Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK's teen mistress addresses relationship


Recommended Posts

Someone who has read this book should write a review with LOTS OF PRODUCT LINKS in it for Amazon. Then the review WHICH WILL BE SEEN BY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE POSSIBLY, DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE CLICK BUTTONS can lead a healthy percentage of these otherwise only MSM readers to sources of deeper and or different flavored truth. Please write this soon so I can click a button on Amazon and thereby generate far more change than I would be by pulling a lever in a completely fake corporate election next November. I would do this, but I don't have time right now to read this profound and scholarly work. I will leave it to my betters like Brian Williams to mull over the oral footnotes.

One could also inform citizens about certain web sites with articles about Rolling Bob Loomis, other CIA media amusement parks etc.

If you build ramps they will click

Shoeless Nate

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sex with the Commander in Chief was OK, but to give Dave Powers a blow job, was a mistake?

I am sure Dave Powers felt otherwise :P

KK

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Did it ever occur to you that the Secret Service agents could be completely truthful about JFK's rampant and well documented sexual promiscuity ... AND at the same time certain members of the Secret Service could have facilitated the JFK assassination? "

------ Yes, Robert i acknowledged that abstract possibility in my post 68, which you here distort.

I am in no rush to judgement and don't know how anyone could be--given what we know about the Media history of JFK questions and issues. Is there a Ford among us here for guidance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

I am reading/skimming MiMi Alford's book right now. It is well written and a light, easy read. This is one of those cases where probably 100% of everything she says is true. And I don't often say that.

She is not bashing JFK. Except for calling him an "insatiable lothario" (quite fairly, I might add) MiMi portrays John Kennedy as a very nice man and quite a charmer.

The tone of the book is analytical, not scandalous, racy or excessively negative. Here is the book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Secret-President-Aftermath/dp/1400069106/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328844959&sr=1-1

I skipped to the part where JFK and MiMi are racing rubber duckies in the presidential bathroom (p. 66)

Apparently, JFK had a very regular routine of swimming at lunch or mid-afternoon because of his back bad. It was not just about mid day sex orgies.

He would have Fiddle & Jill and MiMi floating about him, bantering with him in the pool.

After the swim sessions, when the girls got back to the office, JFK would get Dave Powers to invite one up to his living quarters ... when Jackie was not there.

And there is the the Cuban Missile Crisis, where JFK sees MiMi, who by then had become a regular, again. (p. 93) The key point is Jackie was not there - she and the kids were at Glen Ora. As soon as Jackie would go away, Dave Powers would start calling the girls for Kennedy. By the way, MiMi did not have sex with JFK when she saw him during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Apparently, he had something on his mind.

Any one who reads about the Kennedys will know that Jackie was often away from JFK for various reasons and she often went to the Glen Ora farm while JFK was "running the country."

I have not gotten to the part where JFK said "I'd rather my children red than dead."

This book is a lot more than a kiss and tell about sex - that is very little of it - what it is is a valuable contribution to history.

Remember what I always say, if you want to find out what a man is up to, what he was thinking and his frame of mind was, ask 1) mistress or 2) his longtime secretary. Those women are 99%+ of the time sounding boards and emotional support systems. Or ask his wife if they have a good relationship.

Remember, MiMi Alford was besieged and sought by the media in 2003. She was not the one seeking attention or pushing a book. They found her story first from others, NOT MiMi.

MiMi says about her experience in 2003:

"I turned down all the media requests. I thanked my well-wishers for their kindness. I ignored the critics, concluding that there was no way to reason with people who thought I was intentionally trampling on JFK's memory or who thought I was making it all up. I reminded myself that it wasn't my idea to go public; going public had been forced upon me." (pp. 8-9, Once Upon a Secret)

Bottom line: MiMi Alford's account is a valuable contribution to history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss Greg Parker. See these younger guys are no so jaded and have not been hit over the head as much. Therefore they have a fresher and more skeptical point of view of the MSM:

UPDATE

So what are we left with? Barbara Gamarekian had no personal knowledge. It was all hearsay and innuendo.

