Comment 5559

By piglet (anonymous) | Posted February 20, 2007 at 16:23:44

I just read the first couple of chapters and I was annoyed by Kunstelrs tendency to war-mongering. He says we are already living a new world war with the islamic world but the argument is inconsistent and historically incorrect. Incredibly, he seems to think (p. 85-89) that the Iraq invasion in 2003 was a sound idea, alleging that there was after all a legitimate case that Iraq might have possessed WMD (there was not). He also says that the Iraq invasion was justified in order to exert "a tempering influence on Iran". The truth is, of course, the opposite. Is this just naivety?

He goes so far as to complain that those who criticize the Bush gang's catastrophic handling of the occupation are guilty of "intolerance for anything less than guaranteed 100 percent happy and successful outcomes". Less than 100 percent successful, indeed. If Kunstler is so unreliable and deliberately misleading in his account of recent historic events, why should we trust the rest of the book? I find it amazing that the reviews I have read to date do not even mention this. I haven't yet found a single critical review of the book. Something is very strange.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds