j***@hotmail.com
2004-12-11 18:07:52 UTC
released
several "teaser" items about his upcoming book. In the past she
has also flacked for Tony Summers. What do those two writers have
that other Kennedy researchers, say John Newman, do not? They
have both pushed the angle that the Kennedys were somehow
involved with the death of Marilyn Monroe. Smith dutifully
mentions both authors in her Vanity Fair piece and writes, as
fact, that RFK was at Marilyn's the day she died. Exner herself
claims that Summers has offered to supply a new "foreword should
she write another book" and Smith sent Exner to see Hersh who,
predictably, also endorses her story.
In the article, Smith seems conscious of her questionable
qualifications to address the serious subjects of Kennedy and
Cuba and the Church Committee. Throughout, she sprinkles in
little aphorisms to neutralize any attacks. She quotes Oscar
Wilde (not famous for his history books) when she says that
history is merely yesterday's gossip. Later on she notes that
"today's gossip is tomorrow's headline," a bit self-serving
considering her profession. Rising to an Exner-like crescendo
near the end, she quotes the ancient Greek historian Herodotus,
who felt that history "is what people have said to me and what
I've heard, that I must write down." She leaves out the fact that
Herodotus did not have access to the National Archives, 3.5
million pages of newly declassified documents, and the on the
record testimony of the principals involved via Sen. Frank
Church.
Like the Washington Post and New York Times, Smith has her
hatchet out for the Church Committee. About the most extensive
investigation of the CIA and FBI ever, she says that it was a
"little nothing of a half-assed investigation," that the report
was written by "aides and underlings" and that they asked Exner
"rather pointless questions." She finishes th
several "teaser" items about his upcoming book. In the past she
has also flacked for Tony Summers. What do those two writers have
that other Kennedy researchers, say John Newman, do not? They
have both pushed the angle that the Kennedys were somehow
involved with the death of Marilyn Monroe. Smith dutifully
mentions both authors in her Vanity Fair piece and writes, as
fact, that RFK was at Marilyn's the day she died. Exner herself
claims that Summers has offered to supply a new "foreword should
she write another book" and Smith sent Exner to see Hersh who,
predictably, also endorses her story.
In the article, Smith seems conscious of her questionable
qualifications to address the serious subjects of Kennedy and
Cuba and the Church Committee. Throughout, she sprinkles in
little aphorisms to neutralize any attacks. She quotes Oscar
Wilde (not famous for his history books) when she says that
history is merely yesterday's gossip. Later on she notes that
"today's gossip is tomorrow's headline," a bit self-serving
considering her profession. Rising to an Exner-like crescendo
near the end, she quotes the ancient Greek historian Herodotus,
who felt that history "is what people have said to me and what
I've heard, that I must write down." She leaves out the fact that
Herodotus did not have access to the National Archives, 3.5
million pages of newly declassified documents, and the on the
record testimony of the principals involved via Sen. Frank
Church.
Like the Washington Post and New York Times, Smith has her
hatchet out for the Church Committee. About the most extensive
investigation of the CIA and FBI ever, she says that it was a
"little nothing of a half-assed investigation," that the report
was written by "aides and underlings" and that they asked Exner
"rather pointless questions." She finishes th