CNN is doing a Kennedy trash piece.

Why is that? Why are they so silent about the Bush crime family? I know is a dumb question.
:wtf: :argh:

eom

When you realize that the US does not have a single national news network you will understand why crap like that gets to be on CNN.

I have done a lot of research on it. http://tvnewslies.org

Click on the EXPLANATION tab, and you may understand.
Peace,
Jesse

But of course CNN is center-right, if anything, and almost as much as a whore for the Busheviks.

But people who don't know any better, who have been put to sleep by 10+ years of Goebbels v2.0, view CNN as the polar extreme opposite of Faux.

Then they "triagulate" between center-right Busheviks whoring and extreem right Soviet/Nazi-style propaganda lies, and they think the truth lies somewhere in between.

Silly rabbits, in Imperial Amerika truth lies entirely outside of official channel and organs such as CNN.

Now, stay still because the wolves will be along shortly to "help" you into a nice warm pot of gravy and vegetables...

they are scared for their lives

On edit: I'm watching the History Channel -- not CNN.

I find the History Channel show very truthful and makes him larger than life. i.e. they just talked about four extra-marital dalliances, including one with a White House intern. It's important to tell the truth about our presidents. I can't wait until they do one on Reagan, because there's yet to be one that will pass the bullshit monitors.

I wouldn't hold my breath about that one ever seeing the light of day. BTW, how many times has "Marilyn Monroe" been said in the show you're watching?

They spent more time on two other ladies he spent more time with. Marilyn was just a footnote. They spent far more time talking about his illnesses; and how his defeats (i.e. the Bay of Pigs) took an emotional toll on him and how he stopped relying on "experts" after that. Lots of good credible material with lots of b & w reels of the real thing.

Can't you get your jollies at some porn site or something? Why do we have to cater to the tabloid grocery store check out level on the history channel?

of Kennedy's term. It was important to acknowledge that those dalliances occurred. For one thing, it dismisses right-wing claims that Clinton was in any way unique in what he did. And believe me, they did try to make that claim.

What needs to be remembered is that in Kennedy's time, presidents had private lives. Before Clinton came into office, presidents were allowed to have a personal life, but Republicans changed all that. Clinton was the first president to have his private life exposed for political gain. And it is a precedent that we will all live to regret, because now, every president is a target.

certainly eye candy to take our minds off the real story!

That's why. Fortieth anniversary of JFK assassination.

'Cause he was supposed to die along with
the great Senator Wellstone, but he wouldn't
cooperate and get on the plane.

Plan B:
Character assination.
Same way they (sort of) got President Clinton.

John Kennedy, not Edwaard.

He wasn't the Second Coming. His forays into Central America were disastrous. He did some good and did some harm, which is largely overlooked. He's been dead 40 years - it's okay to tell the truth about him and his presidency; both the good and the bad. If FD Roosevelt's place in history can withstand the revelation of the darker side of his presidency, so can Kennedy's.

"Hagiography" - perfect. Of course, we will be painted as "Kennedy-bashers" for this. "Bashing"=telling the occasionally unflattering truth.

I'm the biggest supporter of JFK and the Kennedy legacy I know, I'm proud to say. OTOH: I don't have any problem with you or anyone criticizing his Presidency, person, or policies.

That said, the point of all the JFK bashing is to destroy all public support of him and his policies. During this, the 40th anniversary of his murder, JFK will get the bashing unlike any since the 30th. It's funny, most all of the bashers say Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone.

Me? I'm convinced he had plenty of help. Particularly impressive is the role played by the axis played by the Military-Industrial-Intelligence complex, aided and abetted by the anti-Castro Cubans, Mafia hitmen, and Big Oil money. What name runs in all those circles? BUSH.

BTW: What part of being a Liberal Democrat don't you like?

He wasn't exactly a liberal.

But to answer your question, I love being a liberal Democrat. What I don't love about some OTHER liberals is that they are thin-skinned whiny pansies and crybabies.

The reason Dukakis got his ass kicked in 1988? He was a pansy, and rolled over when Bush attacked him. The reason Clinton won? He fought back every attack. Ideology didn't affect the outcome of those elections - being tough did.

We need more kick-ass liberals and fewer pussified ones.

It was sympathetic, yes, but not a whitewash. One of the interviewees stated baldly that the Kennedy family and the White House itself took part in a massive cover-up with regards to JFK's health. Julian Bond himself pointed out that Kennedy was not supportive of civil rights until he had to be.

I want the same people to put together a biography of Reagan and give the documentary the same level of honesty.