Posted on 11/19/2008 8:25:04 AM PST by stan_sipple
If he’s so confident about this, why does he need to come right out and tell us? Hmmmmmm!!!!!!
Yeah, let’s go with Ted Sorenson’s opinion, because, you know, Kennedy scored such high marks with the Bay of Pigs.
Memo to the Journal-Star management...
New draft policy:
Editor Skippy is not allowed to republish Onion articles as actual news stories.
Respect for the US will sink to a new low in this country.
Ted Sorensen: butt-boy for the buck-toothed
And assassinating Diem was brillant!
Another lame comparison to Kennedy.
Aside from a great inauguration speech (which Sorenson probably wrote), can someone tell me what Kennedy’s accomplishments were (no points for Peace Corps - welfare jobs for college students, and the host countries were begging for engineers and doctors, not “teachers”) other than his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I’ve heard rumblings that others were actually responsible for its success through their use of the back channels.
I wish John F. Kennedy were our President right now. He would cut taxes, not raise them. and our economy would be better for it.
“his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis”
The `crisis’ came about following Kennedy’s feckless handling of the Cuban invasion resulting in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the downing of F.G. Powers’ U-2 and then JFK’s weakness at the Vienna Conference.
Kruschev concluded (& reasonably I think) `We can run on this guy ...’.
So I’m not sure it’s fair to credit him with solving a problem he helped create: two superpowers standing at the nuclear brink for over a week.
Obama is cut from the same cloth, however, so it’s OK to be very afraid.
It seems like it was just yesterday when they were saying this about Bush. /s
Kennedy wasn’t that great. He was and is overhyped.
Gagging is too mild. Hagel would be a disaster. I am retired military having been both enlisted and officer. I have always disliked this idea that because someone had a military background and/or combat experience is better suited lead the military. Too many who are considered have experience like Hagel, a tour of combat are incompetent to lead anything. Serving in the military, even for a career, does not make you qualified to lead the military. Generals like Powell or Clark are political climbers who achieved high rank by way of influence both inside and outside of the military. Should you have a basic understanding of the military — absolutely but you also need to understand history and a lot of other things as well. The best suited civilian to be SecDef might be a senior analyst, a business leader with proven LEADERSHIP skills not just management skills. Leaders lead people, managers manage things and processes. Within the military most of the time the real leaders rise no further than field grade because they are leading instead of making political connections and doing all of the right jobs.
I noticed Powell never got a division command. He admits some serious errors during his assistanct division command period at Fort Carson.
He may have not needed to command a division in the eyes of his sponsors. He would not be the first to be jumped in rank without having held all of the “key” jobs deemed necessary for promotion.
Of course, there are special promotion tracks for “transformational” military officers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.