Pointing out that your argument is long on emoting and very thin on demonstrating facts is not a "attacking" you. It's just pointing out that you haven't supported your line of argument.
I'm used to dealing with above average intelligent minded individuals.
But, of course, you can't substantiate your argument worth a hoot.
Read just the damn book, ok!
No, you just need to demonstrate the veracity of your argument. So far, about all you've done is point out that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton--hardly a paragon of integrity--has endorsed the book that you refer to as your one and only source.