Kennedy Was Cocaine User, New Book Claims

[stratoman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51466-2003May13.html

Reuters

Tuesday, May 13, 2003; 7:52 PM

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - John F. Kennedy snorted cocaine with actor Peter Lawford while the two stayed at Frank Sinatra's Palm Springs house in the late 1950s, according to an excerpt from a tell-all book written by Sinatra's former valet.

Writing about the close friendship between Sinatra and the future U.S. president, George Jacobs said that although the Rat Pack singer knew of Kennedy's weakness for women -- and went so far as to arrange liaisons for him -- he would not have approved of his drug use.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book "Mr.S," released in the June edition of Playboy Magazine, Jacobs said he was present on several occasions in Palm Springs "when Peter Lawford and the future president did lines of cocaine together in Lawford's guest rooms."

"The first time it happened Jack must have seen the shocked look on my face. 'For my back, George' Kennedy said to me with his bad-boy wink," Jacobs wrote, adding that Lawford pleaded with him not to tell Sinatra.

Lawford was married at the time to Kennedy's sister Pat and both men were frequent guests at Sinatra's Palm Springs compound.

Jacobs, who was Sinatra's valet from 1953 to 1968, said Kennedy had an "endless obsession with sex and gossip. He wanted to know all the Hollywood dirt." But Jacobs said he never told Sinatra about Kennedy's cocaine habit.

"I wasn't about to break the bad news about Jack, who Mr. S. had put on a pedestal. Sex and alcohol may have made Jack a better man in Sinatra's sight. Cocaine was a different story," he wrote.

A new biography of Kennedy by historian Robert Dallek published this month disclosed that in the last eight years of his life Kennedy was taking as many as eight medications a day for a variety of medical problems including back pain and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function.

Jacobs' book about his life as Sinatra's right-hand man is to be published in June by HarperCollins.

[Kilmer17]

Im not suprised. I also dont really care. But I will file it away for the next time some lib brings up acusations against President Bush.

[The Evil Genius]

Yeah because Kennedy alleged use makes Dubya's alleged use A-OK.

Seriously, if either of them used Cocaine - they should be ashamed. Cocaine is not a recreational drug - despite what the 80's yuppies might have made it out to be.

[Kilmer17]

Well, There is a witness to Kennedy's use. Is there one for the Bush accusation?

[JimboDaMan]

Sure, Kilmer. Me. I'll just wait till the poor sap dies and can't call me a liar.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Sure, Kilmer. Me. I'll just wait till the poor sap dies and can't call me a liar.

Touche :laugh:

[Kilmer17]

Typical.

Avoid the question because the answer doesnt suit you.

[codeorama]

It doesn't suprise me. I think most of us would be shocked by the activities of most politicians.

[codeorama]

Oh, and Kilmer, we don't need a witness for Bush, his silence when asked if he is or was a user is enough for most to make the proper conclusion.

[@DCGoldPants]

ugh......this is dumb.

Its widely known that many leaders of today and yesterday do/did all sorts of shady stuff behind the scenes. When you have great power....women, booze and drugs are so available.

[Kilmer17]

To compare the two, the BushHaters will have to provide a witness like the one accusing Kennedy.

As I said, I dont care what he did before becoming President. I like alot of what he did. But I'll be sure to bring this up when you or others make wild claims about Bush without such a witness.

[@DCGoldPants]

I can't beleve he traded Sammy Sosa! :laugh:

[Kilmer17]

For that, he should be hung.

[@DCGoldPants]

He should hang out with Wes Unseld.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

To compare the two, the BushHaters will have to provide a witness like the one accusing Kennedy.

As I said, I dont care what he did before becoming President. I like alot of what he did. But I'll be sure to bring this up when you or others make wild claims about Bush without such a witness.

Kilmer,

The witnesses are already supposedly there (although I would prefer some more tangible proof)- there was a book titled Fortunate Son that was printed in 2000 that detailed Bush's alleged cocaine usage and him sellling it and his covered up arrest back in the 1970's.

James Hetfield (not the Metallica one), is the author of the book. The book was discredited by many because it was found out that Hetfield had a criminal past and that some of the "facts" were made up (he admitted to that later).

Hetfield committed suicide in a hotel room shortly after...

Here are the details on the book...

The biography, which was supposed to debut next January, was hastened out the door three months early by its publisher St. Martin's on account of startling allegations: that Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession and had his record expunged with the help of family connections.

Hatfield (the author) draws from a broad, bipartisan range of sources: Yalies, old friends from the oil business and associates from his old baseball team the Texas Rangers, Bush admirers and Bush detractors. He digs up some familiar stories and a few new ones, voiced by people close to Bush or to his family. Tom Seligson, a friend from Bush's alma mater, Yale, says, "If he didn't use marijuana at that point, then he wasn't alive." But while Hatfield depicts the purple haze of the era, he doesn't find a smoking spliff.

