NBC's Curry Grills JFK Mistress: Why Have You 'Burdened' People With Truth About Kennedy?
In a live interview with John F. Kennedy mistress Mimi Alford on Thursday's NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry fretted over her sharing unflattering details about the late president: "What about Caroline [Kennedy], who is still alive?...Did you think about, as you talk about unburdening yourself, the idea that you've burdened other people now with this?" [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]
Alford stood by her decision to go public with the affair: "Well, I don't intentionally burden someone else. I'm telling my story. And that is what – that is what I needed to do." Curry followed up: "Any push-back from the Kennedy family? Yes or no?" Alford replied: "No, nothing."
On Wednesday night's Rock Center, correspondent Meredith Vieira was similarly sympathetic to the Kennedys, specifically wondering why Alford chose to include in her new book a graphic account of the president encouraging her to perform oral sex on then-White House advisor Dave Powers:
This is going to be explosive. This is going to shock people and you also had to know that in writing it, it was going to hurt some people, maybe members of the Kennedy family, members of the Powers family. Because it's powerful and it can't be corroborated. So what did you want people to understand by including it in the book?
In edition to worrying about the fallout from the revelations, both Curry and Vieira questioned Alford's credibility. Curry asked: "So what do you say to people who say, 'Look, you're profiting off a story. You're making money off of this.' What do you say to that?"
Vieira put almost an identical question to Alford: "There are going to be people, Mimi, I promise you, who are going to watch this and they're going to say, 'You know what? This woman is capitalizing on the Kennedys. There's no reason she has to write this book, certainly doesn't have to tell some of these stories that are shocking in detail.'"
Midway through the Rock Center interview, host Brian Williams remarked to Vieira: "I've written down a couple of words as I've been watching. One of them is 'verification.' How do we know she's telling the truth?"
On Wednesday's Nightly News, Williams talked to Vieira about the upcoming interview and skeptically wondered: "...we've already received a lot of response, a lot of e-mails, people with the upbringing – sounds like a lot of us – with the picture of John F. Kennedy in the house when we were kids, wondering, why do this now? Why tell her story now?"
Following Alford's Rock Center appearance, Williams was quick to transition to a group of liberal Kennedy apologists defending the late president.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
That's funny Ann
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:43pm.
Don't recall anyone of the lapdog brigade mentioning "burdens" as regards Herman Cain and his family.
NBC's double standards
Submitted by OxyCon on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:05pm.
The only logical reason why NBC used "so-called" mistresses to attack Cain, while at the same time NBC attacks JFK's mistress is racism...straight up!
Because it's HER story, that's why
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:48pm.
Don't blame Alford. Blame JFK and all the family members, friends, and WH staff that enabled his behavior; they CREATED this story. Alford merely kept it quiet. It was the revelation of her identity in a 2003 biography of JFK that 'outed' her, and now she's clearing the air and cashing in on it. Good for her.
Caroline Kennedy released her mother's private correspondence and interviews in which she claimed to have had an affair with William Holden to get back at her husband. Apparently that wasn't too painful for Caroline, so why not one more account of her father's misbehavior?
Why should only Caroline and the folks she selects get to capitalize on her family's abhorant behavior? Why can't a victim of it cash in, too?
Curry needs to get on the short bus with Matthews and Special Ed Schultz.
Why has Ann Curry.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:48pm.
burdened us with her inanities?
Williams
Submitted by jakesnake on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:46pm.
"sounds like a lot of us – with the picture of John F. Kennedy in the house when we were kids, wondering, why do this now? Why tell her story now?"
A lot of us?
OR
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:51pm.
Any of us?
This is reminiscent of
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:50pm.
This is reminiscent of Curry's attack on Benazir Bhutto.
She is a sorry excuse for a "journalist."
'Look, you're profiting off a story. You're making money off of this.' What do you say to that?"
The proper response is "Everybody who writes a book profits off a story. What's your point?"