Now we also know that TIME was right in 2003 when it stated that no one in the old Press Corp remembered Mimi - and therefore also had no memory of any liaisons with the Commander-in-Chief in Nassau. Gamarekian herself had said in the oral interview that they did not see Mimi during that trip. But then, in 2003, this group of old scribes convinced themselves over a few drinks that they did in fact, remember her.

Another part of the oral interview - together with the alleged Nassau incident may paint a very different picture: one of a spoilt rich kid used to getting what she wants and aggressively pursuing it.

It seems - despite claims that Mimi went on ALL the trips - she somehow missed one to Ireland. She was left to work with an "older woman" who refused Mimi's request to have a Friday off. Mimi's reaction is very telling. She phoned Kennedy in Ireland to complain and apparently had wanted the woman fired!

As for Nassau: Gamarekian stated in the interview that she presumed Mimi had been "hiding in the car for several days" after being flown there by the Air Force. The problem is that at the time, Mimi was not even working in the White House. If she turned up in Nassau, it is more likely she got there under her own steam on the day she was allegedly seen, and somehow managed to get access into the car. Pursuit of what she wanted.

But the deeper one digs into this story, the more you have to doubt it.

Here's a quick run down.

1964, Gamarekian gave an oral interview in which she hinted at - but did not spell out - a sexual relationship between Mimi and JFK - based solely on hearsay and rumors she had heard.

2003: Robert Dallek talked Gamerekian into opening the file on this part of her interview for his Kennedy bio. He refers to Mimi as an "intern". Gamerekian complains to a major newspaper claiming she never used the word "intern" and hinting that Dallek was only using it because of the Lewinski affair. Moreover, she states that there was no intern program and is reminded by a former colleague that the only intern there at the time was Nora Ephron. Ephron, meanwhile writes an Op-Ed piece stating that she has no memory of Mimi and that Kennedy never made any moves on her (much to her chagrin!). Mimi is located and gives a statement confirming she had a sexual relationship with Kennedy and that she had no more to say on the matter - ever. The TIME reports that the Press Corp has a hard time remembering Mimi - until they start discussing her during a regular luncheon get-together. Then (no doubt with the drinks flowing), they "piece it [the Bahamas incident] together" - despite this being impossible if Gamerekian's 1964 interview is correct - that they had not seen her in the Bahamas at all.

2012: Mimi has an upcoming tell-all book on her alleged affair with Kennedy. It, by all accounts, has much that is so outlandish, it is hard to imagine anyone but those with an agenda would swallow it. This includes such gems as JFK telling her he would rather his kids be "red than dead" and him spending time with her during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other tidbits are a direct rip-off of other "tell-all" Kennedy books, including allegations of drugs and other forms of abuse. In short, it has the hall-marks of conservative / intelligence propaganda - all just in time to turn people away from giving a damn about the upcoming 50th anniversary of the assassination.

It is time people stopped swallowing this stuff without at least a cursory examination of the evidence.

Greg, I hope Simkin, Lifton, and Bob take your last sentence to heart.

Well, I see that the sour and dour Mr. DiEugenio is back. . . now advising us on the credibility of Mimi Alford.

For what its worth: I saw the NBC program 30 Rock, and the interview with Alford by Meredith Viera, and thought it was first rate.

I thought Mimi Alford was completely credible. I thought the interviewing by Meredith Viera was excellent. And I thought the commentary by Bryan Williams was first rate.

For anyone following this controversy, there is no substitue for actuall watching the show.

It was one of the most intelligent and sensitive pieces of broadcast journalism I have seen in a long while.

