As far as her analysis being tainted by her politics, i don't think that makes different than any other person who has ever written anything.
Everyone writes from their own personal perspective. However, when composing anything that purports to be an in-depth analysis of an issue, it is important to make a conscious effort to put those personal biases aside, otherwise the final product leans more towards op-ed than reasoned analysis. I tend to be more dismissive of the former than the latter.

Jedburgh, maybe it just seems like more of a problem becuase you don't agree with her politics?
Now you are the one making assumptions. Anyone attempting to come to grasp the nuances of any issue needs to look at it from many points of view. Dismissing perspectives because you dislike their politics is foolish. Dismissing a product because it is poorly put together is a completely different matter. I think perhaps Rex's specific observations highlighted the latter point about the book better than my general comment.

Either way, calling a well researched book by written by a former Fulbright scholar and London School of Economics PhD "junk" is a bit misguided.
I you believe that Fulbright scholars and PhDs (the institution doesn't matter) are somehow on some sort of intellectual pedestal and incapable of publishing "junk", then you still have much to learn.