Curry makes money from her stories also
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:05pm.
If this was about Bush they would be asking "what took you so long"
...and how can we help... I
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 6:05pm.
...and how can we help...
I thought women were pretty compassionate about sexual harassment victims - even this is political for the left...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Lapdogs
Submitted by Kuso Jiji on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:50pm.
The American Media is a joke. NBC is so far in the tank with the Democratic Party it is disgusting to watch. ABC, CBS and CNN are just as bad only a little better at hiding it.
why does the press burden us
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:56pm.
why does the press burden us with Kennedy's book end,,,Obama..
Kennedy began the Charade and Obama ends it.
what's up next LBJ and also Ike, but once we get to Ike, we see a real man.
Both men never seem to get discussed by the libs..embarrassment for LBJ and they would have to admit they were proud of the USA under Ike.
There were the nit pieces on
Submitted by buddyc on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:03pm.
There were the nit pieces on Palin that said she screwed a NBA player and that both she and her husband went out on each other with NO source or backup.
Not to mention Cain and the Newter's alleged relations with women.
Ann thought that was great.
It is funny that she didn't think Clinton and Edwards activities were particularly newsworthy either.
"Verification" - It works both ways Brian Williams
Submitted by OxyCon on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:05pm.
How does anyone know Brian Williams is telling the truth?
I've long ago taken every word Brian Williams says with alot of skepticism since he is a Democrat propagandist hiding behind his "News Anchor" title.
"Verification"
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:42pm.
Williams is a pimp, plain and simple. His empty suit idol has been finally skewered and he, along with the other media pimps and pimpettes are unhappy. JFK was a womanizer, plain and simple. Even though he was married to Mrs. Pillbox Hat he continued to fool around - and then hand off his "Used merchadise" to family and friends. Classy. Just imagine if a Republican president was sneaking bimbos up the backstairs? And don't forget, the media at that time knew about this and covered it up........ala John Edwards.
Yes, Williams IS a pimp and so are his fellow enablers.
Have a nice day.
Caroline's response?
Submitted by Vonu on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:06pm.
Um, you know, Um, you know, Um, Um, You know.
Exactly! What a perfect
Submitted by dr-go on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:19pm.
description of what the Kennedy family members would offer as "push back".
Give her a break
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:50pm.
Being one of the "smart people" can be quite strenuous, you know
2025: "Ann, why burden us now with your Obama affair stories?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:17pm.
After all, you were a (allegedly) married woman at the time, were you not?"
Caroline
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:55pm.
Have we forgotten that Caroline's mother lived with another woman's husband for many years. Evidently that is to be ignored as well. Wouldn't want to burden Caroline with her father's whoremongering.
Jackie marrying Onasis was a marriage of love and honor?
The media is making complete jackasses of themselves.
Is there an editor in the house? Somebody who can spell?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 7:05pm.
Paragraph 5 (after the excerpt):
"In edition to worrying about the fallout, ..." Really?
Yesterday, it was "Hocking his book..."
Come on, you're pros. Do it right, or Gisele will dis you at the elevator.
How old is Caroline?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 7:11pm.
She's 54. She was alive when Jack was badoinking Mimi, and apparently sharing her like a fancy club waitress. Caroline's not a spring chicken, she's a Kennedy, for crying out loud, and she's surely heard about sex, and her dad and sex, and her uncle and sex, and her other uncle and sex and bridges, and their protege Bill (and Hill . . . and Monica).
Give it a rest, Ann. Don't you have a university to get confused by?
Curry
Submitted by grammajane on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 7:21pm.
you are burdening your 2 or 3 viewers with such drama and questions. If it is such a burden, why is everyone at msdnc questioning her? Curry, did you ever consider Caroline and her kids by having on-going talks with this woman on national tv. Your dramatics and phoney concern is way over the top.
Kennedy mistress
Submitted by Steve Cakouros on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 7:31pm.
We have always known that Jack Kennedy was a predator and a bit of a freak. This is not news.