For anyone tempted to rely on DiEugenio, keep in mind what his scorecard looks like:

DiEugenio today, in 2012, is still glorifying Garrison, apparently unaware of, or insensitive to, the miscarriages of justice perpetrated by his screwball investigation, which practically destroyed the JFK research movement;

DiEugenino promotes such nonsense as the involvement of Kerry Thornley in the JFK conspiracy--which is absurd

DiEugenio seems to ignore the fact that Garrison charged Edgar Eugene Bradley with murder, and then had to apologize to him for doing so;

DiEugenio has a completely rose-colored view of JFK and doesn't understand that he and RFK were not just privy to the plots to kill Castro, but that RFK essentially acted as his brother's cut-out in effort to get rid of Castro

DiEugenio doesn't understand that the Zapruder film (and other films) were altered; and actually wrote a post that this is something he "deliberately" avoided researching

DiEugenio doesn't understand that the President's body was altered, prior to autopsy, and that this was the basis for the false autopsy at Bethesda;

DiEugenio doesn't understand that the alias Hidell was actually used by Oswald in the months prior to JFK's assassination, but instead tries to sell the idea that that is all "after the fact." It was not.

DiEugenio doesn't understand the importance of Doug Horne's work--ignoring the fact that this was the first time someone employed by the Government, and who actually was present at the depositions of all three autopsy doctors, actually came out with a major work supporting Best Evidence;

DiEugenio has made all kinds of absurd charges against Seymour Hersh

With regard to C David Heymann: DiEugenio derides the notion that RFK had the conversation with Garrison that Heymann reports, simply because it is misreported as having taken place in 1964--which was obviously an error. But years ago, I checked with the State University archive, and obtained the handwritten copy of the notes made by the author--they are what he published in the book.

And spare us your theories that this book was published because Random House has some vested interest in destroying the Kennedy image. That's doesn't wash.

The woman got the publisher she did because of her unique experiences. (Have you bothered to read "Jack and Lem"? Do you realize how important that book was, also? Here was a good friend of JFK, who was gay, and who had a room at the White House and visited on many weekends. Do you dismiss his account, too?)

At the end of the NBC-TV show were interviews with Doris Goodwin, Dallek, and Richard Reeves, the author who wrote one of the best books I have ever read on JFK--and of course you disparage him too. All three basically said that the Alford revelations would not affect JFK's place in history, because the importance of what he did cannot be overturned by his extramarital affairs.

Thanks for pointing me to the book Ordeal in Africa, but in just about every other area, you're advice can hardly be relied upon, and is usually contrary to the best evidence.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim DiEugenio's work in this area has been superb; for those who haven't done so, please read his "Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy." This book is just the latest installment in the ongoing campaign to discredit JFK's memory in the public eye. It is done so with the intent, clearly, of robbing his death of any significance, since he was an immoral, reckless scoundrel.

JFK is still despised by those who run this world. The names may have changed, but the same forces remain in control. The establishment is notorious for protecting the reputations of those historical figures whom they wish to promote; you are unlikely to see, for instance, any scandalous books being published about FDR or Harry Truman. Certainly, no figure such as this woman could hope to come forth with some kind of decades old "tell all" book based upon sexcapades with politicians more favored by establishment historians. She would have been laughed out of any reputable publishing house in the world with this ridiculous story. The same publishers and news directors who scoff at any and all "conspiracy theories" have no trouble accepting the alleged personal anecdotal tales of the Judith Campbell Exners of the world. Why is that?

JFK (and RFK) threatened the establishment. They are still a threat to the establishment. Their reputations must be smeared, in order to prevent any future politicians like them (or those who might be interested in exposing the truth about their murders) from trying to follow in their footsteps.

Don't fall for this con job. The agenda is blatantly obvious.

Don:

I find your position completely unreasonable.

Apparently you have a set of cherished beliefs about Kennedy that are impervious to the credible evidence offered by this woman (and others, too). So suddenly this completely legitimate journalism is characterized as a "con job".

Please do watch her interview by Meredith Viera, as broadcast yesterday on NBC-TV's 30 Rock.

I thought it was excellent.

John Kennedy was a complex individual.

If one can't deal with the complexities of his psychology, how can anyone expect to get to the bottom of the complexities of Dealey Plaza?

