Peter McGuire Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) Yes Greg - I am getting a sense as I am finishing this book that a man is writing some of Mimi's parts. Edited June 16, 2012 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Yes Greg - I am getting a sense as I am finishing this book that a man is writing some of Mimi's parts. Peter, for me debate about JFK's morality is like news of Mark Twain's death; somewhat premature. The real debate now should be about the quality of evidence that is so readily acceptable to otherwise intelligent people. In the case of the intern, it was reported as fact. But as it turns out, it was based on a very poor reading of an oral history. That the alleged "victim" much LATER confirmed the (misread) hearsay should be taken with a grain of salt based on known facts. With regards to the letters John brings up regarding the young lady from Sweden-- can someone demonstrate how any but that last letter can be construed as a "love letter"? Friendly? Sure. Informal? Yes. But LOVE letters??? And the problem with the last letter (the one thatactually might fit the round hole its being forced into) is written in a style that does not seem befitting of Kennedy's literacy skills. In short, THAT letter should be treated with some suspicion. And without it, the case fallas apart. It just seems to me it's open season. All someone has to do is make the accusation and it's magically accepted as fact. It is not. It is akin to the Lone Nutters blind acceptance of the WCR. To maintain the faith, thery have to ignore the underlying facts. It is a miserable state of affairs and I amdisgusted - especially with the likes of Morley who did the same with the recent controversy over TUM. It has nothing to do with wether Witt was Tum, but rather, the evidence that was accepted to conclude he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Whoops! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Douglas_Stuart,_Jr.Robert Douglas Stuart, Jr. was born in Winnetka, Illinois on April 26, 1916, the son of R. Douglas Stuart. His grandfather, Robert Stuart was one of the founders of the Quaker Oats Company. He was educated at Princeton University, graduating with a B.A. in 1937. He then attended Yale Law School. On September 4, 1940, while a law student, Stuart organized the America First Committee to support enforcement of the Neutrality Acts of 1930s and to oppose United States intervention in World War II. Other students who joined Stuart's committee included Gerald Ford, Sargent Shriver, and Potter Stewart. The America First Committee asked Robert E. Wood, chairman of Sears, Roebuck and Company, to become their leader. They later asked Charles Lindbergh to serve as their spokesman. At its height, the America First Committee may have had as many as 800,000 members in 650 chapters. The America First Committee was disbanded shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Stuart subsequently served in the United States Army during World War II, attaining the rank of major. After the war, he returned to Yale Law School and received his J.D. in 1946. After law school, Stuart joined the Quaker Oats Company, where he would work for 38 years. He was chief executive officer of the company from 1966 to 1981, first as president, and later as chairman of the board. Stuart's time as CEO was notable for diversifying the company, most notably in 1969 when the Quaker Oats Company acquired toy manufacturer Fisher-Price. During his time as CEO, revenues grew from $500 million to $2 billion. In addition to running Quaker Oats, Stuart sat on the boards of directors of the First National Bank of Chicago, United Airlines, Deere & Company, and Molson. Stuart was active in the Republican Party. From 1964 to 1972, he was the Illinois member on the Republican National Committee. He was also active in the Boy Scouts of America and the Chicago Urban League. In 1984, President of the United States Ronald Reagan named Stuart United States Ambassador to Norway; Ambassador Stuart presented his credentials on October 16, 1984 and would serve as ambassador until July 17, 1989.... [Marion Fay Beardsley Is Married; Bride ol Anthony E.... New York Times - Jan 5, 1964 Misses Dorothy Ellis Beardsley, another Sister; Anne Haskell Ellis, the bride s cousin; Kirke Van Arnam Dyett, Marian McClure Stuart, Wendy Shiland Taylor and ... Marnie Stuart Married To Donaldson Pillsbury New York Times - Jul 23, 1967 Mr. Pillsbury is the son of Mr. and Mrs. John S. Pillsbury Jr. of Wayzata, Minn. ... bridegroom; Mrs. R. Douglas Stuart 3d, sister-in-law of the i bride; Mrs. Anthony Fahnstock, Mrs. ... Her father is president of the Quaker Oats Company in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Mimi discloses that the first person she unloads on, in 1991, is her dear old friend and former roommate Marnie, the daughter of Robert Douglas Stuart, Jr. : Once Upon a Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy and ... - Page 119 books.google.comMimi Alford - 2012 - 208 pages - Preview We even went swimming in the White Ilousc pool, which is when they met the President. ... In shorl order, he had changed into a bathing suit and was floating alongside Marnie and Wendy, asking about their summer jobs, whether they were .. Once Upon a Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy and ... - Page 168 books.google.comMimi Alford - 2012 - 208 pages - Preview Marnie didn't say a word as I played back the aI'I'air with President Kennedy. She was the best kind oI't'rien(I, .. Obituary 5 -- No Title New York Times - Dec 28, 1930 James H. Douglas, chairman of the Quaker Oats Company, died early today at ... Miss Inez Boynton of Cedar Rapids, and two sons, Donald B. and James H. Jr. Sidelights; Oil Ranks Split Over Imports New York Times - Aug 8, 1957Donald B. Douglas has been a director of the Quaker Oats Company for thirty years ... Several Quaker Oats directors are older. His letter of resignation was Quaker Oats Director Quits After Row Over Retirement... Wall Street Journal - Aug 8, 1957... CHICAGO--Donald S. Douglas resigned as a director of the Quaker Oats Co. after a ... In his letter of resignation to R. Douglas Stuart, chairman, Mfr. Douglas . http://articles.chic...glas-mr-douglasJames H. Douglas, 88, Chicago Lawyer, Banker February 25, 1988|By Kenan Heise. James H. Douglas, 88, a Chicago lawyer and investment banker, served in the administrations of three presidents.... ...A native of Cedar Rapids, Ia., Mr. Douglas was the son of James Sr., who had been an executive at the turn of the century for the Douglas-Stuart Rolled Oats Co., which was later absorbed by the Quaker Oats Co..... Mr. Lifton, from a very unlikely lead, I found the website of an unrepentant, politically progressive, conspiracy theorist. Unlike you, although this man is the grandson of a founding principal of Quaker Oats, and is probably a blood relation of Gerald R. Ford's "America First" movement co-founder, the still living Robert Douglas Stuart, and is the son of Eisenhower's Air Force secretary, James H. Douglas, Jr. and the step-brother of the late James K Donaldson, associated with Bircher and CNP co-founder Willard Garvey, webmaster John Douglas - http://www.redrat.ne...hts/index-2.htm is obviously unconcerned by the arguments you've stacked this thread with.: (I've posted more than once that the common tie between the men reported to be in this wedding party, aside from the CIA, was collegiate rowing; most were on the Harvard crew team.) James K. Donaldson's mother, Elinor Thompson Donaldson Douglas, (stepmother of http://redrat.net John Douglas) had a brother who happened to be associated with William Donovan of OSS during WWII.: http://www.google.co...fc638d2affb955fMISS PULLMAN IS MARRIED TO ALBERT CARTER Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Oct 2, 1955 The rosepointe lace veil Miss Beverly Pullman wore as part of her bridal ensemble for her marriage to Albert B. Carter Jr. at 5 pm yesterday has special ... Best man was Palmer Dixon of New York City. Among the ushers were Alexander Aldrich whose fa- ther, Winthrop Aldrich, is United States ambassador to Britain; Edwin Bohlen, whose uncle, Charles E. Bohlen, is am- bassador to Russia, and Lt. James K. Donaldson of the ma- rine corps, stepson of James H. Also ushc rn ng were the bride s brothers, Frederick and William Pullman, Thomas De- vine of Midland, Tex., Andre Rheault and Henry Cabot of Boston, and Charles Hubbard. Mr. Carter and his bride will live in Washington, DC,... http://www.google.co...fc638d2affb955fJAMES DONALDSON - New York Times - Aug 1, 1959 KARACHI. Pakistan, July 31, (UPI! -James Donaldson ofl Tashington. stepson of JamesI H. Douglas. Air Force Secretary, died yesterday of an intestinal, infection. He was 31 years old. i Mr. Donaldson came here last month on a business trip. He was studying the possibilities of starting a low-cost housing project for Willard Crvey's Builders. Inc., of Wichita. Kan. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Edited June 17, 2012 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 GP: The real debate now should be about the quality of evidence that is so readily acceptable to otherwise intelligent people. In the case of the intern, it was reported as fact. But as it turns out, it was based on a very poor reading of an oral history. That the alleged "victim" much LATER confirmed the (misread) hearsay should be taken with a grain of salt based on known facts. This is the Bingo quote. Greg's work on this has been non pareil. You would have thought someone in the MSM would have done something like this, but not one did. Which is why the MSM is on its last legs. I liked Ron's comments also. The book was a complete media creation. And I would not doubt one bit that all those GOP bigwigs at her