And we have always known that his brother Ted was a drunk and a coward who left a woman to die in four feet of water whose voting record reads like a prayer of confession.
Also, we have always known that the patriarch of the clan Joseph Kennedy Sr. was kicked out of England thereby ending his ambassadorship, so that the old Anti-Semite could be free to again employ insider tricks in order to cheat others and enrich himself.
Kennedy money is dirty money.
So why are people like Ann Curry and the Media so taken with the Kennedy’s?
It is because they are small and easily impressed.
It is because morals and spirituality means nothing to these people who would keep
under wraps the fact that Ted Kennedy was kicked out of Harvard for cheating or that Jack's touted book was ghost written.
It is because they are not pro-life and pro-family.
It is because they are Socialists.
America would have better off had it never heard of the Kennedy’s the aficionados of shame.
Shame is consonant with the Kennedy name but that doesn’t bother Media Leftists who themselves have no morals.
I was going to drop a fine bon mot about burdening...
Submitted by KyWriter on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 8:09pm.
...but you guys beat me to it. How can Ann Curry use such a phrase and not set herself up for a very just comparison? I suppose because she is as stupid and self-centered as the rest of the talking heads on NBC and the rest of the burdensome media.
And they wonder why the
Submitted by cristo on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 8:42pm.
And they wonder why the American people don't trust the media?
Wait just a darn minute. You mean JFK had an active libido!!?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:07pm.
...and indulged in inexcusably reckless personal behavior preceding and during his presidency???
Well knock me over with a feather. True, this revelation provides yet another opportunity to drag the Kennedys--both living and dead [mostly the latter]--through the mud. But the predictable allegation that the media has shielded the Kennedys from unseemly rumors and embarrassing documented facts is unadulterated tripe. No, it was not widely reported during his presidency in the early 60's when the media environment for politicians of ALL parties was qualitatively different from what it has become in more recent times. Ike and Kay Summersby diddled each other in practically every hotel in Europe during WWII while Mamie endured the humiliating gossip stateside, but it was never a major issue in his subsequent campaign. And, yes, the press continued to avoid detailing the personal indiscretions of the tragically martyred JFK for a period of time after the young president had his brains blown out on a Dallas street. (I don't wish to unduly shock anyone but quite a few of the nation's chief executives have had sexual skeletons haunting them both before and during their terms in office, many [but not all] of which received comparatively scant media scrutiny.)
But the once calculated concealment of such peccadilloes has not been the case in the modern era of media scandal-mongering and its obsessive fascination with the private lives of public figures, including, if somewhat retroactively, JFK's. [Although the mystery remains why the flagrant infidelities of Gingrich while he was a congressman were given a pass by the MSM.] Nor have the controversial history, behavior and predilections of the patriarchal Joe Kennedy been sugar-coated--although it should be noted that his fortune was not amassed illegally, the bootlegging accusations are largely myth, and his early favorable views of Hitler were not uncommon among isolationists such as him as well as conservative Republicans like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh.
And, for goodness sakes, is it too much to ask that the reputations of Joe Kennedy, Jr and his nephew, John Kennedy, Jr--both dying in plane crashes, the former in war and the latter in peace, and about either of whom there has hardly been a whiff of scandal--not likewise be besmirched in this latest orgy of Kennedy bashing?
Jer
~This seems like an apt moment
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:21pm.
to point out that a 45 year old President maneuvering a 19 year old virgin into a situation where she had to have sex with him, or assert herself forcefully against it, was statutory rape in all but name. That girl never stood a chance, and Kennedy used and abused her in a shameful manner. There's a reason men like that pick such young, inexperienced women, and it isn't because they're looking for a mutually fulfilling relationship with an equal. His libido had far less to do with things than his ego.
Relationship?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:37pm.
I read an excerpt from the book. JFK didn't treat her like anything but a receptacle for his lust. How many other women did he treat the same way? How could such a man have any respect for women as a group of citizens?
