Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kennedy Family Secrets ?


Recommended Posts

Just a passing thought that I wish to mention.

There have been both many questions and criticisms of the immediate and continued Kennedy Family silence regarding the death of JFK.

I feel that at times, since they don't directly relate to 11/22/63 and Dealey plaza, although we realize certain circumstances, we tend to downplay them when discussing the intensity and horror of what ocurred on that assassination day.

I don't feel that even the most fervent lovers and supporters of the Kennedy Family are in a position to deny that this family was involved in some very questionable and perhaps shameful events that the family would prefer to keep "out of the sunlight", which dated back even to Joseph Sr.'s very early business and personal dealings. Some questions involving not only Josephs possibly illegal business dealings, his Hollywood Period, his decision of how to handle a daughters mental problems, and qustions regarding his conduct during his Ambassadorship. I will stop before I even enter the possible transgressions and hushed up aspects of several of his children's behavior.

There are several very important questions that involve even Jack's military career (even the PT 109 "heroic fiasco").

Please do not think that my point here is "Kennedy bashing" in any form. The reasons that I have even mentioned the above was to introduce J. Edgar Hoover and his general hatred of the Kennedy family. With the enormity of the Kennedy influence in so many different elements of modern American History, and with so "many" Kennedy's involved in what many might consider questionable dealings, behavior, in both personal and formal involvements,

I cannot even begin to gather the "enormity" of the generally unknown information which Mr. Hoover could use to to lambast and denigrate the Kennedy name and the name of JFK himself.

He not only could but would....and LBJ had insured that Edgar was again firmly entrenched as the "True Untouchable".

I think that we should probably give more consideration to what might be some very understandable decisions regarding "Kennedy Family Silence" !

I feel that there was no doubt a very binding "Unspoken Deal" !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whatever Hoover, et al may have had on the Kennedys, apparently it wasn't enough to keep Jack and Bobby in line.

Of course the desired consequences of their murders transcended immediate relief from Kennedy political power.

Gerald Patrick Hemming, during his Lancer-sponsored panel discussion and on other occasions, stated that the Kennedy family could not afford not to seek vengeance, and in fact took out more than one sponsor of the Dallas hit.

Nice pitch for a Hollywood thriller, Jer. But as a history lesson, it cries out for documentation.

Is the family attempting to protect its most vulnerable members by maintaining its silence? If so, then why wasn't the death of JFK JR a deal-breaker?

And why weren't the arms of Orion twisted askew when Warren Commission Cover-up Artist Jerry Ford was awarded a Profile in Courage lantern?

During his "Dark Side of Camelot" book tour, Sy Hersh was asked if he had learned anything about JFK that was too terrible to publish. "I heard things I didn't want to believe," was his response.

What? That the president was a communist? A de facto enemy agent? That he ordered Marilyn's muder? That his father was one of Hitler's willing executioners (a la Prescott Bush)?

SO what?

The greater loss suffered on 11/22/63 is measured not in a single wasted life, but in the holocaust that has ensued.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles Drago

Although I "somewhat" get the intent, of your statements, their substance does nothing to sway me regardless of the emotion which you have projected.

Are you asking me to believe that an investigation in the death of JFK Jr. would have yielded anything more than what resulted from the investigation of the "very obvious and public murders" of his Father and Uncle ?

I am certain that you can't be saying that the Kennedy family wanted it to be recorded as a part of History, many of their shady and nefarious dealings. Just because the name is Kennedy, that name does not stamp "Approval" of many of the unsavory dealings and crimes with which the family can be linked.

The "holocaust" was cast in Dealey Plaza. A review of past Kennedy mis dealings could be expected by no one to have averted what has followed.

It should be realized that the secrets of Hoovers voluminous files on Kennedy history, certainly was not allowed to die with "The Director" !

Yes I feel that there are very possibly many "secrets" that the Kennedy family, to this day, does not want exposed. However I feel very strongly that the Kennedy's have NOTHING that would directly and positively finger a single conspirator !

As I stated earlier, the Kenndy's were and remain to this day cornered. They cannot prove the conspiracy, though they do risk allowing many unsavory aspects of their lives made public....

Aspects that could in no way strengthen the Kennedy heritage !

It is and has been a "Lose / Lose" situation for the Kennedy family.

