The Dark Side of Camelot

Rating:
Summary: Agenda filled Hatchet Job
Review: I would agree almost exactly wih the gentleman who wrote the close but no cigar review,except I would say maybe 40 to 50 % may be true, but the other 50 percent are the real important things - he is not only dead wrong on the assassination, Hersh has the gall and effrontry to say" he has seen no evidence of conspiracy in JFK's Assassination" Oh really? Hersh allegedly got a ridiculous sum to publish this book & there are many books here on amazon.com wth a ton of solid, corroborated info for a domestic conspiracy, so that is an extremely dishonest allegation. He doesn't give JFK any credit for the Cuban Missile Crisis- would he have prefered Nixon, or Johnson? who would have done exactly what the Joint Chiefs Of Staff wanted-turning Cuba into an ashtray & with the ICBM capabilities that Khruschev & Co. had, conceivably the eastern coastline from Miami up could have been hit in retaliation as they had many more missiles than was known at the time of the crisis. JFK was a great man, look at the people he had to deal with- the afforementioned crooks -LBJ & Nixon, the incredibly corrupt meglomaniac Hoover, Dulles head of the CIA who started the overthrow of foreign Govt's in Iran with Mossadegh in 1953, then Arbenz in Guatemala 54 etc, & along with Ike, left JFK with an incredible mess in Cuba when he took office with no good solution, & other high ranking military men who wanted war, and he had to try everything placating them.There's another side to these stories that Hersh doesn't mention, if JFK was so bad- why has this country been literally a lifetime of lies since 11-22-63? Answer me that Seymour Hersh.

Rating:
Summary: Trash? Yes - but it's also mostly true...
Review: Basically, how you rate "The Dark Side of Camelot" all comes down to how you feel about the Kennedys, as the previous reviews on this book have clearly demonstrated. If you admire the Kennedys, then this book is "trash" and Hersh's claims about John F. Kennedy's Presidency are "wildly exaggerated" or "just not true". But if you don't like the Kennedys, then Hersh's claims are "without doubt" and "undeniably the truth". Books about John F. Kennedy usually fall into one of these two groups - the scholarly, mostly admiring "serious" books which look primarily at the issues Kennedy dealt with as President and look only briefly at his many personal flaws; and the so-called "sensational" books which focus primarily on JFK's wild private life and look only briefly at the major historical events of his term of office (the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.). I tend to look at Hersh's book somewhat differently - I think that many of Hersh's allegations are indeed true, and there's little doubt (as many other books and sources have confirmed Hersh's allegations) the John F. Kennedy was anything but a saint in his private life. However, I'm still not convinced that his private behavior had much effect on his judgements and decisions on the big moments of his Presidency. For example, does anyone (except his strongest critics) believe that Kennedy consulted Marilyn Monroe (or one of his other mistresses) before giving the order to allow Cuban exiles to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs to overthrow Fidel Castro (Would Monroe even know where Cuba was)? Most of Hersh's claims have been made elsewhere, although Hersh does come up with new testimony from ex-Secret Service agents, aides, and others to butress his arguments. Specifically, the major charges are: 1) That Kennedy, with the help of his sinister, enormously wealthy father, "bought" the 1960 presidential election by stealing enough votes to defeat JFK's great rival, Richard Nixon. There was some evidence of major vote-stealing in Illinois (Nixon carried 92 of 101 counties in Illinois but still lost the state by only 9,000 votes, mostly because of a huge Kennedy vote in Chicago). President Eisenhower encouraged Nixon to contest the results there, but Nixon, in a graceful move, refused to. Hersh implies that the Mafia in Chicago, specifically mob boss Sam Giancana, stole the votes necessary for JFK to win in Chicago, and that Kennedy and Giancana privately communicated through a woman they both shared sexually, Judith Campbell-Exner. Exner's story has been repeated in other books, and there is little doubt that she and Kennedy had a relationship. However, Illinois alone wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election, and Nixon would still have needed to win another big state to change the result. His best bet may have been in Texas, another state that JFK won by a close margin and where there were also claims of vote fraud. However, the Texas angle has never been investigated as thoroughly as the Illinois vote, and we may never truly know who should have won the 1960 presidential election - we can only speculate. 2)That as President Kennedy repeatedly fooled around with huge numbers of women, thus leaving himself open to blackmail from foreign governments or hostile internal forces (such as the mafia). Again, there's considerable evidence that Kennedy did fool around - two of his secretaries were called "Fiddle" and "Faddle" and took nude swims with him in the White House pool. Again, the real charge is whether or not these women compromised his ability to do his job, and that's harder to prove. That Kennedy treated most of these women like live sex toys is undeniable - he didn't seem to take most of them seriously (nor, according to author Gore Vidal, a relative of Jackie Kennedy, did his wife. According to Vidal, she often used the word "it" , not "she" or "her", when referring to her husband's mistresses). Kennedy also supposedly had a fling with a woman who was later suspected of being a spy for the Communist East German government, and who was quickly deported when Bobby Kennedy learned of the suspicions about her. These are serious charges, and Kennedy does seem to have been guilty of, at least, extremely poor judgement. And, finally, 3)that Kennedy systematically used the power of the Presidency to cover up his shenanigans, thus breaking the law repeatedly and committing criminal acts. If true, this would place Kennedy in the Nixon range of Watergate-type scandals, which means that he should have been impeached. Again, there is little doubt that Kennedy used the Secret Service and other agencies to hide his behavior from outsiders, and his brother did use his power as Attorney General to silence embarrassing stories and try to dig up dirt on potential enemies (such as Nixon, the Kennedys had the IRS audit his taxes several times from 1961-1963, with no result). Of course, MANY politicians have done the same, and while it may not be morally right, the Kennedys were neither the first nor the last politicians to do so. Whether this makes them especially evil or sinister is dubious. In short, it is my belief that Hersh's claims, although largely true, still don't provide a clear link between JFK's private life and his public (political) life. Was Kennedy a terrible person? As Hersh proves, the private Kennedy was often a sexually deviant, amoral man. But as for Kennedy the President (and they are different things), I don't believe he was a great President, but he also wasn't the awful leader that Hersh and some others make him out to be. Today many historians rate JFK as about average - in the middle of the pack. And that's about where I would place him, too. And that's also why I'm giving "The Dark Side of Camelot" three stars - Hersh's research and allegations are worth reading, but whether there's a link between what Hersh describes and Kennedy's political behavior remains to be seen.

