NYT compares life in Iran under the shah with life under the mullahs

The New York Times is as mad as an old wet hen over historian Andrew Scott Cooper 's history of the Shah's Iran, The Fall of Heaven.  Here's what really gets their goat, I kid you not, from the article.  

The chief problem with Cooper’s account is his reflexive hostility toward Islamism writ large, which ends up being analytically debilitating.  

They actually wrote that! We can't be having any “reflexive hostility” toward Islamism now, can we? Especially not a historian who's spent years taking a gander at it. No, no, no, can't have it, might hurt the mullahs' delicate feelings! Replace the word “Islamism” with Hitler and see how that sounds.

The New York Times is as mad as an old wet hen over historian Andrew Scott Cooper 's history of the Shah's Iran, The Fall of Heaven.  Here's what really gets their goat, I kid you not, from the article.  

The chief problem with Cooper’s account is his reflexive hostility toward Islamism writ large, which ends up being analytically debilitating.  

They actually wrote that! We can't be having any “reflexive hostility” toward Islamism now, can we? Especially not a historian who's spent years taking a gander at it. No, no, no, can't have it, might hurt the mullahs' delicate feelings! Replace the word “Islamism” with Hitler and see how that sounds.