Remember the controversy about the miniseries "The Kennedy's"? I watched part of it and thought it was pretty tame and downplayed the "indiscretions" of the family. Yet the family was able to pressure the networks not to show it. Nope, no bias here.
Imagine what the media would had
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:43pm.
Done to her had she came out with this before they all died. Fact is, she aint out of the woods yet.
Yep.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:49pm.
Note the tone of the media in regard to Caroline K. Schlossberg. The princess of Camelot must be defended, don't you know?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Rad
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:02pm.
I followed the link to the original story about her, and read the comments after the piece. Liberal commentors were savaging her for ever coming out with it at all, because she should have "kept her mouth shut" apparently, and others accused her of being psychotic and making it all up. One of the criticisms was that she came off robotic and emotionally detached in the interview, and the thing is, it would be a perfectly normal result of trauma if she were!
At that age, in that era, she was a psychological child in sexual matters, and the fact that her first 'relationship' was with a man who not only didn't provide anything emotionally, but demeaned and devalued her as a woman and a human being by treating her as nothing more than a sex doll guaranteed a level of psychological trauma that would cause a dissociative disorder, among other things. I'm sure Dr. Sam or strat could elaborate on that much better than I.
Bru
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:18pm.
Robotic = didn't gush over being abused by JFK
Did you read the details she gave over the encounter? It was robotic, not to mention abusive.
Of course the women who came out over Herman Caine are saints and extremely brave.
~Yes
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:27pm.
It was awful. The poor thing had no clue what was going to happen till it was happening, and then she was too overwhelmed and overawed to comprehend what was really going on, much less assert herself to stop it.
Hi, Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 2:24am.
Sent you PM.
Jer
Psychiatric perspective on forced sex.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:28am.
In any legal sense, commission of sexual molestation or rape (however the prevailing law defines it) qualifies as a traumatic event in the life of the victim. In general, sexual molestation/rape do not involve sex but rather the assertion of power through the focus of sex as a weapon. In other words, the molester/rapist is not looking to "get off" in street parlance, but rather looking to commit an egregious act and sex is the preferred medium by which the maximum horror can be afflicted on the victim.
It is quite surprising, if not shocking, to hear liberal commentators (particularly women) to tell a rape/molestation victim to keep quiet simply because the potential rapist/molester is a figure they hold in high esteem. What is even more troubling is that most Democrats would acknowledge that JFK was certainly not a saint and his sexual degeneracy has been well documented with a string of mistresses, one-night stands and casual sexual encounters with women from every level of society. The same could be said of his brothers Bobby and Teddy to some extent. Liberals were quite fond of using the term "rape" to describe everything and anything that it was not, as witnessed by the rantings and ravings of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. MacKinnon, particularly, is infamous for her "I felt raped by that comment", simultaneously pointing at her as a loon of cosmic proportions and devaluing the meaning of the word "rape". Then came Dworkin and her famous school of thought that all men are potential rapists. The constant overuse of the term, like "racist" now, serves a paradoxical purpose in that it eliminates the horror of forced sexual contact and as you put it so well, devalues and demeans the victims of sexual molestation or rape. Certainly this is not what feminists want, but the fable of the boy who cried "wolf!" serves as a functional parallel to what overuse of these terms, both incorrectly and insouciantly, conveys.
