It was my assumption that ON reviews were about the book.
Milhous seems to think this assumption is unreasonable.
General Clark (minus some publisher’s help) wrote the book did he not? I’m pretty sure you can see the correlation: if a person writes their thoughts down, and their thoughts don’t seem to provide anything new or enlightening or are politically slanted (shock jock if I may), then wouldn’t that make it seem like the author is inadequate? The argument seems to hold on this site with reviews of authors such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for you dissenters out there.
In schools where I’ve studied that’s how it works,…you get an F for such work, so how does this not equate in a book review? Do I need to make up an equation for you to understand this? I’m really curious to know????
If you look back on this thread you will see several posts about this book from one of the anonymous. At least I think it was one person. This guy has decided that General Wesley Clark is a liberal mouth piece who knows nothing about his subject and has no right to speak on it because he was not involved in the current war in Iraq.
I was interested in his opinion on the book but I had to drag it out of him by defending the author against a slanderous attack. This fellow seems to regard anyone who disagrees with him to be a “liberal and a commie.” (his exact words)
About the only comment he made that might have been meaningful was that the book added nothing to what was already known. Perhaps, as a veteran of the Iraq war, that is true for him. It wasn’t true for me. His discussion of the invasion tactics was all new to me, and his revelations about the reactions of the senior Pentagon staff to the drive into the war by the White House administration was historic.
I made the point that this was important American history. I am a not an American. I am national of one of the countries that was dragged into the invasion by the US administration, so it is part of my country’s history too. History is researched by recording diverse contemporary views. The opinion of a contemporary, but now retired, full general who had been NATO supreme Allied Commander in Europe and a military analyst for CNN as well as a former Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Staff is, I suggest, of some interest to an objective person.
The perspective of this 4 star might even be broader and deeper than that of a junior officer in a reserve maintenance company who served during the invasion.
I think that one of the reasons there are book reviews on ON is so that we can expose each other to ideas that are different from our own. So it is abhorrent to find someone reacting to different ideas with abusive venom against the author, particularly when the author is a very distinguished soldier.
Yes, I would probably feel exactly the same as he does if the subject of the book review was a typical conservative rant by Glen Beck and this would no doubt come out in my writing. Nevertheless, I would still try to give other readers some idea of what the book is about, and why I think it is wrong. I would try to do this in a polite and respectful way because that is much more convincing that a ballistic rant. If Glen had any real insight into the events described, I would acknowledge that.
Our anon’s attitude seems to be: I was there. You were not. Therefore you have no right to express an opinion on this subject. More than that, you have no right to respect any other person’s opinion on this subject.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.