Where am I?

HOME
  • COMMENT Blogs
Comment Central - Daniel Finkelstein's rolling guide to opinion on the web

Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

« A book to read and film to see: Persepolis | All Posts | Today's Web Grab »

April 11, 2008

The drug abuse of John F Kennedy

Jfk

Why did John F Kennedy make such a hash of the Bay of Pigs and his summit meeting with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna?

And how could the same man have dealt so competently with the Cuban Missile Crisis slightly over a year later?

The usual theory is that Kennedy gained experience and a healthy scepticism for official advice. Now a new book offers an alternative explanation.

In his riveting volume In Sickness and In Power, former Foreign Secretary and medic David Owen reviews the health and medication of leaders over the last century. The chapter on Kennedy is jaw-dropping.

Owen starts by convincingly asserting that Kennedy was much sicker than is commonly appreciated and certainly much sicker than was appreciated at the time. His Addison's disease was very debilitating and needed constant attention.

And there were other health troubles. During the Bay of Pigs fiasco Owen writes that Kennedy had:

Constant and acute diarrhoea and a recurrence of his urinary tract infection.

Central to Owen's account is the idea that the administration of drugs to Kennedy for these various ailments was out of control.

In particular, without the knowledge of his other doctors and at the same time as they were giving him other drugs, he was being tended to by Max Jacobson, a doctor known as "Dr Feelgood" because of his reputation as a provider of amphetamines and pep pills. In time Jacobson's drug treatment became almost a recreational drug for Kennedy.  Jacobson was later struck off.

Owen shows that is quite likely that Dr Feelgood, specially flown to Vienna, injected Kennedy with intravenous amphetamine just before he met Khrushchev.

Then later in the year Dr Hans Kraus took control of Kennedy's medication. He demanded total control and began using massage rather than injections to treat the President. He also got rid of Jacobson, telling Kennedy:

If I ever heard he took another shot, I'd make sure it was known. No President with his finger on the red button has any business taking stuff like that.

By the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was back on an even keel.

Owen has produced a compelling book. And even if drug use was only a part the story, it's a pretty convincing theory.

Posted by Daniel Finkelstein on April 11, 2008 in American Politics , Books | Permalink | Comments (71) | TrackBack (2) | Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/297284/28008552

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The drug abuse of John F Kennedy :

» Diarrhea Made JFK Bungle Bay Of Pigs Invasion from Wonkette
Remember the last young handsome half-Kenyan President we had before Barack Obama? Yes, Jack Kennedy! You'll recall he assembled a band of Cuban nationals to re-invade Guam, and then he tore Nikita Khrushchev a new one while having sex with... [Read More]

Tracked on April 11, 2008 at 08:09 PM

» How JFK quit drugs from Business of Life
From the London Times comes an article on The drug abuse of John F. Kennedy. Basically a review of a new book "In Sickness and in Power: Illnesses in Heads of Government during the Last 100 Years" (David Owen),... [Read More]

Tracked on April 13, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Comments

JFK - Has my teeth too- Is he my father?? Bay of Pigs..Drig abuse? Guildford is laying off 200 police , according to the local paper. (think the women have stolen their accomodation, and they have no where to live) Could be From Ronnie Valentine

Posted by: Ronnie Valentine | 11 Apr 2008 17:04:34

Wow, great story, I cant wait to read the book! www.yourhomepage.com

Posted by: will@yourhomepage.com | 11 Apr 2008 19:18:30

There have been stories for years about Kennedy taking non-prescription drugs. He had several painful conditions requiring something.

And if you ever saw him in person, as I did very briefly, you couldn't help but be impressed by his glowing look of health and vigor. I guess drugs can do that, at least for a while.

Of course, whatever Kennedy hid from the public, it was pretty small compared to FDR's being elected four times without the public's even knowing he was crippled and condemned to a wheelchair. Hidden leg braces plus someone next to him holding his arm gave the illusion he could stand.

Lincoln was a man with a very serious form of depression, something which would disqualify him today, as Senator Eagleton was disqualified to run for Vice President in 1972 because of his depression treatment. There was also the case of Senator Muskie being disqualified for crying in public.

Andrew Jackson was mentally unbalanced, engaging a number of times in caning opponents and pistol duels. Some of his policies are just what you might expect from a madman.

There were a number of alcoholic presidents, including Nixon in his decline. Bush is of course a "dry drunk" as you are never healed from alcoholism, and he was a hard drinker. He also is widely known to have used cocaine, right up into the time his father was in the White House.

It appears there is no consistency in these matters. Some have been caught and disqualified in the public mind, others have successfully hidden their conditions.

Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | 11 Apr 2008 20:10:43

Our icons are only human - all of them !!!!!!!!!

Posted by: IAN PAYNE [WALSALL - ENGLAND] | 11 Apr 2008 20:19:13

A very interesting take on history. It's certainly fascinating to compare Kennedy to Harry Truman, a far greater president who dealt successfully with a wider range of problems than Kennedy, possessed an iron constitution, was practically never ill, and who at the height of the Korean crisis went so far as to have major dental work without anaesthetic so as to retain full control of his faculties.

Posted by: Mike Dash | 11 Apr 2008 20:58:36

Not forgetting his well documented cocaine intake (Frank Sinatra biography for example)

Posted by: Lindy Green | 11 Apr 2008 23:02:01

I'm a psychiatrist in a my late 60s so I have a very clear memory of teh JFK years. The Russians behaved cautiously with Eisenhower but likely felt emboldened knowing JFK's precarious health status.

Posted by: MARK KLEIN, M.D. | 11 Apr 2008 23:27:58

I am a doctor who treats patients with chronic pain.
There is a vast difference between treating someone so that they can function normally and abusing drugs to get high.
Kennedy's optimism might be called a mild euphoria, but since it long predated his injuries, it was more probably a personality trait. Ditto for his sexuality (which, as all of us back then in Massachusetts knew, was common with all the Kennedy brothers).

The reason the Kremlin thought they could push around Kennedy was because he was young and talked about peace, not because he took lidocaine injections and low doses of cortisone for mild adrenal insufficiency.

Unless one can point to erratic behavior in all spheres of his life, the theory is bogus. Besides, a president isn't a dictator: Policy is usually made by cabinet secretaries and bureaucrats.

Posted by: tioedong | 12 Apr 2008 02:07:46

The KGB had to know of Kennedy's reckless and jejune behavior, with women and with drugs. Donald Kagan points out in "The Origins of War", written right after KGB files became available and before they were closed again, that the Cuban crisis was resolved by giving up the missiles in Turkey and because the Russians believed rumors that the US military might depose Kennedy in a coup if he surrendered more. It sounds fantastic but we are not the only ones to assume that our interlocutors think like we do.

Another story in this vein is the one about Reagan's famous "gaffe" of testing a microphone by saying "The missiles will be launched in an hour." The recent story is that this was a gambit to shake up the Soviets a bit.

Posted by: Michael Kennedy | 12 Apr 2008 03:06:34

I have little doubt that the author is quite correct about Mr. Kennedy's drug use during his presidency. This is not much of a secret and has been in the media for several decades.

Yet, I must take issue with his assertion that "And how could the same man have dealt so competently with the Cuban Missile Crisis slightly over a year later?" I'm sorry, did you say "comptently"?

The Cuban Missile Crisis was perhaps the one example of America at its most reckless. Yes the American president was on drugs. And it was obvious to world leaders. The problem was that, while Mr. Kennedy was often inconsistent in performance and on some occasions weak, when sober he was equally aggressive, as if to make up for those times he could not perform as a world leader. This inconsistency in international diplomacy or in the alternative, international confrontation was clearly a recipe for war.

It's clear that Mr. Kennedy never intended to drag America into a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. But at the same time, it was reported that he had little recall of the technical details of his earlier dealings with the Soviets, his meeting with Mr. Khrushchev, or Soviet expansionism in the western hemisphere.

What happened then, in October 1962 was simple. The Soviets, counting on a careless, somewhat inexperienced and foolish American President, anticipated a response similar to that rather incompetent JFK in his earlier meeting with Premier Khrushchev. Instead, they were confronted with and were initially unable to comprehend the actions of that same man who acted as if he were (and just may have been) taking steroids. That brought all of us to the brink of a nuclear war.

Kennedy had permitted the Soviets to place missiles in Cuba for quite some time. It was expected that Kennedy could not be oblivious to that issue. The Soviets, naturally, assumed Kennedy was either unwilling or unable to respond, or unconcerned about this relatively small military buildup. In that context, Kennedy's reaction was -- well, a bit over the top. As a result, the Soviets were caught off guard. Nice in a game of cricket. Not so smart in a game of nuclear brinkmanship.

We were all lucky. If there was anyone who should have walked away with the gold medal for "common sense", it was Nikita Khrushchev. It was Khrushchev who recognised Mr. Kenney's overly aggressive stance, his reckless behaviour, and his clear willingness to risk a global war over a few missiles that could have been easily destroyed with a single American first strike.

