In reading Max Boot’s “review” of Tom Woods’ book, it was interesting to see just how this guy tries to argue. I always was taught that effective arguing meant that one did not revert to the various informal fallacies, but instead dealt with the facts at hand. Boot, however, starts with insults, continues with insults, and ends with insults. It is sad to see him describe a Tom Woods that I never have known.

A few days after the 9/11 attacks, Boot wrote an article for the Wall (War) Street Journal editorial page in which he declared that 9/11 would give this country an excuse for pushing an “empire.” By the way, “empire” was his term, not mine. In reality, 9/11 was a godsend for people like Boot, who were able to use this as an excuse to push policies that on their own never would have been acceptable in this country. He and his friends have managed to convince people that unless the USA is constantly at war against the Muslims, that they will attack us and take over this country.

If the greatness of an individual is determined in part by his enemies, then I think that Tom is on the way to achieving that status. Should Max Boot be against him, that means he must be doing something right.