The Politics of Protection An Informal Review and Partial Rebutal by Vince Palamara Although known mainly for his impresive work in the RFK and MLK assassination cases, Prof. Phil Melanson published a little known and largely overlooked work on the Secret Service, The Politics of Protecton. This book places much emphasis on the JFK assassination and the post-Warren Commission changes made to it. It was highly regarded and had the full cooperation of the Secret Service's own Public Affairs Department --- which tells you something of the thrust of the book: it attempts to follow the beaten path of the Warren Commission and the HSCA by praising the agency's accomplishments, and glossing over its profound (deliberate?) failure in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. In other words, the old "JFK-as-scapegoat" theme, one also adopted by previous authors such as William Manchester and Jim Bishop, is alive and well in this work, which originally appeared in 1984 (Orwell, please take note). This article is distillation of a full review that was written several years ago, and circulated privately. Despite my strong views on his book, Melanson liked my review so much he sent me a letter THANKING me for the in-depth study! In the interest of sharing this with the research community, I feel it is appropriate to here detail the JFK-related portions of my full review, in the hopes of demonstrating how important it is to take the next step in one's research: using primary sources and interviews with the principal people themselves (in this case, the former Secret Service agents) and always questioning "official" history, especially that which arises from the "public affairs" departments of the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service. The chapter and page references herein refer to Melanson's book. Quoted passages, of course, indicate verbatim parts of the book, while unquoted passages and/or section heads indicate issues Melanson raises. My comments follow. * * * Chapter 3 (pp 38-52) "The organization's resources have grown impressively in the past two decades [1984]. Its budget has risen faster than inflation: from a mere $8 million in 1963 to $27 million in 1970, to $98 million in 1975, to its present [1984] level of $180 million. The Secret Service of the early 1960's had only 350 special agents and 170 uniformed officers, compared with today's [1984] 1800 agents and 900 uniformed officers. The White House detail which protected President Kennedy had 36 agents; the one protecting President Reagan has nearly twice that many [70]". Whether this could be construed by some --- and it has --- as being a motive for Secret Service complicity and/or cover-up is for the reader to decide. Agent Marty Venker said that this growth would make the Pentagon envious, while agent Rufus Youngblood said that, because of the assassination, the Secret Service is more appreciated by the taxpayers. p.41- Clint Hill retired in 1975 as SAIC of the White House Detail (at age 43) --- this was due to much survivor's guilt regarding the tragic events of 11/22/63. Hill is, without a doubt, the most publicized of any Secret Service agent, past or present. He is also a "poster boy" for survivor's guilt --- he is, more or less, a victim of the assassination (he has stated that it was his fault and that he should have reacted faster!). So, while the organization has grown remarkably since 11/22/63 ($, equipment, personnel), their "star" agent, Clint Hill, the one they decorated on 12/3/63 for bravery, took the fall: emotionally, physically, and publicly, covering for every other agent that served under JFK. CIA "As with personnel, the Service often borrows from other agencies"; "Traditionally, though secretively, the Service has received training and equipment from the CIA"; i.e. color-coded lapel pins ... [p.42] ... has received 'briefing/training' of a classified nature from the CIA." (CIA memo of 6/5/73.) "Although the precise nature and extent of Secret Service dependence upon CIA remains top secret, it is surely important given the Service's limitations of personnel and resources". p.49-" Agents study movies of assassinations and attempted assassinations --- the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's assassination, tapes of the two attempts on President Ford. They also study numerous assassination cases, both foreign and domestic, and analyze each one --- Robert F. Kennedy ... Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald..." Beltsville, MD facility- pp. 49-50-" The figures appear for different lengths of time and carry a variety of objects --- briefcases, UMBRELLAS, guns". p.67- "...tensions between the White House staff and the Service's White House detail were running high that year (1973), culminating in the REMOVAL of Agent Robert S. [sic-H.] Taylor as head of the detail. Taylor's departure was prompted by a rift between his detail and the Nixon staff [read Haldeman] concerning political priorities versus protective priorities". Dr. Melanson discusses a plot to assassinate Nixon in New Orleans (Aug. 1973) --- Secret Service asked Nixon to cancel motorcade; SS cancelled motorcade. Chapter 5 (pp. 74-87) James P. Kelly --- former Asst. Dir. of the SS. Kelly was also an investigator with the HSCA! Chapter 6 (pp. 88-122) p.99- On-the-road procedures; pp. 104-105- in case of attack- defense is the key; Secret Service training manual excerpts --- i.e., "look for persons who are acting unnaturally ... look for unnatural appearance of places, OBJECTS [umbrellas?], and situations". Chapter 8 (pp. 137-159) p.137- ".. there is no tradition of sacking the old Secret Service head when a new President takes office." (?) This is simply not accurate. The record during the JFK through Nixon years speaks for itself: 1961- Rowley replaces Baughman; 1965- Youngblood replaces Behn; 1971- Youngblood ousted by H.R. Haldeman (replaced by ?[Boggs?]); 1972- Knight replaces Rowley; 1973- Taylor and Duncan ousted by H.R. Haldeman p.142- "It is an unwritten law in Mexican politics that presidents can never appear in public with any barrier between themselves and their people- no bulletproof shields, no bubble-top cars, nothing" (?) JFK in Mexico, Summer of 1962: agents surround car (Behn punches out a 'beatnik' spectator to boot) [this is NOT the SX100]; using SX100, the bubble-top is ON the car AND agents are to the REAR of the limo... JFK in Caracas, Venezuela and Bogota, Columbia, 1962: using SX100, the bubble-top is on and agents are riding on the back of the limo... p.143-"...the press knows that the president has the political clout to pressure the Service into loosening up (?)" Rowley told the WC that "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do", and Baughman wrote in his book Secret Service Chief that the President knew that the Chief of the SS could countermand the Chief Executive when it came to security precautions and considerations... Melanson's title, The Politics of Protection, was adopted from Ken O'Donnell's remark to Jerry Behn, "politics and protection don't mix." This is pure moonshine: they CAN and MUST! This title was also adopted by the HSCA for their equally shallow chapter on the Secret Service. Chapter 9 (pp. 160-181): "Losing Lancer: the Secret Service's Worst Crisis" Here, Dr. Melanson relies on documents and Public Relations people, taken at face value. His sources: 1.WC "Memorandum of Conference" 3/13/64, 3 pages; 2.CD3, part 1,12/18/63- memo from Dillon to Warren, Section III; 3.Rowley Report- WC file #22 "Records Relating to the Protection of the President"; 4.other parts of CD3 p.160- Interference of Treasury Department lawyers with WC Report- Melanson writes (albeit briefly) about Treasury Dept. interference in the WC 'investigation', a little known fact that can be interpreted a few ways (like the agency's growth, the CIA help, and the training methods mentioned above). Examples include Fred Smith interfering with Winston Lawson's WC testimony, and the question of why Rowley addressed a report [with subheadings] to G. d'Andelot Belin, who he claimed was the General Counsel of the WC [he was not --- it was J. Lee Rankin, a man who was already in frequent correspondence/communication with Rowley] --- did he mean DAVID Belin, an assistant counsel of the WC [G. d'Andelot Belin was the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, and served as ACTING Secretary of the Treasury when C. Douglas Dillon was out of the country during parts of 1963 and 1964]? [See 18 H 810-815.] In addition, was Belford V. Lawson III (the lawyer in charge of the Secret Service area of investigation for the HSCA) any relation to WINSTON G. Lawson, the advance agent from Washington who was one of the major planners of security in Dallas for 11/22/63? p.161- Melanson's access to WC documents in the National Archives (see above )- This may have been a big deal in 