We are all lucky. No thanks to Mr. Kennedy, but to a Soviet government who recognized someone who might not have been all that stable, but was clearly on the warpath. And that a war was something that no one, not even America, wanted or could likely survive.

Jack Heismann
Washington, D.C.

Posted by: | 12 Apr 2008 04:28:50

JKF,is an icon of the liberal,lovvie,left here in UK.As a kid growing up in the sixties to Irish Catholic parents,Kennedy was just about the nearest thing to god in my parents eyes.They actully had pictures of him around our house.I grew up thinking this guy was something special.But,when the truth came out about what a unreliable,reckless,corrupt,cheating,killer he actually was,I soon had this guy in perspective.But not it seems the rosetinted spectacle wearing liberals.He was awful as a president and just as bad as a husband and father.Oswald probably did Kennedy a favour.Otherwise he would be the main face in the frame for in taking USA into the Vietnam disaster.As it was,his successor Jonson, got to carry the can for what Kennedy had already started.Luckly for liberal lovvies everywhere Oswald got in there first.

Posted by: Norman | 12 Apr 2008 09:20:27

Forgive my ignorance but I was under the impression that Khrushchev gouged huge concessions out of America before agreeing to withdraw their missiles from Cuba. America had, stationed in Turkey, rockets trained on the USSR, which, for some reason, Russia objected to. Because of this Khrushchev screwed Kennedy into, shall we say, 're-arranging' the air force bases which housed the rockets. People died, often violently, as a result of this Cuba/Turkey/USA disaster. Then the hacks
started to re-write history and make Kennedy a hero. Sickening!

Posted by: Venise Alstergren | 12 Apr 2008 09:58:25

Jack Heismann:

"... a few missiles that could have been easily destroyed with a single American first strike."

Surely you can't be serious. Don't you suppose that such a strike would be detected with enough time to get at least one missile off the ground? Would you be willing to gamble the existence of an American city that it couldn't?

Your attempts to spin this are laughable. Khrushchev brings nuclear missiles to within 90 miles of the US mainland (a "relatively small military buildup"!) and you call Kennedy "overly aggressive"?! Riiight...

The notion that the response was unjustified because, after all, "Kennedy had permitted the Soviets to place missiles in Cuba for quite sometime" sounds like a similarly ridiculous excuse we heard almost 30 years later, when critics of the Gulf War charged that we had actually encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait by not objecting when he hinted he might do so.

Posted by: C B Kiteflyer | 12 Apr 2008 10:22:51

Some interesting comments, but somehow no one seems to recall that Khruschev was deposed, largely through the actions of his career-long mentor Suslov, in 1964 because of the recklessness of his putting nuclear-armed missiles on Cuba and exposing the USSR to the threat of a nuclear war with the USA. So, who was the real crazy in this standoff?

Posted by: George Alexander | 12 Apr 2008 10:31:48

Several years ago Discovery or History Channel ran a program about Kennedy's drug use. Apparently the drugs administered by "Dr Feelgood" could produce feelings of invincibility and aggression. As I recall, the good doctor was never totally banished.

I was 22 at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis - and it was definitely spun (Dean Rusk saying that the Soviets "blinked first"). With today's knowledge, it seems quite different. The deployment of our Polaris missile subs in late 1960 spooked the Soviets; the US had a first strike capability to which the Soviets had no counter. Moving the Soviet missiles to Cuba was a risky response.

I am far from a conspiracy theorist, but I now believe that Kennedy's failures versus the Soviets, together with his reckless drug use, led the leadership of the national security establishment to remove him.

Posted by: Jack Okie | 12 Apr 2008 15:44:59

Boy oh boy, some silly stuff here about the Cold War.

First, Kruschev actually liked Kennedy, as much as that was possible under the circumstances.

Eisenhower needlessly infuriated the Soviets with his spy flights at inopportune moments. You don't build relationships that way.

As far as the Cuban Missile Crisis is concerned, I believe we still do not have the complete truth, so it is rather pointless to argue.

A few facts are clear.

Castro was not unreasonable in wanting missiles in Cuba. The U.S. was running a terrorist organization down in Florida that made Osama's tents in the mountains look like a boy-scout camp.

Millions and millions were poured into terrorism against Cuba - guns, training, boats, planes, bombs. There were many attempts on Castro's life. The crazy Cuban exiles would do things like run up to a Cuban port and shoot up ships, sometimes Soviet ships.

The scope of these operations is still not appreciated by most Americans. It was literally a small-scale secret war financed by the CIA.

