What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dark Side of Camelot
If the Kennedys are America's royal family, then John F. Kennedy was the nation's crown prince. Magnetic, handsome, and charismatic, his perfectly coifed image overshadowed the successes and failures of his presidency, and his assassination cemented his near-mythological status in American culture and politics. Struck down in his prime, he represented the best and the brightest of America's future, and when he died, part of the nation's promise and innocence went with him. That, at least, is the public version of the story.
The private version, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh, is quite different. His meticulous investigation of Kennedy has revealed a wealth of indiscretions and malfeasance, ranging from frequent liaisons with prostitutes and mistresses to the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro to involvement in organized crime. Though scandals in the White House are nothing new, Hersh maintains that Kennedy's activities went beyond minor abuses of power and personal indulgences: they threatened the security of the nation--particularly in the realm of foreign policy--and the integrity of the office. Hersh believes it was only a matter of time before Kennedy's dealings were exposed, and only his popularity and charm, compounded by his premature death, spared such an investigation for so long. Exposure was further stalled by Bobby Kennedy's involvement in nefarious dealings, enabling him to bury any investigation of his brother and--by extension--himself.
The private version, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh, is quite different. His meticulous investigation of Kennedy has revealed a wealth of indiscretions and malfeasance, ranging from frequent liaisons with prostitutes and mistresses to the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro to involvement in organized crime. Though scandals in the White House are nothing new, Hersh maintains that Kennedy's activities went beyond minor abuses of power and personal indulgences: they threatened the security of the nation--particularly in the realm of foreign policy--and the integrity of the office. Hersh believes it was only a matter of time before Kennedy's dealings were exposed, and only his popularity and charm, compounded by his premature death, spared such an investigation for so long. Exposure was further stalled by Bobby Kennedy's involvement in nefarious dealings, enabling him to bury any investigation of his brother and--by extension--himself.
Based on interviews with former Kennedy administration officials, former Secret Service agents, and hundreds of Kennedy's personal friends and associates, The Dark Side of Camelot rewrites the history of John F. Kennedy and his presidency.
498 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
189 people are currently reading
3747 people want to read
About the author
Seymour M. Hersh
35 books451 followersSeymour (Sy) Myron Hersh is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist and author based in Washington, D.C. He is a regular contributor to The New Yorker magazine on military and security matters. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and is a "five-time Polk winner and recipient of the 2004 George Orwell Award."
He first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. His 2004 reports on the US military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison gained much attention.
He first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. His 2004 reports on the US military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison gained much attention.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 227 reviews
January 1, 2018
The basic theory the author of this book Seymour M. Hersh puts forward is that John F. Kennedy was a bad President because he was a bad person.
Mr. Hersh seems to think that in order to be an effective leader, you have to be a person of good character.
As much as I wish this was true, I'm just not that naive. Bill Clinton is not a man of great character but most people seem to agree that he was a pretty good President ( despite that whole Impeachment thing). Jimmy Carter is a good man. He's a minister for heavens sake, but his Presidency is not a top 10 Presidency. President Carter was not an effective leader despite his great moral character.
The Dark Side of Camelot is a character study of the Kennedy Administration. The author concludes because JFK was lying womanizer, he was also a bad President. I personally think Kennedy was an ok President. His importance has less to do with what he did as President and more to do with the impact his Presidency has had on the world. Being a Kennedyophlie I've read or watched almost everything about the Kennedy Administration and its sad to say I may have done more research on the topic than the author did. He states that one of the reasons Kennedy was a bad President was he started the Vietnam war, Wrong! Eisenhower and maybe even Truman had been sending troops into Vietnam and trying to disrupt things for years. Did Kennedy escalate the war? Yes! Did Johnson badly mishandle the war? Yes!
But, to place the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers deaths at Kennedy's feet is a little much. If Nixon had won in 1960(I'm of the opinion he did but whatever) he would have made the same moves if not more aggressive ones in Vietnam.
The Dark Side of Camelot obviously has a point of view and an agenda, but it that's not why I'm giving it 2 stars. It gets 2 stars because it was boring. I read this book years ago and thought it was boring then but I was teenager so I thought I'd read it again.
Guess what?
Still boring.
2018 Badass Books Reading Challenge: A book you've already read.
Mr. Hersh seems to think that in order to be an effective leader, you have to be a person of good character.
As much as I wish this was true, I'm just not that naive. Bill Clinton is not a man of great character but most people seem to agree that he was a pretty good President ( despite that whole Impeachment thing). Jimmy Carter is a good man. He's a minister for heavens sake, but his Presidency is not a top 10 Presidency. President Carter was not an effective leader despite his great moral character.
The Dark Side of Camelot is a character study of the Kennedy Administration. The author concludes because JFK was lying womanizer, he was also a bad President. I personally think Kennedy was an ok President. His importance has less to do with what he did as President and more to do with the impact his Presidency has had on the world. Being a Kennedyophlie I've read or watched almost everything about the Kennedy Administration and its sad to say I may have done more research on the topic than the author did. He states that one of the reasons Kennedy was a bad President was he started the Vietnam war, Wrong! Eisenhower and maybe even Truman had been sending troops into Vietnam and trying to disrupt things for years. Did Kennedy escalate the war? Yes! Did Johnson badly mishandle the war? Yes!
But, to place the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers deaths at Kennedy's feet is a little much. If Nixon had won in 1960(I'm of the opinion he did but whatever) he would have made the same moves if not more aggressive ones in Vietnam.
The Dark Side of Camelot obviously has a point of view and an agenda, but it that's not why I'm giving it 2 stars. It gets 2 stars because it was boring. I read this book years ago and thought it was boring then but I was teenager so I thought I'd read it again.
Guess what?
Still boring.
2018 Badass Books Reading Challenge: A book you've already read.
June 3, 2014
A lot has been written about the Kennedy administration, and a great number of those books, if not the vast majority, paint Kennedy as a national treasure, a shrewd negotiator, and a champion of Civil Rights, space exploration, and global democracy. He was the people's president. A loving family man adored by photographers, the press, and the public alike.
This is not that book.
This is the truth. John F. Kennedy was a terrible human being. A sexual predator. A drug addict. A crook. A plotter, schemer, liar, and all around nasty individual who made deals with organized crime, essentially bought his own election, and took the country to the brink of nuclear war largely for political self-preservation. Hersh pulls no punches obviously. But don't dismiss this as conspiracy theory claptrap. It isn't. This is exhaustively researched. Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who wrote for the New York Times. The book is a culmination of hundreds of personal interviews, declassified documents, transcripts, manuscripts, and other credible sources. He's not inventing anything here. And when he does speculate, he tells you it's speculation. But what he mostly does is lift the carpet and expose all the dirt that the media of Kennedy's time simply ignored or didn't investigate thoroughly.
And that's what's so fascinating about this book, not that a man like Kennedy could sit in the White House and basically desecrate that office, but that he could be so revered by the public and the press during his administration. I mean the guy was adored. He was fawned over. The country put him on a pedestal and treated him like a movie star. When in reality he was a sexual deviant who turned the White House into a den of prostitutes and dirty machinations.
We hear the Right claim that Obama gets a free pass in the press today--which isn't true in my opinion, he gets beat around sometimes--but it absolutely WAS true in Kennedy's time. The man was untouchable. He had more dirty laundry than perhaps any other American president, and the guy scoots by with only laurels and praises for his good name. It's fascinating. It's a reflection of a different America. Pre-Nixon. Pre-Monica Lewinsky. Pre-Information Age. The fact of the matter is, Kennedy would be crucified today were he the president and were he living the way he did during his administration. Instead, he is heralded as a cultural icon. A hero.