Rating:
Summary: It is so easy to scream "tabloid trash" !
Review: I think Seymour Hersh, in the book "The dark side of Camelot", has given more than just hints that the Kennedy presidency came about as the result of vote fraud. And it continued in cooperation with the Mafia to be involved in almost all sorts of illegal activity. But more than that, it once again gives an insight into the Kennedy family morales, or more precisely, lack of morales. How Jack Kennedy could ever become president strikes me as odd to say the least. Below I have collected some issues raised in the Hersh book. It should be rather easy for the Kennedy family to put out there own true story of what went on -- If not there was some truth in all of this. At least Nigel Hamiltons "JFK, reckless youth" hinted in the same disturbing direction. It is just so easy to scream "tabloid trash" without having read the book. Read the book !!!

------------ 1. Jack Kennedys grandfather: Honey Fitz of Boston - was unseated by the house of Representatives for vote fraud in 1919. He offered no defense other than the OJ stand "I've been framed". His opponent was sworn in instead. --- 2. Joseph Kennedy left nothing to chance in his drive to have his son elected to high office. In Jacks first campaign in 1946 hundred of thousands was poured into the campign for a congressional seat. The platform was extremely vague: "The next generation offers a leader" instead primary rivals were paid $7500 to stay out of the race, others were paid to join to split votes in key districts. --- 3. During prohibition Joe Kennedy had made a fortune in the bootlegging industri. Working hand in hand with organized crime, if not being a made member of the mafia. According to Frank Costello, the most powerful mafia boss of the 40s and 50s, he and Joe kennedy had been partners in the bootleg industri during prohibition. --- 4. Joe Kennedy was appointed ambassadour

