or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › JFK and alleged affair with 19 year old intern
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JFK and alleged affair with 19 year old intern - Page 2

post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally posted by Hilary Briss
He's getting paid back now. Just desserts IMNSHO.
Yes, Alzheimers is such a wonderful thing to wish on someone.

Have you ever had to care for someone who first rots into a shell, completely losing themselves, and then has to deal with a lot of physical pain for years and years before finally they die? Have you ever witnessed how devastating that is to a family? (Oh, that's right. All spawn of republicans are just as inhuman as their parents. My bad. Do you hope all his kids get Alzhemiers too, to wipe out the line?)

That's disgusting to wish on someone. Totally disgusting.

It's disturbing that someone would find it funny, too.

If you want someone dead, then wish them shot. Or wish them humiliated. Or wish them to kill themselves. But wishing someone *Alzheimers*?

I sure as hell hope that I am misunderstanding that statement.
post #22 of 43
IMO, the genuine scandal is why Congress and the U.S. public aren't screaming with outrage at the attempts of Bush et al. to roll back the Great Society and give to the wealthy at the expense of all other groups. Perhaps it's because it isn't nearly as sexy a topic as, well, extramarital sex. I guarantee you that if it came out that Bush was boinking someone (other than his wife) in the Oval Office and trying to hide it, we'd have just that outcry. Rather pathetic, really.
post #23 of 43
Another Prez doing a young intern - so what else is new?


American History is full of this - Grover Cleveland married his ward; the first time a prez got married in the White House, and they had a baby - named a candy bar after her - Baby Ruth.

Andrew Jackson married a woman, a divorcee', before the divorce was final, so it would have been bigamy.

These are the ones that we know of.
post #24 of 43
Quote:
I sure as hell hope that I am misunderstanding that statement.
No, you're reading me loud and clear.
post #25 of 43
re: media and president

the latest vanity fair (with drew barrymore on the cover)
has a stinging critique of mainstream press coverage of George W and the war in Iraq.... page 86.
post #26 of 43
Yes, I read that article...very good.

Thank you, Trabot, for pointing it out.
post #27 of 43
T
Quote:
Originally posted by Tigerchild
Yes, Alzheimers is such a wonderful thing to wish on someone.
If you want someone dead, then wish them shot. Or wish them humiliated. Or wish them to kill themselves. But wishing someone *Alzheimers*?

I sure as hell hope that I am misunderstanding that statement.
I agree, HB, you may have crossed my line of decency there, but you have a right your opinions. I would have a hard time not wanting to wish Alzheimers on someone like Hitler, cause he's truly evil IMO. Perhaps the Reagans are truly evil in HB's mind. We're not able to walk in his shoes to know for sure where he was coming from. It was a very strong statement!

Marcy
post #28 of 43

God punishes the wicked...

I think Alzheimer's disease is pretty light punishment for a monster like Reagan. Let's not forget that he had a hand in the murder of thousands of innocents in Central America in the 1980's, committed treason and subverted the Constitution of the United States, is partly responsible for the current chaos in the former Soviet Union, presided over a massive transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the ruling elite... I could go on and on, but you get the picture. To put not too fine a point on it, I have more respect for the dog sh*t on the bottom of my shoe then I have for Ronald Wilson Reagan. I guess that makes me a liberal.

As for Nancy, well, she's an accessory. At the very least, she could have smothered him in his sleep.
post #29 of 43
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, a woman has identified herself as the 19 year old intern.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ern_admits_all

Unfortunately, she doesn't answer the question on everybody's mind, namely, was JFK any good in the sack??? I hope he was better as a lover than he was a president. And, before you ask, yes, I think he probably got his just desserts, too.
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Now that her secret is out, Fahnestock said, she wants to return to a private life.

In the current media hype climate?

I don't think so. But we'll see.
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally posted by Nursing Mother
...Back to the orginal topic though. Kennedy did it and so did Clinton (had affairs while pres.)...its on the books now, but Clinton went and committed perjury and all this was done WHILE being President of the US. I was only commenting on that.

NursingMother: Yeah, you're right about the perjury issue. However, it was perjury because during a deposition on a sexual harrasment suit, Clinton (who, just for the record, I think is a scumbag...or at least needed to use one:LOL ...and I didn't vote for him either time...and I don't think he is a 'lefty', he's just a slicker and friendlier New Republican) was asked if he had had sexual relations with a huge laundry list of women. Monica Lewinsky was on the list. He denied sexual relations with (I think) all of the women on the list. When the affair was made public, it was possible to get him for perjury. At the time, I wondered why whether or not he had had consentual (though extramarital) sexual relations with anyone other than the plaintiff in the sexual harrassment suit was fair game for a deposition. I still don't know why. If one could quantify perjury (which, admitedly, is a black or white issue), I would think this was a small perjury. The affair was a sleazy thing to do and hurtful to his family. But, to a certain extent, you could call this perhaps "a gentleman's lie" (sexist and antediluvian though that may be).