DSL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

Side note to Jim DiEugenio re: Steven R. Weisman

Steven R. Weisman CFR member. Here is his bio: http://www.iie.com/staff/author_bio.cfm?author_id=581

Here is is CFR membership: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall4.htm

Steven R. Weisman CFR

Andrew Scott Weiss CFR

Antonio F. Weiss CFR

Charles Weiss Jr. CFR//TC/92

Cora Weiss CFR/92

Daniel Weiss CFR

Edith Brown Weiss CFR/92

Elizabeth Anne Weiss CFR

Having said that, I have little doubt that when Steven R. Weisman was in junior high out in Hollywood, that he and his classmates knew all about the JFK/Angie Dickinson affair (obviously from their parents who worked with the film industry)

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the interview with Mimi yesterday on the Today Show. Contrary to David Lifton's favorable impression of another interview, I thought Ann Curry's performance was an embarrassment to journalism. Zero skepticism. Fawning, soft and tender "questions" designed entirely to permit the guest to promote her book, elicit sympathy from the audience and place her firmly in the victim category. I don't know, but wouldn't there be at least one "Why should we believe you?" or "You must know that people are going to question your motives, considering you've written a book about this" or "What other evidence is there for this sexual relationship, beyond your own testimony?"

These same journalists will adopt an entirely different demeanor if they're questioning someone who is outside the establishment, or promoting something that challenges the powers-that-be. I remember in particular watching usually lame and submissive Matt Lauer attack Dr. Andrew Wakefield like a pit bull, in response to his allegations that vaccines are related to autism in children. In this case, the "interview" was no different than what you'd expect if Larry King was interviewing Mother Teresa. When an active sitting President, Bill Clinton, was accused of actual, forcible rape by Julia Broderck, these same "journalists" ignored her completely. Later, President Dubya would be accused of forcible rape by another woman, who then proceeded to die mysteriously. Sounds like there might have been a story there, huh? Not for these "journalists."

If you can't see a difference in the way the msm and establishment historians (like Reeves) treat all other presidents, and how they treat JFK and RFK, then I don't think you're paying close attention. As Jim noted, it's not the alleged affairs that are most important, it's the reaction to them on the part of the establishment. As for Doris Kearns Goodwin, would she have any notoriety if she hadn't supposedly slept with LBJ? She's obviously biased.

The Kennedys were different, and that's why they were killed. Those who conspired to do so recognized that assassinating their characters would be a crucial part of the ongoing coverup. Consider the sources for all these allegations. I don't apologize for still caring about the Kennedys. I think they were fighting evil forces, and I will always consider them heroes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John:

You are missing the point.

As I stated above, its not a matter of whether or not Kennedy had affairs. To me whether he did or did not is not really relevant.

It is what people who are in the "business racket" do with these things TO MAKE THEM SEEM RELEVANT that is the key.

With Exner, Time-Life went ahead and simply made up BS to make them appear to be relevant. On that one, the original writer, Kitty Kelly, did not write one word of the front page essay. The editors at Time-Life just made up crap about the mafia and JFK to sell magazines. And then Hersh and Russo went even beyond that. Except their source, Underwood, would not show up for his ARRB interview.

With Mary Meyer, Leary lied his head off to sell his book Flashbacks. Dr. LSD, made sure he got acid in the White House. Somehow, no one noticed that in his 25 previous attempts to write about the matter, he forgot about Mary Meyer.

As per David Lifton, man where have you been?

C. David Heymann? This guy was exposed as a serial xxxx ages ago.

Frankie, you are right on.

That's it. Anyway that's what I think. That's what makes this a worthwhile topic to me. (I know its an answer to John Simkin)

I think it's interesting that some chief purveyors (and creators) of this stuff to feed a certain something are, like Edgar 'the body remover' Hoover far more sexually conflicted (Walker too) yet hide behind a certain facade. One can go far on this on a number of tangents like sociology for example. It's funny (see the whats the tsbd topic) what's often missed is right in front of one.

edit typo

Whoever has read the C. David Heyman book, does he include a picture of Bobby Kennedy, wife and kids, going to church on Aug.5, 1962 in Gilroy, CA, which is pretty far away from Santa Monica. I've been trying to find this picture for a long time.

Kathy C

Link to post
Share on other sites

John:

You are missing the point.

As I stated above, its not a matter of whether or not Kennedy had affairs. To me whether he did or did not is not really relevant.

It is what people who are in the "business racket" do with these things TO MAKE THEM SEEM RELEVANT that is the key.

