Top critical review
3 people found this helpful
Informative But Tremendously Biased
on May 22, 2009
The book was an interesting read and it was supposed to be a rant against Dubya so that's all good, but I find the author too often displayed what I thought was partisanship. Perhaps the former president should be tried as a war criminal, Mr B did all the research and I take him at his word in so far as the assertions he makes in the book, and if he's telling the truth than I'd be inclined to agree with the conclusion that Mr Bush and those around him at the time should be required to answer some hard questions. However, I think he goes out of his way to make Mr Bush look bad, even to the point of making things up. At one point, when talking about 911 and the fact that the White House did not respond to excessive chatter leading up to the event, he frames it as though he believes a bunch of evil men from a far away country flew airplanes into large steel frame buildings, causing them to collapse from the resulting fires and killing hundreds of people. I just find it hard to believe that a person with such intricate knowledge about such matters can possibly belive that story - I mean saying that there are mountains of indisputable evidence which suggest that, at the very least, the authorities took extreme measures to cover things up would be a gross understatement (not to mention the fact that science, as we understand it, absolutely disproves the government's conspiracy theory regarding the events of September 11, 2001). Then he goes on to insult people in the know about 911 by calling them "left wing nuts". Unless the author is himself an idiot, I have to believe the only reason he would perpetuate the grand myths surrounding the event, and even slander the people who have a clue about it, would be because he's on a mission to further a particular point of view. I mean throughout he's constantly glorifying Democrat figures and demonizing anyone supposedly connected with the right (kinda like the right wing media, who he criticizes for doing the exact same thing). He comes off to me as totally falling for this whole Dems vs Republicans thing, as if he doesn't realize they're actually two factions of the same party, and I feel he betrays his extreme bias toward the Democrat party, causing me to question his credibility. I just would have preferred a more fact-based account, with less political bias and obvious hatred toward the object of the book. It was an interesting and informative read nonetheless. And by the way, didn't Clinton have a number of opportunities to terminate Bin Laden?