Balancing Presidential Responses

Presidential responses on censorious controversies will be the matter of vital importance in the present and past. The distant and comparable responses between John F Kennedy and George W. Bush during critical situations has its positives and negatives. There are three stages where a short presidential promulgation can affect citizens being regrettably perish. Broadly, the stages are before, during, and after. Stage one; before, will analyze the background content with two questions in mind: Will this cause trouble in the near or far away future? If so, can it be prevented? This is the beginning of a new chaos theory. Stage two; during, shows the presidents’ first reactions. The audience, the American citizens and people who were involved, are witnessing how well it is being announced. Correspondingly, this stage goes into micro details on how it is being handled. Stage three; after, illustrates a declaration made in advance. The declaration will create a restriction, to prevent a recurring event. For example, a restriction can be govern by a regulation or a law. Optimistically, this will be beneficial to the future. No matter the conclusion, there will be speculations by the people going for, or against. John F Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis and George W. Bush during 9/11 has responses that will accompany these three stages.
There was a headache of the relation of Cuba and The United States of America that was often antagonistic. America was greatly abominated by Cuba. Fidel Castro, the prime minister of Cuba at the time, was the target of the Eisenhower administration. Subsequently, Eisenhower hired the mafia who had a prominent murder case in the name of Castro. Kennedy was handed down the position, promptly labeled The Bay of Pigs - which became unsuccessful. Consistent with Fedor Burlatsky, Khrushchev's assistant, aforesaid “Khrushchev thought Kennedy too young, intellectual, not prepared well for decision making in crisis situations...too intelligent and too weak” (Absher). This first stage as aforementioned is this interpretation. Castro had established the side of the Soviet Union for guardianship. Kennedy elucidated that Castro “hoped, through a proclamation or an alliance or Soviet conventional military aid, to deter American aggression” (Kennedy 9). Castro was publicly, and privately announcing that his actions were righteousness. Khrushchev’s intention was to transport missiles to Cuba with endorsement from Castro, who ultimately agreed. Additionally, in his long-term intentions, the missiles would act so intimidating that Kennedy and advisers would deliberately accept the Soviets to prohibit nuclear war (Roberts XIV). Castro stated, “Not in order to ensure our own defense, but primarily to strengthen socialism on the international plane” (Kennedy 9). This was all done privately, but was easily foreseen by an ingenious and resourceful mind. Kennedy knew something was about to happen and started to respond properly. For clarification, it was probable that the Cuban missile crisis could be predicted. Can all catastrophes be prevented? Maneuvering to president Bush during 9/11 that demonstrated the inquiry, shows history of inhuman events from the same culprits in 9/11. The preponderance of Americans were clueless about Al Qaeda, but the government had knowledge that “Al Qaeda was a fundamentalist Islamic terror network hosted and supported by the Taliban Government in Afghanistan” (Bush 134). Why it was not predicted? CIA only engrossed in activity overseas. For instance, in the time of past, “the terrorist had carried out simultaneous bombings of two American embassies in East Africa that killed more than two hundred and wounded more than five thousands” (Bush 134). This is the mental analysis of why step one gives prediction. Shortly, seventeen American sailors died from Al Qaeda on USS Cole (Bush 134). Ramzi Yousef, the leader of the cell that bombed the World Trade