Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

TFX fighter-bomber scandal

I believe a section on the TFX fighter-bomber scandal involving Secretary McNamara needs to be added to the article. On November 24, 1962 Secretary McNamara awarded a six billion dollar contract was awarded to General Dynamics, a Texas and New York defense contractor, rather then to Boeing, a Washington and Kansas contractor. The charge of corruption was awarding the contract for political purposes, electoral votes, in a general election. The Pentagon had recomended that Boeing make the TFX fighter-bombers since Boeing was technically superior and less expensive. Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric had legal representation interest in having awarded General Dynamics the contract. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was forced to resign for having financial connections with General Dynamics. Both Korth and Gilpatric were found culpable for conflict of interest in awarding the TFX fighter-bomber contract to General Dynamics. Kennedy supported both Korth and Gilpatric. Korth was finally force to resign by Kennedy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I know a little about it. And looking at the F-111 Wikipedia article which the TFX became does not mention it, per se. It states in cited text it was between Boeing and General Dynamics. Boeing's proposal was recommended by the selection board in January 1962. However, the Boeing's engine was not considered acceptable. Switching to a crew escape capsule, instead of ejection seats and alterations to radar and missile storage were also needed. The companies provided updated proposals in April 1962. Air Force reviewers favored Boeing's offering, but the Navy found both submissions unacceptable... Two more rounds of updates to the proposals were conducted, with Boeing being picked by the selection board. Gunston, 1978, pp = 18–20. However, in November 1962, McNamara selected General Dynamics' proposal due to its greater commonality between Air Force and Navy versions. Gunston, 1978, pp = 18–20.

What I know about Gilpatric was he first served as Under Secretary of the Air Force from 1951 to 1953 (after he left a law firm); thereafter, he went back to private practice at that law firm before being tapped for Undersec. of Defense. He later was said to have played a "valuable role" in the Cuban Missile Crisis. He continued to serve under LBJ, I recall after Kennedy's death, for a time. He would not have had "legal representation interest" as he was not in the firm at the time, but his old firm did over the years represent General Dynamics in Texas, I recall; so there was an interest for them.

As for Fred Korth, if you read his Wikipedia article it states he did resign in October, 1963. Various sources cite reasons for Secretary Korth’s departure. It does state: He was president of the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth, Texas. Continental National Bank was a principal money source for the General Dynamics plant for the TFX, which later emerged as the more well-known F-111 Aardvark. A commentary in the May, 1985 edition of Proceedings magazine exonerates Korth for any improprieties relating to the awarding of TFX. I don't know of this "Proceedings" magazine article but the point is to keep that in mind as to what you propose. I can also tell you that neither Dallek, nor Reeves mention it; I know there was a Senate Investigation but with no conclusive result and after Kennedy died the F-111 project went forward under LBJ. I do think part of the problem was McNamara believed that a "joint services fighter" was the most cost effective solution for the air force and navy; which it was not. Anyway, what do you propose? Kierzek (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kiersek for the information. I would call this a major Kennedy scandal since Kennedy approved of the deal. I propose putting this in the article as "TFX Fighter-Bomber controversy", since there were two Congressional investigations in 1962 and 1970. The 1970 Congressional investigation was pretty tough of Gilpatric. My source is Mark I. Gelfand (1972), Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct, edited by C. Vann Woodward. Gelfand states that McNamara chose General Dynamics for technical reasons. I don't know why Reeves or Dallek do not mention the TFX fighter-bomber scandal. However, I would say that historians are capable of not publishing or ignoring issues that do not reflect highly on their historical subjects. Sometimes historians even ignore the good things about a historical subject depending on their own views. Gelfand did not ignore the TFX-fighter bomber scandal, nor Woodward. My proposal is to mention the controversy and the two Congressional Investigations similar to what has been discussed in this talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also use this photo in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

F-111 TFX Fighter-Bomber

Well you have a go at it. I am not against a mention just pointing out it was a "muddled affair". BTW-I saw where Dallek has a new book coming out in Oct. called "Inside the Kennedy White House"; I would assume it will focus much more on the U.S. Cabinet under Kennedy and other appointments. "However, I would say that historians are capable of not publishing or ignoring issues that do not reflect highly on their historical subjects. Sometimes historians even ignore the good things about a historical subject depending on their own views." True, I can think of several which have clearly done the latter (to sell books), more than the former and would say that Dallek and Reeves are in the middle camp; more balanced. No book is ever going to be perfect on a subject. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. I would hope Dallek would do an in depth view on the Kennedy Cabinet. I respectfully disagree that this was a "muddled affair", when all those electorial votes were at stake. Boeing, in my opinion, clearly was the best choice, the highest technology at the lowest price. That is why I believe "controversy" is the best term for the article rather then "scandal". This matter was not settled until 1970, an eight year run and 6 billion dollars is allot of money. Even Kennedy admitted that latter. Yes. I can try to put something together that is balanced and without POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Make sure you note that the TFX project predated JFK's presidency, that it was begun earlier. Yes, there was a controversy about the contract but not really a scandal. Various observers note that it was a political decision to give General Dynamics the contract. The JFK library hosts a box of papers dated March 13, 1963, holding McNamara's testimony about the TFX contract "controversy". The US Navy was not so happy with Boeing as a supplier because of Boeing's inexperience with naval aviation, and because the Air Force was going to have too much say over the direction of TFX updates. Anyway, L. Fletcher Prouty writes about how he thinks the TFX contract controversy was the start of the military industrial complex guys getting the idea that "JFK has got to go", an element of Prouty's conspiracy theory on the JFK assassination. (Prouty 2009 JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy). Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit

• "On November 24, 1962 the Department of Defense announced that the enormous $6,500,000,000 contract to make 1,700 F-111 TFX fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather then to Boeing. Since the 1950's, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Airforce needed a fighter jet system that could intercept missles launched by Soviet submarines and battleships. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Kennedy had both approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX fighter-bombers a week before the announcement. Controversy ensued as McNamara had over ruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved Boeing to make superior TFX fighter-bombers at a lower cost. At stake were 69 electorial votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York. Democratic Senator Henry Jackson, from Washington, started an investigation into the matter in December 1962, a lengthly investigation that would last until 1970. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was from Texas. Senator Jackson's investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had performed legal services for General Dynamics. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Forth Worth bank that had approved of a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president. President Kennedy defended both McNamara and Gilpatric in a press conference. President Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated that Korth had improved the Navy. Kennedy, however, did not regret that Korth had resigned office. President Kennedy stated that he had "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter." When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest." On the day President Kennedy was assassinated, November 22, he spoke before the Forth Worth Chamber of Commerce exhonerating that the TFX program would save the taxpayers $1,000,000,000 in costs. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I would add that: McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics' design stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. Gunston, 1978, pp = 18–20. I would say that: Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had before 1961 performed legal services for General Dynamics. I would link Korth, as well. Otherwise, I leave it to Binksternet to comment further. Kierzek (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not loving the suggested text. Nothing about the technical aspects of the airplane or the interplay between Navy and Air Force is critical to the story. The main point about the TFX relative to JFK is that JFK could have awarded the contract soon after gaining office but he did not. Instead, he delayed the awarding of the contract until it was good for him politically, and he assigned men to study the voting ramifications of the two main contracts, going county by county across the nation and assessing voting results. If there was a county which had voted for Nixon by a slim margin then JFK was very interested in providing that county with some money from the contract, through subcontractors. JFK delayed the contract with a series of quibbling changes until November 1962 when he gave the contract to General Dynamics against the recommendation of a panel of military men and contractors. It was all about politics, and all according to JFK's wishes. Texas benefited, of course, so any idea that Texas hated JFK because of the TFX is dubious. Prouty's notion is that JFK was assassinated because the military men did not want to be ruled by politics in their choices of weaponry.