The position of the conspirators was so well entrenched that they did not fear a continuation of murder and what you precisely termed "holocaust" !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greater loss suffered on 11/22/63 is measured not in a single wasted life, but in the holocaust that has ensued.

Charles

Well put Charles! And a whole series of holocausts it has been and IS still.

I'd suggest the book Conspiracy, The Plot To Stop The Kennedys by Matt Smith to anyone who wants an outline of what they were up against. It also talks about some of what they had to hide and it often was used

 against them by those who were out to kill them. Whatever their peccadillos, the

y were triffling compared to the murders of the Kennedys and the mayham that has 

ensued since.

When I think of the Kennedy family's silence, I wonder how Ted Kennedy copes;

especially when he had to identify the body of John Jr, whose plane, unbeknownst to many,

blew up in the sky (witnesses) on a clear night. (tomflocco.com) I also believe Ted was

set up at Chappaquiddick and almost done in by a small plane crash which broke his back

in 1964.

There was also another odd death. Years ago, Joseph III was running for Governor and his campaign chief

was his brother Michael. These two were Bobby Kennedy's sons. It was discovered that Michael was having an

affair with his underage baby-sitter. Along with Joseph's annulment by the, IMO, corrupt Catholic Church, and Michael's

sexual escapades, Joseph had to quit his run for Governor. Shortly before Michael met his

death on the ski slopes, Congressman Sonny Bono died exactly like Michael -- an accident on ice.

He slammed into a tree. Somehow it was a shocking event and a nearly unheard of mode of dying. Then Michael died the

same way, supposedly playing football. I've never heard anything about Michael's death that said it was anything except a freak

accident. Still, you wonder. And then, because he was a Congressman, could there have been

malfeasance in Sonny Bono's death?

Kathy

Edited by Kathleen Collins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll weigh in with my two cents on the Kennedy family and the supposed skeletons in their closets. First of all, to anyone truly interested in the reality behind so much of the anti-Kennedy propaganda spewed out by the press that was supposedly so friendly to them, I'd suggest reading Jim DiEugenio's excellent article "The Posthumous Assassination of JFK," which I think can still be found in either the Fair Play or Probe magazine archives online.

I believe it was Victor Hugo who wrote that "behind every great fortune there lies a great crime." In that sense, I don't believe papa Joe Kennedy was a choir boy. However, when held up against the likes of the founders of other (and far wealthier) capitalist families like the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds, for example, he compares pretty favorably. Joe Kennedy has been unfairly criticized for many things over the years. On the subject of his daughter Rosemary, for instance, in which he has been castigated as some sort of monster who purposefully destroyed her without telling his wife, the reality is quite different. Rosemary was, in the parlance of the day, a bit "slow" mentally, and generally unable to keep up with her gifted and fun-loving siblings. At that time, a frontal lobotomy was considered a daring but untested new procedure that could possibly cure mentally "slow" persons like Rosemary. As a loving and concerned father, Joe used his considerable finanacial resources to have her flown to the best specialist in this fledgling field, and he didn't tell his wife because he wanted to surprise her with the "new and improved" Rosemary. Tragically, the procedure failed miserably, and Rosemary was left with the mental ablilities of a toddler. Although it backfired in his face, and destroyed his daughter's life in the process, Joe can hardly be accused of anything other than perhaps being too risk-taking (a trait we've all heard associated with the Kennedys many times) in trying to help his beloved daughter. To his children, Joe Kennedy was a dedicated, involved father who wanted nothing but the best for them. Was he ruthless? Well, what evidence is there that he hurt anyone, or engaged in any real corruption, or commited any crime, over the course of his life? The rumors of his "buying" the election for Jack were initially circulated by some of the many right-wing enemies of the Kennedys. In later years, when Judith Exner came out of the woodwork and was instantly accepted as credible by the mainstream media that ignored (and still ignores) all "conspiracy theorists," the legend about the "buying" of votes, or the "fixing" of votes, usually in conjunction with mafia figures like Sam Giancana (who, in true doublethink fashion, is also often postulated as being involved in the assassination of JFK), became acceptable in polite society, promulgated by "leftist" journalists like Seymour Hersh.