With Exner, Time-Life went ahead and simply made up BS to make them appear to be relevant. On that one, the original writer, Kitty Kelly, did not write one word of the front page essay. The editors at Time-Life just made up crap about the mafia and JFK to sell magazines. And then Hersh and Russo went even beyond that. Except their source, Underwood, would not show up for his ARRB interview.

With Mary Meyer, Leary lied his head off to sell his book Flashbacks. Dr. LSD, made sure he got acid in the White House. Somehow, no one noticed that in his 25 previous attempts to write about the matter, he forgot about Mary Meyer.

As per David Lifton, man where have you been?

C. David Heymann? This guy was exposed as a serial xxxx ages ago.

Frankie, you are right on.

That's it. Anyway that's what I think. That's what makes this a worthwhile topic to me. (I know its an answer to John Simkin)

I think it's interesting that some chief purveyors (and creators) of this stuff to feed a certain something are, like Edgar 'the body remover' Hoover far more sexually conflicted (Walker too) yet hide behind a certain facade. One can go far on this on a number of tangents like sociology for example. It's funny (see the whats the tsbd topic) what's often missed is right in front of one.

edit typo

Whoever has read the C. David Heyman book, does he include a picture of Bobby Kennedy, wife and kids, going to church on Aug.5, 1962 in Gilroy, CA, which is pretty far away from Santa Monica. I've been trying to find this picture for a long time.

Kathy C

There may well be such a photo, but a good friend of mine was the law partner of an attorney who was in the car, with Bobby Kennedy, on the night of August 4, 1962, on Sunset Boulevard, when they were pulled over for speeding. If his account is correct, there is no question but that RFK was briefly here in Los Angeles that night. He arrived at Van Nuys airport, was driven to Marilyn's house, and then went back to that airport (and , presumably, bac to Gilroy, CA).

DSL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once Upon a Secret: My Hidden Affair with JFK by Mimi Alford – review

The confessions of a teenage intern in JFK's White House are less kiss'n'tell than three-act tragedy

By Robert McCrum

Guardian.co.uk

Friday 10 February 2012 06.00 EST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/10/affair-jfk-kennedy-alford-review

John F Kennedy, always a US icon, has over the years acquired a life story that's almost all sex and violence. Assassinated on 22 November 1963 in an atrocious public death, JFK and his record have become progressively tarnished by the sexual secrets of Camelot.

The names of Judith Campbell Exner, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Gunilla von Post, Marlene Dietrich and two secretaries dubbed "Fiddle" and "Faddle" are now associated with the 35th president's private life as much as Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby are with his violent death.

Marion ("Mimi") Beardsley Fahnestock Alford is the latest notch to be carved into the presidential bedpost. She was first outed by Robert Dallek in his 2003 JFK muckraker, An Unfinished Life, as a "tall, slender, beautiful" 19-year-old college sophomore with the pet-name "Monkey", and endured a firestorm of post-Lewinsky media intrusion. Now, as Mrs Alford, a sixtysomething divorcee, she has decided to take control of "my story".

Actually, Once Upon a Secret is less an act of independent self-possession, more the helpless revelation of a woman as a victim. Her carefully constructed memoir, despite its marketing, is not so much a saucy kiss'n'tell of hanky panky in the White House, rather a tragic three-act case study of a young woman who flew too close to the sun.

In American class terms, Mimi is medium posh. She describes a childhood of "preppie privilege", growing up "in a rambling colonial farmhouse" in New Jersey. Her parents were classic east coast Wasps, but no picnic: her father a manic depressive; her mother a domestic diva. Reading between the lines of her tight-lipped family history, it's clear that, as a young girl, Mimi was stifled, obedient, anxious – and low on self-esteem. "Everyone we knew was a Republican," she writes, "and shared the same Protestant faith."

In high school, Mimi says she had "a run of bad luck" with boys. When her luck changed and she landed a suitor in eighth grade, she let him kiss her, once. Even in the late 1950s, this was not exactly the primrose path of dalliance. "That was the last kiss anyone bestowed on me through high school," she writes. "Monkey" Beardsley was a psychosexual accident waiting to happen.