Full disclosure, it took me over a year to read this book. I kept picking it up and putting it aside while I read other things. Not because any of it dragged, but because one has to be in the right mindset to digest the deluge of disturbing information that Hersh unleashes. Honestly. I knew there was dirt on Kennedy, but I didn't know there was so much of it. I mean, this book blew my mind again and again and again. I kept thinking, "Really? He got away with that?" How!
The book isn't about his assassination. The details of that are barely given a cursory mention. Instead, this is about the truth that America chose to--and largely still chooses to--ignore. That Kennedy wasn't a great president. He was a disgrace.
And to Hersh's great credit. He doesn't make that conclusion for the reader. He merely presents the facts, as any true journalist should do. And the facts, friend, are ugly indeed. History is written by the winners, and Kennedy, it seems, won with flying colors. And as Hersh points out time and time again, we'll probably never know the full extent to which Kennedy abused his power and office. His circle of confidants and conspirators have mostly taken their story to their graves. As did Kennedy himself.
This is not that book.
This is the truth. John F. Kennedy was a terrible human being. A sexual predator. A drug addict. A crook. A plotter, schemer, liar, and all around nasty individual who made deals with organized crime, essentially bought his own election, and took the country to the brink of nuclear war largely for political self-preservation. Hersh pulls no punches obviously. But don't dismiss this as conspiracy theory claptrap. It isn't. This is exhaustively researched. Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who wrote for the New York Times. The book is a culmination of hundreds of personal interviews, declassified documents, transcripts, manuscripts, and other credible sources. He's not inventing anything here. And when he does speculate, he tells you it's speculation. But what he mostly does is lift the carpet and expose all the dirt that the media of Kennedy's time simply ignored or didn't investigate thoroughly.
And that's what's so fascinating about this book, not that a man like Kennedy could sit in the White House and basically desecrate that office, but that he could be so revered by the public and the press during his administration. I mean the guy was adored. He was fawned over. The country put him on a pedestal and treated him like a movie star. When in reality he was a sexual deviant who turned the White House into a den of prostitutes and dirty machinations.
We hear the Right claim that Obama gets a free pass in the press today--which isn't true in my opinion, he gets beat around sometimes--but it absolutely WAS true in Kennedy's time. The man was untouchable. He had more dirty laundry than perhaps any other American president, and the guy scoots by with only laurels and praises for his good name. It's fascinating. It's a reflection of a different America. Pre-Nixon. Pre-Monica Lewinsky. Pre-Information Age. The fact of the matter is, Kennedy would be crucified today were he the president and were he living the way he did during his administration. Instead, he is heralded as a cultural icon. A hero.
Full disclosure, it took me over a year to read this book. I kept picking it up and putting it aside while I read other things. Not because any of it dragged, but because one has to be in the right mindset to digest the deluge of disturbing information that Hersh unleashes. Honestly. I knew there was dirt on Kennedy, but I didn't know there was so much of it. I mean, this book blew my mind again and again and again. I kept thinking, "Really? He got away with that?" How!
The book isn't about his assassination. The details of that are barely given a cursory mention. Instead, this is about the truth that America chose to--and largely still chooses to--ignore. That Kennedy wasn't a great president. He was a disgrace.
And to Hersh's great credit. He doesn't make that conclusion for the reader. He merely presents the facts, as any true journalist should do. And the facts, friend, are ugly indeed. History is written by the winners, and Kennedy, it seems, won with flying colors. And as Hersh points out time and time again, we'll probably never know the full extent to which Kennedy abused his power and office. His circle of confidants and conspirators have mostly taken their story to their graves. As did Kennedy himself.
July 16, 2011
Interesting information and details, but Hersh is more than a bit repetitive, telling the same story over and over again. And Hersh is more than a bit repetitive, telling the same story over and over again. And Hersh is more than a bit repetitive, telling the same story over and over again. Yup, that's exactly how it feels to read this book.
And I got very tired of reading the phrase "in an interview for this book....."; Yeah, I get it, you conducted interviews for the book. I figured that out on my own without having to be told 10,000 times.
And I got very tired of reading the phrase "in an interview for this book....."; Yeah, I get it, you conducted interviews for the book. I figured that out on my own without having to be told 10,000 times.
February 7, 2017
From the other side of the Atlantic I have kept a fascination on the assassinations of not just JFK, but also his brother and Martin Luther King. I lived through these times and over the decades I have accumulated rather a large personal collection of books on these killings. To widen my studies I also include prominent biographies and many other Kennedy tomes. I have visited the States to attend conferences on JFK's killing and I contribute articles on this topic to a U.K. research journal.
As Hersh's 'The Dark Side of Camelot' was published in 1997, I am twenty years late in finally getting around to this book. I have to say there are very few points of revelation that I have encountered here, that have not been covered in other books that I have read. Jack Kennedy was undeniably a deeply flawed person, with his addiction to sex or his use of chemical stimulants at a time when the term 'swinging sixties' was still unheard of. Yet, my study of this period of history shows a dark side, not just in political circles, but in the military, big business and the popular entertainment fields as well. It is well documented that J. Edgar Hoover had his feet in the trough of moral turpitude with his lover Clyde Tolson and enjoyed links to the Mafia that were not healthy for a director of the FBI, and was collecting files on political persons for decades. (The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover' by Anthony Summers.) Hersh does document the high class brothel run by Bobby Baker for his patrons from Capitol Hill in Washington, but does not quote Baker's confession of Lyndon Johnson's involvements in murders, or his own corrupt Texan election and criminal business dealings. Kennedy's 1960 opponent went on to his own ignominious term in office, but many years before that Dickie was somewhat tricky with his associations with one Prescott Bush. (Russ Baker's 'Family of Secrets') To say that many in the Pentagon hated JFK is an understatement. The likes of Lemnitzer with his false flag Operation Northwoods which was rejected by Kennedy in 1962, or Curtis LeMay who was gung-ho for WWIII, they viewed their Commander in Chief as a liberal appeaser and traitor to the Cold War, views which are somewhat at odds with some of Hersh's conclusions. As for Vietnam I recommend 'JFK & Vietnam' by Professor John M. Newman, a book published in 1992 and therefore available to this author. Also Peter Dale Scott's 'Deep Politics and the Death of JFK' which covers NSAM263 of October 11, 1963, Kennedy's last policy directive on Vietnam and NSAM273 of November 26 1963, Johnson's policy reversal to escalate military involvement against North Vietnam. A policy that Johnson was promoting with intrigues with the U.S. military throughout JFK's term in office. For Hersch to state that "Vietnam was JFK's war" and "Kennedy's legacy" are charges that I would take issue with.
The book also purports to show that all things in the CIA garden were rosy between Langley and the White House but Alan Dulles was not dismissed from his position at CIA for no reason and there were many in the top positions at the agency whose opinions were similar to the JCS., and many lower operatives at JM/Wave who worked against their president.
Kennedy did not only utilise a secret back channel communication with Moscow during the missile crisis. There is no mention in this book of JFK and Castro engaged in back channel diplomacy that could possibly lead to normalized relations. Indeed, at the very moment Kennedy was killed, Castro was meeting with an emissary that had been sent to Havana on a “mission of peace.”
However, I liked Hersh's book, it does contain many new and interesting aspects, even if I did not agree with all of his accusations. I just feel that there is a lack of fairness and balance to accentuate the 'dark side'. We get no mention of a Peace Corp., a space program to go to the moon before the decade is out, his economic policies, the nuclear test ban that was inspired on ecological principles, his rejection of plans for a nuclear first strike or his selfless actions in the Pacific during WWII.
Other reviewers have highlighted Hersh's far too often repeated statements of 'interviews for this book' or 'documents made available for this book' on every other page. Why he didn't just utilise numbered Notes, when the book has a Notes section anyway, is beyond me.