There was even donmestic terror from this group of fanatics. A number of people in Miami who said the wrong things were crippled or killed by them.

The answer to Kennedy's assassination lies in all this, which is why we still do not have all the information, and we may never have.

Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | 12 Apr 2008 16:21:20

There is very little in life today that is not an addictive drug and we all take them like it or not!
I think it's time we had something more grown-up to blog about!

Posted by: Wayne Peters | 12 Apr 2008 23:17:46

It is curious that here in the U.S., the public feels it is entitled to know every detail about a politician's physical condition but is totally uninterested in the state of his cognitive faculties. Thus, we had Reagan in the early stages of Alzheimer's, a vice-presidential candidate in 1996 who boasted of having suffered 12 concussions, a current president with a history of substance abuse who claims to be channeling God, a vice-president who has suffered 4 heart attacks, any one of which could have caused brain damage and a 71-year-old presidential candidate who shows signs of what can most charitably be described as confusion. But who would dare suggest that candidates for such high office be required to undergo neurological - much less neuropsychological - screening?

Posted by: f roberts | 13 Apr 2008 00:06:37

Whether JFK's presidency is remembered by his medical condition and over medication, moral weaknesses, or his complete unpreparedness for the presidency, he was the man who almost caused the world to lurch and fall into nuclear disaster.

While his performance is credited for saving the world during the Cuban mess, his incompetence caused the crisis, and he and the world, was saved by Kruschev's memory of a truly awful war.

The Soviets disposed of their incompetent and dangerous leader in, for them, a new way, and the Americans, in another way.

Frightening on any level might one wish to reassess the past.

Posted by: v j rannik | 13 Apr 2008 02:14:25

I'll be surprised if this new tome gets even a bare sniff here in the United States. The liberal media in this country so adored JFK and the entire clan, they're un likely to offer this book a sniff.
Heck, so many still gripe about Florida, 2000.

Posted by: Jason Dagostino | 13 Apr 2008 03:56:44

throw into the mix a blackmailing closet queen Hoover a crazy Howard Hughes a CIA working with the out of control Mafia bosses a few politician loving Hollywood stars and pumped up by sensationalist press corps, liberally funded by loadsa money from Joseph Kennedy, then followed by LBJ NIxon and Reagan and you wonder why the USA is in the crazy state it is in. The voters deserve all they get and they had better keep their heads down after BUSH retires to the ranch for a few beers-oh no a dry drunk that should never have been voted in- the rest of his people certainly deserve more than a few.

Posted by: DCoates | 13 Apr 2008 09:18:44

I sure as hell don't hope this turns into Kennedy bashing, because he was the best modern President. You know, voting to abolish the fraudulent Federal Reserve, CIA and FBI is a lot better than starting 2 illegal wars like Bush.

Posted by: anon | 13 Apr 2008 11:58:58

It is to bad the American public can't request drug tests from our elected officials. Isn't Being President more important then center fielder for the Yankee's. Maybe test results should be published whether the drugs are prescribed or not. A President on Xanax might be more apt to push a dangerous button. They will certainly be relaxed enough. Someone on prescription stimulants could lose their concentration when the effects of the drug wears off. No telling what might happen.

Posted by: Nathan Harris | 13 Apr 2008 19:32:36

I find it completely disgusting that you can be writing all this about a man who has been dead for so many years. I always thought there was a saying "never speak ill of the dead---". Do you do this because there is no one left to sue you ?
write about the living they can contradict you he can't.

Posted by: Jo Higham | 13 Apr 2008 19:38:36

Well, I don't know if President Kennedy was on drugs or not, but I do know that being an American is a very stressful position these days and those days. Any American who does not know this fact is so far in the sand that it would take China to pull them out.

Posted by: Dee | 13 Apr 2008 23:02:32

Many times I've asked older people about what it was like during Kennedy's Presidency. And usually it's the same answers. It was a different time. Everybody knew he was a player, had health problems and was on drugs. But the press looked the other way.

Today the press continues to do the same thing. The U.S. media is so corporate that reporters refuse to actually do their job. Aside from Seymour Hersh, can you name one mainstream media news person that would risk their multi-million dollar a year contract for a principle(actually being a journalist instead of a neocon mouthpiece)?

