For some time I’ve been aware  of Fletcher Prouty, and that he had a story to tell in the JFK assassination. He was mentioned in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK (Donald Sutherland’s character “X”). He’s been in other books or articles about the assassination. Yet, I’d never read anything he actually wrote about it.

So, when I was at Barnes & Noble one time and saw his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, I naturally bought it. I had it for close to a year before it found its way to the top of the reading pile, a pile I haven’t had much success at reducing recently.

Alas, I was disappointed in it. All this time hoping he wrote about the assassination, only to find his book was barely worth reading.

First, his story. Prouty was in the Army Air Corps in WW2, having a variety of assignments during the war and right after. During the Cairo and Teheran conferences in late 1943, he was pilot for delegations attending the conference, particularly the Chinese delegation—all except for the Chinese leader, Chiang Kai Shek and his wife. He starts his narrative there, saying decisions made at the Cairo conference had implications in Vietnam and later. The Cold War, he said, started at Cairo and Teheran, when the USA and England teamed with the Chinese in silent battle against the USSR.

Then, he says he was aware that, when the Japanese surrendered, all the war materiel being accumulated on Okinawa had to go somewhere, and it was all taken to Hanoi to help Vietnam, then one country and led by Ho Chi Mihn, in its war against the lingering French colonists. That materiel would eventually be used against the USA.

The problem, Prouty said, was the US intelligence services, first the OSS then the CIA, ventured far outside the field of intelligence gatherings into covert operations. In Vietnam, those operations were keeping things fomenting in a country that was, at best, loosely a country in fact, so that attention would go there. The domino theory of nations falling to the communists was but a smokescreen for the CIA’s real work, says Prouty.

It’s all tied in to the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. The CIA keeps things roiling in different parts of the world. The USA needs to be prepared, so keeps buying military hardware. Industrialists thus profit, and taxpayers lose. That sort of makes sense, but I don’t believe he fully makes the case.

As I’m reading, I’m wondering how this ties to the JFK assassination. Prouty finally gets to that. He makes a big deal about a National Security Memorandum which shows that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam, a slow withdrawal from our troop strength of 16,000 down to none over a three year period. This went against what the CIA, by this time a strong power in the government, wanted. So they assassinated Kennedy, who had said in casual conversation he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces.

Prouty doesn’t make his case well. Oh, he talks about this agent and that, this operation and that, showing how they weren’t meant to do anything but promote unrest in Vietnam. But he doesn’t say how the CIA accomplished the assassination. How was Oswald involved, or was he involved at all, if it was a CIA plot? Who were the shooters, and how did they get away unseen? How is it that the Warren Commission uncovered none of this? An enquiring reader wants to know.

Prouty’s book is poorly written. The NSM mentioned earlier is covered over and over in the book. Each time Prouty gives us the full story about it. He’ll say something like “…as covered in NSM #268, which concerned troop withdrawals from Vietnam by the end of 1964…” He does this over and over. It’s as if he doesn’t trust his readers to read about this NSM the first time and understand what it covered thereafter throughout the book. He does this over and over, acting as if his readers were two yea- olds who needed to have the same thing explained to them many times. He does this with many things in the book.

He had some important things to say, but, having finished the book back in August of this year, those important things are already fading from my memory. And that’s not a good testimony for a non-fiction book.

If I could talk with the author, I would say, “Mr. Prouty, sir, you blew it. You had a good story to tell—at least I think you do, but you got off in the weeds and didn’t trust your readers. Hence, I can’t recommend your book.”

Who should read this? Only die-hard Kennedy assassination researchers and students who want to leave no related book unread.

This book will stay on my shelf, with other Kennedy books. I might even read it again, in my retirement, and see if I can glean more and better information from it. For right now, it’s going to get a mere two-stars from me on an Amazon and Goodreads review.

Some time ago (meaning at least a year) I picked up a copy of Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial: Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? The price on the dust jacket is $22.95, but I know I didn’t pay that for it. It was published in 1991. I imagine I got it at a thrift store for a couple of bucks.

Was it a good purchase? Absolutely yes, so long as the price was under $5.00. I’ve read a lot of Kennedy assassination books. And I’ve known of Mark Lane for a long time. He was first into the market, in 1964, with a book-length critique of how the assassination investigation was being handled. Rush To Judgment is highly thought of by those who are convinced that the Warren Commission got it wrong.

The book is about a trial that was held in 1985, when E. Howard Hunt, former CIA agent of Watergate fame, sued the organization Liberty Lobby for an article that appeared in 1978 in their magazine Spotlight, the article saying that Hunt was in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. The issue had been tried before, in 1981, with a verdict for Hunt and an award of $650,000.

But that verdict was set aside on a technicality. In the re-trial, Lane represented Liberty Lobby. The jury returned the opposite result this time: Liberty Lobby didn’t defame Hunt by publishing the article.

