work that President Taft had done 50 years ago.
They mentioned the antitrust suits that had been brought in at the time of Theodore Roosevelt. I think Theodore Roosevelt was a great Republican President. But I want to know what they have done in the last four years that has been of benefit to the people. (Applause) I don't mean that they have not come up with new legislation. The fact of the matter is that every piece of major legislation which is the hallmark of Franklin Roosevelt's administration from social security to minimum wage, from the Securities and Exchange Act to TVA, every one of those pieces of legislation was opposed - at the time they were written - by the Republican Party. They say our goals are the same. Of course, the goals of all Americans, since the beginning of this country, has been the same; a better life for our people. But it is a question of the means by which we achieve those goals. I am not satisfied, and I don't think it is significant to say our goals are the same. Our goals were the same in the Thirties and in the Twenties, and before that, and in the Fifties. What counts in a country, what counts in a system, what counts in political parties is the means by which you achieve those goals, and I think it is on that basis that the people of this country are going to select the Democratic Party once again..."
(a portion of this speech is captured on this video)
The 50th Anniversary of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy is approaching. He announced his candidacy on January 2, 1960, so every campaign speech is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
Religious intolerance has been a part of American history and continues to be. As Senator Kennedy says in this speech to the Texas Ministers... the finger of suspicion will point again and again, if we are not dilegent. HE was right. This year, the finger is pointed at Islam.
"...For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."
