Killing Patton by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard
A review by John Haynes
This book is not really a lot about Patton. Sometimes when reading, I even forgot that it was supposed to be about Patton. It would better be titled How America Won the War in Europe.
Some good things about the book. I like the references to Patton praying. I’m not sure he was a Christian, but he definitely knew he needed the help of the Almighty.
Problems with the book:
On p. 162, it says that on FDR’s fourth inauguration, “In addition to the veterans and dignitaries, a smattering of black faces can be seen in the crowd, reflecting Roosevelt’s hope for a more racially integrated nation.” Perhaps FDR wanted more black faces, but it’s absolutely not true that he wanted a “more racially integrated nation.” If that were true, why did he discriminate against Japanese Americans during that time in what is known as the internment? That was an awful time, and it was even upheld by the Supreme Court (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 1944). That case was based on the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. Interesting that on page 171, Roosevelt is quoted as saying that “[o]ur [C]onstitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument . . . [b]ut it provided a firm basis upon which all manner of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.” All manner it seems except Japanese Americans.
On p. 166, it says that “Roosevelt has lifted America up from the lowest point in U.S. history to make it the most powerful nation on earth.” He did nothing of the sort. It was World War II that lifted America up. Roosevelt was a socialist, and it was his policies that led to the kind of big government we have today.
p. 203 In the footnote, it says that starting with Eisenhower, “every president for the next forty-two years served in World War II.” There’s one problem with that. If it’s 42 years, that puts it at 1995 when it ends. Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, not 1995. He was the first of that era who was not a WWII vet.
On page 240, the authors make some significant errors about the Bible, repeating some of the same mistakes of Killing Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PXMBB3RXPCQE?ref_=pe_620760_65501210). Speaking about King David, they say that “[h]e was said to be ‘a man after God’s own heart’ [which is true, (1 Sam. 13:14)], despite the fact that he slept with his best friend’s wife, lied about the act, and then ordered the husband sent to the front lines so that he might be murdered in battle.” Ostensibly this is talking about Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. But much of this is not true. Uriah was not David’s best friend. He didn’t even know him, and we know that from the fact that he inquired about Bathsheba when he was contemplating sleeping with her (2 Sam. 11:3). If he were Uriah’s best friend, he surely would have already known that Bathsheba was his wife. Also, it is worth noting that nowhere in Scripture does it say that David lied about this act. Maybe he did, but there’s no evidence of this.
Later on that same page (240), the authors get it wrong about David again. In discussing David’s price that he paid for this sin, the authors say that he lost “a son at a very young age and eventually [lost] his entire kingdom.” I don’t know what son they’re talking about, but it would have to be the baby that Bathsheba gave birth to as a result of their sinful encounter. David lost other sons, but no other was at a “very young age.” I don’t know why they can’t be more specific.
Second, David never lost “his entire kingdom.” He was a great king until the day he died. The kingdom split not after David died but after Solomon died.
No comments:
Post a Comment