To go back in a time machine and look at the sexual mores and values at the time, there is no excusing JFK's behavior. Like Bill Clinton and his infamous "bimbo eruptions" as described by his sycophants in the press, we see the same with JFK's mesmerized zombies like Chrissy Tingles and Baba Wawa. It is excruciating to see that filthy, disgusting old hypocrite Baba Wawa chastising that woman for publishing her victimization by JFK, when Baba was carrying on with a Senator and God knows who else. Baba telling that woman that she should have kept quiet goes against EVERYTHING that psychiatrists and psychologists do in treating rape and molestation victims. Baba is nothing but a filthy hypocritical pig, and I don't care who challenges me on that term--NO ONE should EVER adivse a RAPE VICTIM to SHUT UP!! That's how angry I am. Had that woman punched Baba Wawa in the face, she would have been justified and I would have flown to New York to defend her actions. It is also quite shocking that Baba, who has always advertised herself as a feminist extraoardinaire, would ever doubt or question the veracity of a self-reported rape victim. The more radical feminists even propose that a rape victim's story should never be questioned and advocate limiting cross-examinations of rape victims in criminal cases. That is ultimately what is so shocking to me--that purported feminists are so willing to accuse this woman of being an opportunist and/or liar simply because she challenges their insane worship of JFK. After all, he was human with a number of well-documented and well-recorded foibles. Certainly, the excuse that Caroline Kennedy needs to be protected as she is over 50 years of age AND is likely well aware of her father's and mother's histories is just more fuel on the fire to prove that liberals value the legend of JFK and the Camelot era more than they do the actual history of what happened.
What this woman went through, potentially, as a sexual molestation/rape/coerced sex victim, moved from acute depresssion to post-traumatic stress disorder in a very short time period. Most PTSD victims remain silent, and their mental illness manifests as a range of symptoms from detachment and what we term "flat affect" (no emotional displays at all) to a rather stunning display of exaggerated emotional reactions to relatively minor life changes. Example: a number of the war PTSD victims I have treated (mostly military), lose some ability to display their emotions to their close loved ones to the point of losing intimacy and being incapable of properly expressing their love for family, friends and acquaintances AND simultaneously going into a rage over small things such a misplaced TV remote or a similarly minor event. The woman's presentation is quite indicative of some degree of PTSD, though I am not her psychiatrist and therefore am making only some professional observations on the evidence as is currently available to me.
Wrathful--you called that one superbly! Are you sure you haven't been sneaking out to do a psychiatry residency in your spare time?
~Thank you, Dr. Sam
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 4:23pm.
It really upsets me to see the way this woman is being treated over this; if she were coming forward with a story about a Republican President she'd get nothing but sympathy, but since the abuser was a Liberal Demi-God the poor woman is getting Palined.
What I find particularly disturbing is that she doesn't seem to have talked it through with a decent counselor, or she'd realize that JFK did coerce her, in the same way that a child is coerced by an adult pervert. He took advantage of the utter imbalance of power to use her and convince her that she was a willing party to it, and completely devastated her psyche in doing so. She was an innocent young girl with every expectation of meeting a nice man and losing her virginity on her honeymoon, and that filthy pervert reduced her to a self-loathing sex toy who coiffed his hair and gave blow jobs to his friends. She still hasn't recovered, based on the way she talks about it.
And liberals want her to just shut up. God help one who says that to my face.
(Jer, I'm blowing off steam at liberals in general, don't think I'm mad at you)
Bru...If I were rewriting that post I would make the headline
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 2:45am.
a little less dismissive and cavalier, but when I then added "inexcusably reckless personal conduct" I meant that literally and unconditionally: Kennedy's conduct was indeed inexcusable!
I do, however, dispute the allegation made by many--and I believe at least implicitly accepted by you--that a sympathetic media has engaged in a fifty-year deliberate cover-up of Kennedy's personal flaws, failures, infidelities and moral delinquency in an effort to protect the idyllic Camelot image.
That claim is utter nonsense. There have been literally dozens of books and hundreds of articles thoroughly documenting JFK's sexual misbehavior and various other episodes of scandalous conduct and controversial activities. And they have been penned by authors, reporters, and participants from one end of the political spectrum to the other.. [And quite a few exposes` extend to other members of the Kennedy family as well.]
Jer
~Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 3:15pm.
JFK means nothing to me; he lived long before my time and I find that whole era of American history repugnant. As far as the media goes, I believe that if JFK had been a Republican they would have joyfully exposed anything they could find.
