JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship

[Michael Hogan]

Chick Lit is Dead, Lover Lit is In

by Warren Adler

Huffingtonpost.com

February 14, 2012

The current memoir by a middle-aged woman named Mimi Alford about her affair with President John F. Kennedy when she was a 19-year-old White House intern heralds a new genre in the book business, Lover Lit.

Mrs. Alford's "coming out" reveals her 18-month sexual escapade with President Kennedy who, she alleges, took her virginity in the First Lady's bedroom. Contrived to be self-effacing, the book and its author have received kind reviews and interviews, like the one recently in The New York Times that reveals a gushing bouquet of envy by a writer who appears to fondly wish she, too, had parked her shoes at the foot of Kennedy's bed, any bed.

Considering that John Kennedy was by all accounts a serial adulterer, one can expect a vast series of books to be inflicted on an eagerly awaiting public under the new genre with one overriding theme: "As a young nubile, naïve woman, I was the mistress of a powerful (and very well known) man."

There is, of course, precedent for such a category, such as the Monica Lewinsky memoir and certainly numerous others, but the Alford memoir seems to offer a unifying content label that can encompass a vast output of sexual "tell-alls" about affairs with horny, dead men of historical importance. Just think of the lineup at Agents' and Publishers' offices with outlines of juicy details about bedding down with famous dead men.

Heck, a clever woman or man with a galloping imagination and a zest for research can make a case for herself or himself that might pass as fact.

In the matter of John Kennedy, there are numerous well-known anecdotes about his many seductions using the White House swimming pool as a perfect luring environment. Intimate Kennedy staffers have often told the story of the two girls in the typing pool, dubbed "Tweedledum" and "Tweedledee" who were called upon frequently to utilize their servicing skills for the president's needs.

Then there is the oft-touted story of his liaison with Judith Campbell Exner, the girlfriend of mob boss Sam Giancana, now deceased, and the one about Ellen Rometsch, the alleged East German spy.

Both can be easily packaged in book form.

Dollars to doughnuts, the ladies of his many affairs held dear those eventful trysts and one would think they or their progeny or their best friends would be first on line to peddle an account of their real or faux memories of those halcyon days. As this genre progresses, expect even more intimate details of sexual techniques and preferences to spice up the accounts.

Ahead, too, with women beginning to surge in the political arena, one cannot discount the possibility of lovers surfacing with their own accounts of secret sexual affairs. An entire industry may be aborning......

Complete article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-adler/chick-lit-is-dead-lover-l_b_1273782.html

Edited February 18, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Michael Hogan]

Jefferson Morley weighs in: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/singleton/

[Pamela Brown]

According to the leading American journalist Jeff Toobin, who contributes to the documentary, the Lewinsky affair did not ultimately harm Clinton's image as much as predicted.

"The legacy of this scandal favours Clinton more than his adversaries," he told the Observer. "More Americans think that it was a trivial waste of time than think that he got away with something unforgivable." Toobin puts this down in part to "a long-established pattern that the longer a president is out of office the more kindly the public starts to feel about them", but also to Clinton's resilience and to his "extraordinary political electricity".

"In comparison, too, both with [George] Bush, with his foreign misadventures, and with [barack] Obama's economic problems, the boom years of Clinton's presidency start to look a lot better," added Toobin

I am selling A Vast Conspiracy by Jeffrey Toobin and other books about the Clinton years. If interested look at my inventory on amazon.com.

http://amazon.com/shops/paperandpen

I've always wondered if JFK survived if these affairs would have ever come to light. I doubt it, since the press would have still protected the President. We may have never known about it even years later.

When Clinton's scandal occurred, I wondered if JFK got caught, would it have ended up the same way, he would be tarnished but not ousted as President? But during those years, they probably would have made him resign. If the powers wanted JFK out so badly in 63, why didnt they just produce a sexual scandal with the ammo they had instead of killing the man. An affair scandal would have killed JFK just as much as the bullet did.

At one point I recall JFK Jr. saying something to the effect that if his Dad were alive today he would be wise not to run for Pres.

But with all due respect, while I am certainly not one for shoveling dirt under a rug, it does seem that since JFK is unable to speak for himself, this is not a fair game. In particular, if a 'new' book simply parrots what similar 'old' books have said, why even bother to read them? I went through a phase, I think it was after reading the Exner book, where I was angry enough at JFK to have wished Jackie had stood up for herself and demanded a divorce (I know that wasn't likely), but that was a long time ago. JFK was a flawed person; he was a good President.