Posted by: Tom | 13 Apr 2008 23:54:04

the bay of pigs was not kennedies mess.It was vice president richard nixon. kennedy inherited that whole mess. in fact nixon is heard talking about it in whitehouse tapes whilst referring to E howard hunt,the watergate burglar and man in charge of the bay of pigs invasion.Kennedy actually fired the director of the cia alan dulles, he had threatened to take the cia apart. Allen dulles was later appointed to investigate the assassaination of jfk.kennedy signed the preliminary withdrawal of 1000 american personal from vietnam with more to follow.That was reversed by johnson less than six month after kennedy was killed. Documents show that kennedy had opened up diplomatic channels with castro in mid 1963. Look up "operation northwoods" on the library of congress or nsa website. Its a plan to attack us military and citizens and blame it on the cubans as a pretext to attack them.Did you guys know that kennedy had opened a diplomatic back channel with castro through a journalist that both men knew with the view to relaxing relations between the two nations again mainstream news (london guardian)

Why does this man not write a book about how george bush's grand father prescott bush was known to be a nazi who was involved in planning a coup d etat against FDR Thats bbc mainline news.

Posted by: simon lomax | 14 Apr 2008 00:09:58

I hope everyone keeps this in mind while voting for McCain, who refuses to release his medical records. I realize this is slightly ageist, but with his history and age, that concerns me.

Posted by: Tony | 14 Apr 2008 00:13:53

Duh, JFK and Jackie both took speed, lots of respectable people did back then. It was for energy or diet.

Posted by: jen hutchin | 14 Apr 2008 01:15:25

Give me Kennedy and his inspiring speech, intelligence and sadly short reign rather than the ignorant, shortsighted, and dangerous shruboy who would rather have a brew in his hands rather than making intelligent, insightful, and honorable decisions on behalf of the great honor bestowed on him by Kathleen Harris and the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas has really paid back those who put this mediocre simpleton into office). Reagan, the godhead of the republican party, was making major decisions with Alzheimers and according to his wife's channeler's and astrological forecasts - now these guys are REALLY scary.

Posted by: Kate | 14 Apr 2008 02:04:50

Thank goodness I was in the Bitish military in one of our outposts(Aden)when all this was going on!Not much in the way of news in those days!

Posted by: Ken Rochester | 14 Apr 2008 02:56:08

From John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada...

"Of course, whatever Kennedy hid from the public, it was pretty small compared to FDR's being elected four times without the public's even knowing he was crippled and condemned to a wheelchair."

Roosevelt's condition (polio) wasn't a secret and much of the public did know, actually. But FDR insisted it not be made an issue. His opponents and the press obliged. And the public in general never considered it a detriment or flaw that affect his leadership and policies. His disability was well know, yet managed skillfully.


Posted by: Stein | 14 Apr 2008 03:03:34

Okay, so that explains Kennedy's odd moments; but then what in the world are they shooting into Dubya? Stupid Juice? Dumberry Extract? Whatever it is, please stop before he invades Iran to help them gain the same high standard of living that he's brought to the Iraqis. Yikes!

Posted by: Diogenes | 14 Apr 2008 05:07:43

How about some facts? All I see here are rumour, (I spelled it the British way in deference to The Times), and innuendo.

Lacking verifiable facts I would deem this material to be rubbish.

Posted by: MIKE in NYC | 14 Apr 2008 05:41:40

Lincoln probably did suffer from what would be clinically called depression, however by 1860 he had mastered the ailment. There is no evidence that depression influenced any of the key decisions of the Civil War.

In other ways the depression is understandable as a deep sadness - he lost his mother at age 9, his mother-surrogate (a beloved sister) at age 19, his first love at age about 25, and later on two of his sons. Twice in his early life his friends feared for his sanity and mental health at crisis moments in his life (the death of his sweetheart, the temporary breaking-off of his engagement), but each time he recovered without anyting that we would recognize as therapy or pharmaceutical treatment.

Posted by: Toby | 14 Apr 2008 07:50:58

Believe me, American Presidents have gotten away with far more than we will ever know, be it with their personal lives or with policy issues. And most of the time, the media had full knowledge of the coverup (see FDR's polio, Kennedy's countless problems), and actively participated in said coverup. And I second the comment about Kennedy's luck in being killed when he was; as morbid as that sounds, if he had to run in 1964, there's a good chance he could've lost. Instead, he's an American hero.

Posted by: Zach T. | 14 Apr 2008 11:35:52

OK, so Kennedy had an excuse: constant pain and drugs. What is David Owen's excuse for being such a useless pompous smug middle-class twit masquerading as a statesman!!!!

Posted by: Joe Greene | 14 Apr 2008 12:12:18

Ah, but did Kennedy swallow? In the best of Democrat traditions, of course. The pills, I mean. I don't know about Monika Lewinsky, but Clinton didn't certainly didn't inhale...

