JFK's wife: Martin Luther King was "tricky" "and phony"

[Lysand]

NEW YORK -- President John F. Kennedy openly scorned the notion of Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson succeeding him in office, according to a book of newly-released interviews with his widow, former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy.

In the interviews, she also called civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. "terrible," "tricky" and "a phony."

"This book shows Jackie Kennedy unplugged," historian and CBS News analyst Douglas Brinkley told "Early Show" co-anchor Erica Hill Monday.

He said, "A lot of the rawness of her feelings, I think, as a young woman -- she's is only in her 30s when she is doing these tapes in 1964 -- is very different from the more poised and discrete Jackie Kennedy we got to know in the 1980s and 1990s."

She said her husband and his brother, then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a longtime LBJ antagonist, even discussed ways to prevent Johnson from winning the Democratic nomination in a future contest.

The book, "Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy," includes a series of interviews the former first lady gave to historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. shortly after her husband was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963.

Over seven sessions, she recalled conversations on topics ranging from her husband's reading habits to the botched Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba.

JFK increased the U.S. presence in Vietnam throughout his brief administration, adding military advisers to help train the South Vietnamese military. Johnson, as president, would later commit ground troops to the conflict despite initial promises not to. Historians still debate whether Kennedy would have done the same.

Jacqueline Kennedy spoke skeptically of King.

She called him "tricky" and a "phony" after hearing about FBI tapes of him and a woman in his hotel room, while noting that JFK had urged her not to be judgmental. (JFK's own adulterous affairs weren't yet widely known.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/12/earlyshow/main20104707.shtml

Glad she told the truth.

[vincent]

Glad she told the truth.

How was he phony?

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

There's a LOT of people who feel MLKjr was a self-serving attention seeker, who happened to encapsulate the mood at the time. If not him, then it would have been someone else.

I don't necessarily agree, but when a person get's escalated to the status of "icon" then such things cease to matter.

[vincent]

Hmmm, "60 communist groups" during a time in which the Cold war had america viewing almost anything overseas as communist - check

bogus source? check..

Keep trying, this is fun.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

How about you also look at old newspapers from that time, too?

And there goes your argument flying out the window. The press at the time had a very "pro white, pro conformist" agenda. Hate black, hate communism. Hate both, sell more!

[Ayepecks]

A good portion of that information you posted is complete bull.

MLK wasn't a saint. It's well known that he cheated on his wife, had some questionable moral issues, and made a rude statement about Jackie Kennedy giving JFK a blow job when she was kneeling at his casket during the funeral. How is all this known? Because our own government bugged his hotel rooms and was digging up dirt on the man. I don't know exactly how much of it I believe, but the government at the time was going to great lengths to discredit him.

None of this is a discredit to MLK's role in the civil rights movement. Anyone who thinks it is should just stop talking, because they probably don't have much intelligent to say.

If you look hard enough at almost any historical figure, you'll find issues. Abraham Lincoln? Check. George Washington? Check. Thomas Jefferson? Check. Gandhi? Check. The only difference is our society is insanely connected (with mobile phones, cameras, the Internet, etc) now, so we may never have icons as large as we did before. With MLK it was different because our entire government was afraid of an uprising, so they bugged the hell out of every location he was at.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

The problem with people is that they're inevitably human, they make mistakes, and they have skeletons in their closet, just like every other human on this rock. The ideals that they stand for though, if important enough, outweigh the issue of flaws in their person.

MLKJr wasn't a perfect person, but this guy put a face to the civil rights movement, and like it or not, that made him a very important person in US, if not world history. That he may or may not have been an attention seeker, or a *cough* "communist", doesn't matter, because at the end of it, he helped advance equal rights, which has indisputably made the world a much better place, and no-one can take that from him.