The suggested text spends too much time on peripheral details, not the JFK core. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision 01:

• On November 24, 1962 the Department of Defense announced that the enormous $6,500,000,000 contract to make 1,700 F-111 TFX fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather then to Boeing. Since the 1950's, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force needed a fighter jet system that could intercept missiles launched by Soviet submarines and battleships. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Kennedy had both approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX fighter-bombers a week before the announcement. Controversy ensued as McNamara had over ruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved Boeing to make superior TFX fighter-bombers at a lower cost. McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics' design stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. At stake were 69 electoral votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was from Texas. Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, from Washington, started an investigation into the matter in December 1962, a lengthy investigation that would last until 1970. Senator Jackson's investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had performed legal services, prior to 1961, for General Dynamics having a $20,000 annual severance retainer. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Forth Worth bank that had approved of a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president. President Kennedy defended both McNamara and Gilpatric in a press conference. President Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated that Korth had improved the Navy. Kennedy, however, did not regret that Korth had resigned office. President Kennedy stated that he had "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter." When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest." On the day President Kennedy was assassinated, November 22, he spoke before the Forth Worth Chamber of Commerce exonerating that the TFX program would save the taxpayers $1,000,000,000 in costs." 22:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Blinksternet, we need source(s) or reference(s) for your contentions that Kennedy delayed the program and that he assigned men to investigate voting turnout in each county. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cmguy777. Also the problem with Senator Jackson and his investigation is that he is not clean either. Quote: Jackson was often criticized for...his close ties to the defense industries of his state. Opponents derided him as "the Senator from Boeing" and a "whore for Boeing" because of his consistent support for additional military spending on weapons systems and accusations of wrongful contributions from the company; in 1965, eighty percent of Boeing's contracts were military. Jackson and Magnuson's campaigning for an expensive government supersonic transport plane project eventually failed. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Prouty's book JFK is a fine source for both details and summary descriptions of actions in the TFX controversy. None of his facts are wrong though I would handle his analysis as attributable POV. The second suggested text offering above suffers from the same non-neutral sensationalist tone as the first, with words such as "enormous" and such, also with lots of zeros in large figures rather than something like $6.5B or $6.5 billion. It also assumes that the fighter/bomber was "needed" which is questionable, and it incorrectly describes the project as JFK's rather than Eisenhower's and McNamara's. It tries to connect the TFX project to JFK's assassination without saying so outright. I notice, too, that Cmguy777 calls for my sources but does not supply his. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Source: Gelfand, Mark I. (1972). Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. pp. 378–384. Edited by C. Vann Woodward. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I would hope we could work together to make an edit on the TFX fighter-bombers. The controversy was not on whether the TFX program was neccessary, however, the U2 spy plane that was shot down by the Soviet military was damaging to the U.S. military's reputation. An interceptor program was needed. I don't think the U.S. military was going to do nothing and let the Soviets shoot down U.S. aircrafts. The controversy concering Kennedy was that he apparently was buying votes with the TFX program. What page numbers in Proust's book mention Kennedy delayed the TFX program and that Kennedy sent men out to look into voting turnouts in every county in the nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

From the cited text of the article, General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark it lays out the points that both the air force and navy wanted a aircraft and "...shared the need (for it) to carry heavy armament and fuel loads, feature high supersonic speed, twin engines and two seats, and probably use variable geometry wings". Again, McNamara believed that a "joint services fighter" was the most cost effective solution for the air force and navy; but it could not be achieved. Prouty seems to have some POV problems to me, but I am certainly open to what you gentlemen think. This seems to be more of a Gilpatric and Korth matter which McNamara approved with JFK giving the go ahead. Boeing and Senator Jackson are not happy (to say the least), since the money would not being coming their way, and their man, Jackson then stirs the political pot for future gain; for himself and Boeing. Certainly, Gilpatric and Korth had something to gain in the matter, as did JFK and LBJ in a broader sense given the matter concerned Texas. How does Eisenhower factor in all this, may I ask? Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind putting in that Senator "Scoop" Jackson from Washington represented Boeing interest if there is a source that states Senator Jackson received campaign contributions from Boeing. However, the core issue, in my opinion, is buying votes with the TFX program. I would need the source that states Kennedy delayed the programs and had men find out how voters voted in each county of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Eisenhower was President in 1960 when the United States U2 Spy Plane was shot down by the Soviet Military. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, correct, Gary Powers was shot down with Ike in office. Also, aviation historian Donald M. Pattillo writes that the TFX started in 1959 with a specification written by USAF General Frank F. Everest (page 253 of Pushing the Envelope), and that Ike "suspended initial TFX development" as an Air Force-only design, so that a combination solution could be considered such that one aircraft design would satisfy both the Air Force and the Navy (page 255). Prouty says that Gen. Everest tried to rush the TFX project during Eisenhower's final months in office because Ike was seen as pro-business and JFK was not (pages 383–384 of JFK), but Everest did not succeed. The paperwork was waiting for presidential approval when JFK entered office. Prouty believes that Leonard C. Lewin's novel Iron Mountain contains true elements, and he cites Lewin's interpretation of JFK's wish to slow down the TFX project, writing "that orchestrated solution was stretched from the inauguration to November 1962." Conflicting in the timeline and the instigator, Rand Corporation analyst Thomas L. McNaugher writes that McNamara was the one who conceived of combining Navy and USAF wishes in one aircraft (page 58, New Weapons Old Politics). McNaugher and Prouty both agree that the TFX was seen as a political tool by JFK and his cabinet, to give JFK an eight-year run in office. The future 1964 election was on their minds, and the various military projects such as the TFX were to be plotted on a large USA county map of 1960 election results as supervised by Labor Secretary Arthur Goldberg, the map mounted on a wall in the Pentagon suite used by McNamara and his "whiz kids" (page 277). Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly I knew when Ike was President; I just didn't know his involvement as to the TFX project. As for cites for Jackson's interest overall: "Although Jackson always cringed when called "the senator from Boeing," Seattle's premier company benefitted substantially from both Scoop's and Maggie's efforts. In 1965, 80 percent of Boeing's contracts were military. The Washington delegation's political power was never more in evidence than during the bitter Senate fight over the Supersonic Transport, the SST. Annual attempts to stop government support for SST development -- a huge portion of which went to Boeing -- were turned back by Scoop and Maggie, prompting an opponent, Wisconsin Sen. William Proxmire, to conclude: 'There are just two strong, persuasive reasons for the SST' -- Scoop and Maggie." [1] The Seattle Times on Sept. 29, 1996 By Sharon Boswell and Lorraine McConaghy.

"Prouty believes that Leonard C. Lewin's novel Iron Mountain contains true elements" - with all due respect that seems weak to me. Kierzek (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit break

Revision 02:

• "On November 24, 1962 the Department of Defense announced that the enormous $6,500,000,000 contract to make 1,700 F-111 TFX fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather then to Boeing. Since the 1950's, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force needed a fighter jet system that could intercept missiles launched by Soviet submarines and battleships. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Kennedy had both approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX fighter-bombers a week before the announcement. Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out how the billions of dollars in funding would be distributed to get the best Democratic ticket turnout for the 1964 General election. Kennedy's election campaign depended on what contract firm, including subcontractors, would be chosen for the TFX project. At stake were 69 electoral votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was from Texas. Although the TFX program was ready to implement at the end of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration, Kennedy waited over a year to choose the main contractor, in order to distribute the money closer to the general election of 1964.