1984, but not in 1998 --- I have these documents! p.162- The ever-popular "JFK-as-scapegoat" theme (ORIGINAL SS statements, Manchester, Bishop, WC, HSCA, etc. [it all originated FROM the SS])- Based on my many interviews/correspondence with 35+ former agents/White House aides, and the ten years passing since this book (more information in public domain, etc.), this theme is absolutely FALSE --- SAIC Behn, ASAIC Boring, Sam Kinney, Bob Lilley, and many others told me that JFK never ordered the agents to do anything and never interfered with their actions at all (the only thing he would do was wade into crowds so people could shake his hand)! In addition, Kenny O'Donnell didn't order them around, as far as security matters are concerned (whether he used them as butlers and 'go-fors', or even lookouts [as JFK's romantic dalliances dictated] is another story altogether...) "During a previous motorcade, Kennedy had made an exception and allowed his limousine to be flanked by police motorcycles, because of a specific threat to his safety discovered in advance by the Service"- What about the quality and quantity of FLANKING motorcycles in San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth on 11/21-11/22/63?!?! What about in Berlin and Ireland (June 1963)?! Talk to the agents (who told me JFK never said a thing about motorcycles to begin with!) and look at the newsreels. For what it's worth, the absence of these flanking motorcycles in Dallas on 11/22/63 by the Secret Service's orders was termed by the HSCA as being "UNIQUELY INSECURE". 'nuff said... The agents-on-the-limo stories- False. JFK NEVER ORDERED THE AGENTS TO GET OFF THE REAR OF HIS LIMO; even Dave Powers told me this! (WHY the SS handed the WC 5 reports stating the opposite is another story --- the originators of these April 1964 reports --- Behn and Boring --- totally refute them, as do many of their colleagues!) The Bubbletop- Although not bulletproof, several agents I spoke to said it WAS a deterent (it may deflect a bullet and/or blind an assassin's view via the sun's glare...just the fact that most people believed it was bulletproof was protection enough --- if someone draws a gun on you, would you say, "How do I know those aren't blanks in that thing?"). Most importantly, JFK DID NOT ORDER IT OFF --- Sam Kinney told me it was his SOLE decision, one that both he and Bill Greer lived with regret for many years afterward (Sam's report of 11/22/63 backs up his admission of sole responsibility). Ken O'Donnell- He did NOT order anyone in the Service to do anything, as far as security measures are concerned (and even if he did, he would have been outmanned, outmanuevered, and outranked, as was the fate with H.R. Haldeman) pp.162-163- "The president's protectors were not informed about the trip until political planning and publicity were well under way. The idea [originated in] ... El Paso". WRONG- Jerry Behn was WITH JFK, LBJ ,and CONNALLY in El Paso on 6/5/63 (as was the SX100 limo and many other agents)! Also: LBJ's April 1963 announcment of the trip which was carried in the newspapers; 9/26/63: official White House announcement (also in the newspapers); 10/4/63: Connally visits JFK in Oval Office- as if the SS wouldn't know about this (they installed and monitored the taping system which was implemented and in full operation during JFK's administration, as well- SAIC of PRS Robert I. Bouck, who I spoke with, installed and monitored the tapes from the EOB); 11/1/63: Connaly press conference; 11/4/63: ASAIC Boring notifies Lawson of the Dallas assignment (and the rest is history...) pp.163-164- Only on 11/4/63, Melanson writes, did SS find out about the Dallas trip (?!) and Trade Mart decision- While it is true that the Secret Service's SAIC of the Dallas office, Forrest V. Sorrels, was directed BY Behn, Connally was not adamant about this building as the site for the luncheon- his itinerary called for the Statler Hilton Hotel, and he is also on record as blaming the White House staff for this decision (O'Donnell). The Secret Service, which admitted that the Women's Building was a better site security-wise, was the likely culprit in making sure that the Trade Mart WAS the luncheon site: Rowley told the WC that Ken O'Donnell was to blame (just as O'Donnell was supposedly to blame for the removal of the bubbletop!!! sure...). For the record, ODonnell denies confirming the Connally itinerary, as confirmed by fellow advance man Jerry Bruno