Scan barcode
djali84's review against another edition
1.0
Vraiment, vraiment anti-Kennedy. Ça ne m'aurait pas posé de problème si les faits en avait été des vrais, et non pas des associations. De la part d'un journaliste, je m'attendais à autre chose qu'une démonstration de culpabilité par association.
gregbrown's review
5.0
Excellent look at the seamier aspects of the Kennedy administration. Hersh paints the portrait of a family compulsively getting itself into and out of trouble, all to try and gain more influence and push Kennedy into the presidency.
My only small quibble is Hersh's book uniformly casts everything as interpersonal grievances sans ideology. It makes for a compelling dishy story, but when you get to the Bay of Pigs it ends up blinding the book from asking if it was even a good idea. That's also the area where the book's sourcing becomes most apparent: mostly military guys, who in that case upset that Kennedy didn't dare to escalate the invasion. That said, I think Hersh's reportage comes off as pretty studiously fair — much as it did in The Samson Option — and it's hard to have any factual disagreements with the evidence he presents.
My only small quibble is Hersh's book uniformly casts everything as interpersonal grievances sans ideology. It makes for a compelling dishy story, but when you get to the Bay of Pigs it ends up blinding the book from asking if it was even a good idea. That's also the area where the book's sourcing becomes most apparent: mostly military guys, who in that case upset that Kennedy didn't dare to escalate the invasion. That said, I think Hersh's reportage comes off as pretty studiously fair — much as it did in The Samson Option — and it's hard to have any factual disagreements with the evidence he presents.
socraticgadfly's review
3.0
I read this book at least a decade ago and apparently never reviewed it. Having just read "Reporter," and seeing this at my current library, I gave it a quick re-read.
This is a mishmash with many highlights and many lowlights. Let's start with the lowlights.
Hersh is at his weakest on the “stolen election” chapter in this book.
First, there were allegations the GOP stole (and regularly stole, not just this election) votes in downstate Illinois. Second, Jack’s margin was just about exactly that of Truman in 1948 in Illinois.
There’s more that’s bad here. If Illinois flipped to Dick, it would still have taken at least 8 other unpledged electors from the South who voted Jack to flip to Byrd to send the race to the House. And then?
Byrd’s eliminated after 1 ballot. Are Dem congresscritters, who know Jack is really not much more liberal on civil rights than Dick, if at all (the call to Coretta Scott King was initiated by Harris Wofford and upset Jack at first), if Jack offers few concessions, really going to vote for Dick Nixon?
The reality is that the Alabama and Mississippi unpledged electors tried to flip other states and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledged_elector#1960
Either Sy knows this and is being mendacious in his grinding of axes, or he doesn’t, and he shouldn’t have written this chapter.
The “Lyndon” chapter is almost as bad.
First, close LBJ associates like Oklahoma Sen. Bob Kerr, didn’t want him on the ballot with Jack. They say reality: he’d be emasculated if the ticket won (just as actually happened) and blamed and possibly tainted if it lost. The fact that this discussion happened at the DNC before the offer was made indicates that people at least halfway in the know thought it was a possibility.
As for LBJ blackmailing JFK? Given that Johnson was No. 2 horndog in the Senate to Jack (if that), this blackmailing wouldn’t have been so easy to pull off. AND, Hersh, though mentioning these connections more than once elsewhere, ignores Joe Kennedy’s extensive connections to Hoover here.
Speaking of? I’ve long thought, and some narratives claim, that Joe pushed Jack into choosing LBJ.
See above: Mendacious or ignorant.
The “bootlegger” chapter on Joe is also weak, though not as weak. The issue of whether or not Joe broke Prohibition is not nearly as close to a “yes” as Hersh says.
The Guatemalan coup was not quite bloodless. And its aftermath was far from that.
Outside of factual or interpretive matters, this book is wooden at times.
Nobody calls Lem Billings as Lemoyne, for example.
Next? The “as told to me in an interview for this book” narrative starts getting old after a while. A good editor IMO would have restricted its use more, and varied it more. An author might have accepted that. That’s not as bad as repeatedly using first names for people who have been mentioned more than once before.
Finally, on the last page of the main body copy, Sy leaves open the possibility that he’s a JFK conspiracy theorist, even though he claims to accept Oswald was the lone gunman, and not “controlled,” though he then adds a “probably” to that.
That said, Hersh nails several things.
The biggie is Nam. He notes that in August 1963, the National Liberation Front offered a peace proposal that included withdrawal from Nam by the US. If Jack really planned to do that, all he had to do was act.
The second is that Jack’s recklessness with womanizing extended into recklessness elsewhere, above all with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
My take on Hirsh is that if significant parts of an investigative journalism claim of his are at least partially backed up by others, he’s on to something. For example, Ted Postal and Robert Fisk have both written extensively refuting claims that all chemical warfare in Syria has been done by Bashir al-Assad.