Controversy ensued when McNamara had over ruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved Boeing to make superior TFX fighter-bombers at a lower cost. Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, from Washington, and supporter of the Boeing company, started an investigation into the matter in December 1962, a lengthy investigation that would last until 1970. McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics' design stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. Senator Jackson's investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had performed legal services, prior to 1961, for General Dynamics having a $20,000 annual severance retainer. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Forth Worth bank that had approved of a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president. President Kennedy defended both McNamara and Gilpatric in a press conference. President Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated that Korth had improved the Navy. Kennedy, however, did not regret that Korth had resigned office. President Kennedy stated that he had "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter." When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest." On the day President Kennedy was assassinated, November 22, he spoke before the Forth Worth Chamber of Commerce exonerating that the TFX program would save the taxpayers $1,000,000,000 in costs." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You did not make the adjustments that I described above. Still sensationalist, with too much emphasis on peripheral detail rather than the main themes related specifically to JFK. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See my comments above. Further, the problem with Prouty's opinion/theory is the timeframe of the TFX as to delay. The U.S. Air Force and Navy were both seeking new aircraft when Robert McNamara was appointed U.S. Secretary of Defense in January 1961. Miller 1982, p. 13. In June 1961, Secretary McNamara ordered the go ahead of Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) despite Air Force and the Navy efforts to keep their programs separate. Eden 2004, pp. 196–7. The evaluation group found all the proposals lacking, but Boeing and General Dynamics were selected to submit enhanced designs. Boeing's proposal was recommended by the selection board in January 1962. However, the Boeing's engine was not considered acceptable. Switching to a crew escape capsule, instead of ejection seats and alterations to radar and missile storage were also needed. The companies provided updated proposals in April 1962. Air Force reviewers favored Boeing's offering, but the Navy found both submissions unacceptable for its operations. Two more rounds of updates to the proposals were conducted, with Boeing being picked by the selection board. Gunston 1978, pp. 18–20. McNamara then made the selection, so to speak, in Nov. 1962.

Miller, Jay. General Dynamics F-111 "Arardvark". Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, 1982. ISBN 0-8168-0606-3.

Eden, Paul, ed. "General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark/EF-111 Raven". Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft. London: Amber Books, 2004. ISBN 1-904687-84-9.

Gunston, Bill. F-111. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1978. ISBN 0-684-15753-5. Kierzek (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Binkerset, I added that Kennedy delayed the implementation of the TFX program and that there was investigation into voting turnout. I was going by the Proust source and by what I believe were your suggestions. All of this has to do with JFK, since all members involved were appointed by JFK, as far as I know. I can't please everyone. The main issue has to do with buying votes as Proust suggests occured. I am not sure how one can tone down 6.5 billion dollars, and that was allot of money during Kennedy's time. If there are any problems, I believe they can be eventually ironed out. We are wasting time by quibbling over minor issues. Let's put the edit in the article. We have the sources. I think that improvements can be made once the initial edit is put into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for any statements that could be interpreted as inappropriate for the John F. Kennedy article talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit break

My suggested re-write at this point:

On November 24, 1962 the Department of Defense announced that the $6.5 billion dollar contract to make 1,700 F-111 TFX fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather then to Boeing. Since the 1950's, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force needed a fighter jet system that could intercept missiles launched by Soviet submarines and battleships. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Kennedy had both approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX fighter-bombers a week before the announcement. Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out how the funding would be distributed to get the best Democratic ticket turnout for the 1964 General election. At stake were 69 electoral votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was from Texas.

Controversy ensued when McNamara had over ruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved Boeing to make superior TFX fighter-bombers at a lower cost. McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics' design stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, from Washington, and supporter of the Boeing company, started an investigation in December 1962; the investigation lasted until 1970. Senator Jackson's investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had performed legal services, prior to 1961, for General Dynamics having a $20,000 annual severance retainer. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Forth Worth bank that had approved of a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president. President Kennedy defended both McNamara and Gilpatric in a press conference. President Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated that Korth had improved the Navy. Kennedy, however, did not regret that Korth had resigned office. President Kennedy stated that he had "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter." When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest." On the day President Kennedy was assassinated, November 22, he spoke before the Forth Worth Chamber of Commerce exonerating that the TFX program would save the taxpayers $1,000,000,000 in costs."

Kierzek (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the Proust source needs to be added since Secretary of Labor Goldberg involvement, and that the voting turn out was taken into consideration for awarding the TFX project to General Dynamics. Kennedy also did stall implementing the program over a year in order to distribute the funding closer to the general election of 1964. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You are still assuming that the US military "needed" some piece of hardware. You must give up that position and allow that the Navy wished for something, the USAF wished for something, and McNamara/JFK proposed something. There is no definite "need" for a fighter-bomber.

As well, you are sticking to some of the sources but negating others. The problem with this is that there is not one truth to the situation; instead there are several 'truths', each one to be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The assertion that JFK did not regret Korthy's resignation is too much opinion and crystal ball gazing into JFK's soul. You throw around the word "superior" with little regard to NPOV. The "week before the announcement" bit is unimportant. The "Democratic ticket" wording is not at all what Prouty describes; he says that people who had voted for Nixon, assumed to be sympathetic to Republican planks, were being wooed. You emphasize the personal profit taken by Gilpatric and Korth but these issues are not part of JFK's story which is ALL ABOUT THE NEXT ELECTION to be held in 1964. As well, you continue to try and tie the assassination with a speech about the TFX project, but without clearly stating your purpose. To be honest, I don't think this article, which should be Featured Article quality, is going to be improved by such a text addition. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Gilpatric, McNamara, Goldberg, and Korth were all Kennedy appointments. Kennedy had to respond to charges of corruption. He defended McNamara and Gilpatric. Kennedy did not express regret when Korth resigned. Kennedy was in a cold war with the Soviet Union. Of course the U.S. needed a fighter-bomber interceptor. The U2 spy plane was shot down in 1960 by the Soviet military and the Soviet dictator Kruschev was bragging to the world how the U.S. was inferior to the Soviet military. Gelfand stated Boeing's TFX program was technically superior and less expensive compared to the General Dynamics TFX program. To say the military "desired" a program sounds as if generals and admirals were falling in love with the TFX program, like they were on some date. Maybe some other wording can be used. Again, we must stop quibling. There is not going to be a perfect edit. But let's work together and put a reasonable edit with reduced POV. Thanks Binksternet and Kierzek. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Break

Another attemtpt:

• "On November 24, 1962 the Department of Defense announced that the $6,5 billion contract to make 1,700 F-111 TFX fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather then to Boeing. Since the 1950's, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force were determined to build a fighter jet system that could intercept missiles launched by Soviet submarines and battleships. The Soviet Military had intercepted a U2 spy plane in 1960 that was an embarrasment to the U.S. Military. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Kennedy had both approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX fighter-bombers. Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out how the billions of dollars in funding would be distributed to get the best Democratic ticket turnout for the 1964 General Election. Kennedy's election campaign depended on what contract firm, including subcontractors, would be chosen for the TFX project. At stake were 69 electoral votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was from Texas. Although the TFX program was ready to implement at the end of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration, Kennedy waited over a year to choose the main contractor. Washington and Kansas had gone to Richard M. Nixon in 1960.