All I really care about in this situation is that this poor woman was sexually and psychologically abused, had her innocence stripped from her with nowhere to turn, and now that she's verifying a persistent rumor and coming out with her story people are acting like she should have just continued to keep her mouth shut, for the sake of the reputation of a dead man. A man who's been gone for almost 50 freakin' years. Liberals need to let that Camelot crap go, admit JFK was a moral degenerate and a sexual abuser, and move on.
statutory rape in all but name
Submitted by needle on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:53am.
Yes, that sums it up well.
What a disgusting creep JFK was, him and the Creme de la slime he gathered around him.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Scorned
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:21pm.
Much?
Ol' Jeringo sounds like a Democrat whose ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:43pm.
ox got gored.
A post full of righteous (?) anger - twaddle that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact - other than deflecting it with Jer's patented 'they do it too' - that the great majority of the Kennedy clan males were miscreants; religiously and morally.
JFK was assassinated; he was not "tragically martyred".
Unless, of course, one is a Democrat content with prostrating himself before the altar of Camelot, and throwing out statements like "the bootlegging accusations were largely myth".
Largely?
That approximates the "some say" made famous by lib media talking heads.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 1:42am.
Three points:
-While the term "martyred" is not entirely improper, it was definitely not the best--nor even a good way--to describe Kennedy's death.
-My post would have been more appropriately placed among the comments following Brent Baker's blog on this topic yesterday.
-Otherwise, I stand by my remarks.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 4:42am.
Two points:
- You're a lefty Democrat.
- I'm sure not standing by remarks favorable to the Kennedy mystique would get your butt kicked out of the club.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:06pm.
The favorable remarks were about Joe Kennedy, Jr. and John Kennedy, Jr. I did offer some balancing [and factual] details about Joe Kennedy, Sr. and disputed the notion the MSM has concealed the stories about Kennedy's reckless personal behavior since his death. That charge is utter nonsense. The "orgy of Kennedy bashing" was directed at the tenor of a number of comments on the other thread where my post was meant to be placed.
Jer
"and disputed the notion that the MSM ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:21pm.
has concealed the stories about Kennedy's reckless personal behavior since his death".
I guess
it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" isit all depends on what the meaning of the word "since" is.There was certainly a delayed time line on those revelations, though I will grant you that times were different then as far as the treatment regarding releasing salacious stories reference the president (cy).
Both the Kennedy males who died in plane crashes hadn't the chance to live down to the expectations of the other Kennedy clan reprobates.
Who knows, maybe they wouldn't have, had they lived.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:03pm.
[Re concealing stories about Kennedy's reckless personal behavior since his death], you say:
"I guess...it all depends on what the meaning of the word "since" is.
There was certainly a delayed time line on those revelations, though I will grant you that times were different then as far as the treatment regarding releasing salacious stories reference the president (cy)."
In my initial post I had acknowledged the following:
"And, yes, THE PRESS CONTINUED TO AVOID detailing the personal indiscretions of the tragically martyred JFK FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER the young president had his brains blown out on a Dallas street." [My caps for emphasis]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/02/09/nbcs-curry-grills-j...
Jer
Well, at least I now know, Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:24pm.
where you got the emotive phrase,"tragically martyred" .
Can't begin to tell you how appreciative I am that you cleared up the meaning of the word 'since' - "for a period of time".
Available as an adverb, preposition, or conjunction.
Who knew?
MD
Really Matthew? Where did I get the phrase?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:56pm.
And I don't understand your point about "since".
Frankly, nothing about your reply makes any sense. If you're asking the exact date the MSM began reporting on some of the more unseemly aspects of Camelot and JFK, I can't answer the question. But the charge there has been a continuing and comprehensive cover-up from the time of his death is absurd.
Jer
Now we are even, Jer, because---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:58pm.
I find any post by you containing the word 'absurd' to be quite nonsensical.
Case in point (or point in case) in this case:
Now you're asking ME where YOU got the phrase "tragically martyred" ?