As stated above my interest in JFK mainly concerns his murder. Page One of Chapter One wasn't a good start for me. "Once Air Force One was airborne, some of the military and security men on duty were able to emerge from their despair and anger to begin asking necessary questions. Was Jack Kennedy's death the first move in an international conspiracy? Was Lyndon Johnson now the target? Around 1500hrs CST the Incident Control Room in the White House informed Air Force One as well as the Cabinet plane over the Pacific that Kennedy's killing was the result of a lone nut and there was no conspiracy! Oswald was charged with the crime some nine hours later.
Yes, there was most certainly a dark side to the Kennedy clan, but we are viewing a different period that contained many shady characters and dark times. As I have read this book a new president has been sworn in to the White House. He is a very rich man who has inherited wealth from his father's business built on embezzled money. Many think his election was fraudulent, he has been recorded bragging of his dealings with the opposite sex and he declares he is going to make America great again. Maybe the times are not so different after all.
As Hersh's 'The Dark Side of Camelot' was published in 1997, I am twenty years late in finally getting around to this book. I have to say there are very few points of revelation that I have encountered here, that have not been covered in other books that I have read. Jack Kennedy was undeniably a deeply flawed person, with his addiction to sex or his use of chemical stimulants at a time when the term 'swinging sixties' was still unheard of. Yet, my study of this period of history shows a dark side, not just in political circles, but in the military, big business and the popular entertainment fields as well. It is well documented that J. Edgar Hoover had his feet in the trough of moral turpitude with his lover Clyde Tolson and enjoyed links to the Mafia that were not healthy for a director of the FBI, and was collecting files on political persons for decades. (The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover' by Anthony Summers.) Hersh does document the high class brothel run by Bobby Baker for his patrons from Capitol Hill in Washington, but does not quote Baker's confession of Lyndon Johnson's involvements in murders, or his own corrupt Texan election and criminal business dealings. Kennedy's 1960 opponent went on to his own ignominious term in office, but many years before that Dickie was somewhat tricky with his associations with one Prescott Bush. (Russ Baker's 'Family of Secrets') To say that many in the Pentagon hated JFK is an understatement. The likes of Lemnitzer with his false flag Operation Northwoods which was rejected by Kennedy in 1962, or Curtis LeMay who was gung-ho for WWIII, they viewed their Commander in Chief as a liberal appeaser and traitor to the Cold War, views which are somewhat at odds with some of Hersh's conclusions. As for Vietnam I recommend 'JFK & Vietnam' by Professor John M. Newman, a book published in 1992 and therefore available to this author. Also Peter Dale Scott's 'Deep Politics and the Death of JFK' which covers NSAM263 of October 11, 1963, Kennedy's last policy directive on Vietnam and NSAM273 of November 26 1963, Johnson's policy reversal to escalate military involvement against North Vietnam. A policy that Johnson was promoting with intrigues with the U.S. military throughout JFK's term in office. For Hersch to state that "Vietnam was JFK's war" and "Kennedy's legacy" are charges that I would take issue with.
The book also purports to show that all things in the CIA garden were rosy between Langley and the White House but Alan Dulles was not dismissed from his position at CIA for no reason and there were many in the top positions at the agency whose opinions were similar to the JCS., and many lower operatives at JM/Wave who worked against their president.
Kennedy did not only utilise a secret back channel communication with Moscow during the missile crisis. There is no mention in this book of JFK and Castro engaged in back channel diplomacy that could possibly lead to normalized relations. Indeed, at the very moment Kennedy was killed, Castro was meeting with an emissary that had been sent to Havana on a “mission of peace.”
However, I liked Hersh's book, it does contain many new and interesting aspects, even if I did not agree with all of his accusations. I just feel that there is a lack of fairness and balance to accentuate the 'dark side'. We get no mention of a Peace Corp., a space program to go to the moon before the decade is out, his economic policies, the nuclear test ban that was inspired on ecological principles, his rejection of plans for a nuclear first strike or his selfless actions in the Pacific during WWII.
Other reviewers have highlighted Hersh's far too often repeated statements of 'interviews for this book' or 'documents made available for this book' on every other page. Why he didn't just utilise numbered Notes, when the book has a Notes section anyway, is beyond me.
As stated above my interest in JFK mainly concerns his murder. Page One of Chapter One wasn't a good start for me. "Once Air Force One was airborne, some of the military and security men on duty were able to emerge from their despair and anger to begin asking necessary questions. Was Jack Kennedy's death the first move in an international conspiracy? Was Lyndon Johnson now the target? Around 1500hrs CST the Incident Control Room in the White House informed Air Force One as well as the Cabinet plane over the Pacific that Kennedy's killing was the result of a lone nut and there was no conspiracy! Oswald was charged with the crime some nine hours later.
Yes, there was most certainly a dark side to the Kennedy clan, but we are viewing a different period that contained many shady characters and dark times. As I have read this book a new president has been sworn in to the White House. He is a very rich man who has inherited wealth from his father's business built on embezzled money. Many think his election was fraudulent, he has been recorded bragging of his dealings with the opposite sex and he declares he is going to make America great again. Maybe the times are not so different after all.
May 22, 2010
Well, that was life-alteringly depressing.
I have never been a great Kennedy fan, but I've also never been a huge detractor. I was aware of some womanizing "issues" (although I had no idea the extent), and that the Bay of Pigs was a total cluster fudge, but beyond worse d that I really had no opinion. Good things, bad things, seemed like the normal mix of a presidency, just more extreme in some areas.
It was...a little than I thought, and the author destroyed virtually any possibility of a positive legacy. The whole thing was six, lies, and (audio)tape, though you almost have to appreciate the ability to create and sustain the long-term, all-encompassing illusion. You also have to wonder how much longer the house of cards could have continued to stand, if events had not unfolded as they did--there were several scandals brewing that probably couldn't have been contained very much longer, and then we might have been left with a quite different historical record.
The author does a thorough, if depressing, job of covering each aspect of the family life, campaign, and presidency, and demolishing all the mythos around it. I'm sure there will be some fans of the family that will complain that it was a smear job, but Hersh isn't exactly known for being a conservative shill. It's definitely worth a read, to reclaim a good part of our history that seems to be somewhat of a black hole. But take it in small doses; it's an overwhelming change shift of perspective to try to plow through quickly.
I have never been a great Kennedy fan, but I've also never been a huge detractor. I was aware of some womanizing "issues" (although I had no idea the extent), and that the Bay of Pigs was a total cluster fudge, but beyond worse d that I really had no opinion. Good things, bad things, seemed like the normal mix of a presidency, just more extreme in some areas.
It was...a little than I thought, and the author destroyed virtually any possibility of a positive legacy. The whole thing was six, lies, and (audio)tape, though you almost have to appreciate the ability to create and sustain the long-term, all-encompassing illusion. You also have to wonder how much longer the house of cards could have continued to stand, if events had not unfolded as they did--there were several scandals brewing that probably couldn't have been contained very much longer, and then we might have been left with a quite different historical record.
The author does a thorough, if depressing, job of covering each aspect of the family life, campaign, and presidency, and demolishing all the mythos around it. I'm sure there will be some fans of the family that will complain that it was a smear job, but Hersh isn't exactly known for being a conservative shill. It's definitely worth a read, to reclaim a good part of our history that seems to be somewhat of a black hole. But take it in small doses; it's an overwhelming change shift of perspective to try to plow through quickly.
April 19, 2012
I think I need to put this disclaimer in first. I am a fan of John F. Kennedy. I do have my own strong opinions about his career and his life. However, I do see myself still able to review books without a huge amount of bias. Mainly because I am aware of this potential bias from the outset.
The reason why I did not like this book is because most of the accusations the author spews is unsubstaintiated. He gives many "unnamed sources" which completely dissolves his argument in my view. If you are going to make controversial statements or conclusions, you need to back them up.
This book reads more like a tabloid story than a biography or a monograph. It is scandalous and interesting but I don't believe there is a lot of fact behind it. But you can judge for yourself.
