Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Monday, September 15, 2008

John F. Kennedy

He helped to overthrow Abdul Qasim and usher in the Hussein administration of Iraq. I bet you didn't know that.

Ok, I am working right now, so I don't want to spend too much time on a personal website. Any ways, I am really enjoying this little trudge through history that I am undergoing right now. It is helping my sense of well-being and confidence in political debates immensely.

It might be bumming other people out, though.


cassdawn said...

well, i didn't know that because it is a distortion of the facts and it's a bit disingenuous to present the information in that way.

kennedy's administration ushered in the ba'ath (i always forget how many a's there are in that) party in 1963 - true. the party only remained in power briefly and was quashed by the nasserists and syrian baathists which splintered from the iraqi baathists, of whom hussein was a part.

the iraqi baathists staged a coup in 1968 and while hussein was a member at that point he was not the head so it wasn't HIS party. in fact between 1963 and 1967 the only thing hussein was the head of was the jail cell he was in.

and since he was not the head of the party until 1979 so i don't really think that jfk was helping to usher in the "hussein administration."

IN FACT - hussein was in syria from like 60 to 63 following a failed attempt on qasim's life in 59. and THAT was a us backed attempt so i guess jfk was simply continuing eisenhower's path.

moreover, the us was not so much FOR the ba'athists as they were against qasim who had overthrown the monarchy that the us had previously supported.

and whether we should have supported that or taken part in a coup to overthrow qasim is irrelevant. i'm not supporting the actions simply clarifying because either way - it wasn't hussein's party until long after some person or persons (haha) blew a hole or two in jfk. and presenting the facts in that regard is willfully misleading.

not that the us isn't guilty of holding hands with hussein (see eisenhower and in more modern times - donald rumsfeld; not to mention the big go ahead we gave them to bomb the shit out of kuwait) it's just that particular president didn't.

which isn't to say that jfk was a guiltless man either - THAT just wasn't one of his crimes.


Scooter said...

Would Abdul Qasim have been overthrown without the aid of Kennedy? Maybe. Did Qasim's ouster allow Hussein a chance to return to Iraq and begin his program of "self promotion via murder"?


Kennedy unwittingly ushered in Hussein. Reagan knowingly sold him the nerve gas that killed those Kurds.

It's all bad.

cassdawn said...

fallacious logic.

kennedy helped to overthrow qasim and baathist were the vehicle. hussein was not even consequential in the party until kennedy was dead and it wasn't his party until 16 years later.

point in fact - the baath party had been in existence since 1940. as for 1963 forward: there were NINE iterations of prime minister by seven different men between qasim and hussein. hardly a straight line scenario. assuredly not one that jfk could have looked down the road and anticipated.

and no qasim's overthrow did not allow hussein to return and begin any campaign cuz he returned and in a matter of months went to jail. the gathering steam of the iraqi baathist party in 1967/1968 allowed hussein that opportunity. and again jfk was flesh pudding by then.

oh, and btw, a disclaimer: i can't stand the kennedy's so for the most part - i'm willing to believe anything you tell me about them. as long as it's true. in fact, if you want to ride his ass - look into the diem coup.

as to whether it's all bad, well, hard to say. i don't know much about the rule of qasim. i know he came to power by means of a coup and was party to the killing of king hussein. what do they say 'what goes around comes around'. there is also some fairly compelling evidence that hussein's initial years were beneficial to the iraqi people in terms of education; infrastructure; secularism etc.

but as i said - who is a good guy and who is a bad guy is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. kennedy no more ushered in saddam hussein than louis xvi ushered in john adams with his support of the revolutionary war.

Scooter said...

Funny, the way I see it, Louis XVI did help usher in the Presidency of John Adams.

We have different perspectives. Louis XVI was integral in forcing the British to end the war with the colonists. No Louis, no American sovereignty, no John Adams.

Hell... with that Logic, it really WAS the fault of Louis XVI for Saddam Hussein. :)

My standards for historical connections are more fungible than yours.

cassdawn said...

words have meaning. when an individual ushers in something - s/he escorts, leads or introduces it. jfk didn't even know of IT - it being the hussein administration - since it didn't exist.

but a loose interpretation of those words would seem more likely if the whole thing didn't so strongly appear to be meant to incite and hold kennedy directly responsible for hussein . . . which i assume would be why you would think it would be bumming people out. because the facts as they happened were that the us assisted in the violent overthrow qasim who had obtained power via violent overthrow. jfk didn't do it to usher in hussein. it was done mostly because the communists supported qassim and we wanted a party that would squelch the commies. which the ba'ath party did do with zeal - killing em off left and right. which seems enough of a black mark to stamp jfk with. bringing the name saddam hussein into it is just invoking the oogity boogity man.

i mean hell, go for broke - jfk ushered in the terrorist's who carried out 9/11 with his reform to the immigration laws.

or even better - hitler ushered in the formation of the present israeli state. early in his rule he moved jews to israel and following the holocaust there were thousands of displaced jews that were relocated to israel. and since our support of the jews greatly fueled muslim hatred for us then follow the bouncing ball and hitler ushered in 9/11 - - -

hmmm, course, we ushered in hitler by leaving germany decimated and in a power void after world war one so it turns out the conspiracy theorist ARE right: 9/11 was an inside job

if i have enough time and brains i can make myself my own grandma but that type of spin is what makes politics and politicians disingenuous

Scooter said...

I am sure we can blame or credit Hitler with quite a lot that has happened in the last sixty years. The fact is, Qasim might have been overthrown, and Hussein might have come to power, without the aid of JFK.

However, JFK DID aid in the overthrow of Qasim, and thereby unwittingly aid Hussein in his rise to power.

It's a shocking accusation. It makes people take a second look. It might even get a few people to wiki Abdul Qasim and JFK.

I maintain that JFK's actions in regards to Qasim had the unintended result of Saddam Hussein's ascendancy. Call it spin, but I'm not running for anything.

cassdawn said...

i know you aren't running for anything (yet) - spin is used for all sorts of reasons. you've already laid your reasons bare:

"It's a shocking accusation. It makes people take a second look. It might even get a few people to wiki Abdul Qasim and JFK."

and hell, you're right. i knew enough about the history to doubt your claim a bit but certainly i didn't know all those details.

course otoh, a lot of people are all too willing to just believe or not believe based on their already existent ideas on the subject, which would be why the majority of americans believed hussein and al qaeda were directly connected despite the fact that no one ever directly said that - it was only alluded to.

as to "I maintain that JFK's actions in regards to Qasim had the unintended result of Saddam Hussein's ascendancy. Call it spin, but I'm not running for anything." i couldn't agree more. there's quite a gap between that and the original post. which is really all i have been saying.

Scooter said...

Ok... "usher" was too strong. "Let", "allow", "enable"... those words probably would have been a better fit.