church got her the big media tour. In the case of Jim Douglass' book, that book caught on simply because it was so good and original. Therefore word of mouth created a buzz. Finally, Oliver Stone took notice and gave him a boost on Huffpo and Bill Maher. But this concoction was a complete media creation FROM BEFORE it was published. I also agree with Greg on Jeff Morley. I was really surprised to see him try and cover up that obvious inserted hole in the book about the Missile Crisis. Which, for me, gave the whole game away as a deliberate fabrication. That is, the woman was being guided along and, like Exner, wasn't even the source for some of the stuff in the book. (Exner got so bad later, that not even the people who actually got the byline on her articles wrote them. She didn't seem to know this, so when she appeared in public, she contradicted what the second ghostwriters had written.) That Morley did not understand the political part of the ploy really disappointed me, and many others. Because this betrayed not only a lack of knowledge about this particular phenomenon, it also betrayed a lack of knowledge about where and when Kennedy got his ideas. What made it worse was that this appeared in Salon. Not the Washington Post. So much for the promise of the alternative press. Which has turned out to be not so promising. In fact, in many ways, it has turned out to be a thunderous disappointment. Jim It's important that the powers that be continue to pump out this slime lest too many people read books like JFKU. We live in such a tabloid world and people are more comfortable abut hearing talk of sex- be it all lies matters not- than talk of peace and how it got JFK killed. Then there are those who live in the gutter so trash like Mimi's will be most appealing to that crew. Darn, all I need to do to make a quick buck is to make up a tale of me and JFK having sex when I was thirteen. Just think, maybe I could get on Billo or some such show. Seriously your piece should be required reading for those so quick to believe every tale of lust that is put out to re-assassinate JFK. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Two excerpts from a review in the July-August 2012 issue of The Atlantic magazine by Caitlin Flanagan of two books: “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy” – interviews with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and “Once Upon A Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath” by Mimi Alford: “JFK was a man who sexual life remained a central life of his existence, who did not allow it to be diminished by anything – not by his political ambitions, not issues of national security, not his Catholicism, not loyalty to his friends and his male relatives, not physical limitation or pain; not the risk of infecting any of his partners with the venereal disease that regularly plagued him, not fear of impregnating someone, not the potential for personal embarrassment, and certainly, certainly not his marriage…. “John F. Kennedy was the kind of guy who could get his PT boat rammed in half by a Japanese destroyer, losing two of his men, and end up not with a court martial but with a medal. He was a winner and we like winners. He’ll get out of every scrape history can serve up. All the aging hookers and cast-aside girlfriends with book contracts had better take notice: We don’t care about you. JFK is more important to us than you can ever be, so you might as well keep quiet. The cause endures, sweetheart. The hope still lives. And the dream with never die.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You mean this Caitlin Flanagan, Douglas? http://jezebel.com/5877355/professional-pearl+clutcher-worried-internet-will-turn-girls-into-successful-harvard-graduates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Mimi discloses that the first person she unloads on, in 1991, is her dear old friend and former roommate Marnie, the daughter of Robert Douglas Stuart, Jr. : Once Upon a Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy and ... - Page 119 books.google.comMimi Alford - 2012 - 208 pages - Preview We even went swimming in the White Ilousc pool, which is when they met the President. ... In shorl order, he had changed into a bathing suit and was floating alongside Marnie and Wendy, asking about their summer jobs, whether they were .. Once Upon a Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy and ... - Page 168 books.google.comMimi Alford - 2012 - 208 pages - Preview Marnie didn't say a word as I played back the aI'I'air with President Kennedy. She was the best kind oI't'rien(I, .. Obituary 5 -- No Title ................ http://blog.tomroese...as-misread.html Thursday, October 5, 2006 <a href="http://blog.tomroeser.com/2006/10/how-conventional-history-has-misread.html">How Conventional History Has Misread a Valuable Peace Movement Which Spared American Lives By Delaying Entry into WWII. Ninety-Year-Old America First Founder’s Book Straightens Out A Fundamental Misconception. Prominent Jews and Chrisians This is the third—and final—article on the “America First Committee,” the Chicago-based group formed to keep us out of World War II. It appears this week in The Wanderer, America’s oldest national Catholic newspaper. By Thomas F. Roeser Joined to Defend America Yet Stop a Headlong Rush to War. .....Younger officers of the America First Committee were not dogged by the Roosevelt administration probably because so many of them were either liberal Democrats or had close associations with them. My old boss, Robert Stuart, the founder of the group, a conservative Republican but who had a wide list of prominent Democratic friends, enlisted in the army, rose to the rank of major and served on General Eisenhower’s staff, landing in Europe shortly after D-Day. Intending to run for office as a young California lawyer, he was “drafted” by his family to take over the company his grandfather had helped found. He became chief executive officer of The Quaker Oats Company, directing the company’s rapid growth as a prime marketer, serving his party as Republican National Committeeman for Illinois and his country as U. S. ambassador to Norway, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. It was my honor to serve him most of my business life. As is widely known, Stuart’s old Massachusetts colleague, John F. Kennedy enlisted in the Navy, won the Navy Cross, became a Congressman, Senator and President of the United States. Stuart’s good friend, Sargent Shriver enlisted, returned to Chicago, married JFK’s sister Eunice, became head of the city’s board of education and in the Kennedy administration headed the Peace Corps and the War on Poverty, running for vice president of the United States in 1972. But Kennedy’s involvement has seldom been covered. In all the millions of words about John Kennedy, very little has been focused on his Massachusetts leadership of the America First Committee. Stuart and he did not stay in touch. But it happened that Stuart’s daughter Marian (“Marnie”) wangled an intern’s job in the Kennedy White House through college connections and with no clout whatever. One day when senior staff members thought Kennedy was at Camp David, they allowed the interns to swim in the president’s swimming pool. Marnie Stuart dove off the edge of the pool and came up to look directly into the eyes of President Kennedy who was watching the young people swim. He asked her name, inquired where she was from. When she said she was Marnie Stuart from Chicago, he said, “You wouldn’t in any way be related to a Bob Stuart of Chicago who’s with The Quaker Oats Company, would you?” “He’s my Dad,” she said. “No kidding!” Kennedy said, “You probably never heard of this but we were together in the America First Committee!” “Yes,” she said in an understatement, “I heard of America First.” Kennedy mused for a moment, added: “that was a long time ago” and walked on. In his book, Bob Stuart says that when he heard his daughter relate the story, he breathed a thankful sigh, knowing of his old colleague’s reputation with young women...... http://www.panachema...rd_Luncheon.asp Marnie Pillsbury, Ann Temkin, David Rockefeller. http://www.iwhc.org/...id=63#pillsbury Marnie S. Pillsburyhas been the Executive Director of The David Rockefeller Fund and Philanthropic Advisor to Mr. Rockefeller since 1990. She is a Trustee of The Rockefeller University and serves on the board of the Women's Campaign Fund, the Edward John Noble Foundation, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Advisory Committee for the David Rockefeller Fellows Program at the New York City Partnership, and the International Council for The Museum of Modern Art. Ms. Pillsbury served for many years as a Trustee of World Learning, formerly The Experiment in International Living, which operates in more than 40 countries around the world. She is also an advisor to a small grants program serving HIV/AIDS orphans and vulnerable children in South Africa. A graduate of Wellesley College (1965), Ms. Pillsbury received an MBA from the New York University Stern School of Business in 1987. http://www.nytimes.c...