Colonel, your comment makes it sound like JFK had masterful, chess-like control over the players in the Cuban Missile Crisis. It makes more sense if what you really meant was that JFK prevented OUR OWN generals from going off the deep end and waging war on the USSR. I think it was actually McNamara who reined in the crazies among the Joint Chiefs who were bent on all-out war . I recommend the recent book "One Midnight to Midnight" which I think gives an objective view of the Cuban Missile Crisis, free of the spins given by JFK-worshippers in past years.

Here's a tantalizing bit from a book review: "Dobbs [author] combines visits to Cuba, discussions with Russian participants and fingertip command of archival and printed U.S. sources to describe a wild ride that—contrary to the myth of Kennedy's steel-nerved crisis management—was shaped by improvisation, guesswork and blind luck."

Tom, your assessment of Kennedy pretty much matches the evaluation given by Lawrence Freedman in his superb “Kennedy’s War’s – Berlin, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam”. While Freedman does not grade him as a President he certainly does dig into Kennedy’s record with impartial detail and finds him often wanting.

Even the Cuban missile crises, which GIANGENTILE seems to imagine as some sort of great success, merely capped off the totality of a Cuban policy that was a complete fiasco. It is difficult to see how the Russians came away from that crisis in worse shape than they entered it? In fact they entrenched their position in Cuba and by a quid pro quo forcing us to remove our missiles in Turkey they seem to have come out ahead. I might remind the good Col. Gentile that it took two to not have a nuclear exchange, Kennedy was only half that decision.

Laos and Vietnam only added to the incoherent and confused Kennedy approach to foreign policy. Mesmerized by a monolithic Communist threat that he never fully understood Kennedy failed to exploit the growing breach between the Soviets and the Chinese. Kennedy’s entire analysis of the problems in both Vietnam and Laos demonstrated a feckless immaturity and obtuseness that makes George W. Bush seem brilliant by comparison.

Of all the books that I have read on Kennedy, Freedman’s is the best and the one least distracted by Kennedy’s numerous extra-curricular activities. Freedman does a particularly good job of describing Kennedy’s general lack of an education in economics, statecraft and his confusion in understanding the inherent weaknesses of the Soviet system. He never really appreciated the fact that the Soviet economic system was faltering and running out of steam.

However, he was attractively engaging and I met him once as a young lad way back in 1960. I happened to be a friend of the owner’s son of Thompson’s Clam Bar on the jetty at Harwichport, Cape Cod. Sailing my little boat up to the jetty to visit with my friend Kennedy’s yacht appeared and tied up at the jetty. It contained Kennedy another adult a bunch of kids roughly my age and older. The whole mob descended upon the clam bar for lunch and I learned they had sailed up from Hyannis. My friend and I just goofed around with some of the kids while Kennedy and crew had lunch.

Kennedy decided to pursue a lunar goal in the spring of 1961 after the Soviet Union orbited Yuri Gagarin. One unknown question for historians is how much Kennedy’s decision was influenced by the near simultaneous failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The two events happened very close together and created the perception that the United States was in technological and political crisis, if not decline. Kennedy may have been similarly concerned about his seoexpert presidency. The lunar goal, delivered in a speech before a joint session of Congress in May 1961, solved Kennedy’s immediate public relations problem.
However, the Apollo program was expensive, eventually rising to nearly 4.5% of the federal budget. By early 1963 there was increasing domestic criticism of the cost of the civil space program in general and Apollo in particular. In April, Kennedy asked Vice President Lyndon Johnson, in his role as head of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, to review the program.We know little about this recorded conversation between Webb and Kennedy—not even how long it was—but it is entirely possible that their discussion included an explanation of why Kennedy was preparing to make such a bold proposal concerning cooperation with the Soviet Union.
By asking Johnson to conduct the review, Kennedy was virtually assured of a positive reply. Furthermore, Kennedy’s request in effect ruled out cutting Apollo so as not to “compromise the timetable for the first manned lunar landing.” Johnson’s reply was, unsurprisingly, positive, and Johnson even proposed that if cuts were made, they should be diverted to the Apollo program. But Johnson noted that the fiscal 1964 budget was divided between $4.4 billion for the manned lunar landing program and $1.3 billion, or 23%, for everything else, so there was not much that could be cut and diverted to Apollo.