Posted by: Julian Cox | 14 Apr 2008 12:26:25

With reference to the Cuban Mis. Crisis: I worked at a research institute with a group of people with contracts to the military. There summary of the situation, "America would only have lost 35 million people in a full scale nuclear exchange, but we would have really flattened the USSR." So, that was their idea of winning - only 35 million of our own people dead. Good thing the USSR had the sense to back down. However, at that time the USSR only had a few nuclear capable missiles that were liquid fueled, meaning they would only be gassed up in times of crisis. After this humiliation, they started a massive building program that left the USA in a much less safe position, if a war ever occurred. Kennedy was an irresponsible jerk. This was shown by his irresponsible drug use, his affairs with hundreds of women, including a known Soviet spy, and his military adventurism. The world is lucky to have survived as well as it did. If not for the USSR, we would be having plenty of babies without eyes all over the planet, not just in Iraq.

Posted by: David Stodolsky | 14 Apr 2008 13:03:55

Stein, you are just wrong.

Roosevelt's condition was carefully guarded from public scrutiny, so much so that there are echoes today.

In finally building the Roosevelt memorial in Washington some years back, it became a huge issue whether the sculpture of Roosevelt should show any indication of his wheel chair.

The sculptor designed it to show something but not feature it. Many voices wanted the chair completely hidden.

I am glad those in favor of showing something finally won out. Roosevelt was a genuinely heroic figure in his fight against paralysis, and it is far more moving to see it.

Of course, some small number of people knew he was crippled. How could they not catch the odd glimpse of him being wheeled around or carried?

But it was always hidden in the press and in official government literature. And without the press picking something like that up, it may as well not exist.

You should understand that in our own day. How many realities are kept out of the press, even though limited numbers of individuals may know about them?

Kennedy’s diseases were only one small example.

The fourth 9/11 plane over Pennsylvania was certainly shot down – witnesses and physical evidence are very powerful – yet all you ever see in the press or films is nonsense about “Let’s roll!”

The ridiculous assertion that Oswald alone shot Kennedy with a crappy 1941 Italian bolt-action rifle has been repeated countless times, yet anyone who takes the trouble to go through the evidence knows it is nonsense.

American soldiers’ horrific acts of murder and bestiality in Iraq have been kept as quiet as possible, even though there are many who know about them. The worst pictures of Abu Ghraib, showing the rape of children and murder, were suppressed by the Senate and the Pentagon.

And what about the three thousand Afghan prisoners who disappeared, shortly after Rumsfeld made his Nazi-like statement in 2001 that the prisoners should be executed or walled away forever? So far as we know, thanks to film-maker Jamie Doran, they were driven out on the desert in vans to be suffocated while American soldiers and CIA agents watched. Do you believe that even one-tenth of one percent of Americans know this?

Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | 14 Apr 2008 14:01:35

Lincoln's depression is well documented. It has been glossed over or minimized by American historians, always ready to keep America's historical figures in freshly-washed robes of white.

Truly critical looks at his symptoms actually point to something more serious than mere conventional depression.

There are at least two candidates for his condition: Marfan Syndrome or, something worse, Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 2b.

By the way, his wife Mary almost certainly suffered from a moderate case of schizophrenia. Her symptoms are classic, and her strange behaviors often made Lincoln miserable and embarrassed.

That's why her son kept her institutionalized the last part of her life. Of course, the popular interpretation was that she was so miserable after husband's terrible death.

Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | 14 Apr 2008 14:16:32

Mike in NYC,

Why do you ask others to do your homework for you?

Space and time here hardly allow for foot-noted essays, as you should appreciate.

If you are genuinely interested, it's easy enough to Google up some references.

Maybe you could even read a book?

Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | 14 Apr 2008 14:29:59

Please please please, give me Kennedy on drugs over Bush 'clean and sober.' I don't minimize the backstage squalor of Camelot, but in seven years Bush has externalized his inner chaos on the world.

And look at it.

Posted by: Gene Ritchings | 14 Apr 2008 15:49:27

It's probably a very interesting read but it's hardly news is it? I studied the Kennedy era at university and many books on JFK has at least one chapter on his "drug abuse" and the treatments he received from the controversial Max Jacobson.

Posted by: Marie | 14 Apr 2008 16:24:28

"recurrence of his urinary tract infection" Not hard to guess, how he got that ?;-)

Posted by: CAT | 14 Apr 2008 17:14:04

John Chuckman in Toronto -

It's not my job to verify these allegations. I didn't write the piece. The writer, when making such serious allegations, has an absolute obligation to cite sources. Without verifiable, credible sources we are left with nothing more than rumour, innuendo and baseless allegations.