Controversy ensued when McNamara had over ruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved Boeing TFX program rather then the General Dynamic TFX program. Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, from Washington, and supporter of the Boeing company, started an investigation into the matter in December 1962, a lengthy investigation that would last until 1970. McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics' design stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. The Congressional investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had performed legal services, prior to 1961, for General Dynamics having a $20,000 annual severance retainer. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Forth Worth bank that had approved of a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president. President Kennedy defended both McNamara and Gilpatric in a press conference. President Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated that Korth had improved the Navy. President Kennedy stated that he had "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter." When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest."" Cmguy777 (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):What is this, a farce? You have now introduced some kind of military embarrassment as if it has anything to do with JFK. (At the very least bring some proof that JFK was embarrassed.) You are still talking about a "Democratic ticket" when it is clear that JFK was targeting the swing vote—those voters who might switch from whatever Republican candidate to a specifically Kennedy-based presidential ticket in 1964. (It has less to do with the Democratic Party than with the Kennedy presidency.) The emphasis you place on Texas, Washington, New York and Kansas is not supported by every source; for instance, Prouty mentions Utah (there were lots of swing-vote counties across the US). You try to connect LBJ to the controversy by inference rather than direct accusation. The suggested wording here is a grab-bag of random thoughts rather than a clear narrative. Please remember that story is a foundation of history; our reader is best served by offering a clearly worded narrative, a sequence of actions that offers a lesson. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact is there are sources which in certain areas do not match up. And unless we are going to made a big addition of all major different points/opinions to the F-111 article, we need to have something which is concise and doesn't have too much speculation and WP:POV problems. I would take out: The Soviet Military had intercepted a U2 spy plane in 1960 that was an embarrasment to the U.S. Military. Then: Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out how the billions of dollars in funding would be distributed to get the best Democratic ticket turnout for the 1964 General Election; should be changed to: Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out how the funding would be distributed, in part to try and obtain a better swing vote turnout for the Kennedy ticket in the 1964 General election. I don't agree with this sentnece-Although the TFX program was ready to implement at the end of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration, Kennedy waited over a year to choose the main contractor. Based on the cited sources of three books I listed above; there was still a basic design competition phase going on then. As for: Washington and Kansas had gone to Richard M. Nixon in 1960. This sentence is not needed. Some wording can be copy-edited from the cited text of the F-111 article, if need be, as to the GD and Boeing designs and what the air force and navy wanted. I must go for now, life duties need attention. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Swing vote? Kennedy won Texas and New York in 1960. The $6.5 billion was to be doled out to both Republicans and Democrats. Money does not have any political affiliation when buying votes. Proust stated that the TFX program was ready on Day 1 of the Kennedy Administration. Kennedy was stalling for the General election. If Kennedy wanted swing votes he would have chosen Boeing, since Washington and Kansas went for Nixon. However, I do not object to changing from swing votes rather then Democratic Ticket. The U2 spy plane interception was a terrible embarrasment for the United States military and was impetus for the TFX program. Kruschev was mocking America. I was speaking from a U.S. Military point of view. I don't think Kennedy or Eisenhower were proud the U2 spy plane was intercepted and Kruschev was bragging how great the Soviet military power was. I was trying to incorporate Proust and Gelfand. My original edit only had Gelfand. Binksterant wanted to introduce the history of the TFX program. We are creating an unneccessary cycle of arguementation and we need to stop feeding the beast. Let's get this edit done. We have made our statements. Please. Let's work together instead of against each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You are asking to have your preferred text in the article when it is contradicted by various sources, including Prouty who you continue to misidentify as Proust. Nothing about the U2 shootdown in USSR can be connected to JFK, not even embarrassment of the military. Patillo traces the beginning of the TFX project back to 1959, to General Everest, which contradicts the notion that the TFX started with McNamara joining the cabinet. This story is rife with problems, traceable to contradictions in sources. It will be a complicated piece of writing. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit break

Another attempt 02:

• "On November 24, 1962 the Department of Defense announced that the $6,5 billion contract to make 1,700 F-111 TFX fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather then to Boeing. Since the 1950's, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force were determined to build a fighter jet system that could intercept missiles launched by Soviet submarines and battleships. Both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Airforce sought a new tactical low flying interceptor fighter aircraft that could carry heavy armament and fuel loads, obtain supersonic speeds, incorporate twin engines, two seats, and variable geometry wings. In June 1961, Secretary McNamara ordered that the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) fighter plane would be a collaboration design effort between the U.S. Airforce and the U.S. Navy. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Kennedy had both approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX fighter-bombers. Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out how the billions of dollars in funding would be distributed to obtain the best Republican swing vote for the election of 1964 in each county of any contested states. Kennedy's election campaign depended on what contract firms, including subcontractors, would be chosen for the TFX project. At stake were 69 electoral votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York.

Controversy ensued when McNamara had over ruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved Boeing TFX program rather then the General Dynamic TFX program. Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, from Washington, and supporter of the Boeing company, started an investigation into the matter in December 1962, a lengthy investigation that would last until 1970. McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics' design stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. The Congressional investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had performed legal services, prior to 1961, for General Dynamics having a $20,000 annual severance retainer. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Forth Worth bank that had approved of a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president. President Kennedy defended both McNamara and Gilpatric in a press conference. President Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated that Korth had improved the Navy. President Kennedy stated that he had "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter." When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest.""

Another attempt 03:

• "On November 24, 1962 the Department of Defense announced that the $6.5 billion contract to make 1,700 F-111 TFX fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather then to Boeing. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force were determined to build a fighter jet system that could intercept missiles launched by Soviet submarines and battleships. Both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Airforce sought a new tactical low flying interceptor fighter aircraft that could carry heavy armament and fuel loads, obtain supersonic speeds, incorporate twin engines, two seats, and variable geometry wings. In June 1961, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered that the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) fighter plane would be a collaboration design between the air force and navy. Both McNamara and President Kennedy had approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX. Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out how the funding would be distributed to obtain the best swing vote for the Presidential election (or Kennedy ticket) in 1964 in each county of any contested states. At stake were 69 electoral votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York.

Controversy ensued when McNamara had over ruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved Boeing TFX program rather then the General Dynamic TFX program. Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, from Washington, and supporter of the Boeing company, started an investigation into the matter in December 1962. The lengthy investigation lasted until 1970. McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics' design stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. The Congressional investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved with the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had prior to 1961, performed legal services for General Dynamics with a $20,000 annual severance retainer. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Forth Worth bank that had approved of a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president. President Kennedy defended both McNamara and Gilpatric in a press conference. President Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated that he had "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter." When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest.""

Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW-yes the photo of the F-111 is okay. Any thoughts where to add this; once agreed on? I was thinking in "Domestic policy" section (as a sub-section) and above the separate "Space policy" section. Kierzek (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job Kierzek. That looks good enough for me to put in the article. This would be under Domestic Policy since General Dynamic and Boeing were United States Companies. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is another photo option. I believe this is a better photo for the article since the jet is landing or approaching an aircraft carrier. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

F-111B TFX Fighter-Bomber

Cmguy777, use either photo you would like. If you would do the addition with cites that would be great; if there are no further objections. In the last sentence, I would start with: However, when the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest. Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That is fine, Kierzek. I need to get the sources ready for the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the Prouty page numbers. The Google book source does not give the Prouty page numbers. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Page 277 for the sentence which starts: "Secretary McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg had mapped out..." Kierzek (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I added it in. Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

On further evaluation, I believe that TFX fighter-bomber controversy would be best as a separate segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the TFX fighter-bomber controversy segment. Kierzek and Binksternet please feel free to express any concerns or make improvements to the segment. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek. Took allot of work but we finally were managed to get the job done. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede expansion

I believe the current lede could be expanded, possibly stating more on Kennedy's presidency and foriegn policy, such as the expansion of the U.S. military in Vietnam. The other issue is Kennedy's sex life. This is for discussion. If Kennedy was indeed a playboy and practiced casual sex, does that need to be mentioned in the lede? I believe a one sentence mention would be appropriate, however, I would go by editor conscensus on mentioning Kennedy's sex life in the lede. Another issue is Kennedy's rating as President. There are historians who view Kennedy was over rated. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War

As you know, the lede is only to be a summary of the main article on a subject and serves as an introduction to the article. I believe it does; with that said, if you feel strongly about adding some detail, I would suggest the following: In the early stages of what would become the Vietnam War, Kennedy increased the number of military advisors in South Vietnam from 900 (as of January 1961) to 16,000 by November 1963. It is inconclusive (or debated, whichever you like better) along historians whether Kennedy would have followed the same course of action as Lyndon Johnson in regards to the war. Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kiersek. I would state this: "Kennedy escalated the number of troops, helicopters, and military advisors during the Vietnam War in an effort to curb the spread of communism in South East Asia; adopting a policy of forced relocation, encampment, and segregation of the South Vietnamese from the northern and southern communist insurgents." I am not sure Johnson and Kennedy should be compared in the lede since that is speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Vietnam War article, the war started under President Eisenhower in 1955. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