[John Simkin]

I never heard of him. What did he say to out JFK? Is there a transcript? And what were his reasons? I googled his name and it says that he was a friend of JFK's and convinced him in taking LBJ as VP. His actions don't sound too friendly.

Just read Deborah Davis's book Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and The Washington Post.

A great book. I tried to get her to participate on the forum but unfortunately, the writing of this book has frightened her off talking about the CIA.

[Michael Hogan]

I never heard of him. What did he say to out JFK? Is there a transcript? And what were his reasons? I googled his name and it says that he was a friend of JFK's and convinced him in taking LBJ as VP. His actions don't sound too friendly.

Just read Deborah Davis's book Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and The Washington Post.

A great book. I tried to get her to participate on the forum but unfortunately, the writing of this book has frightened her off talking about the CIA.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7199

[John Simkin]

It is good to see that Jefferson Morley has dealt with this book in a sensible and logical manner. It is a shame that other JFK researchers cannot do that. He rightly links it to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case:

In her grief over the murder of her lover, Alford confessed the affair to her fiancé. He felt hurt and humiliated and she felt a shame she could not voice; they eventually divorced. She says she wrote the book so her daughters would know the full story of her life.

“It’s sort of like closing a chapter on that 18 months,” she said, “and closing a chapter on keeping secrets.”

Mary Meyer was not so fortunate. In April 1964, she was shot and killed by homeless man as she walked along the C&O canal in Georgetown, the victim of what seems to have been a random street crime. Jim Angleton immediately went to Meyer’s house and seized (then later destroyed) her diary, which detailed her romance with the late president. The canny spymaster knew full well that the details of JFK’s relationships with other women were politically sensitive and historically important. Mimi Alford’s brave book confirms the point.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It is good to see that Jefferson Morley has dealt with this book in a sensible and logical manner. It is a shame that other JFK researchers cannot do that. He rightly links it to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case:

In her grief over the murder of her lover, Alford confessed the affair to her fiancé. He felt hurt and humiliated and she felt a shame she could not voice; they eventually divorced. She says she wrote the book so her daughters would know the full story of her life.

“It’s sort of like closing a chapter on that 18 months,” she said, “and closing a chapter on keeping secrets.”

Mary Meyer was not so fortunate. In April 1964, she was shot and killed by homeless man as she walked along the C&O canal in Georgetown, the victim of what seems to have been a random street crime. Jim Angleton immediately went to Meyer’s house and seized (then later destroyed) her diary, which detailed her romance with the late president. The canny spymaster knew full well that the details of JFK’s relationships with other women were politically sensitive and historically important. Mimi Alford’s brave book confirms the point.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/

I have great respect or Jefferson Morley and his efforts to plumb this case. However, his opinion of the Alford book, whether or not "sensible and logical," is undermined by his blithe acceptance and uncritical regurgitation of a falsehood: Mary Meyer was not "shot and killed by a homeless man," unless Morley knows something that is known only to himself.

Such a man - Raymond Crump - was charged, yet despite the triple handicap of being both indigent and black and represented by black pro bono counsel, was acquitted at trial because there wasn't a scintilla of evidence againt him other than his proximity to the crime scene. John Simkin should know this fact, as it is well covered on his own Sparticus website.

If even so easily-checked a falsehood is misrepresented as fact, it diminishes a reader's confidence in Morley's other pronouncements. If his presentation of facts is that sloppy, it is not a "shame" but a blessing that "that other JFK researchers cannot do that" with respect to the Alford book.

[John Simkin]

It is good to see that Jefferson Morley has dealt with this book in a sensible and logical manner. It is a shame that other JFK researchers cannot do that. He rightly links it to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case:

In her grief over the murder of her lover, Alford confessed the affair to her fiancé. He felt hurt and humiliated and she felt a shame she could not voice; they eventually divorced. She says she wrote the book so her daughters would know the full story of her life.

“It’s sort of like closing a chapter on that 18 months,” she said, “and closing a chapter on keeping secrets.”

Mary Meyer was not so fortunate. In April 1964, she was shot and killed by homeless man as she walked along the C&O canal in Georgetown, the victim of what seems to have been a random street crime. Jim Angleton immediately went to Meyer’s house and seized (then later destroyed) her diary, which detailed her romance with the late president. The canny spymaster knew full well that the details of JFK’s relationships with other women were politically sensitive and historically important. Mimi Alford’s brave book confirms the point.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/

I have great respect or Jefferson Morley and his efforts to plumb this case. However, his opinion of the Alford book, whether or not "sensible and logical," is undermined by his blithe acceptance and uncritical regurgitation of a falsehood: Mary Meyer was not "shot and killed by a homeless man," unless Morley knows something that is known only to himself.