In fact, shame on The Times for printing this rubbish.


Posted by: MIKE in NYC | 14 Apr 2008 22:59:13

When the doctor's office was open, it was a steady stream of who's who of all walks of life and it was the best of times becase of "JAKE" which is what the mixture of B-12 vitamins and speed was and the politicians from the right and the left were ALL getting injections and those who paid got a good sized bottle of it for a not bad price in those days.It is no secret that Mrs. Kennedy and all of the women of the clan used it for staying slim and the same for actresses.It was a magical mixture of "vitamins" and nobody questioned if there were drugs in it.Innocent times for sure, but, I would have to admit if it were available, I would have a shot once a week as would almost any person who wasn't "hooked".

Posted by: W.SENNIT FORD | 15 Apr 2008 03:13:32

How typical to read lefties make excuses for a fellow liberal hooked on drugs DURING his presidency, while bashing Bush for having a drinking problem well before he was in office. Certainly, had a liberal president overcome alcoholism earlier in life, he'd be hailed as a role model for having conquered addiction. Alas, the deeply-biased double standard is on full display.

Posted by: Bea | 15 Apr 2008 08:15:14

JFK was and is my hero.

Posted by: Lord Stirling | 15 Apr 2008 09:34:26

Great, smear Kennedy now so any comparison of Barrack Obama to him will make Barrack look bad. Look, its amazing, Journalists trying their best to change history to suit their political wants.

Posted by: Hunter | 15 Apr 2008 11:21:31

From a Englishman's point of view I would place Harry S. Truman as the best President of the United States since World War Two. Very little seemed to be knowm about him; an unknown quantity to the world when he hung up his hat in the White House. But the world soon found out how tough and decisive he would turn out to be within months, over the use of nuclear weapons, handling the then Soviet Union, Korea; the removal of General MacArthur. Clear and decisive indeed. The buck well and truly took root on his desk.

Posted by: Tony Cox (Mr) | 15 Apr 2008 11:32:38

hmm interesting if any of these allegations are 100% true. almost any of these can be accounted for by looking from a different point of view. people seem to be looking for the perfect president or at least a man who had no problems at all in relation his physical and mental status. but a man is just a man and all that matters is whether the choices they made were the correct ones not precisely what it was that affected these decisions, as there would be too many issues at any one time to accurately prove this. eg taking some sort of drugs affected jfk's judgement and absolutely nothing else did.

Posted by: foggers | 15 Apr 2008 12:38:44

Being premier of the US during The Bay of Pigs would give anyone "constant and acute diarrhoea"!

Posted by: Paul | 15 Apr 2008 13:57:44

Hey guys, lets fly to the moon!

- Yep, that man was on drugs alright!

Posted by: Adrian | 15 Apr 2008 16:25:17

That's nothing compared to our present president!
Drug use doesn't discount you from being the president, only important things like playing baseball

Posted by: Grant | 15 Apr 2008 18:53:32

Are we forgetting that Winston Churchill was bipolar, with a minder at times to make sure he didn't do something too foolish while hypomanic.

And yet Churchill was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century - far more impressive than Kennedy.

Oh, and I say this as an American.

Posted by: John Moore | 15 Apr 2008 21:43:48

Hi Guy`s love your golf courses hate your politics!I`m sure J.F.K. Did what he felt was correct at the time, If that was drug induced he made a god call! Because the big bang! never happend!At least not outside the bedroom!

Posted by: Mick in England | 15 Apr 2008 23:40:11

Dr David Owens books looks interesting but there seems to be a lot of guesswork and hearsay contained with the extract.

I agree with the suggestion made that Leaders should have independent medical tests.

It would be a good idea if this was raised in the commons.
The issue of privacy for the individual is of course important but given the responsibilities of the office, could this be the exception that proves the rule.

The other problem is that some restraint would need to be shown by the media which is highly unlikely. Can you imagine how the meda would treat any results? blood presure too high - not fit to lead, slightly overweight - not an example to todays country.

A balance would be needed in the scope of the medical and the publishing of the results.

Others could tell me but don't American presidents already have published medicals every so often

Posted by: Ben | 16 Apr 2008 00:59:22

The so called "rubbish" published above, actually has more news that I care about (i.e.), former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's hidden agenda......
YOUTUBE is one source I have gone to for facts. This is how I got there. Use Iraq, Marines, and War for keywords. Now watch the video of our Marines "picking off" unarmed Iraqi motorist's from a roof-top. Clearly, not a hostile target. But then, don't take my word for it. Watch it yourself!!That is proof.
Mike in NYC, rubbish is the local news claiming to keep us safe by tuning in everynight. One more thing Mike, your comments sound just like G.S.A. officials. Deny and discredit.