Lane’s approach was different than the first trial. First he had to set aside a ruling that the defense agreed Hunt wasn’t in Dallas that day. This he did successfully. Then he argued a strategy that Hunt almost certainly was in Dallas that day. Or, if he wasn’t, he couldn’t remember exactly where he was when he first learned about the assassination, and the memories of his three children, who at the time were old enough to carry those memories with them to adulthood, were aghast at what their dad might have done.

Lane’s conclusion: Hunt wasn’t with his children in the hours after the assassination. Where was he? Lane argues “in Dallas”. Doing what? Probably not pulling the trigger, but somehow superintending or aiding in the conspiracy to kill the president.

Lane, a practicing attorney at the time, goes somewhat deeply into the legal issues, the rules of evidence, the effect first trial decisions had on the second, nuances of depositions and cross-examinations. It was a little long for my liking, but not excessively long. I think Lane could have ditched about twenty pages of legal processes without hurting the book.

I found Plausible Denial informative. I learned a number of things I didn’t before. I’ve known for a long time that the CIA has been suspected of taking out the president, but didn’t really know why people thought that. Thanks to this book, I do now.

Lane’s argument to that: Hunt was CIA (before and after working at the White House for Chuck Colson); he was well-versed in covert operations; if Hunt was in Dallas that day but didn’t have a reason to be there such that he needs to hide the fact, then it must be a CIA operation. Lane makes the case much better in his 384 pages than I have in this paragraph.

On Amazon, I will give this book 4 stars. One star is removed for the excess legal discussion, and for the lack of sources. Some of Lane’s discussion comes off as speculative rather than factual. Still, it’s a good book.

Who should read it? If you’ve not read anything about the JFK assassination, this is NOT the book to start with. Any number of other books would be better. But this could be third or fourth on your list.

For me, this is a keeper, along with my other books on the subject (which includes Rush To Judgment, which I’ve yet to read). I will likely read it again during my retirement, when I will put my JFK library in a pile and read them back-to-back.

Last June I picked up a copy of Perfectly Imperfect: Character Sketches From The Old Testament in the bookstore in the exhibit hall during the quadrennial General Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene. I finished reading it last weekend, not having started reading until the last week in September. Dr. Busic’s point, that God uses imperfect people, is well made in the book. In each of 13 chapters he focuses on people and how they formed part of God’s plan, despite having flaws.

On the bookstand, it looked attractive to me as a possible Life Group study series. The author, David A. Busic, is a General Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene. While I had the book tucked under my arm and was still browsing the bookstore, my pastor walked up to me, and we began talking. He asked what I was buying. I showed him, and said I was buying it in hopes it could form the basis for a Life Group lesson series. He said he’d read it, and it would make a great Life Group book. In fact, he said, he had used it for some sermons, and as I read it I might recognize some things he’d said in sermons. On that recommendation, I bought the book.

So now, having read it, two questions come to mind: How do I rate it? And will I use it for a Life Group series?

I have a hard time rating this. Busic gave me reasons for lowering my review, and some for raising my review. Here are some specifics.

• Forward and Preface are present, and a little long. Lose 1 star. Dr Busic is well enough known that no Forward is necessary, and it’s presence is distracting. As for the Preface, it was more Acknowledgements than Preface, and was also distracting.
• Conversational style of writing. Lose 1 star. Now down to 3 stars. Maybe some people like that conversational style, but not me so much. I believe the book was written for Gen Xers and Millenials, not a crotchety, aging Baby Boomer. That’s okay. All books can’t appeal to all people.
• The treatment of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Lose 1 start (down to 2 now). This a passage I’ve studied and studied, taught in Life Group more than once, and heard sermons on about every two years. I disagree with some of his interpretation. Sorry, Doctor Busic, but that’s how it is. Explaining exactly what would take more words than this review should be.
• The chapter on Elijah and things I believe were left out. Lose 1 star (in oh, down to just 1 now). Again, this is a passage I’ve studied much, taught on, head in sermons much, and pondered. I was disappointed at things I believe Dr. Busic left out. Saying what would take a lot of time and too many words.
• His denigration of my home state, Rhode Island. Lose 1 star (Amazon won’t let you rate a book 0 stars). Yes, in Chapter 13, pgs 174 and 176, he talks derisively about Rhode Island, using it to represent weakness. I guess he knows there aren’t many Nazarenes in Rhode Island, so he figured he wouldn’t have many Little Rhody readers. Well, he got this one, and he loses a star as a result. Actually, Busic uses RI in a playful manner, not a denigrating manner. Still, as a Rhode Islander (I may have left the state 43 years ago, but I’m still a Rhode Islander), I have no choice to deduct a star. And, I’m being a bit playful myself with this comment.
• Incorrect use of the logical concept “Beg the Question” on page 105. Lose 1 star. C’mon, Doc. You don’t know what “beg the question” means? It doesn’t mean “demand the question be answered,” or “bring the question to the table for consideration”, which is how you use it. It means to avoid answering the question. Common usage by ignorant people is resulting in a cheapening of this important logical concept, and you just jumped on the bandwagon. Shame, shame.
• Excellent treatment of Esau, Isaac, and Stewgate. Add 1 star. Yes, Chapter 4 is well written, informative, illuminating. Good work.
• Excellent treatment of Nehemiah and the wall building project in Jerusalem. Add 1 star (back up to 1 star in aggregate). He brought out some things I’d never considered, and has spurred me on to study the passage more.
• Good discussion on Nabal, Abigail, and David in chapter 10. Add 1 star (back up to 2 now). I won’t say “excellent”, because I believe some concepts are left out, concepts another Bible teacher has focused on that I agree with. I think the chapter would have been stronger with a couple of paragraphs added on these things, but the chapter is good as is. While I could say that this only adds half a star, I could also say that the star I took away concerning the sacrifice of Isaac also should have been just half a star—so it washes out.
• Moses and the glory of God in Chapter 6. Add 1 star (up to three). We did a comprehensive study on Moses in Life Group a few years back, and it is still much on my mind. Dr. Busic covered this well. I enjoyed this chapter, perhaps best of all in the book.