-pillsbury.htmlMr. Eichmann and Ms. Pillsbury Published: September 12, 1999 Wendy Edwards Pillsbury, a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Donaldson C. Pillsbury of New York, was married yesterday to Christopher Byrne Eichmann, a son of Dr. Mary E. Avellone of Chicago and Fred C. Eichmann of Deerfield, Ill. The Rev. Tracy Hindman performed the ceremony at the First Presbyterian Church in Lake Forest, Ill., with Dr. Ronald H. Miller, the chairman of the department of religion at Lake Forest College, taking part. The couple graduated from Lake Forest. The bride, 27, received a bachelor's degree in nursing in May from Columbia University, where she is enrolled in a master's degree program in nursing. Her father, a retired partner in the New York law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell, is a senior vice president and the general counsel of Sotheby's, the auction house in New York. Her mother, Marnie Pillsbury, is the executive director of the David Rockefeller Fund, a private foundation in New York. The bride is a granddaughter of Robert B. Stuart, a retired chairman of the Quaker Oats Company, who was Ambassador to Norway from 1984 to 1989. Edited June 19, 2012 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) You mean this Caitlin Flanagan, Douglas? http://jezebel.com/5...rvard-graduates Greg: Yes, the extremely caustic review is written by Caitlin Flanagan. The table of contents of The Atlantic’s issue of July-August 2012 contains the following: “p. 133…Caitlin Flanagan in a live chat with readers about the Kennedys.” On page 133, the lengthy article is titled: “Essay – Jackie and the Girls. Mrs. Kennedy’s JFK problem – and ours” by Caitlin Flanagan. The following appears at the end of the article: "Caitlin Flanagan's most recent book is 'Girl Land.'" I have read in this forum in the past that The Atlantic has a reputation of being extremely critical of JFK. This particular article is proof that this is so. Edited June 19, 2012 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) This was not a con job. It is real. s I don't understand why anyone find it difficult to hold in one's mind these two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time: #1: That JFK fought off crazy proposals for preventive nuclear war (and other nutty advice, including knocking down the Berlin Wall, which could have led to a nuclear encounter in Europe), and. . . #2: That JFK saw the world around him (and the White House) as some kind of sexual playpen. Do you seriously believe that this woman made this up? Or that Random House published it because they are anti-JFK?? I find neither of these propositions particularly reasonable or credible. If anything, this woman was a complete innocent, compared to the other females we've heard about. DSL I do not have a problem accepting the fact that Kennedy was an effective president, who saved us from nuclear war at least twice while at the same time engaging in numerous affairs. The problem that I have with this book and others like it is that it desensitizes the reader regarding Kennedy's death. Beginning on page 129 - Chapter Eleven, the indoctrination begins. Readers are told once again that a man was spotted in the Texas Book Depository Building and the patsy is unfairly named as the real assassin. Sex sells, and after reading this book, minds are thinking of sex, not possible conspiracy. But now, we feel somewhat relieved because we can grieve less for the victim Kennedy because of what he did to Mimi and others while he was married to Mrs. Kennedy. He can be viewed as a very flawed man and while his character should not reduce our sympathy for his untimely death, it will. Those writing these books know this. The whitewash continues. Edited June 19, 2012 by Peter McGuire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Two excerpts from a review in the July-August 2012 issue of The Atlantic magazine by Caitlin Flanagan of two books: “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy” – interviews with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and “Once Upon A Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath” by Mimi Alford: “JFK was a man who sexual life remained a central life of his existence, who did not allow it to be diminished by anything – not by his political ambitions, not issues of national security, not his Catholicism, not loyalty to his friends and his male relatives, not physical limitation or pain; not the risk of infecting any of his partners with the venereal disease that regularly plagued him, not fear of impregnating someone, not the potential for personal embarrassment, and certainly, certainly not his marriage…. “John F. Kennedy was the kind of guy who could get his PT boat rammed in half by a Japanese destroyer, losing two of his men, and end up not with a court martial but with a medal. He was a winner and we like winners. He’ll get out of every scrape history can serve up. All the aging hookers and cast-aside girlfriends with book contracts had better take notice: We don’t care about you. JFK is more important to us than you can ever be, so you might as well keep quiet. The cause endures, sweetheart. The hope still lives. And the dream with never die.” Douglas, it's impossible to read every post of every member, but from what I have observed of your posts, you seem to provide a lot of links to anti-Kennedy articles, without personal commentary as to where you stand on what you are inviting others to peruse. Is there a reason why you concentrate on anti-Kennedy material? Is there a reason why, even in your