The freelance Texas journalist, who has written a biography of "Star Trek" actor Patrick Stewart, also describes Bush's first engagement to his sweetheart Cathryn Lee Wolfman, who, though Episcopalian, had a Jewish stepfather. "Given her name and her stepfather's prominence in the garment industry, the Bush family pressured their son to call off the wedding because the prospective bride had a Jewish background," a friend of the Bushes told Hatfield.

With the use of many, many clips from other sources and some financial documents from the SEC, Hatfield takes a long look into Bush's murky business life, but again, doesn't quite deliver scandal. Yet a glance at the footnotes might cause a reader trepidation. While most biographies will link individual facts and revelations to a specific source, Hatfield often does not.

His "footnotes" are just a long, run-together list of written materials and sources he interviewed. Sometimes he names his sources in the text, other times he refrains. So without the footnotes, you have to go on faith that you're not just getting a clip job -- and that he talked to real, live sources who confirmed what he reports. The other casualty of the book's harried gestation is the index: There is none.

But the book's strongest selling point -- the afterword -- is also its weakest section. It will no doubt bring heavy criticism. Hatfield relies on three unnamed sources to nail down his disturbing allegations about Bush's supposed cocaine arrest. But Hatfield seems prepared, at least subconsciously: After completing his biography he sent his boxes of research to his attorney's office.

Thomas Dunne, publisher of the book's eponymous St. Martin's imprint, says St. Martin's lawyers read the manuscript. But he was not sure if Hatfield revealed his anonymous sources to his editor at the press.

Still, the book doesn't seem to have any strong political agenda. "I'm a Democrat and I'm not likely to vote for Bush. But I have to say that after reading this book, I admire him a great deal more than I did before," says Dunne.

"I used to regard Bush as a lightweight, as a daddy's boy. But after reading the book, it's clear to me that Bush has a lot more going for him, that he has a Clintonian knack for connecting with people," he added

salon.com | Oct. 19, 1999

[Kilmer17]

Im not seeing your point.

A guy writes a book and admits it's not true, then commits suicide and that somehow is the same as a guy writing a book about Kennedy? If the Kennedy story is debunked, then it's the same, and if someone comes out with a witness to Bush using coke, then that is the same. As it stands currently though, one Pres used coke, one Pres is accused of it with no witnesses.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

. As it stands currently though, one Pres used coke, one Pres is accused of it with no witnesses.

and one didn't inhale:high:

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Im not seeing your point.

A guy writes a book and admits it's not true, then commits suicide and that somehow is the same as a guy writing a book about Kennedy? If the Kennedy story is debunked, then it's the same, and if someone comes out with a witness to Bush using coke, then that is the same. As it stands currently though, one Pres used coke, one Pres is accused of it with no witnesses.

By the way, just so that I have this staight - you are basing Kennedy's cocaine usage on one driver of a one celebrity who has recently has a book written (for profit mind you)?

Wow.

Well, like Jimbo says - wait til Dubya dies off - I am sure someone will come forward for a buck.

[The Evil Genius]

Kilmer,

As for Hatfield admitting he made up some "facts" - I was wrong. That was another author of a another unauthorized Biography (J.H. Thompson). I got my two bit hack unauthorized biographies mixed up!

Hatfields main crime was that he was, in his past, a criminal. His book was dismissed because of that - add to that the fact that his footnotes were sloppy, to say the least, and its not to hard to see why this book didnt maintain its sales.

Supposedly, as the story goes, one of the key witnesses in Hatfields book was Karl Rove.

[Kilmer17]

That changes the light then.

If there is a witness to Bush using coke, then that would be the same in my mind.

And all of that adds up to me not caring about either one. Nor do I care about Clinton smoking pot. Although I think it's moronic for him to say he didnt inhale.

[redman]

The comparison/contrast between JFK and Bush is academic, even if true on both counts. I would point out that, at worst, Bush "partied" around 30 years before be took office, and well before re swore off alcohol completely and straightenend himself out, whereas Kennedy appears to have continued to indulge himself all through the time he was in office. Food for thought.

[AJWatson3]

don't know if anybody has read "dark side of camelot" but it was a fascinating book.

said kennedy had some wicked-chronic back pain and he used crystal meth to help it out. apparantly also began using the stuff when he gave public speeches, that is why he always seemed so enthusiastic.

of course this kind of info doesn't come out until after a presidents death, or long after leaving office, so bush has a while before he gets outed... no need to shame a living president more than they already have been by their own actions.

[@DCGoldPants]

Here is the cover of the book after he dies.

-Dubya: the secret life of a President/Professional Wrestler

[stratoman]

Originally posted by AJWatson3

of course this kind of info doesn't come out until after a presidents death, or long after leaving office

with the one exception, Bill Clinton:puke:

[redman]

Actually, Watergate and Vietnam changed the way the press reports politics and politicians. They hold nothing back so that they can avoid later being accused of gross journalistic negligence, if not complicity.

The days of the press covering for that stuff is over. Do you seriously think that if Peter Jennings learned that Bush was using cocaine in the White House that he'd hold back from reporting that out of respect for the office? Those days are over, and Kennedy was the last president to fully enjoy them.