How about: "'''Kennedy escalated the number of military advisors, special forces*, and also dispatched helicopters in an effort to curb the spread of communism in South East Asia." *(Since their establishment in 1952, Special Forces soldiers had operated in Vietnam.) Kierzek (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I like that. I would add the part about the relocation camps, that were unpopular and unsuccessful, since there was difficulty in determining who was a communist and who was not a communist. Kennedy believed in war by the numbers. He underestimed the resistance of the North Vietnamese communist militants. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Kennedy escalated the number of military advisers, special operation forces, and also dispatched helicopters in an effort to curb the spread of communism in South East Asia. Kennedy adopted a policy of forced relocation, village internment, and segregation of South Vietnamese from northern and southern communist insurgents." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I would change "dispatched" and say: Kennedy increased the number of military advisers, special operation forces, and helicopters in an effort to curb the spread of communism in South East Asia. Kennedy (or The Kennedy administration) adopted a policy of forced relocation, village internment, and segregation of South Vietnamese from northern and southern communist insurgents. Kierzek (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks good. My source is Stanley Karnow's book titled Vietnam. Kennedy believed that the U.S. was winning the war. He underestimated the will of the North Vietnamese. The internment policy failed. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy's forced village internment was called the Strategic Hamlet Program. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read Karnow's book and used it for citing once or twice in the past. As for the Strategic Hamlet Program, it was a join program with the South Vietnam gov. (who was to carry it out). It was a failure in the end. As for Kennedy's belief as to the war, he "hoped" the situation would improve and received reports that it was, but it was not, as you know. He sent McNamara and Taylor to Vietnam in October 1963 on the last of several fact finding and assessment missions. The news was mixed and a policy review was to take place at the beginning of 1964. Anyway, I will put in the addition as we discussed. Kierzek (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good edit Kierzek! Thanks. According to Karnow, Kennedy and McNamara underestimated the will of the North Vietnamese communist resistance. Kennedy and McNamara believed in war by the numbers. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Playboy lifestyle

I know this could be a touchy issue for lede to mention that Kennedy was a playboy President. However, I am not sure that this issue can be avoided anymore. Is there a way to mention Kennedy was a playboy without being sensational? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

• "Kennedy lived a playboy lifestyle since the 1940's allegedly having casual sex with celebrities and secretaries while Senator and President.." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really feel it has to be in the lede, but if so would write it differently; a few sentences as to his personal life, such as: After his death, revelations of his private life have come to light. Details of his health problems in which Kennedy struggled have become better known. In fact, Robert Kennedy wrote, "At least half his days that he spent on this earth were days of intense physical pain." Kenney, p. 23. His friend Lem Billings believed that the physical ailments were a driving force for Kennedy to live "his life to its fullest" without complaining. Kenney, p. 25. Further, since his death, reports of philandering from the time he was a young man in the 1940's and continuing through the years thereafter have also garnered much press.

Kierzek (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. People who knew Kennedy understood that he was a playboy prior to his death. The general public did not know he was a playboy. I suppose what is being stated is that in order to relieve Kennedy's pain he had sex with other women. According to Kennedy, he had sex to relieve his headaches. I like the indirect approach, however, I don't believe Wikipedia needs to defend Kennedy's actions. I am not sure that "pain" caused Kennedy's casual sexual lifestyle he practiced since the 1940's. My view is that Kennedy loved beautiful women and apparently beautiful women found him attractive. Also, during Kennedy's times women tended to be treated as sex objects. The feminist movement seemed to have become popular in the late 1960's throughout the 1970's ending with the defeat of the ERA. I think this is a work in progress. Thanks Kierzek. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I really only wrote that to convey his general mindset to life; I was also trying to address both his health and social life, so to speak, together for the lede. I can add that part about what his old friend Billings said and his brother said later, into the main article under health. How about something simple: After his death, revelations of his private life have come to light. Details of his health problems in which Kennedy struggled have become better known. Further, reports of his philandering from the time he was a young man in the 1940's and continuing through the years thereafter have also garnered much press. Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My issue might be with the term, "After his death". The press knew of Kennedy's philandering but was kept secret during Kennedy's lifetime. The information was known but suppressed. I am not sure if the press knew of his health issues. How about this? "Since the 1960's information concerning Kennedy's private life have been made public. During the 2000's details of Kennedy's health problems that he struggled with have become better known. Although initially kept secret from the general public by Kennedy, the press, and the secret service, details of Kennedy's philandering lifestyle from the time he was a young man in the 1940's and continued into his Presidency have garnered much press.'"

I like it; but would tweak it a little and take out: "During the 2000's"; further, details as to health started coming out in 1964, with RFK's statement I cite above as to his brother's health problems; then some with Schlesinger in 1965 but in more detail with Reeves book in 1993 and continuing thereafter with the most (objective) detail coming from Dallek's book in 2003. As to the press, not all of the press knew it from my readings and looking at it, in the context of the times, a fair amount did not see it as suppression but private life, not needed to be reported on; like the press had done for years with, e.g. FDR, etc. So I would suggest: "Since the 1960's information concerning Kennedy's private life has come to light. Details of Kennedy's health problems that he struggled with have become better known (or if you like-, especially since the 1990's). Although initially kept secret from the general public, reports of Kennedy's philandering from the time he was a young man in the 1940's and continuing into his Presidency have garnered much press.'" Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This is good Kierzek. I believe Kennedy's health details started to come out during the 1990's, possibly more extensive in the 2000's. The Republican "Truth Squad" stated that Kennedy was a playboy in 1960 and did not deserve to be President in a New York Times article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked the grammar a tad, but it is in. Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good edit Kierzek. Thanks. Do you think we need any references for the edit or is this information covered in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; as for references, the points are covered and cited in the article. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link the New York Times (October 3, 1960) article: Kennedy Assailed by 'Truth Squad' Republicans Assert Senator Is Too Often Absent -- Term Him a 'Playboy' . For some reason I can't access the article when attempting to purchase the article. This article might have allot of good information on Kennedy and would be worth looking into, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I frankly doubt it has anything at this point which has not been said or reported 50 years later; and remember the "truth squad" comments were given pre-election; they were hoping for a "hit" piece. How the Times wrote it may not have been but I am sure the "truth squad" made their points. Things like that seem to come out from either side, to one degree or another, pre-election. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. However, the Republicans called Kennedy a playboy and must have had something on him to make that statement. The reason I believe the article valuable is because Kennedy's reputation as a playboy had been established in 1960. Also, I need to know who made the statement that Kennedy was a playboy. Possibly no details were given, but clearly by 1960 Kennedy was viewed, at least by Republicans, as a playboy. The Press apparently did not investigate the matter. I am hoping I will be able to purchase and access the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sex life continued

I am adding a bit more detail on Kennedy's sex life. Hagood contends Kennedy had ménage à trois at the White House. I believe mentioning director J. Edgar Hoover had information on Kennedy's sex life. Also, more can be expanded on Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe. I am trying to cover all appropriate areas. I don't want the section to get out of control. I have excluded Hagood's contention that Kennedy had casual sex with other women such as flight attendants and campaign workers. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is another issue that I believe worth discussing. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Robert F. Kennedy, and Teddy Kennedy may have had group sex. I am not sure this is appropriate for the article, but I believe needs to be discussed. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Source: Vanity Fair Group Sex With Marilyn Monroe? Attaway, Kennedys! Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen, with all due respect, the most recent addition is getting too sensational at this point. I would remove the ménage à trois allegation, myself. As for Hagood, again with due respect, he is not an historian and in fact is listed as a "Management consultant" and Vanity Fair wants to sell their magazine. The writer of the article himself hedges all over the place, stating: F.B.I. memo "alleging"..."The report suggests"..."So whether or not it’s actually true"; that is not RS.