to James Reston,Jr. (He wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING!). O'Donnell was also blamed for LBJ's presence on AF!, but he vehemently denied this- it was a SS decision, as Mac Kilduff confirms; Rowley also stated that fellow advance man Jack Puterbaugh had a hand in (relaying) this decision, an allegation Puterbaugh DENIES-he had no involvement in this matter; Lawson blamed fellow advance man Jerry Bruno for the Trade Mart decision- Bruno steadfastly denies this (He also wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING!); According to Jerry Bruno, based off his 11/5/63 meeting with SAIC of WHD Jerry Behn, Behn also wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING- when Behn saw the catwalks in the Trade Mart (an excellent perch for snipers) , he said "We'll NEVER go there!"; On the same day that Sorrels conversed with Behn's office on 11/4/63, Lawson also conferred with Behn's office about the Trade Mart decision.However, unlike Sorrels, Lawson wasn't sure he actually SPOKE to Behn [4H337]- he DID receive the Dallas assignment from the man who shared Behn's office, FLOYD BORING, the agent who was in charge of the Dallas trip (and who was the primary source for the reports that went to the WC alleging JFK's "desires" in removing the agents from the rear of the limo, although Boring, as previously noted, joined his many associates in refuting these reports!) Conclusion? - While it's hard to be definitive, due to the inordinate amount of passing the buck going on here (especially by the Secret Service), it appears that, contrary to their knowledge that the Trade Mart was not as good as the Women's Building from a security standpoint, the Secret Service (Boring?) paradoxically gave the green light (to Lawson?) in going forward with the Trade Mart as JFK's luncheon speech site (which thus determined the speed of the route[s] and the specific security of the building) for reason or reasons not totally clear (unless one wishes to invoke a sinister explanation, in light of all the aforementioned buck-passing). Finally, Bruno told the HSCA that he believed that the WOMEN's BUILDING was initially selected as the final choice but, as HSCA Vol. XI pages 517-518 read," Bruno stated that the local agents in Dallas had decided to withdraw their earlier objections to the Trade Mart [SA Steuart, SAIC Sorrels], and instead recommended it. If any local agent did in fact make such recommendations despite Behn's prior decision on November 6 favoring the Women's Building, this would have presented a clear case of a subordinate agent contradicting the SAIC of the White House Detail". "The Trade Mart luncheon site dictated most of the motorcade route [true] , including passing through Dealey Plaza [probably true] and in front of the TSBD". Wrong- what about Main to Industrial?? And there WERE alternate routes (as Sam Kinney and Winston Lawson both told me [Lawson also told the WC the same thing])... "The final route was selected November 14". Wrong- why were the Dallas newspapers still talking about other routes? Why were there ALTERNATE routes, then? Even "officially", the route is usually fingered as being "selected" between 11/18 and 11/19/63 (as the two Dallas newspapers report for 11/19/63), coinciding with the arrival on 11/18/63 of advance agent David Grant from the Florida trip (JFK's final trip before the FINAL trip!). As LBJ aide Bill Moyers told the HSCA, it was AFTER the 11/18/63 meeting with the Secret Service that he gave his associate Betty Harris (who was working WITH the Secret Service, too) the green light to print/publish the motorcade route, which was ultimately based on this authority: what Moyers referred to as "the agent in charge of the Dallas trip"!!! Was he referring to FLOYD BORING? In the end, it doesn't really matter WHO the specific agent was: Chief Rowley told the Warren Commission (who, like some other people, took documents and testimony at face value) that the Secret Service does NOT release selected routes of presidential motorcades to the press and they did NOT in Dallas, a blatant lie: his own people did so! And it gets even better (or worse, depending on which way you look at it)... Also p. 164- "The precise route was published ... on November 19". While this is technically true, there is a devastating other side of the coin (and no, I don't mean the alternate routes): SAIC BEHN TOLD ME THAT THE HSCA ASKED HIM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 'WHY WAS THE ROUTE CHANGED', AND BEHN TOLD ME IT WAS INDEED CHANGED, BUT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE SPECIFIC REASON WHY! So, it appears that Gerald Posner and all the other sorry apologists for the Warren Commission and the Secret Service were wrong all along- what a shame... "There was no attempt to exercise any secrecy regarding the President's itinerary or the motorcade route"- Mostly true, but it was the SECRET SERVICE who had a profound hand in these events, which Rowley had the audacity to deny to the WC (see above). 