Nuclear Warfare and the American Presidency

February 25, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

You write that the current state of affairs means that it is not America's enemies but American people who are left in the dark. 

A good example of that is Fidel Castro knew that Bobby Kennedy was trying to knock him off—sending assassins, mining harbors—but the Americans didn't. It was denied for a long time. Fidel Castro did not have great motive to accept missiles from Khru­shchev, while Khru­shchev had a good motive because he knew America had missiles in Turkey, threatening his homeland. So Khru­shchev wanted to threaten us, and he wanted to use Fidel to do it. Fidel thought, "Why would I want to get involved in a nuclear exchange when the first effect of that would be to annihilate my island off the face of the Earth?" But when he was convinced by all of these attacks on him that we were probably trying to invade him, he said, "All right, I'll accept the missiles as a deterrent from an outright attack from America." Well, President Kennedy went on TV and told the American people, "There is no conceivable, defensive rationale for these missiles. Therefore, the only reason they're there is offensive." Well, he was lying. There was a defensive rationale, and that's why they were there. 

You make the point that Khru­shchev, rather than Kennedy, was actually the responsible actor in the Cuban missile crisis.  

Kennedy wanted to look tough, so he said, "I'll take out the Turkish missiles if you don't say it was a quid pro quo." Khru­shchev agreed. So Khru­shchev was acting responsibly, and of course throughout it all, he and Fidel knew Kennedy was lying; the American people didn't. That's the result of this secrecy—that we're kept out. 

Why do you think the Obama administration, which criticized the secrecy of the Bush administration during the election, has continued its practices? 

When a president comes in—say, President Obama—[the CIA goes] to him and says, "You've got to protect us. You've got to uphold our morale, our loyalty. It took us years to build up this apparatus, and you're probably going to need it down the road—so don't try to dismantle it."  

Tags:
nuclear weapons

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Do you have any evidence what he said is wrong or untrue or is this just another example of a poorly informed schmuck making a stupid statement? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Paul of PA 8:32PM March 02, 2010

Do they give Pulitzer's for works of fiction?

Scott of MN of MN 8:32PM February 26, 2010

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

advertisement