As for Marilyn, the extent of when and how often will never be known and historians like Dallek have been very cautious about what is stated, as I went through above on this page. The only clear time I have read they got together was the president's trip to Cal. in March 1962. I would say, The extent of a relationship with Monroe will never be known, but they did have more than a casual acquaintance. Dallek p. 581. Further, the White House switch board noted calls from her during 1962. p. 581. FBI director, Hoover received reports as to Kennedy's indiscretions. Hoover kept files on all the presidents during his tenure. BTW-I am not saying Hagood should be excluded but he should be used with some caution. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hagood stated that Kennedy was reported to have a ménage à trois during the Inaguration. Joan Lunberg, another women whom Kennedy had an affair with stated that Kennedy loved threesomes (p. 148). Hagood stated that Kennedy phoned a friend and stated there were two naked girls in his room (p. 149). According to Hagood, Kennedy used at least two secretaries for recreational sex in the White House swimming pool. (p. 150) Jackie Kennedy knew that Jack was having affairs. (p. 177) I did not use the term threesome. Apparently Kennedy could not have sustained sex due to his back injury. Hagood stated Kennedy was the most sexually active President ever. Obivously Kennedy was extremely careless with the women he was having sex with. The FBI reports are a seperate subject. Kennedy even had an affair with a mobster Sam Giancana's girlfriend Judith Campbell. Kennedy had an affair with a German spy Ellen Rometsch. The secret service attests to Kennedy having an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Again I am not trying to sensational, but, I don't believe we need to be excessively cautious. Kennedy may have been addicted to sex and he loved beautiful women. That was an ugly fact of Kennedy. I personally do not care if Kennedy was a playboy had he stayed out of politics or was married. Kennedy is viewed as a great Catholic President. Why I believe Kennedy's sex life is important was because he was suppose to be a Catholic and he was married to Jackie. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep citing "Hagood reports"; he has RS problems as I said above. Further, I checked, no one, Dallek, Reeves, Perret, Leaming or even Hersh (who would if anyone) "reports" that during the Inauguration. Now, somewhere I read in a bio, that JFK had relations with Angie Dickinson, slipping off during one of the Inaugral balls. I can't find it now; maybe you can. And I bet that did happen; but we discussed her above. The point is, no one relates that story of Hagood. And the other point is: as to the secretaries, that is already noted; so are the other women; this is not an expose. And ofcourse Jackie knew, just as Coretta Scott King knew what her husband, MLK, Jr. was doing. His sex life has been stated in an encyclopedic way and the points objectively made. You say, "I don't want the section to get out of control." Neither do I. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What specific RS issues does Hagood have? Hagood does not mention that Dickinson had sex with Kennedy at the Inaguration, although she was their. Mostly likely Kennedy and Dickinson had an affair in 1960 and 1962. However, Kennedy was seeing so many women things start to get confusing. There is the issue of the FBI reports of Kennedy having group sex with Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra, Robert F. Kennedy, and Teddy Kennedy in addition to affairs with Judith Campbell and Ellen Rometsh. The FBI is seperate from Hagood as a source. In my opinion Dallek and Reeves are protectionists of Kennedy. I have not looked into MLK, Jr. sex life, although I believe the FBI investigated MLK, Jr. and apparently told his wife. That in some ways reflects on the invasion of privacy and ruthlessness of J. Edgar Hoover, who himself was not free from homosexual pedifile scandal in France. There is a book on the secret life of Marilyn Monroe. According to Hagood apparently Monroe wanted to be JFK's first lady and she was hoping JFK and Jackie would divorce. Out of all his women I believe Monroe was Kennedy's favorite. I understand that this is all sordid concerning the President of the U.S. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I believe as an encyclopedia, all signifigant aspects of Kennedy's alleged sex life needs to be discussed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you ask, Hagood is not a historian and his book is noted as being "Unscholarly and, failing that, not particularly good trash; not recommended. Adam Mazmanian, "Library Journal". Dallek and Reeves are not "protectionists"; they state enough and have been cited. How do you explain that JFK bios by Geoffrey Perret, Barbara Leaming and even Seymour Hersh don't mention it either. The fact is all this has been discussed; how is what is there not convey the points to be made? I don't even want to get into FBI reports which could run from some fact to wild rumor. Kierzek (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the ménage à trois sentence per your request Kierzek. Possibly then the article can delve into the secret service, J. Edgar Hoover, and more on Marilyn Monroe. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. How about you propose something about the relations with Marilyn Monroe, only do add at the end, the full extent will never be known. Dallek p. 581. I know they did together in Cal. at Crosby's house in March 1962 (Leaming pp. 379-380), and probably in New York in May 1962. Hersh states it took place when Kennedy was in Cal. and the attraction went beyond sex. She was glamorous, funny, and had a "tenacious" interest to learn about the world outside of Hollywood. Hersh, pp. 102-103. During 1962, she was noted as making calls to the White House to speak with the president. Reeves p. 332. Anyway, that is my suggestions at this point. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with Hersh that there was an attraction that went beyond sex with Marilyn Monroe. With that said I don't know how Kennedy could cheat on such a beautiful wife as Jackie, in the first place. There is a book titled, The Secret Life of Marilyn Monroe by J. Randy Taraborrelli (2009). I think this gives a good account of the Secret Service and John F. Kennedy. Mentioning J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI I suppose is a must for the article including more on Marilyn Monroe. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me what you find as to the Monroe book. I have not read it. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Taraborrelli, Kennedy and Monroe had a weekend affair in 1962 while Jackie was visting India. The Secret Service witnessed this affair and apparently kept secret from Jackie and the public. Monroe was one of Kennedy's many conquests. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

She went to India in March 1962. That is when JFK was in Cal.; so that fits. Kierzek (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Kennedy loved Marilyn Monroe, for that matter I am not sure he loved any woman. From what I read, Marilyn was attracted to Kennedy for being a world leader. I believe she wanted to be the First Lady and may have actually talked to Jackie on the phone. Kennedy apparently had no remorse when Marilyn died. In my opinion Kennedy put the national security at risk by having all these extra marital affairs. One was a German spy, another a mob bosses girlfriend. Who knows what he told his "secretaries" at the swimming pool parties. When did Kennedy find the time to be President? Kennedy was extremely careless with the women he had affairs with. Maybe he misled Marilyn to believing that she would be the first lady. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I would not get too wrapped up in this. I have read a lot on JFK; frankly it is clear enough he loved his wife and children; I don't believe, from what I have read, he was in love with Marilyn, either. I also believe the only thing he really put at risk was his political future (much like FDR, LBJ, MLK, Jr. and Clinton; or any national political figure or public leader, you can name). He obviously had plenty of time to govern. Look at LBJ, for example. It didn't slow him down. Per the Secret Service, after getting caught in the act by his wife, Lady Bird, he had a "buzzer system installed" so he would be warned when his wife was approaching from the upstairs residence section of the White House. Heck, LBJ bragged he had "more women by accident then Kennedy had on purpose". Dallek, Lone Star Rising, p. 189. Like one historian said, it was an era in which Washington "valued conquest more than chastity". It reminds me of the TV show, Mad Men, especially the first season. I just can't get that worked up about it; if I did, it would be pov pushing, anyway. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek here. JFK was not made unfit for presidential work by his sex life, nor did he become an unloving husband and father. The article should not focus too much on the sex life of JFK, and it especially should not contain conjecture such as in the discussion above. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are historians who believe Kennedy was overrated. I consider, however, Kennedy's, Johnson's, and I will throw in William J. Clinton's sex life is a form of corruption. Using the White House and secret service for orgies or any sexual purposes is not mandated in the Constitution. The White House looses all moral authority when the leaders are too busy having sex with women rather then keeping our country from harm. And here is the deal, Kennedy and Johnson were having affairs at the White House while soldiers were dying in Vietnam. Accidental or purposeful sex is all the same thing. Kennedy almost got us in a nuclear war with the USSR. Johnson sent in regular troops into Vietnam. Clinton almost got impeached. Everything has a cost. I believe the sexual indiscretions of presidents is an important and relevant issue for all presidential articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Preaching is not what the talk page is to be used for. Let's keep discussion tightly focused on actionable suggestions for article improvement. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, wikipedia is not the place for your personal crusade. Neither in the talk page or in the articles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Preaching? I refered to the U.S. Constitution. I did not bring in the Bible or any other religious document. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. The constitution does not auhorize the President to have extra marital affairs or to use the secret service to protect the President from extramarital affairs nor for the President to have sex with White House secretaries. That is political corruption. Kennedy never stated his job was to have sex with other women while he was running for President. Why was his sex life kept secret, because he knew the country would not vote for him had the country known he was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe while his wife was in India. Marilyn Monroe wanted to be the First Lady. That would mean Kennedy would have had to divorce Jackie and marry Marilyn Monroe. In my opinion, Kennedy put American troops in jeopardy while he was having affairs with a mobster's girlfriend and a german spy. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution does not even authorize the president to HAVE a Secret Service. They are not once mentioned. The Constitution does not work the way you think it does. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The secret service is designed to protect the Constitution of the United States. The Secret Service is constitutional. Morality is defined as the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The American people know the President is protected by the Secret Service. Ironically, the Secret Service was publically created by President Lincoln on the day of his assassination. There is no federal law or statue that states the President of the United States is authorized to have sexual intercourse, encounters, or extramarital affairs with paid "secretaries", celebrities, mob boss girl friends, girls offered to the President for sex, or German spies. President Kennedy purposefully and willfully kept these indiscretions from public knowledge. The Secret Service was used to protect Kennedy's sexual encounters. J. Edgar Hoover used this information as extortion to keep his job. That is corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I admit the Secret Service was not officially designed to protect the President. Congress unoffically asked that the Secret Service after the McKinely assassination to protect the President. So in that sence the Secret Service, although constitutional, was legally unauthorized by Congress to officially protect the President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Congress did allow federal funding for the Secret Service to protect the President of the United States full time in 1906. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cmguy777, that is not "corruption" in and by itself; one could argue it is a personal human failing, in private life. The Constitution does not state anything about whether someone is having sex with anyone or not; or who with; or how one might go about it. Clinton, for example, was not impeached for sexual relations, but for perjury and obstruction of justice. Look at Nixon, his downfall had nothing to do with sexual relations and yet crime and corruption marred his administration in the end. BTW-Rometsch was never proven to be a "spy", that was a rumor; she was one of Bobby Baker's party girls; Baker made them available to "senators and other high-government officials". Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit break