[Seizure1990]

You do realize that during the Cold War, the USA was on a witch-hunt for "communists" and tons of people who had nothing to do with the USSR or communism in general were accused of being "communist"

[Seizure1990]

Yes, and that explains why it's a fact King cheated at his university doctorate, right? Regardless of how much you love Communists, the man was a fraud from his earliest years, and he was indeed connected to Communist groups, regardless of there being a witchhunt.

The fact that my defense of MLK makes you resort to absurd "you love Communist" comments speak volumes.

I think communism is a terrible idea.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Photos don't lie.

1) Yes they do, even back then.

2) The context of a photo can tell a very interesting story!

[mudslag]

Once in a while I have to pull this from my sig, it seems this is one of those times.

The problem with crazy people, they don't know they're crazy

1) Yes they do, even back then.

2) The context of a photo can tell a very interesting story!

Bingo, take picture + sensational headline = new context

[vincent]

Area51?

And just to annoy the OP here's MLK's nobel acceptance speach:

"Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when 22 million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award on behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice. I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeking to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation. I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.

After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time - the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity. This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights Bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a super highway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. "And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid." I still believe that We Shall overcome!

This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.

Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally.

Every time I take a flight, I am always mindful of the many people who make a successful journey possible - the known pilots and the unknown ground crew.

So you honor the dedicated pilots of our struggle who have sat at the controls as the freedom movement soared into orbit. You honor, once again, Chief Lutuli of South Africa, whose struggles with and for his people, are still met with the most brutal expression of man's inhumanity to man. You honor the ground crew without whose labor and sacrifices the jet flights to freedom could never have left the earth. Most of these people will never make the headline and their names will not appear in Who's Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvellous age in which we live - men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization - because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake.

I think Alfred Nobel would know what I mean when I say that I accept this award in the spirit of a curator of some precious heirloom which he holds in trust for its true owners - all those to whom beauty is truth and truth beauty - and in whose eyes the beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold."

Probabaly one of the best speeches ever written

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

So... Seeing as the OP is following the same predictable trends as many other such posters here... How long until we are labelled blind, sheep, ignorant, stupid or any other such terms?

[Seizure1990]

how long until we start discussing how the USA faked the moon landing, or 9/11?

[Skin]

Area51?

And just to annoy the OP here's MLK's nobel acceptance speach:

Probabaly one of the best speeches ever written

So, the man could speak, read, or write eloquently. That makes people elevate one to sainthood?

Oh right, I forgot about our current president. Guess that's all it takes after all.

Anyhoo, King was a notorious rabble rouser and carouser. This was well documented through his life. Yes, he had a message and optimized the views of a newer culture of the time, but honestly, not a saint in the least... yet people seem to worship at his feet. As time passes, people have less of a view of the real man, and more of this rosy fantasy about how they envision him to have been.

I remember doing a report on him long time ago... and reading the historical and first hand accounts were shocking to say the least. Not that it took away from the message, but it was almost a 'I am going to say one thing on the national level, while 'cashing' in and acting another in day-to-day life' attitude that dripped from everything he did.

[mudslag]

how long until we start discussing how the USA faked the moon landing, or 9/11?

Give him a week or so, he just joined earlier this month.

So, the man could speak, read, or write eloquently. That makes people elevate one to sainthood?

Oh right, I forgot about our current president. Guess that's all it takes after all.

Anyhoo, King was a notorious rabble rouser and carouser. This was well documented through his life. Yes, he had a message and optimized the views of a newer culture of the time, but honestly, not a saint in the least... yet people seem to worship at his feet. As time passes, people have less of a view of the real man, and more of this rosy fantasy about how they envision him to have been.

I remember doing a report on him long time ago... and reading the historical and first hand accounts were shocking to say the least. Not that it took away from the message, but it was almost a 'I am going to say one thing on the national level, while 'cashing' in and acting another in day-to-day life' attitude that dripped from everything he did.

Who said anything about elevating him to anything? Nothing in that quote you have there hinted to anything like that. No one argued that he wasnt human and made many mistakes. None of that changes the FACT that he played an integrate part of the civil rights movement, regardless of his misdoings. And what does Obama have anything to do with this topic?