That said, I did not like this book. And it was not because it could be classified as an "anti-Kennedy" book. Actually, that was why I bought the book in the first place because I want to learn all possible aspects of a story or a history and obviously not everything Kennedy did was good or in the best interests of the country or his family.
The reason why I did not like this book is because most of the accusations the author spews is unsubstaintiated. He gives many "unnamed sources" which completely dissolves his argument in my view. If you are going to make controversial statements or conclusions, you need to back them up.
This book reads more like a tabloid story than a biography or a monograph. It is scandalous and interesting but I don't believe there is a lot of fact behind it. But you can judge for yourself.
That said, I did not like this book. And it was not because it could be classified as an "anti-Kennedy" book. Actually, that was why I bought the book in the first place because I want to learn all possible aspects of a story or a history and obviously not everything Kennedy did was good or in the best interests of the country or his family.
September 30, 2023
one of the best doses of reality one could ever have
so many of the readers of this book who hated it, just don't understand that politics actually works like this, and much like intelligence history, the truth shall set you free, but the truth is really really depressing and people and power are dangerous.
The only fact i think which is actually disputable is the statistics seem to feel that the 1960 election was no different in the winning regions than the election before or after. And with old man Kennedy's money and organized crime, it did not move the meter, against a sea of voters.
Hersh's opinions at the end of many chapters, i don't think many would agree with them, other than only Seymour Hersh himself... It shows where he is disgusted or angered by certain facts of policy, and flaws of personal character.
Other than that, the book is nearly flawless and one wishes there was much more, so we could still understand things a bit better
---
Some of the very best treatments and little known facts of US Foreign Policy are within these pages, and there's an incredible amount of detail and characters involved
close to the definitive story
so many of the readers of this book who hated it, just don't understand that politics actually works like this, and much like intelligence history, the truth shall set you free, but the truth is really really depressing and people and power are dangerous.
The only fact i think which is actually disputable is the statistics seem to feel that the 1960 election was no different in the winning regions than the election before or after. And with old man Kennedy's money and organized crime, it did not move the meter, against a sea of voters.
Hersh's opinions at the end of many chapters, i don't think many would agree with them, other than only Seymour Hersh himself... It shows where he is disgusted or angered by certain facts of policy, and flaws of personal character.
Other than that, the book is nearly flawless and one wishes there was much more, so we could still understand things a bit better
---
Some of the very best treatments and little known facts of US Foreign Policy are within these pages, and there's an incredible amount of detail and characters involved
close to the definitive story
January 20, 2020
If you woke up from a 40-year nap and still believed much good about the Kennedys, this heavily researched account by a NYT guy should end that silly notion. When you compare JFK and his vaunted family with the one all the leftists and media loves to despise today there is really no comparison (at least what we know today)! Poor Donald seems a saint compared to these guys. Stolen elections, actual real mob-connections, misogyny (#metoo, haha), assassinator-in-chief (Trujillo of the DR, Diem of So. Vietnam, and of course the prolonged effort at Castro), blustering blow-hard liar (13 Days..pah), entitled rich prick (suitcases of money to pay off anyone), pick your pejoratives. JFK and RFK were a pair of dangerous jerks and Hersh reveals it all about the low-life Kennedy clan. It all started with Joe who set the example but the shenanigans of the two (Jack and Bobby) of them makes you really wonder if Oswald and Sirhan didn't do us a great favor. Especially Bobby who was a ruthless a-hole without a shred of moral fiber (though so was Jack, but probably more fun to hang around) and Bobby certainly was on a 'mission' when he finally did run in '68. What a despicable President he would have been! Of course this book is 20-years old and so none of it is news but it bears repeating from time to time. Oh, and Hersh spent 5 years research on the book and said he found nothing to contradict the Warren Report. So perhaps I don't have to read another on that rabbit-hole.
March 26, 2009
Seymour Hersh obviously didn't win Pulitzer prizes on the merits of this book which reads more like a gossip rag than a serious study of the Camelot years. While I admit to being one of those who wants to believe in the myth I have heard much of this before and much more that I for one don't want to hear at all. Salacious, mean spirited and somewhat poorly documented much reads like hearsay and hearsay from people who in a court of law wouldn't be given much credence. I've had enough...
January 15, 2014
Should be required reading for anyone who grew up during the sixties.
Want to read
March 26, 2025“[In 1960], Both Kennedy and his younger brother Robert detested Johnson and they had already selected Sen. Stuart Symington as the Vice Presidential nominee when suddenly at the last moment Johnson was placed on the ticket instead. Both Nelson and Seymour Hersh in The Dark Side of Camelot told this story and strongly argued that heavy use of personal blackmail was responsible for this sudden change of political plans rather than geographical ticket-balancing or any other legitimate factor. But Kennedy’s paper-thin 1960 victory would have been far more difficult without Texas narrowly falling into the Democratic column, and the massive election fraud orchestrated by Johnson’s ruthless political machine had been crucial in achieving that result.”
-Ron Unz, “American Pravda: JFK, LBJ, and Our Great National Shame”, June 24,2024
-Ron Unz, “American Pravda: JFK, LBJ, and Our Great National Shame”, June 24,2024
August 13, 2023
JFK on speed, treated by "Dr. Feel-good?" Absolutely! During the Cuban Missile Crisis? JFK on speed, and why not, gosh darn it? Vienna Summit with Khrushchev? JFK on speed, and what's the worst possible downside of that?
JFK having sex -- essentially daily sexual romps (and featuring naked cannonballs at lunch in the White House pool) with hookers, West Wing secretaries, movie stars, and girlfriends of Mafia dons. At Lunch! Threesomes! Booze Fests! And not just at the White House (and not just for lunch!) -- this went on all over America! In some of the finest hotels and private estates available in the United States. Nothing to see here! Please move along.
JFK getting the "15 minute warning" to get rid of all the poolside naked ladies and to tidy-up the naked President and the naked Attorney General and all the other assorted naked mid-day party goers, before THE FIRST LADY JACKIE got home to the White House, and caught everyone! JFK would have been in soooo much trouble if Jackie had to see all that public nudity.
JFK joining in wild sexcapades in Hollywood with Marilyn Monroe, and wild orgies in the desert southwest, with members of the Vegas Rat Pack thrown in, to mix things up? You betcha, and why shouldn't he? He's the President -- please give him some space, and another Bloody Mary if you don't mind.
JFK having insanely irresponsible sex with mobster Sam Giancana's girlfriend Judith, and an East German spy named Ellen? Why not, how could this possibly endanger national security?
JFK oozing with sexually transmitted diseases and spreading the love indiscriminately? I don't see why not -- what could go wrong? Twenty year old girls get the clap all the time -- so grow up.
JFK employing the Mafia to try to assassinate Castro? Yep. Using bagmen to transport bags of cash to mobsters and Labor Union officials to tilt elections in JFK's favor? Sure. Who could possibly see any criminal recklessness in this behavior?
JFK infuriating the Cubans and the CIA by protecting his own reputation first, and then double dealing with the Cubans-in-exile on the one hand and the CIA on the other to do the underhanded clandestine deeds necessary in the Bay of Pigs fiasco? Of course -- seemed smart at the time.
JFK exploiting mob and Labor Union connections for personal political gain, and then having Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General investigate and prosecute BOTH mobsters and Labor Union officials? Why not?
JFK orchestrating the political overthrow and murder of both the Dominican Republic's dictator Rafael Trujillo, and then South Vietnam's leader Ngo Dinh Diem? Nothing to see here -- it seemed to be a prudent course of action at the time.
In hindsight, it seems sadly misguided to ask, "who could have wanted to carry out the tragic murder of JFK, in the prime of his life, in Dealey Plaza?" A better question to ask is WHO DIDN'T want to assassinate this guy?
This is a great book because it is "in your face" with these oh so true words to the wise: "The World Ain't Black and White. Everything is grey."