I believe putting in more information on J. Edgar Hoover, the Secret Service, and Marilyn Monroe. Why is this so controversial? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we've stated why. We disagree with your premise of weight based upon Constitutionality, and feel that you are making a personal morality crusade rather than objective edits. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We were having a discussion. I was censured unfairly and inappropriately by Binksternet without cause. Kennedy is claimed to be a Catholic President, therefore, his marriage to Jackie can be included in the article including Kennedy's extra marital affairs. I have no morality crusade. I can mention the Constitution because Kennedy is President of the United States. What is really going on is touchy feelings of POV concerning Kennedy. I know when I am being bullied and ganged up on. I deserve an apology. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Claimed to be a Catholic"? Good luck with that. This article cannot be pushed so far toward minor and fringe viewpoints. WP:Undue weight is going to keep it relatively mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet that you went off into a pointless and inappropriate rant. Unless you can come up with a reliable source, your theory of constitutional violation is just your own unsupported opinion, and is not worth discussing here. I'm no fan of Camelot, but the current article already adequately covers Kennedy's sex life without giving it undue weight. Plazak (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional violation? My view was that the President does not have the constitutional priviledge nor federal law of hiring Secretaries for sex . Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going by the source Taraborrelli (2009), The Secret Life of Marilyn Monroe. The Secret Service attest that John F. Kennedy spent the weekend with Marilyn Monroe while Jackie was in India. That is what I wanted to put into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, your "view" is original research. You need a source that says his actions were in violation of the Constitution. Your comments regarding Catholicism again raise the prospect that this is more a personal morality mission on your part than it is objective editing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We are not here to embrace minor and fringe views. Binksternet (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no orginal research on my part. I sighted the Taraborrelli source. The subject of the Constitution was meant to be for discussion and not put in the article. Last I checked the powers for the President are derived from the Constitution. That is not original research. The Catholics are suppose to be a moral church and do not condone adultery. My contention was for discussion only that since the Catholic Church is a moral institution, then the subject of morality can be brought up, since Kennedy was a Catholic. My view was that additional information on J. Edgar Hoover, the Secret Service, and Marylin Monroe would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the Constitution, Catholic church and Secret Service "discussion" points are not relevant for the article. As for further addition, I made a suggestion above as to it on Monroe and Hoover. To tweak it, I would say, The extent of a relationship with Monroe will never be known, although it has been reported they spent a weekend together in March 1962 while Kennedy was staying at Bing Crosby's house. Further, the White House switch board noted calls from her during 1962. FBI director, Hoover received reports as to Kennedy's indiscretions. I don't think it is really needed. However, if consensus decides they want it, so be it, if not, time to move on and give this a rest. I await comments from the editors, above. Kierzek (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Kierzek. That is a good edit. I would add that the Secret Service according to Taraborrelli confirmed that Kennedy and Monroe spent the weekend together at Bing Crosby's place. I believe the edit is needed for the article. I don't want to talk on the Catholic Church, Constitution, or morality. I am willing to work with other editors. Pax Wikipedia! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. BTW-I don't believe it needs to say, "confirmed"; it is strong enough as is, without that addition; it is still "reported" by witness statements, either way; and I don't really want to get into the legal arguments about such things; but lets just say even with additional statements by however many you want to consider, it is still stating what witnesses have "reported". I was waiting for comment from the others, but if nothing further is said, I will add the above sentences which I suggested, with cites from Leaming pp. 379-380 and Dallek p. 581; Reeves, is not needed as it is redundant of Dallek. Taraborrelli is not needed for the cites, either for the same reason, redundant. Kierzek (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek. That is fine on "confirmed". I did not intend to get into any legal issues. According to Hagood, Marylin stated she wanted to be the first lady, and when she called the White House she was attempting to talk to Jackie. Marylin also stated that Kennedy was not a very good lover or any sexual encounter did not last long. This was possibly due to his back injury. I am not sure the latter needs to be in the article, but Marylin wanting to be Kennedy's first lady is signifigant for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that Monroe wanting to be First Lady is significant to this article? There was never the remotest chance of it coming true. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Monroe's personal wishes might be relevant to her article, but I'm not sure they are here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet. I did not arrive at that conclusion. That was Hagood who stated Monroe wanted to be First Lady. Robert Kennedy was also having an affair with Marilyn Monroe. The Kennedy's did stop all relationship with Marylin out of a potential scandal and President Kennedy may have pressured her to keep quiet by sending her to a remote lodge with gangster Sam Giancani. The break up of Marilyn Monroe and Kennedy was shattering to Monroe. Here is the source: Marilyn Monroe by Rachel Bell. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