I remember being enthralled with JFK back in high school like everybody else but I have learned a lot since those days. During his less than one full term, we nearly went to World War III at least twice (remember how close everything got in Berlin? and the "Cuban Missile Crisis" only ended when the Soviets used Radio Moscow to plead for discussions in English in those pre-Hotline days), several world leaders were assassinated/died with hints that our fingerprints were on them (Dag Hammarskjöld, Ngo Dinh Diem, Patrice Lumumba and we almost got Fidel). We now know how crazy things were with dozens of loose women with Kennedy and he launched hugely expensive programs and wars in all directions with no thought for the future. A really photogenic guy with a fawning press and what seems like a psychotic presidency.

Kinda makes you wonder what the hell would have happened if he had made it for another term..

Almost 50 years ago. Its history so leave it to the non partisan historians

I agree, Kennedy's restraint during the cuban missile crisis was definitely his greatest hour.

Regarding Vietnam, Kennedy wrote his honors thesis on the subject of "Appeasement at Munich" where he was quite scathing of the pre-war appeasement policy towards Germany. I don't think he was in the business of pulling out of Vietnam without a clear victory.

Here are facts: JFK inhereted the messes in Viet Nam, Cuba and Berlin.
1. The war in Vietnam was COMPLETELY the result of actions taken by Eisenhower. He invoked Truman's "Domino Theory" in denouncing the 1954 Geneva Accords ending the French-Indochina War, then took steps to make S. Vietnam completely dependent on the US for its very existence. Most experts view Ho Chi Minh's March 1959 announcement of the formation of the NLF as the formal beginning of the war. Yes, JFK continued Ike's policies, but he steadfastly refused to send in large-scale US ground forces ("It is their war")-a restraint that was the hallmark of his presidency. Yes, he regretted Diem's assassination, but it should be noted that Eisenhower began the policy of CIA-sanctioned political assassination. Tapes made from conversations with McNamara clearly show JFK's intent to declare "victory" in 1964 and withdraw all US "advisors".
Those who suggest that the same advisors who counceled LBJ into escalation would have persuaded JFK to do so are wrong. These same advisors also counceled immediate bombing and invasion in 1962 Cuba.
2. Denials aside, we now know from testimony given by the man who oversaw the operation, CIA's Bissel, that Eisenhower approved Operation Zapata-the Bay of Pigs invasion-to be carried out in spring 1960. It was cancelled as Castro had not yet been assassinated. The criticism levied against JFK is not that he approved the invasion, but that he scaled back US air and naval support, yet again showing restraint. It should be noted that every statement made by Bissel to JFK about the operationl were abject lies-and that the Soviets and Cubans knew of every aspect of the planned invasion in advance.
3. The precipitating factor in the Cuban Missile Crisis was the installation of Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and, especially, Turkey. Kruschchev was infuriated and first suggested the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba to his defense minister in August 1960. He discussed the matter with Castro in New York during a UN conference of world leaders in October 1960 . The decision to procede had NOTHING to do with any perceived weakness in JFK. This is not mere speculation, but the stated opinion of Kruschchev's son, Dr. Sergei, who was at his father's side .
4. The Berlin Crisis of 1961 was greatly provoked and aggravated by the actions of NATO commander, General Lucious Clay. Clay decided to move US tanks into a "nose-to-nose" confrontation with Soviet tanks greatly escalating tensions just as diplomatic efforts to diffuse the crisis were underway. JFK ordered these tanks back-again showing restraint-permitting diplomacy to proceed.
5. While the Apollo Program had its roots in geopolitics, let us not forget the US lead in electronics and computer science we enjoy today was a direct result. Not to mention the greatest expansion in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in history.
6. There have been a number of studies reviewing and rating presidents over the years. The most recent and most in-depth was C-SPAN's. It ranked JFK at #6-quite in line with previous such reviews.