Such a man - Raymond Crump - was charged, yet despite the triple handicap of being both indigent and black and represented by black pro bono counsel, was acquitted at trial because there wasn't a scintilla of evidence againt him other than his proximity to the crime scene. John Simkin should know this fact, as it is well covered on his own Sparticus website.

If even so easily-checked a falsehood is misrepresented as fact, it diminishes a reader's confidence in Morley's other pronouncements. If his presentation of facts is that sloppy, it is not a "shame" but a blessing that "that other JFK researchers cannot do that" with respect to the Alford book.

Of course I know that Raymond Crump was not the man who murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. I discovered a long time ago that people are not right about everything.

[Rodney Rivers]

According to the leading American journalist Jeff Toobin, who contributes to the documentary, the Lewinsky affair did not ultimately harm Clinton's image as much as predicted.

"The legacy of this scandal favours Clinton more than his adversaries," he told the Observer. "More Americans think that it was a trivial waste of time than think that he got away with something unforgivable." Toobin puts this down in part to "a long-established pattern that the longer a president is out of office the more kindly the public starts to feel about them", but also to Clinton's resilience and to his "extraordinary political electricity".

"In comparison, too, both with [George] Bush, with his foreign misadventures, and with [barack] Obama's economic problems, the boom years of Clinton's presidency start to look a lot better," added Toobin

I am selling A Vast Conspiracy by Jeffrey Toobin and other books about the Clinton years. If interested look at my inventory on amazon.com.

http://amazon.com/shops/paperandpen

I've always wondered if JFK survived if these affairs would have ever come to light. I doubt it, since the press would have still protected the President. We may have never known about it even years later.

When Clinton's scandal occurred, I wondered if JFK got caught, would it have ended up the same way, he would be tarnished but not ousted as President? But during those years, they probably would have made him resign. If the powers wanted JFK out so badly in 63, why didnt they just produce a sexual scandal with the ammo they had instead of killing the man. An affair scandal would have killed JFK just as much as the bullet did.

At one point I recall JFK Jr. saying something to the effect that if his Dad were alive today he would be wise not to run for Pres.

But with all due respect, while I am certainly not one for shoveling dirt under a rug, it does seem that since JFK is unable to speak for himself, this is not a fair game. In particular, if a 'new' book simply parrots what similar 'old' books have said, why even bother to read them? I went through a phase, I think it was after reading the Exner book, where I was angry enough at JFK to have wished Jackie had stood up for herself and demanded a divorce (I know that wasn't likely), but that was a long time ago. JFK was a flawed person; he was a good President.

I like the comment you made about being angry at JFK. I too went thru the same phase/feeling after the new revelations from the MiMi book were out. I think it's just human nature to feel that way about someone when you read these type of things. I was so angered I even went so far to think to myself 'bastard got what he deserved'. Well, that anger has lifted with me now and I'm back to rational thinking when it comes to JFK. Have to view the man as a whole, not just the flawed aspects.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Rodney Rivers

[Guest Tom Scully]

Morley is a journalist. Before taking the word of the author, especially since she is accusing a late U.S. president, shouldn't Morley have sought a statement from the book author's former brother in law? I have no budget for background research yet I found the mailing address and tel.# of the brother of the man the author claimed swore her to secrecy. I came by this contact info using only free internet resources. I am not seeing balanced, professional journalism, just steno spin, and not only from Jefferson Morley.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Morley is a journalist. Before taking the word of the author, especially since she is accusing a late U.S. president, shouldn't Morley have sought a statement from the book author's former brother in law? I have no budget for background research yet I found the mailing address and tel.# of the brother of the man the author claimed swore her to secrecy. I came by this contact info using only free internet resources. I am not seeing balanced, professional journalism, just steno spin, and not only from Jefferson Morley.

So what is her ex brother-in-law going to know about swimming in the White House pool with JFK, being asked to perform oral sex on Dave Powers AND Ted Kennedy, being given poppers against her will by JFK, or losing one's virginity to a married president who is known to have had venereal diseases and did not use "protection?"

Or what would the ex b-in-law know about having rubber ducky races in JFK's White House bathtub, which I think gives us a positive insight into JFK's personality?

Or more importantly, and this is now a part of the historical record, JFK having told his teenaged mistress Mimi, "I'd rather my children red than dead" at the climax of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Have you read Mimi Alford's book? She seems credible to me. She told her fiance about her affair with JFK on 11/22/63 and Tony F. swore her to silence because he was so humiliated at being cuckolded ... before he was even married. The JFK affair was a topic non grata in the Fahnestock household and I doubt either of them told Tony's brother.