11/18/63 meeting w/Sorrels, Lawson, and the Dallas PD. No mention of Lawson's oft-forgotten partner, David B.Grant (typical). "Police were to be assigned to each of the overpasses along the route to keep spectators off of them and thereby protect the president's open limousine from being hit with any falling objects". This was not adhered to in DEALEY PLAZA, despite Lawson's responsibility to see that it was done! p.165- "Dallas police were shown, and given samples of, the color-coded lapel pins worn by the Secret Service". Apparently they were shown much more than that- illicit Secret Service credentials made their way into Dealey Plaza, as verified by the accounts of 3 police officers and 4 spectators, not including Lee Harvey Oswald himself, who told Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley minutes before his own murder of running into an "agent" in front of the TSBD ... Gee, I wonder who could have provided this identification in the first place (former agent Abe Bolden confirmed to me that it was widely known in the Service that a 'lost or stolen' I.D. card found its way into Dealey Plaza, the prime motivator behind the redesign of the Secret Service commission books in January of 1964)! Standard line (by Dillon) about not watching the windows or checking buildings in advance or during the motorcades- Lawson told the WC AND the HSCA it was his "usual practice" to have the men watch the windows, as part of their normal scanning duties (DPD Captain Perdue Lawrence confirmed,sadly, that these orders were NOT given in Dallas). In addition, Chief Inspector Michael W. Torina told William Manchester in 1961 that whenever a motorcade must slow for a turn (such as the 120 degree, Secret Service-violating turn onto Elm Street, for example), the entire intersection must be checked in advance. No wonder Dillon got to chair the Dillon Committee of 11/22/64 (to oversee the SS) and the Rockefeller Commission - if you want a face value, superficial examination, he's your man... pp.166-167- doesn't mention the highly, perhaps uniquely, unusual nature of both JFK and LBJ being in the same slow-moving open vehicle parade together (which both Lawson [to the WC] and Bolden [to me] said was unusual), Kellerman's statement to the FBI (later denied, of course), that "the security measures employed were among the most stringent and thorough ever employed for the visit of a president to an American city", or DPD Curry's similar remarks which appeared in the Dallas papers BEFORE the assassination in regard to his men and their coordination with the Secret Service... The drinking incident of 11/21-11/22/63 Very good essay, following the lines of my research, however pp. 167-168-Rowley whitewash- Although the Secret Service manual specifically and unequivocally states that drinking while in TRAVEL STATUS (not even while "on duty")is grounds for removal from the agency, Rowley did not punish the offenders in any way whatsoever and his "claim...(was) based primarily upon the finding that none of the nine agents were in a position to have performed any action that might have saved the president, since none were in the pesident's car but ONLY (!) IN THE FOLLOW-UP CAR. ROWLEY TOLD THE COMMISSION THAT THE AGENTS INVOLVED WERE AWARE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR BREACH OF CONDUCT AND WOULD NOT DO IT AGAIN"- Clinton J. Hill (later to become SAIC of the WHD during the FORD years), Paul E. Landis, Jr., Glen A. Bennett, and John D. Ready (the CLOSEST agent to JFK from the follow-up car)- none of these men could have prevented the assassination?! What were they, then- merely hood ornaments? Also, who is Rowley fooling- they had a precedent for breaching conduct (as Abe Bolden told me) and agents Marty Venker and Dennis V.N. McCarthy later wrote about drinking on duty and in travel status committed by the agents during the 