Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
62 of 72 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A Reckless Disregard of Patriotism, July 30, 2008
"America should go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy... She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." John Quincy Adams.
But if you go by this screed, that is essentially what Americans should do. This is the last of three provocative and accusatory titles written by Robert "Buzz" Patterson. Here he suggests Americans are committing war crimes against Americans, and that an active conspiracy exists to strengthen our enemies by criticizing our leaders and country. However, the inside of the book fails to live up to its billing because Patterson cannot demonstrate how his personal opinions match reality or legality. He presents specious and disingenuous arguments. He blames with inflammatory rhetoric, and he accuses Americans of treason never quite making the separation between his sense of self-righteousness and the reality of the law. Ironically, this contempt for dissent in any form is as antithetical to the words and spirit of our Constitution as anyone can get.
One example of the author's misleading arguments is his accusation that the military and ROTC are under attack from left wing forces across the schools and campuses of America. The example he provides actually happened at the University of North Carolina and North Carolina State University, but the reader should note how he relates it: "Protesters vandalized the ROTC buildings at UNC and N.C. State with red paint and slogans reading `We won't fight your wars,' and 'Army ROTC trains murderers; resist acts of war.'" "Protestors vandalized..." promotes an image of crazies running amuck, but the reader who checks the story on the Internet will discover that by most accounts, it was called an act of vandalism--not a mob. A ROTC cadet at the same school named Dominique McNeill also destroys the author's conclusion. She adds: "Members of the ROTC are known and respected around campus."
In making the argument to support the title, the author suggests that antagonism toward a policy is proof of a lack of support for our troops. The timing of a protest, the place of one, or the lack of an immediate counter opinion or editorial is proof positive of the author's definition of left wing sympathies or bias in the press. The more vocal or universal the protest, the more proof that those people are treasonous in their actions. For the author, mere observation proves conclusion.
When the author isn't generalizing, stereotyping or connecting unconnected events, he blames, using the same tactic of dictators of totalitarian regimes. Throughout this work, he uses the word defeatism. It's not the blunders of a dictator or the miscalculations of an inept administration; it is cowards, students, left-wingers, "limousine liberals" (my personal favorite), college professors and others who are colluding to bring our country to defeat, and waging a campaign to destroy our military. Patterson raises paranoia to an art form.
When it comes to Guantanamo Prison, he asserts erroneously that the detainees are "the `baddest' of the bad," and that they are not being tortured. He ignores the fact that personal threats, stress positions, sleep deprivation, isolation, and "nutrition management" are violations of the Geneva Convention, which our nation insisted other nations adopt. What is Patterson's response? They don't deserve it because they are committed terrorists, (like the 80 year old deaf man they finally released)? In fact, Gitmo has already set free a number of these "baddest of the bad" because some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Never mind that Human Rights Watch condemned the correctional practices there as harsh. As for Abu-Ghraib, he tosses it off as the acts of ten or twelve individuals! And waterboarding? It's not even listed in his index.
If these pronouncements aren't enough to stretch the author's credibility, he sinks to charges of treason against the usual suspects. (No blow is low enough for this man). This includes anyone who disagrees with the war. Patterson pays lip service to dissent and criticism being patriotic and good, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, but he stops there. He writes, "Liberals who speak out against the War on Terror because they oppose America and seek their country's defeat have crossed the line from dissent to betrayal, because their comments are broadcast around the world, encouraging and motivating the enemy." In this one sentence the author makes inflammatory assumptions that are libelous: Liberals oppose America. They seek their country's defeat, and they give aid and comfort to the enemy. For these three opinions, the author provides no evidence except what he thinks constitutes evidence, that being it is dissent if you say it, but it is treason if the wrong people hear it.
If actor Buddy Harrelson or Rosie O'Donnell speak out in protest against our government, the "war on terror" or suggest that George W. Bush is a criminal, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Furthermore, Patterson has the cheek to challenge their "qualifications." He fails to realize that being American is all the qualification one needs. Such a charge is also known as the Tinkerbelle Effect. (If you want Tinkerbelle to live, clap your hands as vigorously as possible. If you don't, she will die. If you want us to win in Iraq, get behind the president and don't criticize our administration, or we will lose and it will be your fault).