The first sign of trouble, aged 17 and feeling "like I didn't belong", was anorexia, though no one was using the word then. By 1962, barely 19, Miss "Changed Most Since Sophomore Year" was a young woman who, in her own words, "could talk and flirt and parry [with boys] easily. I just needed to find someone who understood me."

It was at the climax of this first act in her life that, exploiting a school connection, young Marion Beardsley wrote to the first lady, Jackie Kennedy, and landed a job as a White House intern. Rarely has a naive virgin stepped into a more perilous scenario.

Alford says that "the word feminism had not yet entered my vocabulary". It's a moot point whether women's lib could have inoculated this vulnerable 19-year-old against the aphrodisiac of supreme power. It was as if, she writes, on the brink of her fall, "I had been awarded membership in an elite club without having to go through the initiation process".

Almost, but not quite. She was already in too deep. On only her fourth day at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Alford found herself in the White House swimming pool with "Fiddle" , "Faddle", JFK and his procuring "first friend", Dave Powers. Cocktails in the president's suite followed. According to Alford, the president "couldn't resist a girl with a little bit of social register in her". Late in June 1962 Mimi Alford experienced "the thrill of being desired". Cruelly, she "cannot describe what happened that night as making love". But she resists any charge of date rape. "I wouldn't call it non consensual, either."

The 18-month affair Alford reveals reduced her 19-year-old self to the status of presidential plaything. She would do her college classwork in the limo on the way to have sex. JFK never kissed her on the mouth. Even in bed, she called him Mr President. Afterwards, she would listen to Little Peggy March or the Shirelles ("Will You Love Me Tomorrow?"). He preferred Tony Bennett or Frank Sinatra.

The dark side of the man she calls "the Great Compartmentaliser", and who would identify himself on the telephone as "Michael Carter", was never far away. One day in the swimming pool, he decided that Dave Powers was looking "tense", and coerced Alford into giving the first friend a blow job. "I don't think the president thought I'd do it, but I'm ashamed to say that I did. The president silently watched." With sex, came drugs. Alford claims she was "the guinea pig" for the president's fascination with amyl nitrate – poppers.

The exercise of power can be very discreet. The secret service turned a blind eye. Alford kept her shame to herself, and would do so for more than 40 years: "Blinded by the president's power and charisma, I was fully committed to keeping our affair secret." It was a joyless business. "I can't say our relationship was romantic. It was sexual, it was intimate, it was passionate," she writes. "But there was always a layer of reserve."

Don't look to Once Upon a Secret for much new insight into JFK's presidency. Alford tells us that during the Cuban missile crisis, her lover confided "I'd rather my children be red than dead", but little else. On the death of his baby son, Patrick, he shared condolence letters with Alford, "tears rolling down his cheeks". That was probably the closest she came to the Great Compartmentaliser's heart.

Then she met a boy her own age, Tony Fahnestock, and got engaged. She continued to see the president. In the third act of this romantic tragedy, it's only on JFK's assassination that she confesses all to her future husband. Fahnestock, with terrible cruelty, says he will forgive and marry her, but that she must never tell a soul.

The burden of this secret (which she gradually shares with a tiny circle of girlfriends) stifles her emotional life, poisons her marriage, and traps her in what she calls "her emotional shell". Because this is America, where stories must have happy (or at least, feel-good) endings, she has therapy, finally meets Mr Right, and is able to "let go of my secret, and share". Sadly, for her, it may be too late. At the end of Once Upon a Secret she confesses she has perhaps "never been part of the story" and was only "a footnote to a footnote

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the interview with Mimi yesterday on the Today Show. Contrary to David Lifton's favorable impression of another interview, I thought Ann Curry's performance was an embarrassment to journalism. Zero skepticism. Fawning, soft and tender "questions" designed entirely to permit the guest to promote her book, elicit sympathy from the audience and place her firmly in the victim category. I don't know, but wouldn't there be at least one "Why should we believe you?" or "You must know that people are going to question your motives, considering you've written a book about this" or "What other evidence is there for this sexual relationship, beyond your own testimony?"