But, we're all grown-ups here (maybe except for me). I mean, we can smirk about what a hoot this JFK was -- shucks, he was an all-American cocktail swilling, skirt chasing, reckless guns 'n' ammo fellah . . . kinda a real "guy's guy" . . . a real rule breaker, that's what he was! And we can also conclude that JFK was an intelligent, wise, and forward thinking leader. There is no rule against holding two conflicting ideas in our minds at the same time.
What's really true? All of it. Both good and bad. And -- be honest -- how amazing was it that the White House was in actuality an Ivy League, off campus frat house? And poor Jackie was supposed to provide the adult supervision. Sigh.
JFK having sex -- essentially daily sexual romps (and featuring naked cannonballs at lunch in the White House pool) with hookers, West Wing secretaries, movie stars, and girlfriends of Mafia dons. At Lunch! Threesomes! Booze Fests! And not just at the White House (and not just for lunch!) -- this went on all over America! In some of the finest hotels and private estates available in the United States. Nothing to see here! Please move along.
JFK getting the "15 minute warning" to get rid of all the poolside naked ladies and to tidy-up the naked President and the naked Attorney General and all the other assorted naked mid-day party goers, before THE FIRST LADY JACKIE got home to the White House, and caught everyone! JFK would have been in soooo much trouble if Jackie had to see all that public nudity.
JFK joining in wild sexcapades in Hollywood with Marilyn Monroe, and wild orgies in the desert southwest, with members of the Vegas Rat Pack thrown in, to mix things up? You betcha, and why shouldn't he? He's the President -- please give him some space, and another Bloody Mary if you don't mind.
JFK having insanely irresponsible sex with mobster Sam Giancana's girlfriend Judith, and an East German spy named Ellen? Why not, how could this possibly endanger national security?
JFK oozing with sexually transmitted diseases and spreading the love indiscriminately? I don't see why not -- what could go wrong? Twenty year old girls get the clap all the time -- so grow up.
JFK employing the Mafia to try to assassinate Castro? Yep. Using bagmen to transport bags of cash to mobsters and Labor Union officials to tilt elections in JFK's favor? Sure. Who could possibly see any criminal recklessness in this behavior?
JFK infuriating the Cubans and the CIA by protecting his own reputation first, and then double dealing with the Cubans-in-exile on the one hand and the CIA on the other to do the underhanded clandestine deeds necessary in the Bay of Pigs fiasco? Of course -- seemed smart at the time.
JFK exploiting mob and Labor Union connections for personal political gain, and then having Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General investigate and prosecute BOTH mobsters and Labor Union officials? Why not?
JFK orchestrating the political overthrow and murder of both the Dominican Republic's dictator Rafael Trujillo, and then South Vietnam's leader Ngo Dinh Diem? Nothing to see here -- it seemed to be a prudent course of action at the time.
In hindsight, it seems sadly misguided to ask, "who could have wanted to carry out the tragic murder of JFK, in the prime of his life, in Dealey Plaza?" A better question to ask is WHO DIDN'T want to assassinate this guy?
This is a great book because it is "in your face" with these oh so true words to the wise: "The World Ain't Black and White. Everything is grey."
But, we're all grown-ups here (maybe except for me). I mean, we can smirk about what a hoot this JFK was -- shucks, he was an all-American cocktail swilling, skirt chasing, reckless guns 'n' ammo fellah . . . kinda a real "guy's guy" . . . a real rule breaker, that's what he was! And we can also conclude that JFK was an intelligent, wise, and forward thinking leader. There is no rule against holding two conflicting ideas in our minds at the same time.
What's really true? All of it. Both good and bad. And -- be honest -- how amazing was it that the White House was in actuality an Ivy League, off campus frat house? And poor Jackie was supposed to provide the adult supervision. Sigh.
January 18, 2023
I know this book was meant as a course correction for the idolization of JFK but really it just made him cooler. It takes a lot of courage and style to be the most blackmailable man in america.
July 28, 2009
Hersh's thesis is that JFK's moral weaknesses limited his ability to fulfill his duties as President; and that, moreover, the image of JFK as the devout Catholic and focused President, who was fully committed to the well being of his family and country, is more myth than fact. His thesis is proven through interviews and documentation, which indicate extensive adultery and corruption.
The book serves as both a challenge and a caution. It's a challenge to those who would allow a politician's charisma and policy accomplishments to excuse his moral turpitude in the form of numerous adulterous encounters. And, it's a caution to those, particularly journalists, who may find themselves so enamored with the energy and charisma of a particular President, that it overwhelms or obscures their critical faculties.
The book serves as both a challenge and a caution. It's a challenge to those who would allow a politician's charisma and policy accomplishments to excuse his moral turpitude in the form of numerous adulterous encounters. And, it's a caution to those, particularly journalists, who may find themselves so enamored with the energy and charisma of a particular President, that it overwhelms or obscures their critical faculties.
October 27, 2017
I was intrigued by Kennedy's presidency after reading Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Kennedy", but found myself completely disturbed by the accounts reported in this book. If only a quater of these accounts are accuate, it's disturbing - not just the womanizing, but the path to election and the cover-up of mistakes. I guess I never really looked into the claims and rumors I had previously heard and like most Americans of my generation just accepted the accounts of the Kennedy dream presidency. We've focused so much on Kennedy's death and the aftermath that many of us were ignorant to the abuses of the office. I put this book down totally cynical of our political leaders and more distrustful than ever with the rise of our current president. It will be interesting to see how much his rise and tenure in office will be similar to JFK -but then again, who can you believe?
November 27, 2012
It is OK, but I personally found it a bit droll.
A lot of the material seems to be exclusive, as the author continuously reminds us. The subject is very interesting and the events that are discussed, are amazing too... I just didn't feel the writing flow. Several times I found myself nodding off.
It is not a bad book, but it lacks rhythm and all I got out of it was a list of bullet points. I suppose there is plenty of material out there to compare against and to try and get more detail. Though, the range that this book covers is quite remarkable.
I would half recommend it, but would add a warning regarding the rhythm, pace and writing, but that's just me.
Hope you enjoy it and get more out of it than I did
A lot of the material seems to be exclusive, as the author continuously reminds us. The subject is very interesting and the events that are discussed, are amazing too... I just didn't feel the writing flow. Several times I found myself nodding off.
It is not a bad book, but it lacks rhythm and all I got out of it was a list of bullet points. I suppose there is plenty of material out there to compare against and to try and get more detail. Though, the range that this book covers is quite remarkable.
I would half recommend it, but would add a warning regarding the rhythm, pace and writing, but that's just me.
Hope you enjoy it and get more out of it than I did
December 23, 2012
If you want to learn to detest, but probably remain fascinated by, the Kennedy family, read this book and that by Collier and Horowitz, The Kennedys. The former is a take from the liberal side, the latter from the far right, but both have substantial points of agreement, particularly about the personal lives of Joseph Sr. and John F. Kennedy. (Their portrayals of Robert F. Kennedy, however, sharply diverge.)
By extension, both books also suggest quite a lot about how power and wealth corrupt through the generations.
By extension, both books also suggest quite a lot about how power and wealth corrupt through the generations.
October 20, 2013
Privilege, excess and entitlement are the overshadowing themes of this book. While deftly written, it details the lives of the prior generations of Kennedy men much more than I imagined or wanted to know.
April 8, 2024
So this book is incredibly entertaining, anyone with the slightest interest in history could easily get into this. I personally found some chapters a bit dry, but that’s only because I don’t have an interest in whatever topic the said chapter was covering (i.e. Cuba, campaign finances, etc.).