1970's and 1980's- give me a break! Finally, if not for the Secret Service's own fatal decision in not having agents posted on the rear of the limo, holding the handrails, JFK probably would have lived, having only received the non-fatal neck/back wound- the agents (particularly Ready) would have had 5 to 8 seconds to cover JFK before the fatal/final shot (not to mention what already being posted there would have done to the psyche/confidence of the assassin or assassins).If not for being intoxicated, Hill would not have arrived so damn late (it was Jackie who helped him- close study of the Zapruder film shows that Hill never touched Jackie, the person he was assigned to protect; Ready was assigned to JFK's side of the limo), and Ready would have made it in time. p.169- As stated above, Hill did not push Jackie back into the car! Also, what is perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that Emory Roberts, the SAIC of 'half-back', the follow-up car, ORDERED THE MEN NOT TO MOVE after recognizing the first shot as gunfire (one of the few Dealey Plaza witnesses to do so- most described the first shot as sounding like a firecracker,NOT a rifle blast)! Sam Kinney strangely confirmed this to me this year, and it's even in the reports of Ready and Roberts that Emory did recall Ready back to the follow-up car when he attempted to aid the striken president, although this was blamned on the speed of the limo [allegedly 20-25 mph] and the distance between both [approx. 25 feet], the limo was actually slowing down to a Secret Service violating 11.2 mph (this is an AVERAGE- it could be even less during the head shot) and the distance was only a scant 5 feet at the most (as verified in films/photos, Clint Hill's WC testimony, and Paul Landis' report). Without proper leadership from commander Roberts-without even so much as a measely shout of alarm or alert- the men on the follow-up car were further perplexed, and Roberts' bizarre order certainly did not help. Nevertheless, Hill took the initiative despite these orders (which could be why he was late) and the early morning drinks (ANOTHER reason why he was so late)- at least he tried (although he was assigned-like Landis- to the First Lady detail); I guess Ready "tried", too. But, please- to give a medal to Hill?! "There is no way to know whether any agent could possibly have reached the president, in the few seconds available [5.6 to 8+,depending on who you want to believe], in time to cover him or to somehow screen him from the final, fatal bullet..." SEE ABOVE; also, what about limo driver Greer who, despite a direct order from his superior sitting in the front seat a few feet away, does not speed up the car out of danger-in fact, Greer turned around not once but TWICE and can be seen in the Zapruder film looking directly at JFK when the fatal, final shot makes its mark (Greer denied looking at the President, slowing down, or turning back around [let alone twice] to the gullible Warren Commission under oath).The second turn around happened AFTER Kellerman told Greer to get out of line; as Kellerman told Manchester, "Greer then looked back in the car. Maybe he didn't believe me". Agent Marty Venker confirms what Mary Gallagher alludes to in My Life with Jacqueline Kennedy (not to mention C. David Heymann's book)-Jackie blamed Greer for not speeding up in time to save Jack! Kellerman, for his part, is no angel- why the hell didn't he at least TRY to get into the rear of the limo, something he admitted to the WC that no obstacle-including those in the limo used as excuses- would have made any difference had he felt he was needed back there (I guess he didn't "feel" the "need"...) Kellerman also claimed that JFK spoke ("My God! I am hit!" to the WC, "Get me to a hospital", the original version to the FBI), something no one else-including medical science- admitted taking place (JFK was shot thru the neck)! Finally, Kellerman claimed to have seen JFK reaching for a part of his back near the right shoulder, an action not recorded on any film, photo, or eyewitness account. It's time to stop making excuses for these clowns... p.170- "Of all the locations along the route, Dealey Plaza (Elm Street) had to rank as one of the most dangerous in terms of possible sniper fire"- No argument here. p.171- "INSTEAD OF THE 20 TO 30 MILES PER HOUR WHICH THE SECRET SERVICE LIKED TO MAINTAIN, the presidential limousine moved at only 11.2 miles per hour"- No argument