See, Strick, there you go again.

They say part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with (after challenging the perported depth of those connects) has never been associated with terrorism.

This is NOT what they say. They say that the family, which runs a big construction company, has no ties to terrorism. Actually, let's quote them:

Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie—which relied heavily on Unger's book—fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything.

See? They say nothing about "that part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with." They say "the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms." And since Osama is the son of the founder of the construction firm in question, and ran a subsidiary himself until sometime after he went to Afghanistan, it's kind of hard to say he is not from that "part" of the family.

So the family the Bushes are linked to is Osama's immediate family, which I think qualifies as a "link" to terrorism. In fact George HW Bush was in a Carlyle Group meeting with Osama's brother on September 11th. It would be hard to argue that Bush's father and Osama's brother are different "parts" of the family, distant from W and Osama.

By the way, I did misread your original post. I didn't realize you were talking about people who reject the reviews without reading them. I am obviously not one of these :-)