Having said that, the brother-in-law is definitely worth a phone call. PM me the name/number and I will call him.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It is good to see that Jefferson Morley has dealt with this book in a sensible and logical manner. It is a shame that other JFK researchers cannot do that. He rightly links it to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case:

In her grief over the murder of her lover, Alford confessed the affair to her fiancé. He felt hurt and humiliated and she felt a shame she could not voice; they eventually divorced. She says she wrote the book so her daughters would know the full story of her life.

“It’s sort of like closing a chapter on that 18 months,” she said, “and closing a chapter on keeping secrets.”

Mary Meyer was not so fortunate. In April 1964, she was shot and killed by homeless man as she walked along the C&O canal in Georgetown, the victim of what seems to have been a random street crime. Jim Angleton immediately went to Meyer’s house and seized (then later destroyed) her diary, which detailed her romance with the late president. The canny spymaster knew full well that the details of JFK’s relationships with other women were politically sensitive and historically important. Mimi Alford’s brave book confirms the point.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/20/jfk_better_red_than_dead/

I have great respect or Jefferson Morley and his efforts to plumb this case. However, his opinion of the Alford book, whether or not "sensible and logical," is undermined by his blithe acceptance and uncritical regurgitation of a falsehood: Mary Meyer was not "shot and killed by a homeless man," unless Morley knows something that is known only to himself.

Such a man - Raymond Crump - was charged, yet despite the triple handicap of being both indigent and black and represented by black pro bono counsel, was acquitted at trial because there wasn't a scintilla of evidence againt him other than his proximity to the crime scene. John Simkin should know this fact, as it is well covered on his own Sparticus website.

If even so easily-checked a falsehood is misrepresented as fact, it diminishes a reader's confidence in Morley's other pronouncements. If his presentation of facts is that sloppy, it is not a "shame" but a blessing that "that other JFK researchers cannot do that" with respect to the Alford book.

Of course I know that Raymond Crump was not the man who murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. I discovered a long time ago that people are not right about everything.

John:

Perhaps it would help if you were to specify why you think Morley “rightly links (Alford) to the Mary Pinchot Meyer case.”

I fail to see the slightest similarity. One is a 19 year old who lived to tell her alleged tale five decades later, and the other a worldly woman married to a CIA careerist, who separated from him and was thereafter murdered, without writing a tell-all book. Aside from both allegedly sleeping with the President, what do they share in common? And whatever it is, why did Morley fail to mention this commonality if it is so important?.

You say that you learned some time ago that people aren’t right about everything. Indeed.

However, this veteran journalist got a very elementary detail spectacularly wrong, per your own admission, yet is nevertheless somehow well placed to offer an opinion - for it is only that, absent any evidence for its veracity - because....? Because it dovetails with your own bias, perhaps?

One notes your chiding tone toward JFK researchers who may not share your opinion on this book. Morley’s take is “sensible and logical,” whereas the “other JFK researchers cannot do that.” In fact, Morley’s take is only one man’s opinion, and defies both sense and logic. A visit to the following link would help explain (at least partly) why to all but the most wilfully, obdurately partisan.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t189-why-is-morley-supporting-alford

Others here have already raised equally salient points.

If you have something more than mere condescension to offer, I’d welcome it. If not, posts such as these - with so lazy and baseless a blanket denunciation of those who may not necessarily agree with you - don’t elevate the tone of debate.

And if Mimi Alford was so intent upon making sure her daughters knew the totality of her life story, why didn’t she just tell them? Or commit it in writing for their exclusive consumption, without seeking a personal profit from it?

Much about this book is highly suspect, but reasons for wariness will be ignored by those who have already concluded that JFK was a “lousy human being.” Such prejudice is precisely what this book was designed to feed upon. And does. And will.

Or, as your boy Dickens said, “There are books of which the backs and covers are by far the best parts.”

[Greg Burnham]

This whole thing smells of sensationalistic BS from a tawdry romance novel.

There are numerous examples, but since I have no time for this nonsense, I'll name just one: "He refused to kiss her on the lips when they made love."

What a crock of crap. That might be what a WOMAN would do in such a circumstance, but men don't generally have those random puritanical restrictions.

Julia Roberts' character in "Pretty Woman" followed that rule, as she was a prostitute.