response to me here, you carefully avoid providing any personal position? Do you in fact agree with Ms Flanagan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) David Lifton, on 09 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:This was not a con job. It is real. s I don't understand why anyone find it difficult to hold in one's mind these two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time: #1: That JFK fought off crazy proposals for preventive nuclear war (and other nutty advice, including knocking down the Berlin Wall, which could have led to a nuclear encounter in Europe), and. . . #2: That JFK saw the world around him (and the White House) as some kind of sexual playpen. Do you seriously believe that this woman made this up? Or that Random House published it because they are anti-JFK?? I find neither of these propositions particularly reasonable or credible. If anything, this woman was a complete innocent, compared to the other females we've heard about. DSL It is not hard at all to hold two (apparently) contradictory ideas at the same time. But the ability to hold both of your specific ideas doesn't automatically make one, let alone both, true. They both depend on the extant record of evidence. Only one of those ideas has probative evidence in support - the other has rumor, innuendo and pulp teen fantasies written by grandmothers for the titillation of the raincoat brigade. At least that's the most innocent explanation. I'm sure you know the less innocent possibilities... Edited June 20, 2012 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 Two excerpts from a review in the July-August 2012 issue of The Atlantic magazine by Caitlin Flanagan of two books: “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy” – interviews with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and “Once Upon A Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath” by Mimi Alford: “JFK was a man who sexual life remained a central life of his existence, who did not allow it to be diminished by anything – not by his political ambitions, not issues of national security, not his Catholicism, not loyalty to his friends and his male relatives, not physical limitation or pain; not the risk of infecting any of his partners with the venereal disease that regularly plagued him, not fear of impregnating someone, not the potential for personal embarrassment, and certainly, certainly not his marriage…. “John F. Kennedy was the kind of guy who could get his PT boat rammed in half by a Japanese destroyer, losing two of his men, and end up not with a court martial but with a medal. He was a winner and we like winners. He’ll get out of every scrape history can serve up. All the aging hookers and cast-aside girlfriends with book contracts had better take notice: We don’t care about you. JFK is more important to us than you can ever be, so you might as well keep quiet. The cause endures, sweetheart. The hope still lives. And the dream with never die.” Douglas, it's impossible to read every post of every member, but from what I have observed of your posts, you seem to provide a lot of links to anti-Kennedy articles, without personal commentary as to where you stand on what you are inviting others to peruse. Is there a reason why you concentrate on anti-Kennedy material? Is there a reason why, even in your response to me here, you carefully avoid providing any personal position? Do you in fact agree with Ms Flanagan? Greg: I am attorney. Attorneys learn from experience that knowledge is power. To ignore what is being said or done by an adversary party is to put oneself at peril. I occasionally post articles that you and others in the forum may construe at being critical of Kennedy because these adversary articles appear in mainstream and influential publications, such as The Atlantic. They provide necessary information and are helpful in gauging current public opinion. I seldom express my personal opinion. For example, if you read my last 12 postings in the Watergate Topic, all of these constitute important and vital information that anyone interested in that topic would want to know. In none of these postings did I express my personal opinion. Of course, I have a personal opinion about Watergate but why should I pontificate when the essential information appears in the article as posted. I have posted hundreds of articles on Murdoch's hacking scandal in the Political Conspiracies Topic. I have almost never expressed a personal opinion about what I posted. John Simkin has written that more non-forum readers around the world are reading these postings than are forum members. Murdoch's hacking scandal is one of the great stories of our times and how it ends will shape future history. My view of the JFK Assassination Topic is that it is a forum for exchange of information on the subject, not for JFK cult worshipping. Because it is a source of information, it