Les crimes de Monsieur Kissinger: La face cachée d'un prix Nobel de la Paix

The metaphor of a courtroom brings a sense of moral judgment. I wonder what motivated the author to structure the book this way and how it influences the reader's perception.

The author presents a detailed case against Kissinger, but I found myself questioning whether all perspectives are fairly represented. How did others feel about the depth of analysis?

Hitchens's personal views and reputation for outspoken criticism seem central. I'm curious how much of his voice shapes the narrative and whether it affects the objectivity.