Posted by: Mark Leonard | 16 Apr 2008 10:59:52

JFK is deceased. What he did then, was then. What I need more is current events. And not about if the President smoked Cannibus or getting personal attention below the belt, but more like how much of our tax dollars are sent to Columbia to fight the costly and futile war on drugs.( a kid can buy drugs in school easier than attempting to puchase beer or cigs. My own experience in Highschool.) So .... John from Canada, Good stuff.

Posted by: Mark Leonard | 16 Apr 2008 11:36:50

It shows you the level of ignorance you have to deal with when Youtube is cited as the ultimate proof!

Posted by: Andy | 16 Apr 2008 12:19:12

The permanent tan that JFK had is actually a side effect of Addissons as it results in the destruction of the adrenal gland which converts melanin into cortisol. Melanin then builds up in the skin. As it "tans" areas of skin that arent exposed to the sun this is usually the first sympton of Addissons that it noticed.

Posted by: BobbyTheBadgeroo | 16 Apr 2008 12:41:00

Napoleon reminds us that "...the winners write the history."

Jimpager

Posted by: Jim Page | 16 Apr 2008 13:28:08

I liked the post by John Moore when he made a reference to his American citizenship. Indeed, was not the old warhorse Winston Churchill himslf, half American on his mum's side? Her, a member of the highly respected Jerome family of Brooklyn?

Posted by: Tony Cox (Mr) | 16 Apr 2008 16:22:11

All US presidents are required to display some form of insanity in that they must believe in an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing sky monster with an insatiable need for blood and cash money. In some cases, such as that of George Bush, they even claim that this invisible being speaks to them, though of course never loud enough that anyone else can hear it. What could be a more obvious sign of insanity than an adult with invisible friends?

Posted by: Doug | 17 Apr 2008 04:23:27

The bay of pigs incident was launched by the CIA independantly of Kennedy. Who was at the time trying to curb the CIA and their anti castro cubans.

Posted by: UCHIKOMA | 17 Apr 2008 08:56:01

Perhaps they should all take a leaf out of the ancient Perians' book. They are reputed never to have made a decision sober unless they had also discussed it whilst drunk - and vice versa. At the very least, it would make for a much more interesting House of Commons debating technique and might even get more voters watching.

Posted by: KR | 17 Apr 2008 12:24:30

Khruschev wrote in his own memoirs that he was impressed by Kennedy at the Vienna meeting. Kennedy rubber stamped the Bay of Pigs, believing, as he was told, the operation was well planned and America's hand would be hidden. It was, after all, a "covert operation." The book seems to be a lot of old crap. No factual foundation for most of the claims. If it were true, they should find out what JFK was taking and shoot Bush full of it. Bush seems to be the one on drugs. Bush forgets what he is talking about in mid sentence. Its too bad we don't have a President in the US like Kennedy today.

Posted by: Bunk Buster | 19 Apr 2008 02:10:38

Hmm it is not working, JFK is still my hero.

Posted by: Lancer | 6 May 2008 20:33:48

Bay of Pigs WAS well planned. Kennedy canceled air support at the last minute. Either he should have called the whole thing off (he was PRESIDENT after all, you know: CIC of the Military, CIA, and FBI) or let the operation go as planned. Further, he didn't tell the Cubans who were invading that he wasn't going to send air support.

Posted by: rabidfox | 25 May 2008 04:04:52

John F Kennedy is human. We all have imperfections. He must have had reasons behind his decisions that was not obvious, or that we'll never know.

All of this aside, I still love JFK. This is my opinion.

______________________________
Emery Goldings
Suffering from an addiction. This website has a lot of great resources and treatment centers.
www.treatmentcenters.org

Posted by: Emery Goldings | 4 Jun 2008 06:03:32

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Your Writers

  • Daniel Finkelstein is Chief Leader Writer of The Times and writes a weekly column. Comment Central is his rolling guide to the best opinion on the web. Click here for more information on the blog. Alice Fishburn, the Online Comment Editor, will also be posting.

    Send us an E-Mail

    News from Times Online

    • UK News
    • Crime News
    • Education News
    • Environment News
    • Health News
    • Political News
    • Science News
    • World News
    • Iraq News
    • US News
    • Europe News
    • Middle East News
    • Asia News
    • Africa News
    • Technology News
    • Business News

Feeds

  • Click for RSS 2.0 feed

three random posts