TruTV is your source? Please find something respectable such as a frequently cited biography. You have not yet demonstrated that Monroe's impossible wish to be First Lady is something we need to pay any attention to in the article on JFK's life. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Binkerset. Again. Hagood mentioned that Marilyn Monroe wanted to be First Lady. I believed that to be appropriate for the article since Kennedy was married to Jackie and Kennedy was having an affair with Monroe. I am for editor concensus on this. I stated that his would be appropriate for the article. This is a discussion page. I believe Monroe calling the White House is signifgant for the article. I am not pushing any of these issues to be in the article. These issues may not be neccessary for the article, but rather signifigant. This would have put Kennedy in a difficult or "impossible" position as you mentioned and he and Bobbie had to break off communications with Marilyn. As for the TruTV source, I am unaware of any inaccuracies concerning the TruTV Marilyn Monroe article. I am content with the current discussion on Kennedy's sex life and I do not believe there is any reason to continue the subject. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wesley O. Hagood is not a scholar, nor a respected historian. His book Presidential Sex is a vehicle for sales results rather than critical praise. This biography should not emphasize his poor quality book or give Hagood a voice regarding JFK. He is not notable enough for that. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet. Hagood tackled a difficult subject that most historians ignore; that is the sex lives of the Presidents of the United States. Hagood does not state that every President had sex scandals. That I believe gives him some clout. Obviously Kennedy was a playboy. Most if not all historians have a profit motivation for the books that are sold over the internet and at any remaining book stores. Hagood is mainly used to as a source for the sex scandals of Presidents, not for the full article. I am personally uncomfortable with information on Kennedy cheating on Jackie, but I believe more information on Kennedy gives us better understanding concerning his Presidency. If you have a disagreement with Hagood, why don't you send an email and tell him any of your concerns. I have emailed historian authors before and have actually had civil conversations with and or responses from them. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hagood's JFK-topic credentials are not sufficient, in my opinion, to have him named in the article body prose. If the article was about the sex lives of presidents then I would say otherwise. A conversation with Hagood would not change my appreciation of the situation. Binksternet (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I already stated above my RS problems with Hagood before this thread; I would not cite TruTV as RS. Neither Dallek nor Reeves go into speculation of the calls to the White House; but do, as I cite above, mention that they occurred in 1962. That aside, my last composed sentences above for consideration; go or no go, Binksternet, OuroborosCobra? Cmguy777, I know your vote. I will go with consensus and hopefully after this, we can move on. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kierzek, your suggested phrasing is okay with me. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hagood is a valid source. Other sources validate Hagood as a source. I am for Kiersek's above edit. I believe the two day affair needs to be mentioned with Marilyn Monroe while Jackie was in India. The secret service and J. Edgar Hoover needs to be mentioned. The Secret Service officers witnessed that Kennedy was there with Monroe. J. Edgar Hoover was keeping tabs on Kennedy's love life. We can drop TMZ as RS. That is fine. We don't have to go into specifics of Monroe wanting to be the First Lady or calling the White House. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the lede does not state the Kennedy's philandering carried over into his Presidency when an affair with Jackie's White House secretary Pamela Turnure has been confirmed by Pamela herself. Will the part concerning Marylin Monroe and J. Edgar Hoover be put into the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. J. Edgar Hoover, Marilyn Monroe, and the Secret Service offer information and evidence concerning Kennedy's sex life and would help strengthen the article's integrity. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Strengthen? Integrity? No, it would distract from important presidential issues and cheapen/weaken the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I was refering to the Extra-marital affairs section, not the entire article. Information on J. Edgar Hoover and the Secret Service, and more on Marilyn Monroe would strengthen the integrity of this section. I believe this to be a relevant issue in the article. I appreciate any editors who contributed to the expansion of this section. What is the editor consensus on this issue? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought there was a consensus as to my addition above of 22 April 2013, which I can put in tomorrow when I have more time with the cites. I assume we still have an agreement to add it. Yes? Other than that, I don't believe anything more needs to be added. Kierzek (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a 2:1 concensus on the addition of you edit. I believe the reader needs to know that J. Edgar Hoover was keeping track of Kennedy's sex life. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I will go by the prior consensus reached by 26 April 2013 and add that part in. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good addition Kierzek. For now I am done with Kennedy's sex life. I apologize if any of this caused controversy, but I believe the expansion on Kennedy's sex life has made the article better and gives a better understanding of Kennedy as a younger Senator and President. He was only 46 when he was assassinated. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Portrait Cycling

Regular cycling of Kennedy family members pictures to keep them "fresh" has been a standard for some time, I keep trying to cycle it to a new photo, but it keeps being reverted, please stop. TronLover (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The rotation of main photos is something that does happen from time to time in bio articles but not automatically; certainly consensus is needed for same. And I must tell you that in general on president pages, the official portraits are used. The photo with Sinatra is not appropriate for a lead picture for this article. I have put in one of the two official portraits which have been used in the past for the lead photo, for now. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, rotating portraits is confusing to the reader. Other Presidential articles do not rotate portraits. I believe that the current photograph is best for the article's lead. The painting of Kennedy belongs in the cabinet section and should not be in the lede section. If there are an ubundance of portraits and or memorials of Kennedy, I suggest a seperate Portraits and memorials of John F. Kennedy article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The Sinatra photo truck me as being, at best, quirky. William Avery (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I put the Alfred Eisenstaedt White House Press photo in the lede. I like the photo since Kennedy looks more serious or Presidential then the one where he is smiling. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is alright with me. It is the second "official" photo I was talking about above, which has been used over time herein. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek. Again if there are allot of portraits of Kennedy and his family, then these would belong better in a seperate article on Wikipedia. I believe the portrait photo with Kennedy smiling is the better photo, however, the photo with the more serious pose looks more presidential. To be honest, I don't believe the official portrait painting of Kennedy is very flattering of Kennedy. His face is down and he is in a defensive posture. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That official painted portrait does have a "pensive look" about it. As for alot of other "portraits" of JFK, I don't know of any. There are numerous photos used in other Kennedy bios herein, so I don't think a page needs to be put together for them all. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Estes affair

I believe a section needs to be added on the Estes affair. Billie Sol Estes, a Texas entrepreneur was indicted by the Kennedy administration for mail fraud, illegally transporting securities, and conspiracy. Congressional investigations were launched on whether Estes illegally used federal subsidies and had received favortism by the Department of Agriculture. Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman was under scrutiny by the Republicans. A deputy administer of the Department of Agriculture was forced to resign since Estes took him clothe shopping at Neiman-Marcus. An aide in the Department of Agriculture was fired for having ties with Estes. A former assistant secretary of Agriculture was fired by the FBI for having used Estes's credit card for making phone calls. An assistant secretary of Labor resigned after it was disclosed he took a $1,000 cash gift from Estes. Kennedy and Freeman tried to downplay any charges that any favoritism was given to Estes in the Department of Agriculture. Kennedy defended Freeman. The Congressional hearings revealed there was serious disorganization problems in the Department of Agriculture and that there was a "woeful lack of supervision and direction" by Freeman in the Department of Agriculture. Freedman stated that everyone who was involved with taking gifts from Estes had left the Department of Agriculture. My source was Mark I. Gelfand (1974), Reponses of the President to Charges of Misconduct. pages 376-378. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, from my reading, in 1962, when info. as to payoffs to several Agriculture officials emerged, Kennedy assigned FBI agents to the case and the Justice Dept. "made certain that Sec. Freeman was untainted". Dallek, page 500. There was more worry about Johnson's involvement. Estes was a fellow Texan. And there was questions as to business ventures together, gifts to Johnson, including use of a private plane to fly to Johnson's Texas ranch. Johnson said the charges were "baseless" (which is no surprise). RFK had the FBI investigate but they found no hard evidence. Johnson said, "The damn press always accused me of things I didn't do. They never once found out about the things I did do." Dallek, pp. 500-501. As for Freeman, he went on to be LBJ's Secretary of Agriculture as well through 1969, the end of Johnson's term. The press blew over. An asst. sec. resigned, along with a couple of other underlings, apparently. Kierzek (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how Texas is involved again in terms of controversy, i.e. TFX fighter-bomber controversy. Was Estes ever convicted? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times article on Estes.

Billie Sol Estes, Texas Con Man Whose Fall Shook Up Washington, Dies at 88 Cmguy777 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Estes was convicted in 1963. In terms of Johnson, Estes stated he had give Johnson millions of dollars and that Johnson had ordered seven killings to cover up the Kennedy assassination. According to Estes, Johnson had ordered one killing to cover up his ties with Estes. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot happened in Johnson's home state back then. Estes was convicted as you found out in 1963. And Dallek did add that there is some question that remains as to whether Hoover gave Johnson a pass to some degree; "some historians of the FBI speculated that Hoover might have..." Dallek page 501. As for the guy that was shot, according to the investigation, Henry Marshall was a gov. investigator assigned for the Estes matter and a Texas grand jury ruled his death a suicide even through he had bruises on his hands and was shot with a bolt-action rifle. Dalllek page 500. Kennedy was "relieved" to learn the death was the result of an affair of Marshall's gone wrong and not what was "rumored" that he was killed because he was investigating Estes. Dallek, pp. 500-501. Congress held hearings into the matter and other Estes activities that led ultimately to the question of ties to LBJ, who had been a business associate of Estes in the past. Apparently, there are some historians who have written that the vice president tried to help Estes with questionable dealings with the Agriculture Department after the fraud in relation to the nonexistent fertilizer storage tanks had been exposed in Texas. cite: Douglas Martin (December 10, 2011), "Oscar Griffin Jr., 78, Pulitzer Prize Winner Who Brought Down Scheming Texas Tycoon, Dies", The New York Times. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek. I can try to put together a potential edit mentioning the tank frauds and Congressional investigations. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)