I'm hardly an expert, but it does seem like a large portion of JFK-related history sounds suspiciously close to hagiography.

For instance:

Kennedy got into trouble with the Russians over Cuba because he was waging a secret war against the Castro regime and lying about it to the American Congress, public and press. He thus had no alternative but to present Russian aid to Cuba as an inexplicable and sinister move. He could not admit that Khrushchev was right when he charged that thousands of American agents were, in Wills's words, 'plotting his [ Castro's] death, the destruction of his Government's economy, the sabotaging of his mines and mills, the crippling of his copper and sugar industries. We had invaded Cuba once. Officials high in Congress and the executive department thought we should have followed up with overwhelming support for that invasion.' It is now commonplace in the United States to describe the Bay of Pigs invasion as a 'fiasco'. This description rather euphemises the real event. The attempt to take over and run Cuba, to enlist the support of the Mafia in the assassination of Castro, to poison and devastate Cuban crops and to land a mercenary army on Cuban shores, would have been much more disastrous if it had succeeded than if it had failed. Kennedy, we now know, was told this by quite close advisers. Yet he persisted in the policy, determined not to be out-done by a smaller country in his first term. And he repeatedly lied about the Soviet motives in supplying missiles to fortify the island so that, as Professor Wills puts it, 'the Kennedys looked like brave resisters of aggression, though they had actually been the causes of it'.