to Britain and had hoped to become american president himself. Unfortunately for him he didnt understood morale issues at all. So he had assumed that people would not fight Nazism, if it did cost them anything. He surely wouldnt. Besides, he had anti semitic feelings himself and could sympathize with much of the goings ons in Germany. --- 5. In the 1960 presidential election there were vote fraud in 11 states. Here Kennedy had bought the election with the help of the mafia. Afterwards official investigations either never got under way, or was stopped by grossly partisan democratic judges. The planning of the fraud was carried out after meetings between Joe Kennedy and Sam Giancana, head of the illinois mafia. Interestingly enough they felt most secure when meeting in couthouses belonging to judges owing favours. --- 6. For a period in the JFK presidency communication between the Kennedys and Sam Giancana (Chicago mafia) was done through a shared mistress, Judith Cambell Exner. --- 7. In the public Kennedy was portrayed as working hard and long hours for his country. In reality a good deal of his presidency was spend in various orgies. On an ordinary day Jack Kennedy would take lunch in the White House pool with "secretaries" Fiddle and Faddle. And have sex with prostitutes or starlettes in the evening. --- 8. Jack won the pulitzer prize for the book "profiles in courage". It is certain that Joe helped it make the bestseller list by buying up large numbers himself. Probably the book wasnt even written by Kennedy, but by a ghostwriter. Even though Kennedy knew its content.

Rating:
Summary: The side few knew
Review: First, I'd like to stress that this book, just like its title indicates, is not supposed to appeal to the nostalgia-ridden fans and conspiracy theorists that once found common ground on movies like 'JFK.' Seymour Hersh's 'Dark side of Camelot' is indicting as it is jaw-dropping.
In one of the more revealing accounts, Hersh takes on the task of dispelling the peace-loving, freedom-advocate myth surrounding the J.F. Kennedy cult by confirming a long-held, yet underrated perpective that historical events such as the Cuban Missile crisis were in great part exacerbated by the late president and his brother Robert's domestic political ambitions, even when doing so required using the mafia as a reliable ally for the defense of the 'free world' as depicted by the Kennedys. It was the Kennedys' obsesion to bring Castro down and the urge to appear 'strong of communism' that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war with the prospect of a catastrophic invasion that was planned after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Hersh accounts of US and Soviet generals, CIA officers, and other sources of authority complement this view with chilling details.

The Vietnam war also had Kennedy's fingerprints all over it, according to Hersh's findings. Kennedy's was as eager as Richard Nixon to continue running the war at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives when the former approved of Vietnamese strongman Diem's murder, although Kennedy was well aware that Diem and his brother had started backchannel negotiations with the communist and buddhist opposition in South Vietnam to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. At the end, Diem's pro-US rivals in the military took over and resumed the reign of terror and reppression that had been encouraged by Kennedy's most hawkish advisers in the Pentagon.

The 'Dark side of Camelot' is not only a political indictment of John F. Kennedy, but also an impeachment on utter immorality by a U.S. head of state. In one of at least four main accounts from ex-Secret Service officers, president Kennedy was courted by members of his cabinet with young club girls who were often threatened with lock-ups in asylums if they dared to speak about their sexual anecdotes with president Kennedy and his entourage. Kennedy's promiscuous behavior opened the door for venereal diseases, such as Chlamydia, to haunt him until the day of his death, according to medical records cited by Hersh.
For revelations like these ones, it is likely that the 'Dark Side of Camelot' be dismissed as a gossip-teller on the sexual life of John F. Kennedy, however, it will prove immensely valuable for those who wish to pursue the trail of elussive puzzle parts that shaped U.S. government policy during some of the most impacting world events of the 20th century





Rating:
Summary: Seymour's No Kitty Kelley
Review: "I knew John F. Kennedy, and Senator, you're no John F. Kennedy."

Or something like that.

This book is pretty rigorous. Plenty of footnotes. Most of the primary sources come from the Kennedy archives themselves.

So how does this amount to "piling on sleaze?"

We've been led by men for the whole of our history. These men have been flawed and have made terrible mistakes. We followed them, though, because we elected them and have a need to trust and respect them.

I never respected a president more than JFK. After reading Hersh's treatment of him, in a weird way my respect increased. He managed to make the decisions he made under the burdens of drug usage, painkillers, and possibly advanced VD.

Helluva guy!!

Rating:
Summary: The Under Side of the Sheets
Review: I was born after the Kennedy Administration so I do not have the nostalgic feelings for him that many people do. I picked this book up to get a little less fawning impression of him then some other books tend to portray and for some good old fashion dirt. I have also read some other books by this author so I new him to be a straight shooter. Well, I was not disappointed. This book covered JFK's father, grandfather, campaign and full presidency and my impression is that the author left no rock or bed sheet left unturned. Before I go further I should add that I have read any number of political books that are basically hatchet jobs and I was a little concerned this book would fall into that category. I was pleasantly surprised that the author was able to present all the unflattering bits in a very evenhanded manner. The author could have tossed in little nasty comments here and there, but did not. He stuck to a very "just the facts" type of reporting.