here, either. But why didn't the Secret Service (Greer) pick up speed? The parade was basically over and they were heading toward the freeway and on to the Trade Mart; Kellerman said he began to relax here, while others conceded that the parade WAS over --- is this why the assassination took place here (food for thought)? Greer "had no special training..." He was trained just fine; also, he had plenty of experience. Finally, who needs "special training" --- even a snot-nosed 16 year old knows how to HIT THE GAS! Keep in mind that Greer DISOBEYED his superior's order to get out of line BEFORE the head shot arrived. More apologies continue: "Secret Service procedure in operation at this time did not allow Greer to accelerate or take evasive action ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE: he was supposed to wait for a command from his colleague seated next to him, Agent Kellerman". Boy, did Melanson set himself up here: Rowley told the WC and Kelley told the HSCA that the drivers WERE given proper trainig and instructions on what to do in this situation: Leave the area at once! Also, as stated above, he didn't need his own initiative- Kellerman DID give him an order-what's the story?! Maybe Robert Snow should have told Melanson that Greer was hard of hearing- he probably would have believed him!Melanson does somewhat redeem himself here, though: "But there was no action of any kind taken by either agent (Greer or Kellerman) during the 6 to 7 seconds that limousine rolled down Elm Street at a snail's pace". No physical, protective action --- right. But they both claimed to the FBI to have manned the radio in order to get the limo to the nearest hospital, among other things they later (conveniently) denied. p.172- Clifton C. Carter was an LBJ aide, NOT an agent! p.178-"In terms of protective performance during the shooting, THOUGH POLITICAL PRIORITIES HAD PREDETERMINED MUCH OF THE SITUATION-AN OPEN CAR WITH NO AGENTS ALLOWED ON THE RUNNING BOARDS-there appear to have been missed opportunities for immediate evasive and protective action that might have contributed to saving the President's life". Since EVERYTHING mentioned above were Secret Service decisions, the buck stops with them as to why THEY failed to protect their charge on 11/22/63... CONCLUSION: Although I have a lot of respect for Philip Melanson's work in general, he clearly dropped the ball here. While the book is well-written and well developed, there is so much of a reliance on secondary sources and/or official documents TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, that if one didn't know better, they would swear they were reading a booklet put out by the U.S. Secret Service's own Public Affairs Department. It appears that Robert did a "snow job" on Melanson; it would be like writing a book on RFK's assassination based on the statements and documents of the LAPD alone! By interviewing many former agents (several of whom were most definitely "hostile witnesses") and by looking at documents with an objective, SKEPTICAL eye, I have achieved in my own book what Melanson fails to do: reach honest conclusions that Public Affairs, personnel Miss Gordon, Mr. Snow, and Jane Vezeris may not like. I guess you can't bite the hand that feeds you, so to speak; by going through the front door ("Public Affairs") in researching his book, Melanson missed the truth sneaking out the back door. BOTTOMLINE: worth it for the other, non-JFK chapters. As I stated, Prof. Melanson loved my review --- here is his response: "Thank you for your exceedingly detailed and knowledgeable review/ rebuttal on The Politics of Protection. It is very precise and thought provoking. Clearly, it would have strengthened my analysis to have critically interviewed agents but I and my publisher [Praeger, the same one that put out his 1990 work "Spy Saga"] decided that for the first organizational portrait of the service, secondary sources would suffice. I was also enmeshed in more important (to me) investigative activities on the MLK and RFK assassinations and did not attempt to get to the bottom of the Secret Service's JFK role but only to raise questions about it. Again, thank you for sharing the impressive breadth and detail of your knowledge of these matters." Prof. Melanson echoed the same sentiments to me at the COPA conference in Washington, D.C., in October 1996. I sincerely appreciate his candor with me. * * * Copyright (c) 1998, by Vincent M. Palamara