I strongly disagree with your notion that the book defines abuse so broadly that anybody could meet the criteria. As I read it, the book doesn't apply to most people; I'd say it only matches a handful of people I've met in my life.
I think the rest of your characterizations are also basically incorrect and unfair, and in ways that I don't see it as worth my time to dispute in detail. If others aren't sure, I'd encourage them to read the book to find out.
You can interpret the book as to deeming virtually anybody you think as either meeting or not meeting the criteria similar to a horoscope. The star signs being "Mr. Right" or "Mr. Sensitive" and "Drill Sargent" etc etc.
I could very trivially make the case that the author very clearly meets his own "Mr. Right" stereotype and thus is an abuser. He considers himself an authority on mental illness and substance abuse with no relevant training, sees the world as a huge classroom, he twists others statements to make them sound absurd, he switches to his voice of truth and speaks definitively, he seems to enjoy straightening out people in front of others to the point of remarking on constant conversations where he outwitted various men, and he says bad things about men to other people.
In fact by disagreeing with me you're a little "Mr. Right". I'm also "Mr. Right". None of us can ever be rehabilitated and all of us just need to be escaped from. We're all doing this because we think we can get away with it.
I prefer Machiavelli's work because at least that framed the reader as being no better than anybody else. This is Machiavelli with a victim complex. My issue with the book isn't misunderstanding it's disgust at the black and white ethics.
The weirder part to me is the number of people who end up caping for abusers and abuse. Usually they're more subtle than you, though.
It's section on mental illness says that abusers are too "selfish" to put up with a medications side-effects and that they overdose on medication to strike out at his partner dramatically. The guy isn't really an expert on mental illness at all, pushes the hypothesis that abusive behavior and mental illness are distinct things, and that abuse by and large is rational behavior. The book in general defines abuse so broadly that anybody could meet the criteria if they're blunt, sarcastic, career-oriented, or simply discontinue medication. The author denies rehabilitation is possible because he deemed almost all the men he met to still be abusers when he was done treating them.
I generally don't see this book as examining the link between mental illness and abuse in any sort of balanced way, it's more a tome to persuade women that they're in an abusive relationship and their partner only abuses them because they think they can get away with it and would stop otherwise.