I am new here and I just joined because this article made so much interest that it made me more politically inclined. Thanks! - Night Watch Online

Oh please, Carter does not even make the list. His mistakes had very little lasting impact. You should judge presidents on how hard it took to correct their mistakes. Hoover shoots to the top on his handling of the Great Depression. Biggest Single Failure Ever by a president. Wilson is a good dark horse candidate.

I know he is the obvious choice but Nixon has to get serious consideration. His economic policy was catastrophic (breaking up Bretton Woods, trying to use prices freezes to halt inflation). He should get the majority of the blame for the economic problems of the 70's. His exit strategy for Vietnam was a miserable failure. His political strategy created even more divisions within an already divided nation. We are still dealing with the legacy of that. And his moral failures lead to serious and long lasting damage to the institution of the presidency itself. Pretty much the grand slam of presidential incompetence.

Clinton's only real mistake was signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act--pretty much an entirely Republican bill--which tore up the Glass Steagall act and enabled the banks to get too big to fail.

Pres. Clinton had carefully assembled, by the end of his term, an international consortium to fight terrorism--a coalition that was promptly dismantled by George W. Bush when he came into office. Pres. Clinton also had the foresight,in 2000, to request that the Treasury Dept. be given the power to block international banks from US markets if the international banks didn't cooperate into money laundering operations run by terrorists. Republican Phil Gramm (again!) was responsible for blocking the bill. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/business/nation-challenged-paper-trail-roadblocks-cited-efforts-trace-bin-laden-s-money.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

And then there's that whole peace & prosperity for eight straight years thing. So yeah, pretty sure Clinton falls into the better half of 20th century Presidents.

Very, very odd that you didn't mention Nixon.

Sheesh yo9u forgot Reagan who's trickle down economics directly lead to the current impasse on the debt ceiling via the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%

DeGaulle was maligned by Churchill to Roosevelt as a loony. Why?

Because deGaulle wanted an end to colonialism and Churchill wanted his colonies back. DeGaulle wanted the west to buy its oil from the Soviets, going in to develop the necessary infrastructure and moderating the behavior of the Russian government. DeGaulle warned that getting tied up with Saudi Arabia would drag the West into some very negative consequences.

Ever wonder why French companies are so productive - yes, they are - yet the French by law work only 35 hours a week? Ever wonder why the application of technology is so well done and widespread in France? Largely due to deGaulle's creation of the polytechnic graduate schools providing competent and far less corrupt managers than our Ivy league MBA programs.

Another reason? His skepticism about US militarism and over-the-top capitalism.

TYRTAIOS makes a very good point. The election campaign of 1964 would revolve mostly around the management of domestic politics – civil rights and the economy – but Kennedy needed to find a way to at least be appearing to lessen Cold War tensions. Soothing comments about Vietnam and Laos would seem to fit the pattern of typical Kennedy electioneering mis-information (missile gap anyone?) even if the reality was quite different.

If JFK faced Goldwater in '64, I would think he would hardly want to show anything but strength against the perceived communist threat. 1963 was but 15 years after the Democrats "lost China". He would not have survived the 1964 vote if he was "soft" in SE Asia and was seen as backing out of support of Laos and RVN. Barry Goldwater would have had a field day with that scenario.

LBJ faced Goldwater in 1964 with a style and campaign designed largely for Kennedy. GSF certainly you will recall Johnson’s, "We will not ask American boys to do what Asian boys should be doing for themselves". LBJ faced off Goldwater on the idea that Goldwater was a dangerous extremist (which he was) and even Eisenhower refused to back him.

