[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

In sum, even though the Washington Post and New York Times aren't interested in having you read this book, it's a great one and you probably should even if they somehow change their mind and give it fair treatment.

In sum, the book may very well be a good read.

However, the author is, in my view, a cry baby. That is, it's an editorial decision to publish a book - or any other article, for that matter.

Look, in my business, if I were to submit a manuscript to JASA (Journal of the American Statistical Association) and it gets rejected because of the editor's (and/or editorial board) decision - than I have to accept that decision.

It's difficult, but that's the way it is.

[the Real fifi]

Really? The WaPo found it possible in the same period to review TWO books on Julie Andrews and NO major paper has reviewed it . (See Powerline which last night covered the same ground as this article.)

[the Real fifi]

Really? The WaPo found it possible in the same period to review TWO books on Julie Andrews and NO major paper has reviewed it . (See Powerline which last night covered the same ground as this article.)

[Yardstick]

That is, it's an editorial decision to publish a book - or any other article, for that matter.

Gee whiz, really?

The point is that the editorial decisions made were bad ones. The Times and the Post are refusing to review the book for political reasons, chiefly because it undermines the storyline they've been peddling for the last five years. It's a dereliction of duty for these papers not to cover this book, given Feith's role in the administration and the bounty of new inside information that he offers in it. But again, the Times and Post are peddling a viewpoint and so they've chosen to keep the public in the dark about Feith's counter-narrative. Feith is right to complain about it. In fact, we should all be complaining.

It's hard to understand how you don't understand this.