Negative Positive
Title: Poor attempt at history sinks contrarian arguments
Review: Nothing wrong with presenting a contrarian position if it is well-researched and based in fact. But this book and its followup are prime examples of bad history and ideological bias. It is interesting, though, to see so many other reviewers calling the author a neo-conservative (or worse) -- assuming it seems that he must be some extremist with views opposite their own. If you read the book you see he is anti-war and pro-civil liberty, and in the book he often criticizes neo-conservatives for what he sees as their pro-war and anti-civil liberty philosophy. Too bad the author undermines his cause by writing such a one-sided book.
Is the review positive or negative? 