On the other hand, Reagan "did not recall" any "guns for hostages" stuff. Hmmm. If he hadn't gotten Altzheimer's, could he have been gotten for perjury? And, an old friend of mine told me at the time something that her flatmate told her. Her flatmate's father worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and F R E Q U E N T L Y saw Bush Sr. and Lt Col. Oliver North whispering in hallways but never meeting officially. Hmmmmm some more. Funny how Bush Sr. was the only one to survive that plane crash in the war. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.



Edited to say: HI! ECHELON Yoo Hoo! Over here!
post #32 of 43
Thread Starter 
Dang, HB, you are a riot. Thanks for the levity.

post #33 of 43
you know what's kinda embarrassing?.. i'm supposedly ronald regan's eighth cousin...
post #34 of 43
What I don't get is...

WHO REALLY CARES about where JFK's privates were?

The man is dead. The girl was over 18. Unless she was busy writing his policy memos while he was bucking around behind her, does it really affect anything? I mean, really, there were rumors about him doing other people too.

I never got this about the Monica Lewinsky thing either. Obviously, that relationship was consentual. Now, if he date raped someone or was sexually harrassing someone, then that's something different--but it wasn't with her anyway.

I challenge anyone to name a president who *hasn't* lied in the course of being president. You can even include campaign promises if you like. Now I think that Jimmy Carter is about the straigtest arrow we've had in the White House, but I'm positive that he probably fibbed about SOMETHING.
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Jimmy Carter is about the straigtest arrow we've had in the White House, but I'm positive that he probably fibbed about SOMETHING.
Remember his Playboy magazine interview before the '76 election? Perhaps he lied about lusting after other women in his heart. He might have done that so that we would all believe he was a normal, red-blooded, American male. Maybe he was the exception to a long line of randy, horned up presidents. Maybe not. I can't imagine Richard Nixon having any kind of libido either.
post #36 of 43
Found some interesting stuff about the Clinton perjury stuff, whilst researching something else....hey, what can I say? I am easily distracted...ADD I suspect. Anyhow thought I would throw it out here just for added interest.

There have been several articles written about how the charges of perjury against President Clinton stem from an illegal "perjury trap".

This one in Salon The sting by MOLLIE DICKENSON, is a good over view. http://www.salon.com/news/1998/10/26news.html

The first trap was set by the Jones lawyers. Having obtained illegal evidence from Linda Tripp, they were well aware of the exact nature of the Clinton/Lewinski relationship. Their acceptance of a definition of sex, one which excluded oral contact, was not a mistake as is often claimed.
The Jones lawyers shared all of this information with The Office of Independant Counsel. Ken Starr, by using the same tainted evidence, was able to entrap Ms. Lewinski and from her repeat the trap in President Clintons Grand Jury appearance.

There have been several rulings in the courts declaring the illegality of perjury traps as Mark Perkel notes in this article.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/perjury.htm

In "The real truth about perjury"by Michael J. Bellart, gives us a historic view of perjury traps by contrasting those used against Clinton to those used by The House Unamerican Activities Commission during the Red Scares of the fifties.
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/archi...turnstile.html

...Just some interesting stuff and food for thought.

By the way...I have met and know a lady whose life was transformed from really wonderful to totally awful by the whole Starr fiasco around Clinton. I spent time with her and her son.

She lost EVERYTHING because she would not lie to satisfy what Starr needed in the Katherine Willey investigation. You would NOT believe what they tried to do to coerce her into saying what they wanted to hear.

All that taxpayer money and time and pain and annoyance; not to mention this lady's losses: home, her family turned on her because they wanted her to say what Starr wanted to hear just to make it all go away, her marriage, her job...and they questioned the legitimacy of the adoption of her son, who was like 4 or 5 years old during this ordeal, whom she adopted as an orphan from Eastern Europe. I mean, this woman suffers from PTSD, her health has suffered, she has no income to speak of because of the horrible stigma, etc.

Fortunately now, she is writing a book. I met her just a little over a year ago. I have kept semi-in-touch with her and her son. She didn't deserve what happened to her. She stood for the truth, and got the shaft. And she is not the only one.

Why am I posting this info? Well, you know, we get all wrapped up in Clinton and his genitalia and forget that other real people were brought to the brink mentally and emotionally, bankrupt financially and essentially lives ruined. There is more to the story...and it ain't pretty.

And then there is David Brock, who was very rightwing to the point of working toward and for the whole "Clintons bad" project. He wrote for the right wing, was supported by Scaife (big tobacco money), and helped the whole thing along. When all was said and done...well, he realized he had been used, and "defected".

He wrote a book called, "Blinded by the Right", was personally smeared regarding his mental/emotional stability, and his sexuality (and if you knew things about who outed him, it would be so typically hypocritical, you would laugh)- for his disloyalty to the powers. And then there is a book called, "The Hunting of the President", by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason. These books pretty well tell it like it is. And I have met both David Brock and Joe C.