Goldwater was crushed in the 1964 election with LBJ winning about 61% of the vote vs. Goldwater’s 38%. The question was not who was going to win but rather turnout and the numbers in Congress. LBJ had no fear of some far right-wing uprising causing him to lose the election because he seemed soft on Communism.

Johnson actually turned the tables and convinced the nation that Goldwater was a right wing loon. I remember Goldwater’s slogan, “In your heart you know he’s right,” countered by Johnson’s far more effective (and accurate) rebuttal, “In your heart you know he’s nuts”. Too bad Johnson later lost his political sense and calculation over Vietnam.

Arguably, LBJ's landslide could be attributed to the JFK assassination sympathy. Kennedy's prestige and aura grew with the horrific nature of his death. In January 1963, JFK popularity was at 76%; at the time of his death it had dropped to 58%, with even lower in the interim.
( http://jfklancernews.blogspot.com/2009/02/look-at-jfks-popularity-polls-by-debra.html).

JFK went to Dallas with LBJ in November 1963 in an attempt to bolster his ratings in the conservative south, Texas in particular with irony as LBJ was the current VP, and to stop Democratic Party feuding. His re-election in November 1964 was not assured and probably would not have reached landslide proportions of LBJ over Goldwater.

GSF, likely you are right that a Kennedy vs. Goldwater race would have been closer than what actually happened. Yet it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where Goldwater actually wins. Goldwater spent most of the campaign shooting himself in the foot.

We should remember that extremist candidates whether left or right do not usually fare well in American general elections. Something the current crop of Republican right-wing loons might just want to keep in mind.

My view is that Kennedy’s trip to Texas was more to unify the party and stop the bickering in order to shore up his strength in Congress. Losing seats in Congress I believe was what was concentrating his mind more than losing his own seat.

"In your guts, you know he's nuts." Then there was the TV commercial with a nuclear explosion and a Dandelion blowing away. Fear of nuclear war did it.

Now explain how LBJ and Senator Stennis could have a recorded telephone conversation agreeing that we cannot win in Vietnam after which they continued to pour in troops and treasure.

Walt, you make an excellent point. It goes a long way to explaining the control over targeting in VN that the military long complained about.

The cast of characters among Johnson's national security advisory team included many of those involved in the Cuban missile crisis, and that explains yet another aspect of the VN war. These people believed their own version of history that they wrote. They believed that they had successfully managed the Cuban missile crisis by a series of careful and deliberate steps, involving action plus "signals" to the other side. Naturally, when they ran the VN War 5 or so years later, they tried the same approach. But the North Vietnamese weren't reading the "signals." They were playing a very different game indeed. [Dobbs' book argues that the Russians during the Cuban crisis weren't reading the US "signals" either, and were acting based on their own interests. JFK and his advisors were just plain lucky.]

Sorry for the typo. The correct title is One Minute to Midnight, by Michael Dobbs.

I remember many years ago reading "Thud Ridge" by Col. Jack Broughton and how bitterly he complained of the micromanaging of the targeting. Col Broughton once had destroyed some gun camera film where one of his F-105 drivers lit up some docks at Haiphong with his M-61 vulcan. Oops!

More recently I was watching the movie "Thirteen Days", and I thought, "Geez, no wonder the civilians kept these nut jobs on a leash."

Walt

What a fraud.

Reagan was definitely briefed on all of Ollie North's activities and approved them all. That came out later.

The thing about Reagan was that he -never- made a tough decision. He always took the low road on everything, as when he declared in his best Central Casting voice that he would never negotiate with terrorists, when he was doing exactly that.

The national debt almost -tripled- on Reagan's watch.

He never fooled me for a second. I was one of 5,000 Tennesseans who voted for John Anderson in 1980.

Walt

When Dubya was running for prez, he promised to follow the policies of Reagan.

At the time, I read that as:

1. Irresponsibly running up the national debt;

2. Foolish and illegal adventures abroad.

W kept his campaign promises, wouldn't you say?