OTOH, Sy got played like a fish on Seth Rich by Ed Butowsky. And, AFAIK, still believes Seth leaked the emails, though he doesn’t believe in a conspiratorial murder. And don’t forget that he almost ran forged “JFK” documents from a Lawrence Cusack in this book. In “Reporter,” he admits it, but says “Yeah, I stopped in time.”
This is a mishmash with many highlights and many lowlights. Let's start with the lowlights.
Hersh is at his weakest on the “stolen election” chapter in this book.
First, there were allegations the GOP stole (and regularly stole, not just this election) votes in downstate Illinois. Second, Jack’s margin was just about exactly that of Truman in 1948 in Illinois.
There’s more that’s bad here. If Illinois flipped to Dick, it would still have taken at least 8 other unpledged electors from the South who voted Jack to flip to Byrd to send the race to the House. And then?
Byrd’s eliminated after 1 ballot. Are Dem congresscritters, who know Jack is really not much more liberal on civil rights than Dick, if at all (the call to Coretta Scott King was initiated by Harris Wofford and upset Jack at first), if Jack offers few concessions, really going to vote for Dick Nixon?
The reality is that the Alabama and Mississippi unpledged electors tried to flip other states and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledged_elector#1960
Either Sy knows this and is being mendacious in his grinding of axes, or he doesn’t, and he shouldn’t have written this chapter.
The “Lyndon” chapter is almost as bad.
First, close LBJ associates like Oklahoma Sen. Bob Kerr, didn’t want him on the ballot with Jack. They say reality: he’d be emasculated if the ticket won (just as actually happened) and blamed and possibly tainted if it lost. The fact that this discussion happened at the DNC before the offer was made indicates that people at least halfway in the know thought it was a possibility.
As for LBJ blackmailing JFK? Given that Johnson was No. 2 horndog in the Senate to Jack (if that), this blackmailing wouldn’t have been so easy to pull off. AND, Hersh, though mentioning these connections more than once elsewhere, ignores Joe Kennedy’s extensive connections to Hoover here.
Speaking of? I’ve long thought, and some narratives claim, that Joe pushed Jack into choosing LBJ.
See above: Mendacious or ignorant.
The “bootlegger” chapter on Joe is also weak, though not as weak. The issue of whether or not Joe broke Prohibition is not nearly as close to a “yes” as Hersh says.
The Guatemalan coup was not quite bloodless. And its aftermath was far from that.
Outside of factual or interpretive matters, this book is wooden at times.
Nobody calls Lem Billings as Lemoyne, for example.
Next? The “as told to me in an interview for this book” narrative starts getting old after a while. A good editor IMO would have restricted its use more, and varied it more. An author might have accepted that. That’s not as bad as repeatedly using first names for people who have been mentioned more than once before.
Finally, on the last page of the main body copy, Sy leaves open the possibility that he’s a JFK conspiracy theorist, even though he claims to accept Oswald was the lone gunman, and not “controlled,” though he then adds a “probably” to that.
That said, Hersh nails several things.
The biggie is Nam. He notes that in August 1963, the National Liberation Front offered a peace proposal that included withdrawal from Nam by the US. If Jack really planned to do that, all he had to do was act.
The second is that Jack’s recklessness with womanizing extended into recklessness elsewhere, above all with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
My take on Hirsh is that if significant parts of an investigative journalism claim of his are at least partially backed up by others, he’s on to something. For example, Ted Postal and Robert Fisk have both written extensively refuting claims that all chemical warfare in Syria has been done by Bashir al-Assad.
OTOH, Sy got played like a fish on Seth Rich by Ed Butowsky. And, AFAIK, still believes Seth leaked the emails, though he doesn’t believe in a conspiratorial murder. And don’t forget that he almost ran forged “JFK” documents from a Lawrence Cusack in this book. In “Reporter,” he admits it, but says “Yeah, I stopped in time.”
blondereader's review against another edition
dark
informative
medium-paced
4.5
An older volume, still interesting and important. Excellent photos.
archaeodee's review
2.0
I was expecting more from Hersh.
There was a lot of information, repetition, footnotes, but only a few verifiable sources.
It is quite true it felt more like a 500-page article than a political science take on the Kennedys. It lacked structure, reliable sources. Having access to all those interviews or unpublished books mentioned would have been helpful.
A missed opportunity?
There was a lot of information, repetition, footnotes, but only a few verifiable sources.
It is quite true it felt more like a 500-page article than a political science take on the Kennedys. It lacked structure, reliable sources. Having access to all those interviews or unpublished books mentioned would have been helpful.
A missed opportunity?
beasley's review against another edition
3.0
Best read in conjunction with "Once Upon A Secret." This book gives you the macro, lots of details about John F. Kennedy's compulsive womanizing, and how that fit in with an overall pattern of recklessness. "Once Upon A Secret" gives the micro, a first hand account by one of the women who was invited to the pool parties and played in the shallows with the infamous Fiddle and Faddle.