[Skin]

Who said anything about elevating him to anything? Nothing in that quote you have there hinted to anything like that. No one argued that he wasnt human and made many mistakes. None of that changes the FACT that he played an integrate part of the civil rights movement, regardless of his misdoings. And what does Obama have anything to do with this topic?

It shows a pattern. people that read and speak and write well seem to have more of a free pass at icon status in general... whether they were 'good' beyond their words doesn't seem to matter. It's the classic case of hear what I say, just don't look at how I live.

While the quote itself doesn't suggest elevating him, the pattern of the comments of the thread in general seem to indicate that very little people have even read a thing on King, other than the speeches or what they hear in February while watching a special on him. So, he was an 'integrate' part of the civil rights movement, yet people that knew him as a person seemed to describe him a lot differently than the masses that only heard his words. Eloquent words yes, but how does his work forgive his misdoings?

Is not a man measured by his actions, and not his words alone?

As for Obama being mentioned, it was an analogy to how what a person says in the lime light and on the national landscape is a far cry from the actions that are seen and done. Humans by nature are more stirred by poignant words than by caring to study the man behind the mask.

Does anyone suggest king wasn't involved in the process of change and hope for that culture and time? No. However, his actions speak louder than his words ever did. Or at least they should to someone that would crack open historical books.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

So it's wrong that we equate a well-educated person to be someone who is eloquent? Oh no, the shame!

Your Obama reference serves as nothing more than betraying your agenda.

[Skin]

So it's wrong that we equate a well-educated person to be someone who is eloquent? Oh no, the shame!

Your Obama reference serves as nothing more than betraying your agenda.

Troll more, or if you aren't, at least make an attempt at comprehension of what you are reading.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I love it. I disagree, argue with you and am labelled a troll. Pathetic...

[Skin]

I love it. I disagree, argue with you and am labelled a troll. Pathetic...

You didn't argue at all, actually. You twisted and misrepresented what was originally posted, and offered some hidden slap at an agenda with no supporting focus or cohesive thought.

IF that isn't trolling, it is either a case of poor comprehension of what you read, or rather poor arguing skills. Followed by a shift of focus off of you and back to me with a 'Pathetic'.

Age old way of distracting from something one cannot counter.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I'm not sure I understand why this is even a news story...

So she called MLK a bunch of things regarding him having a questionable moral compass (cheating on his wife, among other things). These comments were made prior to her finding out her own husband had the same questionable moral compass. So it is news? I'd imagine most women, and even men, would make pretty much the same comments when they first learn someone they see as representing a high moral fiber (like a minister) as acting in an opposite manner.

I just don't see the newsworthy point of the story...

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

You didn't argue at all, actually. You twisted and misrepresented what was originally posted, and offered some hidden slap at an agenda with no supporting focus or cohesive thought.

IF that isn't trolling, it is either a case of poor comprehension of what you read, or rather poor arguing skills. Followed by a shift of focus off of you and back to me with a 'Pathetic'.

Age old way of distracting from something one cannot counter.

Or rather, I have argued your points many times on this forum and am quite frankly bored. Every few months someone signs up, posts the same old rhetoric with the same old air of elitism for "Knowing what we all ignore" or "Saying what others are afraid to"...

Your posts are neither new nor insightful. Your suggestion that we "crack open history books" stinks of the same attitude that every Johnny-come-lately exhibits in such threads. I have read up on MLK Jr, I am not American (nor black) so I do not feel the sense of idolisation that some do. Yes I m very much aware of his suggested double-standards.

But the point being made is that you bring up Obama. In a wholly unrelated thread. Without merit.

[McCordRm]

Here's what I absolutely know about MLK:

People wanted to kill him, and he knew it. And unlike the Pope, who supposedly

has God to watch over him, MLK didn't get a bullet-proof batmobile to keep him safe.

And STILL the man took the stage and spoke out for peace. That's balls, man.