I wish that more people would stick up for the Kennedys. Compared to the kind of politicians this country has almost always been saddled with, the Kennedys were pure gold. Listen to some of JFK's speeches as president; the American University speech, the scintilating speech about the importance of free-flowing, uncensored information and the arguments against secret societies. No president before or since has ever said such things. JFK said the treatment of the American Indian was a national disgrace. Has any other president even commented on the plight of the American Indian? John F. Kennedy was the first, and only, president to refuse a salary. Bobby and Teddy never accepted salaries as public servants, either (not sure about Joe III or Patrick, but my guess is they have followed this family tradition). JFK galvanized a generation of young people with his speeches about treating all Americans as we want to be treated, the Peace Corps, his challenge to send men to the moon and so many other idealistic bits of rhetoric that still resonate to this day. JFK was a good man. RFK was a good man. Teddy was a good man (imho, he has been bought and sold over the years). Old Joe Kennedy was remarkably non-corrupt for a man of his wealth. Consider that this man had to suffer the deaths of his oldest son and his oldest daughter in seperate plane crashes and the murder of two other sons in seperate incidents. Even the Greeks would have had a hard time in constructing anything more tragic than that. Since then, this family has suffered more unnatural deaths than any family should ever have to suffer. The reason why it is so popular to criticize old Joe, JFK and RFK, imho, is because the same parasites in the mass media who ridicule "conspiracy theories" have a vested interest in making them out to be unworthy of our adulation, and in some instances have basically insinuated that they deserved to die. JFK didn't deserve to die, neither did RFK, and they tried to accomplish some good, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of elected officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dbl post

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll weigh in with my two cents on the Kennedy family and the supposed skeletons in their closets. First of all, to anyone truly interested in the reality behind so much of the anti-Kennedy propaganda spewed out by the press that was supposedly so friendly to them, I'd suggest reading Jim DiEugenio's excellent article "The Posthumous Assassination of JFK," which I think can still be found in either the Fair Play or Probe magazine archives online.

I believe it was Victor Hugo who wrote that "behind every great fortune there lies a great crime." In that sense, I don't believe papa Joe Kennedy was a choir boy. However, when held up against the likes of the founders of other (and far wealthier) capitalist families like the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds, for example, he compares pretty favorably. Joe Kennedy has been unfairly criticized for many things over the years. On the subject of his daughter Rosemary, for instance, in which he has been castigated as some sort of monster who purposefully destroyed her without telling his wife, the reality is quite different. Rosemary was, in the parlance of the day, a bit "slow" mentally, and generally unable to keep up with her gifted and fun-loving siblings. At that time, a frontal lobotomy was considered a daring but untested new procedure that could possibly cure mentally "slow" persons like Rosemary. As a loving and concerned father, Joe used his considerable finanacial resources to have her flown to the best specialist in this fledgling field, and he didn't tell his wife because he wanted to surprise her with the "new and improved" Rosemary. Tragically, the procedure failed miserably, and Rosemary was left with the mental ablilities of a toddler. Although it backfired in his face, and destroyed his daughter's life in the process, Joe can hardly be accused of anything other than perhaps being too risk-taking (a trait we've all heard associated with the Kennedys many times) in trying to help his beloved daughter. To his children, Joe Kennedy was a dedicated, involved father who wanted nothing but the best for them. Was he ruthless? Well, what evidence is there that he hurt anyone, or engaged in any real corruption, or commited any crime, over the course of his life? The rumors of his "buying" the election for Jack were initially circulated by some of the many right-wing enemies of the Kennedys. In later years, when Judith Exner came out of the woodwork and was instantly accepted as credible by the mainstream media that ignored (and still ignores) all "conspiracy theorists," the legend about the "buying" of votes, or the "fixing" of votes, usually in conjunction with mafia figures like Sam Giancana (who, in true doublethink fashion, is also often postulated as being involved in the assassination of JFK), became acceptable in polite society, promulgated by "leftist" journalists like Seymour Hersh.