Two other issues the author raises challenge his veracity. Patterson suggests that Code Pink exchanged money through an intermediary in Jordan in which, he claims, the money "may" have ended up in the hands of terrorists. The word "may" doesn't convey fact, it conveys conjecture or gossip. (This next one his publisher should have vigorously discouraged!) He claims to have asked 400 military personnel of all services, in Kuwait, Iraq, and on his radio show in California, what the greatest threat to their mission and security was. Patterson asserts that all four hundred gave him identical, two-part responses, which included the media.
Anyone who has studied probability knows that 400 people giving identical, two-part responses is astronomically impossible. Even ten people giving identical, two-part answers to an open-ended question is almost two million to one. So, what are the odds if you multiply that by 40 more?! The mathmetician would easily conclude that Patterson made this up.
The author also expresses grave concern for our military, and what he perceives as the injustice they have endured by democrats and left wing demagogues. Patterson makes it clear that the republicans are the only ones capable of governing and keeping our military strong in spite of the fact that it was the same party that refused liberal Senator Ted Kennedy's request that veterans be exempt from losing their homes under the new bankruptcy law. He has also ignored the mounting scandals that this administration has perpetrated against the same. This raises questions if his concerns are genuine, or selective and opportunistic.
In his last chapter he passes ruins of great civilizations in foreign cities as he ponders the cause of their fate in which he sees the pending destruction of our society based on "the left's campaign." He gives the reader the impression that he carries the weight of our future on his shoulders. It gave me the impression of histrionics and melodrama.
This work ultimately fails because Patterson can only offer opinion as evidence how Democrat word or deed give strength to an enemy, and he fudges data to validate his conclusions. Nothing he says would warrant an arrest, let alone suspicion of a crime, except because of behavior he finds personally offensive. His self-proclaimed objectivity will remind the reader that self-praise is a poor recommendation. These things make his charges appear shrill and desperate. He confuses patriotism with nationalism, and treason with dissent, and his inability to discern the differences is obvious. This is not for the discriminating reader who requires more than just opinion to pass judgment.
I borrowed this book from the New York Library System which had a grand total of six copies. This is a testament to the book's lack of popularity and anemic sales.
That alone speaks volumes.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Seething As I Read, July 18, 2007
Buzz Patterson has totally nailed the Left! He does not mince words, he does not talk in generalities; he calls the Lefties out by name. These hatriots, obstructionists, and blame America first people are why we are losing the War on Terror. The Big Media, the Democratic Party, Hollywood, and Academia are complicit and actually aid and abet the enemy. Buzz can expect all types of hate mail, including scathing reviews here on Amazon. As Buzz says in his book, "the flak is the heaviest when you're directly over the target." Well, tighten up your chinstrap Colonel because incoming is on it's way. Well done Sir!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Facts Speak For Themselves, September 6, 2007
While I was in Iraq, I routinely saw news coverage and heard statements by celebrities, politicians, intellectuals and activists which were so diametrically opposed to the reality that I saw on the ground that I truly wondered whether we shared the same planet. While terrorists murdered children on the streets of Bahgdad, activists accused us of atrocities. When Americans who had been captured and murdered were recovered, almost invariably after torture, the media barely acknowledged it, while focusing intently on Abu Ghraib. I understood that they opposed the war, but I was not prepared to make the argument that they were committing treason. LTC (R) Patterson has done so. In War Crimes, he sets out to demonstrate that the antiwar left is not simply a "peace" movement, but a group of dangerous radicals who seek to actively destroy the capacity of the United States to defend itself. In this, he breaks very little new ground, in that most of the quotes or stories recounted have been in the media for years. What makes War Crimes valuable is that it is a single source and provides not only a recounting of those stories, but a detailed bibliography and endnotes which allow independent corroboration. The meticulous research alone is worth it. In addition, the appendix provides accounts of every major terrorist action since the fall of the Shah. By combining not only a detailed history of terrorism and documenting the responses by the left, LTC Patterson does the service of providing a context in which the actions of the Michael Moores and Nancy Pelosis can be objectively evaluated. The downside is that there is a great deal of repetition, which could have been solved by a tighter edit.
Those who read this book with an open-mind will be unable to deny the treasonous nature of the antiwar movement. Those who refuse to read it but condemn it out of hand already know the nature of the left, even as they refuse to admit it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Robert Patterson
by Robert Patterson