is widely used by forum members and non-forum readers for research. If it were solely postings of cult worshipping, it would have zero credibility and not be the major force that it is. Please review of my posting above #237 that answered your previous inquiry. I think in that posting I made it clear that in my opinion The Atlantic in the essay by Flanagan is living up to its prior reputation of being biased against JFK in the articles it has published. Numerous postings have been made by members about Robert Caro's new book that generally is considered to be critical of JFK. Should Caro's book be ignored and not mentioned in the forum because it is not laudatory about JFK? Of course not. I hope that the above answers your inquiry. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Two excerpts from a review in the July-August 2012 issue of The Atlantic magazine by Caitlin Flanagan of two books: “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy” – interviews with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and “Once Upon A Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath” by Mimi Alford: “JFK was a man who sexual life remained a central life of his existence, who did not allow it to be diminished by anything – not by his political ambitions, not issues of national security, not his Catholicism, not loyalty to his friends and his male relatives, not physical limitation or pain; not the risk of infecting any of his partners with the venereal disease that regularly plagued him, not fear of impregnating someone, not the potential for personal embarrassment, and certainly, certainly not his marriage…. “John F. Kennedy was the kind of guy who could get his PT boat rammed in half by a Japanese destroyer, losing two of his men, and end up not with a court martial but with a medal. He was a winner and we like winners. He’ll get out of every scrape history can serve up. All the aging hookers and cast-aside girlfriends with book contracts had better take notice: We don’t care about you. JFK is more important to us than you can ever be, so you might as well keep quiet. The cause endures, sweetheart. The hope still lives. And the dream with never die.” Douglas, it's impossible to read every post of every member, but from what I have observed of your posts, you seem to provide a lot of links to anti-Kennedy articles, without personal commentary as to where you stand on what you are inviting others to peruse. Is there a reason why you concentrate on anti-Kennedy material? Is there a reason why, even in your response to me here, you carefully avoid providing any personal position? Do you in fact agree with Ms Flanagan? Greg: I am attorney. Attorneys learn from experience that knowledge is power. To ignore what is being said or done by an adversary party is to put oneself at peril. I agree, Douglas. That's why most here do keep an eye on what's being reported, and how it is. Where we digress is in the disseminating of the material. If I chose to provide a link to the same type of material you send readers to, I would flag the issues, and the possible motives for the piece - whereas you seem to be just helping to spread propaganda by your failure to flag the probable purpose of the material, its lack of objectivity, and etc. Every member here may know the Atlantic is anti-Kennedy, but not everyone reading your post knows it. Knowledge is power, but propaganda is subjugating. Are you really trying to empower here, or enslave? I occasionally post articles that you and others in the forum may construe at being critical "May construe" of Kennedy because these adversary articles appear in mainstream and influential publications, such as The Atlantic. They provide necessary information and are helpful in gauging current public opinion. What "necessary information" do they provide? That Kennedy was a sex fiend? "helpful in gauging public opinion"? No, Douglas. I think you mean "helpful in molding public opinion" as in "Kennedy was a sex fiend". I seldom express my personal opinion. But I note you did by when you declared you believed Mimi Alford was telling the truth. Yet you can't express an opinion to say a particular story on Kennedy is no more than a character assassination? Though that would be fair enough if you do not actually take such stories as Dear little Caitlin's to be character assassination pieces. For example, if you read my last 12 postings in the Watergate Topic, all of these constitute important and vital information that anyone interested in that topic would want to know. In none of these postings did I express my personal opinion. Of course, I have a personal opinion about Watergate but why should I pontificate when the essential information appears in the article as posted. What "vital information" was contained in the Cynthia Fagen story at the start of the thread? That JFK tried to pimp Mimi? Please. What evidence convinces