The facts of this book are controversial and disputed as to whether or not they actually happened. I will say that though his more recent works have been more unfounded and sensational, Seymour M. Hersh did do important and accredited work with his reporting on the My Lai Massacre, Watergate, US bombing of Cambodia, and the torture at Abu Ghraib. His earlier work exposing cover-ups and reporting on major events does give him credibility, at least in my opinion. I think perhaps his more recent turn into more unfounded claims can partially be blamed on his old age. The Dark Side of Camelot was written back in 1997, so he was probably in his late 50s - early 60s when collecting his info, doing interviews, and writing the book. This makes me think it’s perhaps more reliable than his recent stuff.
There’s a saying that there are two sides to every story and the truth is found somewhere in the middle. For the accuracy and factuality of this book, I think that quote sums it up the best. Perhaps not all of it is true, perhaps not all of it is made up. Is this book gospel? No. No retelling of history ever is. But I think this book has credibility, and tells the version of some people’s truth.
It’s a compelling read and changes how one thinks about how people really operate behind closed doors.
I will say that one takeaway I definitely got was that these were some horny bastards
The facts of this book are controversial and disputed as to whether or not they actually happened. I will say that though his more recent works have been more unfounded and sensational, Seymour M. Hersh did do important and accredited work with his reporting on the My Lai Massacre, Watergate, US bombing of Cambodia, and the torture at Abu Ghraib. His earlier work exposing cover-ups and reporting on major events does give him credibility, at least in my opinion. I think perhaps his more recent turn into more unfounded claims can partially be blamed on his old age. The Dark Side of Camelot was written back in 1997, so he was probably in his late 50s - early 60s when collecting his info, doing interviews, and writing the book. This makes me think it’s perhaps more reliable than his recent stuff.
There’s a saying that there are two sides to every story and the truth is found somewhere in the middle. For the accuracy and factuality of this book, I think that quote sums it up the best. Perhaps not all of it is true, perhaps not all of it is made up. Is this book gospel? No. No retelling of history ever is. But I think this book has credibility, and tells the version of some people’s truth.
It’s a compelling read and changes how one thinks about how people really operate behind closed doors.
I will say that one takeaway I definitely got was that these were some horny bastards
November 5, 2018
I love Seymour Hersh. Anyone who is familiar with his work will recognize his unmistakable Joe Friday style right away. Just the facts.
The wry evocation of Camelot in the title is particularly amusing. The story Hersh tells is one of a million lit matches threatening to immolate the Kennedy Administration at any given time. The Kennedy brothers, especially Bobby, apparently spent that famous 1000 days blowing out those matches as quickly as they could. Lurid tales of mob influence, secret assassination plots, cash payoffs, and of course sex, sex, and more sex pile up. Any one of these potential scandals could have incinerated the president's carefully cultivated public image if they had come out before his death.
The Kennedy assassination is an area of particular interest to me so I was reading with that in mind. Hersh has no time or patience for the conspiracies surrounding Kennedy's death - it would seem there were more than enough plots happening before the president's murder to keep the author occupied. I was most interested in Oliver Stone's theory about secret plans to pull out of Vietnam, but reading this makes that idea seem much less of a smoking gun. Turns out things were a lot more complex behind the scenes. Also, I was suprised to learn about Kennedy's relationship with Allen Dulles before he became president - much chummier than I expected. The biggest revelation, to me, was how much Kennedy knew about plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion before he was even elected - and how he used that knowledge as a cudgel to hammer Nixon as weak on Cuba.
You have probably heard many of the revelations from this book already, so it's unlikely you'll feel scandalized by them. There are still a few chestnuts - like the time old goat Joe Kennedy brought a teenager to Hyannis Port and had loud sex with her upstairs while LBJ was being hosted for tea by Rose Kennedy. I had never heard that tale before and it's one I'll never forget. There is a lot to chew on here. Gaining and wielding power is a messy business.
The wry evocation of Camelot in the title is particularly amusing. The story Hersh tells is one of a million lit matches threatening to immolate the Kennedy Administration at any given time. The Kennedy brothers, especially Bobby, apparently spent that famous 1000 days blowing out those matches as quickly as they could. Lurid tales of mob influence, secret assassination plots, cash payoffs, and of course sex, sex, and more sex pile up. Any one of these potential scandals could have incinerated the president's carefully cultivated public image if they had come out before his death.
The Kennedy assassination is an area of particular interest to me so I was reading with that in mind. Hersh has no time or patience for the conspiracies surrounding Kennedy's death - it would seem there were more than enough plots happening before the president's murder to keep the author occupied. I was most interested in Oliver Stone's theory about secret plans to pull out of Vietnam, but reading this makes that idea seem much less of a smoking gun. Turns out things were a lot more complex behind the scenes. Also, I was suprised to learn about Kennedy's relationship with Allen Dulles before he became president - much chummier than I expected. The biggest revelation, to me, was how much Kennedy knew about plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion before he was even elected - and how he used that knowledge as a cudgel to hammer Nixon as weak on Cuba.
You have probably heard many of the revelations from this book already, so it's unlikely you'll feel scandalized by them. There are still a few chestnuts - like the time old goat Joe Kennedy brought a teenager to Hyannis Port and had loud sex with her upstairs while LBJ was being hosted for tea by Rose Kennedy. I had never heard that tale before and it's one I'll never forget. There is a lot to chew on here. Gaining and wielding power is a messy business.
May 13, 2020
As a huge fan of JFK's, knowing full well he was a flawed man in more ways than one, I struggled with this book and feel a little ambivalent towards it and its author. Overall I wasn't particularly surprised at all the wheeling and dealing that went on within the Oval office and between the brothers as well as between JFK and many others. Nor did I necessarily have "rose coloured" glasses about the main players and the era they operated in. What really annoyed me was the fact that a lot of what was in this book had been revealed before and at times, except for a few exceptions, I felt like Hersh was "putting words" in people's mouths. It was more a feeling I got about the whole vibe of this book and the fact that almost on every other page, he, Hersh, kept saying "in an interview for this book". Was he trying to convince us that what he was writing was true? I don't know but I for one was not always convinced. In spite reading this from beginning to end, I still prefer to believe in the romanticised version of Camelot. And so, "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot."
March 13, 2013
I just finished reading The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour M. Hersh. Hersh is a digger, and I've read plenty of his magazine articles over the years. This was my first time reading one of his books - boy, did he find out plenty about John F. Kennedy and his life hidden from the public eye. Yeah, we all know about the sex, but not to the degree Hersh describes. And we know Kennedy got the U.S. into Vietnam, but not the level of involvement Hersh charges him in keeping us there longer than we should have been. And the fixation with Cuba, the stealing of the presidential election in the first place, the deals behind the scenes with the Soviet Union, all detailed with multiple sources. A fascinating read, even if it doesn't all add up to something unambiguously dark every time.
July 7, 2020
It was sure dark. If all of this strung together is true, I don’t see how Kennedy had time to be president. The skeletons were popping out of every room in this one.
I wish the author would have commented or found some evidence of Jackie’s knowledge of all the activities going down. I can’t believe that she didn’t know what was happening.
If you are a Kennedy buff, then this is a book for you. It definitely puts a different light on him and his presidency.
One final note: if the author would have used the phrase, “for this book” one more time I would scream. We got it. You interviewed people “for this book” but please stop saying that.
I wish the author would have commented or found some evidence of Jackie’s knowledge of all the activities going down. I can’t believe that she didn’t know what was happening.
If you are a Kennedy buff, then this is a book for you. It definitely puts a different light on him and his presidency.
One final note: if the author would have used the phrase, “for this book” one more time I would scream. We got it. You interviewed people “for this book” but please stop saying that.
April 12, 2013
Pure Trash from a history revisionist.
August 9, 2020
Whew, what a political thriller. Author and renowned reporter Seymour Hersh systematically topples the myth of Camelot, the glamour, idealism, and charisma, the trademark qualities of the charmed Kennedy family. Hersh targets three main patterns of behavior that appear over and over: 1) the utilization for secrecy and back-channel communication (whether used in communication with Khrushchev, or in covering up an extramarital sexual encounter); 2) their willingness to collaborate with shady, marginalized groups, either domestically or abroad (e.g. the Mob, or Cuban exile Brigade at the Bay of Pigs, or on-the-ground groups looking to overthrow the Diem government in South Vietnam); and 3) their need for absolute loyalty amongst the presidential advisors.