As to such things as length of chapters, length of book overall, layout and design, ease of read, etc, the book gains another half star. So, I rate it 3.5 stars out of 5. Since Amazon and Goodreads won’t allow half stars, when I post the review there it will be a 3-star review.

This book will remain in my library, though how much I’ll re-read it in the future is a question. After reading the book, I felt that turning into Life Group lessons will be harder than I expected. Still, I’ll do the lessons, and will keep the book, for now.

It’s probably a dangerous act to review a Pulitzer Prize winning book. But that’s what I’m going to do. Some years ago my son gave me a copy of All The King’s Men by Robert Penn Warren. Published in 1946, it won the Pulitzer in 1947, and was made into a movie in 1949 and again in 2006. I haven’t seen either movie.

Alas, I didn’t like the book. I would almost say I hated it, but that would be too strong. If I were going to review it on Amazon, I’d rate it only 2-stars.

Sacrilege! This book was judged by a panel of experts to be the best novel in 1946. On the back cover of the copy I have, it says many judge it to be the best novel ever on American politics.

Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The book opens in a very complicated manner. Jack Burden, the protagonist, is working for someone called “Boss.” We learn Boss is the governor of the unnamed Southern state, Willie Stark. Willie was a small town lawyer who became governor. They are being driven by a driver called Sugar Boy, a stutterer who seems to be uneducated, but can drive fast and expertly. The present in the book is sometime during the Great Depression, when Willie is somewhere beyond his first term as governor. Those in know say Willie Stark is patterned after Huey Long, once governor of Louisiana. What I know about Long, I can see that in Stark.

Herein lies my biggest problem with the book. What is the time frame? It starts in one year, jumps back to some time I could never figure out, jumps forward but not to the time it started at, jumps back again but not to where it did the first time. By the end of the first chapter, which is at least 60 pages long (as are all the chapters in the 650 page book), I was so confused I set it aside, not sure if I would pick it up and read it or not.

In the author’s defense, I must say that I often read in distracting circumstances, and I did so for most of this book. The TV is on. The phone rings, and even if it doesn’t produce a conversation, it takes me out of the reading for a short while. People are wanting my time, I have a to-do list that’s so long I know I shouldn’t be reading, etc. But that first chapter…I felt as if I was on a rollercoaster, or the Wildcat back at Rocky Point Park, a ride I hated—and never rode it again after the first time. As an author, I understand how flashbacks are effective, and flash forwards are too. But backwards—half-forwards—half-backward—somewhere I don’t know where…well, this just leaves me with whiplash, and a queasy stomach.

This was especially so because of the long chapters. I can’t dedicate a large enough chunk of time to reading to read a 60 or 70 page chapter in one sitting. I’m lucky to get 10 pages done, and I usually set that as an evening’s goal. But with the first ten pages leaving me hopelessly confused, the next ten pages not clarifying anything, and the third ten leaving me wondering why I was reading it, it’s a wonder I kept on.

Often, when I finish a book, I go back and reread the first chapter. I’ve found that authors often have clues in the first chapter as to what will come. Or, something confusing in the first chapter will have been clarified later, and by re-reading it I have a better understanding of the book as a whole. I should probably do that with this one: if not the whole first chapter, at least the first twenty or thirty pages. But, I don’t think I have the strength.

I appreciate the gift of this book, but it’s not a keeper. Before I toss it into the garage sale pile, I’ll check with my son to see if he wants it back. If not, goodbye Willie and Jack. Goodbye Sugar Boy, and love interest Ann Stanton. I’d like to say it’s been good knowing you, that I was entertained and enlightened by your antics. But I wasn’t.