Really, Jer?
It appeared to me that you got the phrase from the quote you provided that contained that phrase.
Nothing about MY reply makes any sense?
You funny guy.
MD
p.s.
The 'since' was a play on your hero Bubba's "what the meaning of 'is' is" inanity.
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:49am.
"Now you're asking ME where YOU got the phrase "tragically martyred" ?
Really, Jer?
It appeared to me that you got the phrase from the quote you provided that contained that phrase."
And that quote happened to be an excerpt from my original post in which I used the phrase--a phrase which you promptly criticized and about which I mostly agreed with your criticism.
So why did you bring it up again and state that you now understood where I got the phrase? That's what was confusing.
[I got the "what the meaning of 'is' is" thing. That part wasn't confusing.]
Jer
I noted the phrase, Jer, in your ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:01am.
original post - figured it was from your brain box. When you brought it up the second time, I thought you were indicating it had come from somewhere else.
Simple misunderstanding.
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate".
Strother Martin line in "Cool Hand Luke"
MD
Thanks, Jer
Submitted by needle on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:14am.
Or as the Manipulated Stories Machine has put it so often before: “Move on. There is nothing to see here.”
By the way, you forgot to mention, just like the MSM, John Edwards and numerous overlooked “conquests” of Bill Clinton.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
"... Ike and Kay Summersby
Submitted by texasborngranny on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:22pm.
"... Ike and Kay Summersby diddled each other in practically every hotel in Europe during WWII while Mamie endured the humiliating gossip stateside..."
It was rumored that Summersby had a romance with Eisenhower during the 1942-1945 period. In Eisenhower Was My Boss, her 1948 memoir of the war years, she made no mention of an affair.
Her 1975 autobiography, Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower, was explicit about the 'romance', which consisted, sexually speaking, of two unsuccessful attempts to have intercourse. These 'encounters' were fabricated, presumably by the ghostwriter, and were not at all believably written.
Historian Carlo D'Este notes that members of Eisenhower's staff denied that there was ever an affair between them, and dismisses Summersby's book as "fanciful".
texasborngranny...more on Ike and Kay
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:42pm.
"practically every hotel in Europe" was an exaggeration on my part for dramatic purposes and was not meant to be taken literally. However, it falls within the realm of "wild exaggeration" and therefore fairly criticized.
The fact that the alleged romance was not mentioned in Summerby's 1948 memoir is hardly surprising given that Ike was alive, and the exalted perception of his heroic role and his general public image in connection with the recent world war was at its zenith.
By 1975 Eisenhower was dead and Summersby was dying and motives to conceal far less apparent and reasons for candor much more compelling. That the encounters were fabricated by the ghostwriter is sheer conjecture and strain credulity. Eisenhower's staff have generally denied the rumors as well have some historians, but many sources, including contemporary military officers of impeccable character, support Summersby's account. There is no disputing that Mamie took a very dim view of the relationship.
Jer
Hay, Jer...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 2:44pm.
Hay, Jer, has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, this women is telling people about HER experiences because we may, just may, find them interesting, and that maybe, just maybe, there's no attempt on her part to tarnish JFK's image, as she could have done so at any time, including when she was having theses "experiences" with JFK over 30 years ago? Has it also occurred to you that she actually waited this long as to spare the feelings of the other people who were involved, most of whom are now long dead and buried? Has ANY of that occurred to you at all?
But, hay, she's a nobody, right, so who cares what she has to say, correct? I mean, really, this is the Great and Powerful JFK we're talking about here, and no one should ever drag his hallowed name through the mud, even if the author is someone who knew him intimately, isn't that so?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Welp, Since JFK
Submitted by kilrod on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:06pm.
Welp,,, at least since JFK left office he has'nt touched another woman, maybe they oughtta play up that angle.~!~
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
I'm filing that one under the same category
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 1:46am.
with the "Ted Kennedy has been clean and sober for over two years now" quip.