you that anything Ms Alford said is true - and more importantly, how would you present that evidence in a court of law to convince anyone of her story? She would be excoriated under cross examination by anyone who cared to do some fact checking, and you surely must now it. I have posted hundreds of articles on Murdoch's hacking scandal in the Political Conspiracies Topic. I have almost never expressed a personal opinion about what I posted. John Simkin has written that more non-forum readers around the world are reading these postings than are forum members. Exactly my point with your links to material which are JFK character assassination pieces. You are sending non-members to read that trash and it will be assumed by most, you endorse and recommend the material. That is unless you think those non-members are mind readers and therefore will know you are trying to empower them and not propagandize them. Murdoch's hacking scandal is one of the great stories of our times and how it ends will shape future history. He's our gift to you in return for your gifts of McDonald's, Pine Gap and the Brady Bunch. Suck it up. My view of the JFK Assassination Topic is that it is a forum for exchange of information on the subject, not for JFK cult worshipping. Because it is a source of information, it is widely used by forum members and non-forum readers for research. If it were solely postings of cult worshipping, it would have zero credibility and not be the major force that it is. I see. A simple call that we should be debating the quality of evidence being accepted for his alleged philandering is akin to "cult worship". Well, Douglas, I'm more than prepared to believe JFK is a baby-eating Nazi lizard-man if the evidence is convincing enough. Call me old fashioned, but faith, and a willingness to suspend disbelief are no substitutes for acceptable standards of evidence and fact-checking. Please review of my posting above #237 that answered your previous inquiry. I think in that posting I made it clear that in my opinion The Atlantic in the essay by Flanagan is living up to its prior reputation of being biased against JFK in the articles it has published. Yes, you did, and I thank you for that. Numerous postings have been made by members about Robert Caro's new book that generally is considered to be critical of JFK. Should Caro's book be ignored and not mentioned in the forum because it is not laudatory about JFK? Of course not. Not at all. And that is not what I have been suggesting should happen. I hope that the above answers your inquiry. Doug Yes. But it's mostly written between the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Jefferson Morley is not the topic of this thread. However he is a key variable in the legitimation of this narrative for the Ed Forum audience, because he has a reputation of being "between two worlds" i.e. open to the evidence that suggests conspiracy but also ...employed in big money journalism. Recently I got around to reading Deborah Davis' book on Katherine Graham. I found it intriguing and very interesting, if, at times, uneven in the amount of evidence it offered for some of its assertions. Kind of like my view of the Mary Meyer book. But here's the thing: when we are reading about the extremely guarded world of media elites and their alleged intelligence friends it's like trying to pluck lint from your own eye. Depth perception can be affected, and possible corroboration was long ago swallowed by Georgetown fondu. Which can get Jesuit. These problems of corroboration are there for all aspects of history but are unique for increasingly centralized Cold War Corporate media. Therefor, it's important to remember the difference between journalism and history. Sometimes I think that critics judge some books AS IF those books were pretending to be history rather than its first draft. That is a feeling I had about how some individuals -- perhaps unduly influenced by elbows from New Zealand which might be redundant-- were too dismissive of the Russ Baker book on the Bushs. Recently I bumped into Baker, and he told me he did not even know who Hankey was. When asked about putting Bush higher on the food chain than Dulles he winced, and seemed shocked that anyone might in any way attribute such a view to his book. I saw Baker's book as journalism, not history. It was asking questions, for further research. The Janney book has faults and a few of them are gaping. But it did not seem to me that it was assuming the air of history rather than new investigative journalism. If it did, my judgement of the book would have been vastly different. Now re: Morley I was interested to learn that Jefferson is the grandson of 1930's and 40's WaPost op ed page editor Felix Morley who apparently was very tight with Philip Graham. Can this be verified from other sources besides the Davis book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now