While the multilayers of the Starr investigation may never be entirely known, it got the powers that be what they wanted in the long run: control. And they have also retained it, and may retain it for most of the next decade if not longer, should an awakening and mobilization not occur in the meantime.

There is something psychologically pathological about that whole power and control obsession that holds America hostage today, as well as the apparent obsession with sexuality as demonstrated by the likes of Santorum, and others, like never before. The intensity of the hold is about like the McCarthy days I imagine, but there is so much more money, people, and technology providing so many more ways and levels to accomplish the goals of power and control.

The use of shock and awe in assault to render a nation unstable in order to occupy it started LOOOOONG before the Iraqi war, on our own shores.

But I digress...Joyce in the mts.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally posted by Joyce in the mts.
The intensity of the hold is about like the McCarthy days I imagine, but there is so much more money, people, and technology providing so many more ways and levels to accomplish the goals of power and control.

The use of shock and awe in assault to render a nation unstable in order to occupy it started LOOOOONG before the Iraqi war, on our own shores.

But I digress...Joyce in the mts.
My mother was subpoenaed during the McCarthy inquisition and my father was there, too. I asked him recently how this 'movement' now compares to then. He said "It is much worse. They also have far better technology with which to track people."

Of course, I've no statistics to back this up, only my father's collected anecdotes; but, he is not a scaremonger and is not given to fits of hyperbole. In fact, he usually underplays everything, to my annoyance. So, I took his remark rather seriously.
post #38 of 43
You know I've been thinking about this thread.... I can't exactly remember when it happened....but when exactly did the press remove their gloves and start going after extramarital affairs of politicians?

I know we had the Gary Hart incident...but even then I still think there was some kind of reserve... I know, I know hard to believe...but frankly at some point it just became a free for all and I can't recall when it took place.

I think it was around the time of OJ....it just seems like that was when the media got a dose of sterroids and we have never been the same.


re: mcarthyism....
I have known several people who were the children of parents who were severly damaged by McCarthy's tactics. I mean the families practically imploded because the parents took the fifth. THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, I might add.
I wonder how many moms on these threads now would defend McCarthy if this was the 1950s. ....oh, well, I'm glad we don't have to know.
post #39 of 43
Thread Starter 
Just a plug here for Sidney Blumenthal's new book, 'The Clinton Wars' which spells out exactly how Kenneth Starr and the House Managers rigged the entire fiasco involving 'obstruction of justice' and 'perjury'.

And Starr broke the law with his endless leaks to the press. Well, certain members of the press he liked.

Everything you've detailed here, Joyce, is true. And Blumenthal's book gives unique 'behind the scenes' insights. Blumenthal was accused of acts he never committed, call the 'Devil' and Clinton's 'pet ferret' in the press, and had his reputation almost destroyed by Starr.
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally posted by trabot
You know I've been thinking about this thread.... I can't exactly remember when it happened....but when exactly did the press remove their gloves and start going after extramarital affairs of politicians?
It has been going on for ages. In Gore Vidal's autobiography Palimpsest there is a description of a scandal involving his grandfather Senator Gore (ummm, yes, THAT family) which got a good deal of play.

I think that there is a definate prurient streak in our culture that looks for this stuff sooooo hard and then takes a perverse delight in exposing it and seeing everyone get all worked up (on both sides). My mother used to say how it was ill bred to engage in gossip and especially that which is harmful.

The only other country I've spent lots of time in that can have a sex scandal cause such a huge problem is Britain. There must be lots of others, but the others I know well (Spain, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Canada) don't seem to react the same. Maybe some other mothers here can fill me in on this.

Quote:
Originally posted by trabot
re: mcarthyism....
I have known several people who were the children of parents who were severly damaged by McCarthy's tactics. I mean the families practically imploded because the parents took the fifth. THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, I might add.
Yeah! It was a horrible time! That's what scared me so much when my father said this was worse. He also said that in some ways what's happening now was much more insidious and subtle.

For some reason, a lot of people who get the podium in this country spout how we are a moral country, and then they impose their morality. Why do we have to be a 'moral' country? We just have to get along and be a democracy (yeah, I know we are a republic). Well, there is always some "moral" damage that can result from whatever it is....communism, socialism, jeffersonian democracy....you name it, if someone hates it, they'll call it immoral.

There is a guy in our office (sort of like the local clown...at least most here treat him like that) who is a holdover from that time. ( I think he is about seventy.) Anytime a guy wears a pink shirt he calls him (in semi-jest) a pinko. (!!) And apparently, that was a common association. Pink was not manly enough...therefore pink was worn by 'fairys'...and pink was sort of 'red' which was 'commie' therefore all fairys were commies. : See how someone's idea of morality can get mixed up with politics? No? Well, me neither, but that word association game was par for the course. Now it is you don't agree with the Shrub, therefore you are against us attacking someone w/o justification therefore you are unpatriotic therefore you are weak and have no moral fiber: See? No? Well, me neither.:

Right, getting down off my soapbox here. .... uh, anyone have a ladder?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › JFK and alleged affair with 19 year old intern