Hersh argues that many of the decisions that the administration made were in service of getting re-elected in 1964.
What Hersh less upfront about, is whether or not similar stances and philosophies would have been maintained by other administrations. I suspect that many of the overarching decisions would have been carried out by another president had it not been Kennedy in office: we should remember that the government in the 60s (and the public at the time) were generally engaged in a consensus of Cold War antagonism against the Soviet Union and its satellite Communist states (e.g. North Vietnam, Cuba).
Finally Hersh constantly critiques the Kennedy clan, and their associates, of covering up the truth about specific actions the administration took before and after JFK's election - deleting audio of meetings that would put them in a derogatory light, leaving out sensitive texts in transcriptions.
The political and foreign policy aspects of Hersh's research were most compelling; the material on the President's dalliances with women can sometimes read more like some trashy Enquirer rag, and beware, some of the footnotes definitely fall in the TMI category.
Worth re-reading, and a substantial contribution to the bulk of research on the Kennedys and JFK in particular.
Hersh argues that many of the decisions that the administration made were in service of getting re-elected in 1964.
What Hersh less upfront about, is whether or not similar stances and philosophies would have been maintained by other administrations. I suspect that many of the overarching decisions would have been carried out by another president had it not been Kennedy in office: we should remember that the government in the 60s (and the public at the time) were generally engaged in a consensus of Cold War antagonism against the Soviet Union and its satellite Communist states (e.g. North Vietnam, Cuba).
Finally Hersh constantly critiques the Kennedy clan, and their associates, of covering up the truth about specific actions the administration took before and after JFK's election - deleting audio of meetings that would put them in a derogatory light, leaving out sensitive texts in transcriptions.
The political and foreign policy aspects of Hersh's research were most compelling; the material on the President's dalliances with women can sometimes read more like some trashy Enquirer rag, and beware, some of the footnotes definitely fall in the TMI category.
Worth re-reading, and a substantial contribution to the bulk of research on the Kennedys and JFK in particular.
March 19, 2018
The usual set of provocative revelations from Seymour Hersh. My own copy was extensively annotated by a previous reader who disagreed with most of the author's views, which made the text more dialogue than monologue, but, marginalia aside, the material on JFK's obsession with Castro and Cuba was particularly interesting.
October 7, 2025
Some interesting stories but very repetitive going over the same problem over and over cause boredom for me . Not a good read .
March 16, 2025
I read this book at least a decade ago and apparently never reviewed it. Having just read "Reporter," and seeing this at my current library, I gave it a quick re-read.
This is a mishmash with many highlights and many lowlights. Let's start with the lowlights.
Hersh is at his weakest on the “stolen election” chapter in this book.
First, there were allegations the GOP stole (and regularly stole, not just this election) votes in downstate Illinois. Second, Jack’s margin was just about exactly that of Truman in 1948 in Illinois.
There’s more that’s bad here. If Illinois flipped to Dick, it would still have taken at least 8 other unpledged electors from the South who voted Jack to flip to Byrd to send the race to the House. And then?
Byrd’s eliminated after 1 ballot. Are Dem congresscritters, who know Jack is really not much more liberal on civil rights than Dick, if at all (the call to Coretta Scott King was initiated by Harris Wofford and upset Jack at first), if Jack offers few concessions, really going to vote for Dick Nixon?
The reality is that the Alabama and Mississippi unpledged electors tried to flip other states and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledg...
Either Sy knows this and is being mendacious in his grinding of axes, or he doesn’t, and he shouldn’t have written this chapter.
The “Lyndon” chapter is almost as bad.
First, close LBJ associates like Oklahoma Sen. Bob Kerr, didn’t want him on the ballot with Jack. They say reality: he’d be emasculated if the ticket won (just as actually happened) and blamed and possibly tainted if it lost. The fact that this discussion happened at the DNC before the offer was made indicates that people at least halfway in the know thought it was a possibility.
As for LBJ blackmailing JFK? Given that Johnson was No. 2 horndog in the Senate to Jack (if that), this blackmailing wouldn’t have been so easy to pull off. AND, Hersh, though mentioning these connections more than once elsewhere, ignores Joe Kennedy’s extensive connections to Hoover here.
Speaking of? I’ve long thought, and some narratives claim, that Joe pushed Jack into choosing LBJ.
See above: Mendacious or ignorant.
The “bootlegger” chapter on Joe is also weak, though not as weak. The issue of whether or not Joe broke Prohibition is not nearly as close to a “yes” as Hersh says.
The Guatemalan coup was not quite bloodless. And its aftermath was far from that.
Outside of factual or interpretive matters, this book is wooden at times.
Nobody calls Lem Billings as Lemoyne, for example.
Next? The “as told to me in an interview for this book” narrative starts getting old after a while. A good editor IMO would have restricted its use more, and varied it more. An author might have accepted that. That’s not as bad as repeatedly using first names for people who have been mentioned more than once before.
Finally, on the last page of the main body copy, Sy leaves open the possibility that he’s a JFK conspiracy theorist, even though he claims to accept Oswald was the lone gunman, and not “controlled,” though he then adds a “probably” to that.
That said, Hersh nails several things.
The biggie is Nam. He notes that in August 1963, the National Liberation Front offered a peace proposal that included withdrawal from Nam by the US. If Jack really planned to do that, all he had to do was act.
The second is that Jack’s recklessness with womanizing extended into recklessness elsewhere, above all with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
My take on Hersh is that if significant parts of an investigative journalism claim of his are at least partially backed up by others, he’s on to something. For example, Ted Postal and Robert Fisk have both written extensively refuting claims that all chemical warfare in Syria has been done by Bashir al-Assad.
OTOH, Sy got played like a fish on Seth Rich by Ed Butowsky. And, AFAIK, still believes Seth leaked the emails, though he doesn’t believe in a conspiratorial murder. And don’t forget that he almost ran forged “JFK” documents from a Lawrence Cusack in this book. In “Reporter,” he admits it, but says “Yeah, I stopped in time.”
This is a mishmash with many highlights and many lowlights. Let's start with the lowlights.
Hersh is at his weakest on the “stolen election” chapter in this book.
First, there were allegations the GOP stole (and regularly stole, not just this election) votes in downstate Illinois. Second, Jack’s margin was just about exactly that of Truman in 1948 in Illinois.
There’s more that’s bad here. If Illinois flipped to Dick, it would still have taken at least 8 other unpledged electors from the South who voted Jack to flip to Byrd to send the race to the House. And then?
Byrd’s eliminated after 1 ballot. Are Dem congresscritters, who know Jack is really not much more liberal on civil rights than Dick, if at all (the call to Coretta Scott King was initiated by Harris Wofford and upset Jack at first), if Jack offers few concessions, really going to vote for Dick Nixon?
The reality is that the Alabama and Mississippi unpledged electors tried to flip other states and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledg...
Either Sy knows this and is being mendacious in his grinding of axes, or he doesn’t, and he shouldn’t have written this chapter.
The “Lyndon” chapter is almost as bad.
First, close LBJ associates like Oklahoma Sen. Bob Kerr, didn’t want him on the ballot with Jack. They say reality: he’d be emasculated if the ticket won (just as actually happened) and blamed and possibly tainted if it lost. The fact that this discussion happened at the DNC before the offer was made indicates that people at least halfway in the know thought it was a possibility.
As for LBJ blackmailing JFK? Given that Johnson was No. 2 horndog in the Senate to Jack (if that), this blackmailing wouldn’t have been so easy to pull off. AND, Hersh, though mentioning these connections more than once elsewhere, ignores Joe Kennedy’s extensive connections to Hoover here.