The book covered some very interesting parts about the campaign and the unique financing that took place. The author did not pull punches, he detailed out vote buying to a rather large degree. The one area that was left unsaid was just how prevalent was this behavior. This is not an excuse, but if the Kennedy team was just doing what every politician had and was doing up to that point, the activity is not as exciting and revolting as the author stated. For me the other two most interesting parts were the detail on Cuba and Berlin. I was not upset or surprised at what the administration was doing to try and get rid of Castro. I think we all know about the Bay of Pigs and the attempt to have Castro killed. This book just filled in a lot of nice details. Again the author tried to make these activities far more scandalous then they were given the times that they took place in. Sure, if these activities were taking place today it would be a "blank gate" of some sort, but back then this was just how the game was played.

The most overriding theme of the book was the extramarital affairs JFK was involved in during his term. At first this was rather interesting in a playboy sort of way. How he carried on like this was a bit of every high school boys adolescent dream come true. It was just that it got to be too much of a good thing. In almost every chapter of the book we get details about this woman or that woman. At about the mid point of the book I was thinking, "Ok, I got it - he was a playboy -lets move on". It just got to be a distraction within the book. My only other complaint would be that the author tried to make hay about the political trip to Dallas that resulted in JFK's assassination. He tried to imply that the choices JFK made resulted in his death. I thought this was a bit of a reach. Overall the book was interesting if not a bit over the top on the woman issue. If you are a big fan of JFK you will want to stay away, but if you are looking for more interesting and in depth look at the man then this would be a nice addition to your JFK reading.

Rating:
Summary: The Dark Side of Camelot
Review: Interesting book, Seymour. Quick get onto the British royal family, they would love you to write '' The Dark Side of a Wayward Princess'' If you got the girls slavering over the Kennedys exploits , just imagine how the boys would love..... the dark side of Lady Di, go get 'em Seymour!!!.All in all an interesting book , but like an early reviewer I could not get Kitty Keller out of my mind. Still we have to keep an open mind about all politicians.

Rating:
Summary: Were you alive in 1962?
Review: First, the disclaimer: although I am a conservative, I like and admire much of what JFK did as president, and I admire the man. Few readers will begin reading this book without a pre-existing opinion of Kennedy. That is/was mine.

Hersh does a workmanlike job illustrating the apparently undeniable fact that Kennedy had medical problems, integrity issues, and personal problems that the country would probably not tolerate in a president today. This book appears to be well-researched and well-documented. It does not present a flattering portrayal of Kennedy and it does not intend to.

First, the infidelity. Hersh goes into depressing detail as to his theme that JFK's marriage was a sham. According to Hersh, JFK never missed an opportunity to philander whenever Jackie Kennedy was away, and sometimes when she wasn't away. Much of JFK's inner circle conspired with him in this regards (according to Hersh) to a degree that is hard to imagine. Hersh speculates that part of Kennedy's abnormal libedo was induced by various drugs he took for his Addison's condition. Hersh develops this theme further in his discussion of the Cuban Missile Crisis and speculates that the cocktail of steroids and other drugs that Kennedy evidently needed to get through the day affected his judgment and his willingness to take risks. This in turn may have caused him to be more prone to the kind of brinksmanship that Hersh claims characterized Kennedy's handling of the Missile Crisis.

Personally I'm not so sure. Despite the fact that the US had an overwhelming nuclear and overall military superiority over Soviets in 1962, Kennedy did not bomb the missiles out but instead negotiated. Here I felt Hersh was unfair to Kennedy.

On the other hand, it seems clear that Kennedy's marriage was a sham and his image of youthful vigor was even more of a sham. Hersh is convincing that Kennedy could not get through the day without a battery of probably illegal drugs. Kennedy was suffering from Addison's disease, which is a very serious condition, and had many other health issues, including the famous back problem, which put him in constant pain.

Personally I found this book convincing as regards the infidelity, drug, and health claims that it made about Kennedy. Hersh is on thinner ice when he theorizes that these issues caused Kennedy to endanger the country. While this book or one like it is probably needed to balance the fluff pieces about Kennedy (and all the Kennedys) that abound, it is not itself a balanced analysis of JFK. To its credit, the book more or less admits this, in its title if nowhere else.