I wish that more people would stick up for the Kennedys. Compared to the kind of politicians this country has almost always been saddled with, the Kennedys were pure gold. Listen to some of JFK's speeches as president; the American University speech, the scintilating speech about the importance of free-flowing, uncensored information and the arguments against secret societies. No president before or since has ever said such things. JFK said the treatment of the American Indian was a national disgrace. Has any other president even commented on the plight of the American Indian? John F. Kennedy was the first, and only, president to refuse a salary. Bobby and Teddy never accepted salaries as public servants, either (not sure about Joe III or Patrick, but my guess is they have followed this family tradition). JFK galvanized a generation of young people with his speeches about treating all Americans as we want to be treated, the Peace Corps, his challenge to send men to the moon and so many other idealistic bits of rhetoric that still resonate to this day. JFK was a good man. RFK was a good man. Teddy was a good man (imho, he has been bought and sold over the years). Old Joe Kennedy was remarkably non-corrupt for a man of his wealth. Consider that this man had to suffer the deaths of his oldest son and his oldest daughter in seperate plane crashes and the murder of two other sons in seperate incidents. Even the Greeks would have had a hard time in constructing anything more tragic than that. Since then, this family has suffered more unnatural deaths than any family should ever have to suffer. The reason why it is so popular to criticize old Joe, JFK and RFK, imho, is because the same parasites in the mass media who ridicule "conspiracy theories" have a vested interest in making them out to be unworthy of our adulation, and in some instances have basically insinuated that they deserved to die. JFK didn't deserve to die, neither did RFK, and they tried to accomplish some good, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of elected officials.

Don, (IMO) you put it so well.

Further IMO:

When I grew up in Sweden in the 60's. The Kennedy's and MLK (and our own Olaf Palme) were like beacons of sanity. Now after having studied the assassinations for a couple of years, and looked into what type of president Kennedy was. How he made descisions based on solid research. How he sought to involve everybody. How he approached foreign relations. His search for win win stuations. His respect for the United Nations. How he sought to defuse potentially dangerous situations. etc etc etc. And not least how when he did make a descision he stood by it yet maintained a flexibility. He had credibility to a degree no president since has had.

Children generally learn to relate to their environment by experiencing the actions of their elders. In this case the Kennedy's elders were their parents. That's good enough for me.

The only way the current leadership can measure up to him is by a deconstruction of his Presidency. I suspect they are driven by a shame when really looking at the man. So there is a drive to portray the Kennnedy's as something more on their level.

(Oliver exhibit #1 is a prime example of this deconstruction,(note Oliver ex #4 already CBS was reported as being behind the FPCC, (the 'Grand Jewish Conspiracy")) and because I suspect that the assassins came from that far right side of the fence, the same garbage is rehashed again and again in varying forms to this day. The basic instincts of people on the day, with Mrs Kennedy (echoing the words of Emmatt Tills mother), "let them see what they have done" keeping her bloodied clothing on, and all the reactions of so many people, and then the Radical Right swung straight into action to deflect attention away from those who gained by Kennedy no longer being CiC. This assassination did not catch them with their pants down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him".

Although I very much liked John Kennedy, I have NEVER shared the "sheer adulation" that so many on this and other forums seem to display.

To listen to many of you, you often speak of the "double assassination" of JFK. The second being by those of you who seem to feel that some of the unsavory truths about JFK, RFK, and Joe Sr. should be "unmentionables". Often when I post something that is true, though unflattering about the Kennedy's, I feel that there is an attempt by

some/many for me to wash my mouth out and "run, not walk" to confession!

"Lancer" was not a Holy Knight chosen by the almighty to be THE shining example of male American virtue. To the best of my knowledge, neither were any of the Kennedy's, including Rose .

My purpose on these forums is not to "in any way",

exalt any of the Kennedy family. When I say something which I feel true, tho uncomplimentary, I have never insinuated that similar behavior was not undertaken by others of their social and financial class. And yes, I do attribute much of Kennedy success to their privileged position and the pressure and drive of Joseph SR. Do any of you feel that the Kennedy brothers fought their way up "thru the ranks"? Do ANY of you feel that RFK "earned" the position of Attorney General? There can be much said that without the forceful guidance and prodding and the introduction and support of some large sums of money from Joe Sr., that perhaps none of the "Kennedy Boys" would have reached their lofty levels.

I personally feel that unless you are able to personally disregard the truthful tho less complimentary aspects of the Kennedy's, you are labeled a Kennedy Basher.

I feel that this is a quite immature approach, and a forced reluctance to accept what is quite visible to most. I feel that Jack Kennedy brought a great deal of "Pride and Hope" to this nation during a time of crisis and severe struggle, and I personally felt quite proud for him to be my President and Commander in Chief. And for one to have great respect for The President and the office of The President, does not require that the person holding that office be elevated to "Sainthood".