Speaking of? I’ve long thought, and some narratives claim, that Joe pushed Jack into choosing LBJ.
See above: Mendacious or ignorant.
The “bootlegger” chapter on Joe is also weak, though not as weak. The issue of whether or not Joe broke Prohibition is not nearly as close to a “yes” as Hersh says.
The Guatemalan coup was not quite bloodless. And its aftermath was far from that.
Outside of factual or interpretive matters, this book is wooden at times.
Nobody calls Lem Billings as Lemoyne, for example.
Next? The “as told to me in an interview for this book” narrative starts getting old after a while. A good editor IMO would have restricted its use more, and varied it more. An author might have accepted that. That’s not as bad as repeatedly using first names for people who have been mentioned more than once before.
Finally, on the last page of the main body copy, Sy leaves open the possibility that he’s a JFK conspiracy theorist, even though he claims to accept Oswald was the lone gunman, and not “controlled,” though he then adds a “probably” to that.
That said, Hersh nails several things.
The biggie is Nam. He notes that in August 1963, the National Liberation Front offered a peace proposal that included withdrawal from Nam by the US. If Jack really planned to do that, all he had to do was act.
The second is that Jack’s recklessness with womanizing extended into recklessness elsewhere, above all with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
My take on Hersh is that if significant parts of an investigative journalism claim of his are at least partially backed up by others, he’s on to something. For example, Ted Postal and Robert Fisk have both written extensively refuting claims that all chemical warfare in Syria has been done by Bashir al-Assad.
OTOH, Sy got played like a fish on Seth Rich by Ed Butowsky. And, AFAIK, still believes Seth leaked the emails, though he doesn’t believe in a conspiratorial murder. And don’t forget that he almost ran forged “JFK” documents from a Lawrence Cusack in this book. In “Reporter,” he admits it, but says “Yeah, I stopped in time.”
December 9, 2022
Fiddle and Faddle frolicking in the White House pool with Jack and his brothers during lunch breaks!
Dave Powers escorting street hookers past Secret Service agents guarding JFK’s suite at the Olympic Hotel in Seattle!
Judith Campbell Exner riding the train from Washington to Chicago humping bags of money from Jack Kennedy to Sam Giancan “for the campaign”!
Judy sitting on the edge of the bathtub in her room at the Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago while JFK and Mr. Flood (Sammy G.) met in the bedroom and the Secret Service stood guard in the hall. This was after the Bay of Pigs and the meeting was supposedly to take out a hit on Jack’s nemesis Fidel Castro.
If you want an entertaining read you could waste a few hours of your life with this book. I have no doubt that some of the content here is factual. JFK was from a generation that was dominated by powerful men born to wealth and privilege. The Cold War was in its infancy and powder kegs sizzled around the world, particularly in Berlin, Cuba, Viet Nam and Turkey. Volatile times and at the very beginning of what I remember as the age of political assassination. But when this book came out in 1997 it set off a firestorm controversy regarding sensational and slipshod journalism.
Seymour Hersh was a highly regarded journalist. He wrote for the New York Times, and the New Yorker. He was the first to write about and expose the massacre at My Lai. He won Ma Pulitzer Prize, National Book Critics Circle Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Award. He was reputable. Then came The Dark Side of Camelot.
I’m giving this book two stars. It’s worth your time if only for its historical significance in setting a boundary line for journalistic integrity. I found Hersh’s writing style distracting. It seems like in every fourth paragraph he insets the words “in an exclusive interview for this book”. It might be important for establishing the integrity of his sources but it’s distracting and borders on self aggrandizing.
Dave Powers escorting street hookers past Secret Service agents guarding JFK’s suite at the Olympic Hotel in Seattle!
Judith Campbell Exner riding the train from Washington to Chicago humping bags of money from Jack Kennedy to Sam Giancan “for the campaign”!
Judy sitting on the edge of the bathtub in her room at the Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago while JFK and Mr. Flood (Sammy G.) met in the bedroom and the Secret Service stood guard in the hall. This was after the Bay of Pigs and the meeting was supposedly to take out a hit on Jack’s nemesis Fidel Castro.
If you want an entertaining read you could waste a few hours of your life with this book. I have no doubt that some of the content here is factual. JFK was from a generation that was dominated by powerful men born to wealth and privilege. The Cold War was in its infancy and powder kegs sizzled around the world, particularly in Berlin, Cuba, Viet Nam and Turkey. Volatile times and at the very beginning of what I remember as the age of political assassination. But when this book came out in 1997 it set off a firestorm controversy regarding sensational and slipshod journalism.
Seymour Hersh was a highly regarded journalist. He wrote for the New York Times, and the New Yorker. He was the first to write about and expose the massacre at My Lai. He won Ma Pulitzer Prize, National Book Critics Circle Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Award. He was reputable. Then came The Dark Side of Camelot.
I’m giving this book two stars. It’s worth your time if only for its historical significance in setting a boundary line for journalistic integrity. I found Hersh’s writing style distracting. It seems like in every fourth paragraph he insets the words “in an exclusive interview for this book”. It might be important for establishing the integrity of his sources but it’s distracting and borders on self aggrandizing.
September 4, 2016
And to think - I used to have a good opinion of JFK.
Evil is a good word that comes to mind when I think of him now. Of course, maybe if he'd ever had the courage to stand up to his domineering father, things would have turned out differently. Perhaps he wouldn't have needed "a strange piece of ass" a day to sate his insatiable sexual appetite.
Perhaps he wouldn't have needed to bribe West Virginia officials with $10,000 each to win the primary there in 1960.
Perhaps he wouldn't have ferried money back and forth to the mob via Judy Campbell to Sam Giancana.
Mainly, JFK was terrible. The Secret Service agents that worked his detail were sickened by his behavior. White House officials like Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers brought in prostitutes on every city JFK visited and the agents were not allowed to search those women. Many times they wondered if the president would be alive in the morning.
You'll get a lot on sex in this book but a lot on Cuba as well. There's tons on JFK's early life and much of it relies on tons of interviews with people that knew JFK and people that saw these accounts firsthand.
We see a lot on why LBJ was chosen as VP, even though Kennedy didn’t really want him, same with Bobby Kennedy.
If you’re interested in Joe Kennedy or even the first Kennedy patriarch – John F. “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald – you’ll get a lot of info.
Wow, you’re going to get some eye-opening stories! If you want to continue with the fantasy that JFK was a good person, then I'd suggest not reading this book.
If you're interested in the truth, please read it.
Evil is a good word that comes to mind when I think of him now. Of course, maybe if he'd ever had the courage to stand up to his domineering father, things would have turned out differently. Perhaps he wouldn't have needed "a strange piece of ass" a day to sate his insatiable sexual appetite.
Perhaps he wouldn't have needed to bribe West Virginia officials with $10,000 each to win the primary there in 1960.
Perhaps he wouldn't have ferried money back and forth to the mob via Judy Campbell to Sam Giancana.
Mainly, JFK was terrible. The Secret Service agents that worked his detail were sickened by his behavior. White House officials like Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers brought in prostitutes on every city JFK visited and the agents were not allowed to search those women. Many times they wondered if the president would be alive in the morning.
You'll get a lot on sex in this book but a lot on Cuba as well. There's tons on JFK's early life and much of it relies on tons of interviews with people that knew JFK and people that saw these accounts firsthand.
We see a lot on why LBJ was chosen as VP, even though Kennedy didn’t really want him, same with Bobby Kennedy.
If you’re interested in Joe Kennedy or even the first Kennedy patriarch – John F. “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald – you’ll get a lot of info.
Wow, you’re going to get some eye-opening stories! If you want to continue with the fantasy that JFK was a good person, then I'd suggest not reading this book.
If you're interested in the truth, please read it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 227 reviews