You havta give Nixon credit for recognizing that we had to deal with China, and getting us past the pretense that Taiwan was the only true China.

I knew we would hear from the knee-jerk Nixon-haters! Never mind that Nixon signed up for all the mess JFK and LBJ left us: A full-up war 10,000 miles away, a massive space program, a Cold War in full cry, a civil rights upheaval that needed resolution, a fully-developed pro-enemy movement (oh, I mean "peace movement") at home, Middle East warfare and its "Arab Oil Embargo", huge new social programs/entitlements and debts beyond comprehension. Nonetheless, Nixon worked with decisiveness on all of these fronts and began the process that ended the Cold War, the Vietnam War, advanced civil rights, and dealing with the debt.

There haven't been any US leaders since Lincoln that have had to lead in more complex situations and bring us back from the brink.

Once all of the liberal press and leftist academics of this period have died off and his record is analyzed be unbiased historians he is likely to be considered one of the best presidents we ever had.

But wrong century.

No question in my mind that George W. Bush is the worst American president of the current century, so far, and tough competition for anyone to surpass.

Best,
Tom

Dubbya was president in the 21st century. However he gets my vote as the worst in this century even without knowing who will come by in the next 80-some years.

Since we seem to be in Bush's third term currently, he is both the best and worst president of this century.

Personally I think that not only is Bush 43 the worst president we've had, he is one of the worst figures in all of American history.

Walt

Hands down worst president of the 20th century: Woodrow Wilson

Worst president of the 19th century: St. Abraham

Worst president of the 21st century: So far, a dead tie.

Can you provide a reference for this list? I'm getting a strong whiff of BS here...

FDR Gave us the welfare state. How can that POSSIBLY be a good thing?

I just don't understand this perpetual high ranking for Jefferson. As a founding father? Absolutely. But he was an atrocious president. His greatest accomplishment was something completely contrary to his professed beliefs - the Louisiana Purchase. He'd have railed against it if Hamilton had suggested it, but he did it. His Embargo Act was among the stupidest policies an executive has pushed, just about ever. Let's punish England over trade restrictions, as well as impressment and for not being French, by embargoing all foreign exports - and if we aren't allowed to export goods, any ship bringing imports has to return empty, which at least doubles the costs of transport, effectively killing imports as well. Yes, it hurt England a little, but it destroyed a lot of the New England economy, with no benefit to the country. Eventually it was repealed under Madison, but not after a) increasing animosity towards England, b) embarassing the country internationally, and c) exacerbating the split between the north and the south - and we know how that ended up. Actually, the first section of the country to discuss secession was New England a few years later during the War of 1812. His policies and personality were divisive in every aspect of his administration, and yet somehow his legacy as a brilliant founding father seems to wallpaper over his disastrous administration. I just don't get it...

Thomas Jefferson did lots of things throughout his life that contradicted the beliefs he professed. That's one of the problems with putting as much of your thinking down on paper as he did.

I agree that the ranking of his Presidency by these groups of historians is too high. One of the three most significant things about it was the fact that it began in the first place; the election of 1800, bitterly contested and decided in the House, was a milestone in American democracy's development because it produced a peaceful transition of executive power from one political party to another. It's a reach to call that entirely, or mostly, Jefferson's achievement.

On the other hand, the two other significant things about Jefferson's administration were pretty big. He kept the United States out of the Napoleonic wars that raged throughout his time in office, an important accomplishment (though he must share credit for it with his predecessor, John Adams). And when Jefferson was given an opportunity to take advantage of Napoleon's embarrassed finances, he took it, and doubled the size of the United States. That one was all Jefferson; one achievement in unique circumstances that may not say very much about how effective his administration was otherwise, but was nonetheless one of the most important steps in creating the modern United States.

I was 8 years old when Kennedy was shot. My mother wept inconsolably during the funeral. We all did. I never hear the Navy Hymn without thinking of JFK.

Worst president of the 20th century? No way.

Walt