The Kennedy Bothers were fine young men, as were many in this country, who shared the same strengths and weaknesses as other young men, engaged in some acts that brought pride to their families, and other acts which did not.

They were fortunate to be of a privileged family, and I feel that perhaps it will be said in the final chapter, this "privilege" endowed them with a spirit too reckless and independent, for their own welfare, and that of those whom they served.

I really don't understand why, as a result of certain recent posts by other members, that I should have responded in this manner.

This was initially about the attempted preservation of Kennedy family secrets which they have the right in most cases, to do, as do we all. Whether secrets pertaining to the President's health should be included in this, I cannot judge. I feel that some "little lies" like this had some serious and long lasting effects which influenced decisions as important and damning as JFK's autopsy.

I feel that I have nothing that I would like to retract in my obvious lack of adulation of the Kennedy Family. I never hinted that any of them should have been "fault free", but I feel that privileged position gave them a false sense of security and power, which perhaps was their undoing.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, here.....Don.......

Thanks....

The links...

The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers

By James DiEugenio

# 1

http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html

# 2

http://www.ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html

B......

Hello Bernice,

I personally have never been in any way a fan of Jim DeEugenio's journalism.

I feel in no way A Kennedy Basher, but neither am I any more proud of some of his actions than am I of some of the actions of my own children. In order to respect or love a person, I don't feel that you need approve of, or think that every action that this person makes is wise.

Truth is not slander. Observing and mentioning weaknesses and imperfections in any human being

is something to which all human beings are subjected. Researching the horror of the Kennedy murders does not enlist one in the Kennedy FAMILY Fan Club. There are aspects of both this family and each of our own, that are not worthy of praise.

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, it's all relative. There has throughout human history been a few who stand out. Kennedy was no Buddha or Christ. Nor was he a Hitler, and certainly not a Bush. He had fortune and misfortune. He was a family man. (he had just lost an infant child) He had a crook back and other ailments. He tok drugs to keep going. Hmmm...sounds like a few people I've known throughout life.

This 'adulation' is not really more than an 'identification' that much of humanity has had for this particular man. We're all flawed, surely?

To have a commander in chief who actually seems to have humanitys wellbeing as a priority is quite extraordinary. He was not a 'superhero'. He was one of us. an ordinary, albeit gifted, human being whom we, for a short period, had the fortune to have been in a position of significant authority. (thank goodness it was him and not Tricky Dicky who won in 1960.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello John Dolva

A very well thought out and expressed message that few could argue.

Often when I think of JFK's speech in which he states "we all breathe the same air...."

I personally mentally inject a little more into it.

I feel that he is saying that not only are we all human, but that we are all subject to making the same human mistakes, and we must realize and accept this in an effort to exploit our similarities and desires for the betterment of life for all...and while doing this we must accept that none of us are perfect, so we must mutually accept our individual errors and weaknesses.

This at least is what he was saying to "me", in a speech which I rank at perhaps a higher level than the Gettysburg address.

In my personal thinking it expresses a love, understanding and intense humanity, which we should all share, irrespective of individual religions or the specific space which we globally occupy.

As a man with the same human flaws as most of us, I am unable to "exalt" him, tho I am very proud and thanful for the strengths which he had the courage to display.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Kennedy's June 10, 1963 American University commencement speech that is referenced, and from which George Michael Evica drew the title of his first book, "And We Are All Mortal."

One of the greatest American political speeches? Without question.

It also sealed Kennedy's death warrant.

Neither John nor Robert Kennedy left this world as they entered it. They matured -- physically and spiritually and intellectually. They "got religion" relatively late in their shortened lives, and it is such growth that must be recognized and honored.

In one sense it matters not a whit which president was gunned down in Dealey Plaza, insofar as the consequences of that murder far transcend the loss of all that JFK might have accomplished had he lived.

In another, though, it matters a great deal. For if we refuse to appreciate the assassination in its most basic reality -- as the public butchering of an extraordinary human being, a husband, a father -- we risk losing the emotional drive that remains the sine qua non for the success of our shared endeavors.

As for the character assassination of JFK: it was and remains a critically important component in the cover-up. "He deserved what he got, so why get all hot and bothered?" Isn't that the point in continually damning the dead?

This is similar in style and intent to the "JFK assassinated himself" tactic in effect whenever it is alleged, without proof of any description, that the president forced his guards to stand down as a matter of habit. "He was asking for it!"