Robert Morrow, as usual, swallows all lascivious reports: hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, trailer and trailer hitch simply BECAUSE of their lasciviousness.

He said: "In my opinion MiMi Alford is telling the 100% truth."

Of course, she was such an honest woman that she had an adulterous affair with a married man in his wife's bed behind her own fiance's back! According to this,

JFK would have sex with a woman in his wife's bed without remorse, but he refused to kiss the woman on the lips. Yeah...right.

[Michael Hogan]

During the course of this thread, Daniel Meyer, David Healey, Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock, Frankie Vegas, Mark Wengler, Don Jeffries, Tom Fairlie, Dawn Meredith, Robert Charles-Dunne, Tom Scully, and Greg Burnham seem to have expressed the requisite skepticism for Alford's story.

Greg Parker (in absentia) seems to be one of the very few that actually bothered to go back and see what it is that Barbara Gamarekian really said in her oral history interview. When one does so, it is clear that Robert Dallek's conclusion that Alford had an affair with President Kennedy is not borne out by what Gamarekian actually said. Yet it is remarkable how many journalists cited Dallek in their articles as if this made Alford's entire story true. It speaks to the lazy state of journalism in today's internet world and it speaks poorly of Dallek that he would write what he did.

As far as I can tell, not one EF member that believes in toto what Alford wrote about President Kennedy has demonstrated any evidence of reading what Gamarekian said in 1964.

Here are a few statements she made in that interview:

....It could have been one of the special assistants who was interested in Mimi and flew her down to Nassau.

....Maybe he himself (JFK) wasn‘t implicated in it.

....I often liked to think that as far as the President was concerned, he indulged in this all sort of

vicariously

(bold added) and it was fun to have pretty girls around, and it was fun to watch his staff sort of make fools of themselves, but I don‘t really know.

I must have read a hundred news articles on Alford's book and none of them mentioned any of Gamarekian's observations. Damning, as far as I'm concerned.

As some of the above members have pointed out, the issue is not really how much of Alford's book is true. The question is why it is accepted so readily in the absence of any factual corroboration.

I have a lot of respect for John Simkin, and I was quite surprised at the reason he gave for believing Alford.

The fact is, not one member of this forum knows whether or not Alford's account of her relationship with John Kennedy is entirely true. I don't know. It's impossible to know.

I do know that skepticism is both healthy and warranted, and I cast my lot in this topic with Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock, Don Jeffries, Dawn Meredith, Robert Charles-Dunne, and Greg Burnham. I've read their posts for years and they've earned their insightful reputations here for good reasons. That's no slight of the other members I mentioned at the outset of this post. I respect their input on this thread, as well.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Guest Robert Morrow]

One time I emailed uber Republican insider Jack Wheeler about the JFK assassination. Here is his newsletter web page: http://www.tothepointnews.com/

Jack Wheeler was personal friends with Cord Meyer. Cord Meyer was the one recruited Bill Clinton into the CIA. Here is Jack Wheeler on Clinton "How the Clintons Will Destroy McCain":

"Someone (Bill Clinton) who has been a CIA asset since he was recruited by London station chief Cord Meyer while a student at Oxford in 1968?

(Back in the 90s years after he retired, if Cord drank a little too much Scotch, he would laugh derisively at those conspiratorialists who accused Bill Clinton of being connected with the KGB.

"They all darkly point to Bill's participation in anti-war peace conferences in Stockholm and Oslo, and his trip to Leningrad, Moscow, and Prague while he was at Oxford. ‘Who could have paid for this?', they ask. ‘It had to be the KGB!' they claim." Cord would shake his head. "What rot - we paid for it. We recruited Bill the first week he was at Oxford. Bill's been an asset of The Three Bad Words ever since." Cord passed on in 2001.)"

My point of emailing Jack Wheeler was to ask him did he think Cord Meyer was involved in the JFK assassination. I asked Wheeler what he thought of E. Howard Hunts accusations that Lyndon Johnson and Cord Meyer were involved in the JFK assassination.

Wheeler told me that he had always suspected Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination, but that he did not think Cord Meyer was involved.

I also asked Jack Wheeler about this:

In February 2001 writer C. David Heymann asked Cord Meyer about Mary Pinchot Meyer's murder and he replied, "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed. It was a bad time." When asked who had murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer, the retired CIA official, six weeks before his own death from lymphoma, reportedly "hissed" back, "The same sons of bitches that killed John F. Kennedy."

In the opinion of Jack Wheeler, Raymond Crump and no one else killed Mary Meyer. He said Crump had a smart lawyer who got him off the hook.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Robert Morrow