These same journalists will adopt an entirely different demeanor if they're questioning someone who is outside the establishment, or promoting something that challenges the powers-that-be. I remember in particular watching usually lame and submissive Matt Lauer attack Dr. Andrew Wakefield like a pit bull, in response to his allegations that vaccines are related to autism in children. In this case, the "interview" was no different than what you'd expect if Larry King was interviewing Mother Teresa. When an active sitting President, Bill Clinton, was accused of actual, forcible rape by Julia Broderck, these same "journalists" ignored her completely. Later, President Dubya would be accused of forcible rape by another woman, who then proceeded to die mysteriously. Sounds like there might have been a story there, huh? Not for these "journalists."

If you can't see a difference in the way the msm and establishment historians (like Reeves) treat all other presidents, and how they treat JFK and RFK, then I don't think you're paying close attention. As Jim noted, it's not the alleged affairs that are most important, it's the reaction to them on the part of the establishment. As for Doris Kearns Goodwin, would she have any notoriety if she hadn't supposedly slept with LBJ? She's obviously biased.

The Kennedys were different, and that's why they were killed. Those who conspired to do so recognized that assassinating their characters would be a crucial part of the ongoing coverup. Consider the sources for all these allegations. I don't apologize for still caring about the Kennedys. I think they were fighting evil forces, and I will always consider them heroes.

I got a different impression of Ann Curry's interview on the Today Show. One occasion Ms. Curry says, "If your story is true..." and on another occasion says, "If what you are saying is true...." This line of questioning is not zero skepticism or fawning.

Here is a link to the interview:

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/46325017#46325017

David Lifton in a prior comment raised the question of how the Secret Service agents must have viewed the comings and goings of JFK's sexual conquests. In the Today Show interview Ms. Curry mentions that Ms. Alford must have walked by the Secret Service agents upon leaving JFK after having sex and Alford acknowledges that the agents stationed on the second floor by the elevators in the family area of the White House saw her leave. She also says that she does not know how many other persons in the White House knew about the sexual affair.

A close friend of mine residing in France wrote me years ago about how JFK when President would have French prostitutes flown over. One wonders if they, too, were invited by him to the family quarters on the second floor of the White House and what the reaction of the Secret Service agents might have been to the sight of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

Roger Stone article on "Those Kennedy Boys and Their Poppers" http://stonezone.com/

Stone: "JFK's use of amyl nitrate is curious because Senator Ted Kennedy's former top aide Richard E. Burke wrote in his book "The Senator" that Senator Kennedy regularly used amyl nitrate (poppers) for his recreational sex which Burke described as voracious."

THOSE KENNEDY BOYS AND THEIR POPPERS by Roger Stone

"The New York Post broke a story Sunday in which Mimi Alford told of an affair she had with John F. Kennedy when she was 19 years old. Among the bombshell revelations is that JFK popped a capsule of amyl nitrate and waived it under her nose at a swinging Los Angeles party even though she said she didn't want to inhale the drug, which causes a sexual high.

A popper is a slang term for amyl nitrate which has been part of the club culture from the 1970s disco scene to the 1980s and 1990s rave scene. Poppers have a long history of use due to the rush of warm sensations and dizziness experienced when the vapors are inhaled. Capsules or liquid are inhaled with the goal of enhancing sexual pleasure.

TIME and the Wall Street Journal reported that the popper fad began among homosexual men as a way to enhance sexual pleasure, but "quickly spread to avant-garde heterosexuals" as a result of aggressive marketing. The head rush, euphoria, and other sensations that result from the increased heart rate are often felt to increase sexual arousal and desire. A 1987 study commissioned by the US Senate and conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services found that less than 3% of the overall population had ever used poppers.

JFK's use of amyl nitrate is curious because Senator Ted Kennedy's former top aide Richard E. Burke wrote in his book "The Senator" that Senator Kennedy regularly used amyl nitrate (poppers) for his recreational sex which Burke described as voracious.

Curiously as Chairman of the Senate Health Committee Kennedy published a report on the dangers of amyl nitrate which causes irregular heartbeat.

I guess freakiness ran in the family."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...