Jer
Here's Another
Submitted by kilrod on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:20am.
oldie but goody for ya jeringo;
"Other than "that" Mrs. Kennedy, how was your trip to Dallas".
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
when Teddy was a young boy!
Submitted by jimtrees on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:01pm.
His father said."come on Teddy, let me teach you how to swim" But why? He answers.
The truth?!? Boooorinnng
Submitted by needle on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:56am.
“NBC's Curry Grills JFK Mistress: Why Have You 'Burdened' People With Truth About Kennedy?”
Curry asks a very good question. After all, NBC goes out of its way to not burden the rest of us with the truth about all sorts of things.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
'Burdening us with the truth'
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:57am.
'Burdening us with the truth' is kind of an oxymoron with regards to most politicians and ALL of the StateRun Media. They usually do whatever they can to KEEP from telling the truth - unless it's going to work out in their favor.
'verification.' 'verification.' 'verification.' 'verification.'
Submitted by donabernathy on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 4:19am.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
If they was talking about a Republican......'verification.'......... would never in a thousand years enter their mind.
roflmmfaotimgd
Millicent Fenwick on JFK:
Submitted by Fenwick on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:18am.
In the book, Millicent Fenwick: Her Way, there is a quote about how she took the news of John F. Kennedy's assassination, "I don't know quite why I feel so badly - I neither liked nor respected him - but to have our President murdered, and his assassin murdered, it was shameful and he was so young... "
She undoubtedly knew about JFK's escapades:
http://voices.yahoo.com/teddy-kennedys-fbi-file-reveals-charges-orgies-6218054.html
Why Have You 'Burdened' People With Truth About Kennedy?
Submitted by lkotur on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 1:37pm.
Joe Kennedy treated Rose as his personal doormat.
The apples don't fall far from the tree.
JFK - intern / Marilyn Monroe /
Teddy K. - at least JFK could swim.
Scumbags all!
I'm sure Curry was just as concerned about...
Submitted by Prester John on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 6:56pm.
...the bimbos who were trotted out to trash Herman Cain "burdening" his family.
Uh huh.
No Messing with JFK!
Submitted by berlet98 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:49am.
No Messing with JFK!
It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature. In the perceptions of Democrats, it’s even less nice to mess with Dem-liberal icons such as America’s 35th and first Irish-Catholic president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
I wasn’t of legal voting age in 1960 and didn’t live in Chicago where such legalities didn’t much matter, so I didn’t vote for JFK although, at 18, I thought Jack Kennedy was the greatest thing to come on the scene since sliced Irish soda bread.
I maintained that immature viewpoint through Jack’s narrow election victory and until he proved he was more liberal than he was presidential, not anywhere near the mold of America’s current extreme leftist chief executive but still far from what I had anticipated of him.
As it subsequently turned out, JFK was more in Bill Clinton’s mold.
In my admittedly harshly though accurately-titled article, “JFK: Whoremaster, Pimp, Drug Pusher,” I discussed Mimi Beardsley Alford’s new book, Once Upon a Secret: My Secret Affair with JFK, which details the author’s experiences as a 19 year old Kennedy White House intern in 1962. (http://bit.ly/ygir7l)
According to Alford’s recollections, Jack was indeed a whoremaster, pimp, and drug pusher who seduced her in Jackie Kennedy’s private bedroom, carried on a lengthy affair with her, farmed her out to perform oral sex on his buddy, Dave Powers–while Jack watched–and suggested she take his prescribed drugs, which she refused to do.
Of course, fifty years later, there is little possibility of verifying Mimi Alford’s allegations and hence no hindrances on the media alleging it’s all baloney. There are no other living witnesses and, regrettably, no Monica Lewinsky blue dress dna evidence, evidence that wouldn’t deter JFK idolators, anyway.
Following the usual script, liberals are now busily attacking both Alford’s remembrances–which would be extremely difficult to fabricate–and her motives in publishing her book. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12722.)