I have sound reason to believe that the Kennedy family knows precisely who struck John and Robert. As for their silence on the matter, there is naught but conjecture.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, here.....Don.......

Thanks....

The links...

The Posthumous Assassination of JFK

Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers

By James DiEugenio

# 1

http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html

# 2

http://www.ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html

B......

Hello Bernice,

I personally have never been in any way a fan of Jim DeEugenio's journalism.

I feel in no way A Kennedy Basher, but neither am I any more proud of some of his actions than am I of some of the actions of my own children. In order to respect or love a person, I don't feel that you need approve of, or think that every action that this person makes is wise.

Truth is not slander. Observing and mentioning weaknesses and imperfections in any human being

is something to which all human beings are subjected. Researching the horror of the Kennedy murders does not enlist one in the Kennedy FAMILY Fan Club. There are aspects of both this family and each of our own, that are not worthy of praise.

Charlie Black

*************

Hi Charlie:

Whether or not you are a fan of Jim's work, is irrelevant I believe, it is the overall, and at times down through the years

regular "Killing Kennedys" as they call it......some at seemingly every opportunity and being government connected, I shall say...writers.

etc....have and do take the opportunity....I believe is what he is trying to point

out, there are others who also have written such articles....It seems to come around and go around, at times, the trash

articles and books, as I call them are prevailant, at others, they seem to receed for a time..

We, I think are all aware of all the flaws of JFK, and the Kennedys, why theirs ?? we have read them, and had them pushed in our faces for

years...even if we were not interested....in many Enquirer trash type magazines, staring you in the face in the check out line, at the grocery

stores......

All men are human therefore they all have their flaws......not all the sons of some who take all to whatever extremes turn out to be of the same

character........each is after al an individual..

I have often thought that for instance, if JFK bedded as many

women as some seem to imply, and so and so said, he never would have had the time to possibley have completed anything.....

but he did....

The Presidency is a very expensive run, and if you do not have if, you do not run, no matter wherever the money comes from

it has to be and is there.....Roosevelt, Rosevelt, had it, Nixon got it, LBJ had it and twisted arms for more..even Carter with

the monetary support he had to have in order to obtain

such, most if not all, Presidents in the past 100 years or so, came from well to do families, theirs perhaps have as many

secrets and dirty linen as the Kennedys, but because he was whom he was..and his Presidency is held in such esteem by many when

compared......his is prevailant....and he makes the others that have followed him, since

appear to be what they have been, inept, in many ways....every President it is said has to have his war....JFK was different he tried

to stop them.

..But Kennedy ..and his famiily, are a fair target and continually.....so whenever some see this type of thread going they also step

up to the plate and give the other side of the coin..., that is what debate is all about....I do not know anyone who loves the Kennedys

though I am sure there are some adoring fans....I am not. I have a great respect for what the man tried to do, and did accomplish,

and a great interest in what was taken away, and the overthrow of the government the day they slaughtered him in Dealey, and the

take over that has proceeded since...

I am very aware of his said faults....

So in order to make him appear to not be the President he was, they have chosen the only roads they could, disinfo, misinfo,

gossip,and trash...whatever it takes...to down him..they connect him to his fathers sins, and business practices and beliefs..

yet there were many differences between him and old Joe....did he set some good examples certainly not....did he set other

more appropriate ones, yes..imo..

...When I do read such remarks in books or articles, I have noticed as a rule there is no documentation, it is usually a she says

he said..type of info, or an insider made the statement, heck we all can do that......that proves nothing..

.....so whether one chooses to believe or not, is entirely up to the individual...

Whatever his sins and the sins of his family were, they were not and did not relate, imo to how he ran the Presidency, and the

good he did accomplish, and also what he was not allowed to complete...

No he was no saint, far from it, he could dally with the best of them, it seems there is some proof to that accusation..but many could and did,

in the WH..and according to what I have read so far, in this past

history of the Presidency there were only two who did not and they were Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter...

I have no objections to whatever is discussed, makes for a good thread, but others also have the right to come forward

with their opinions..apparently many look to his Presidency and what they lost, and do not dwell on his private life...which I agree may

relate in some ways but definite proof is needed, for all that has been thrown about, before that can be looked at as reflecting

on his Presidency in any way......there again imo.

Thanks Charlie.....you got a feisty one going..... B)

B

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...