In response to:

O'Reilly's Sweet Grapefruit

Context Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 7:55 AM
O'Reilly's coauthor, Martin Dugard, should get the credit for a reasonably terse writing style. As those of us who watch Billy on FNC know, O'Reilly is the bloviator-in-chief. He's one of the few journalists who not only interrupts his guests constantly, but who talks more than Chris Matthews. Thank God for the DVR - it allows me to fast forward through much of O'Reilly each night, missing his pontifications.
Milt37 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 2:33 PM
Context,

I agree that Dugard most likely deserves more credit than O'Reilly usually gives him for the Lincoln and Kennedy books. I've emailed him several times telling him that I refuse to read any 'history' book supposedly written by a guy who continually refers to our current century as if we were living in the second century A.D. "The election of 212...", "Back in 210..."

I have to admit I still DVR him for the entertainment value, and mostly the attractive women guests.

To claim that one has read a great deal about the assassination of John F. Kennedy is not unique. That's why the tragic day of November 22, 1963 led to a cottage industry of conspiracy books, non-conspiracy books, videos and movies. Best to say that the topic of Bill O'Reilly's new best-seller Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot has been one of intense interest to me for many decades.

Among the hundreds, more likely thousands, of books written on the subject, few provide an unbiased and compelling narrative of not only Kennedy's murder and the days surrounding it, but...