In media appearances promoting The Enemy at Home, D'Souza backpedaled from book's central conclusions
February 05, 2007 2:12 pm ET
In recent weeks, right-wing author Dinesh D'Souza has published op-eds in four major newspapers and appeared in interviews with all three major cable news channels to discuss his latest book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (Doubleday, 2007). Yet in several of these media appearances, D'Souza has misrepresented some of the book's primary conclusions, understating and whitewashing his attacks on "the left." This pattern was most pronounced in his January 28 Washington Post op-ed, in which he argued that much of the literary "reaction" to his book has been "a little hysterical":
- D'Souza wrote in his Washington Post op-ed
that he has faced an "onslaught" of criticism because his book
"argue[s] that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for
the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11
attacks." In his January 25 op-ed in The Christian Science Monitor, D'Souza
asserted that Muslim distaste for the "popular culture" of
"blue" America "can blossom into the kind of anti-American
pathology that partly fueled the 9/11 attacks." Yet in the book itself,
D'Souza does not argue that the cultural left "bears a measure of
responsibility" for provoking the anger of
the 9-11
hijackers or that it "partly
fueled" 9-11. Rather, he asserts that the "cultural left" is
the "primary cause" of the "visceral rage" that produced the terrorists who attacked America, and
that "without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened":
In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage, some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened (Pages 1-2).
- In the Post op-ed, D'Souza
also downplayed his endorsement of terrorist critiques of American culture,
including in the purported "onslaught" of criticism he has received
that "insistent" Comedy Central host
Stephen Colbert "asked again and again" whether D'Souza
"agree[s] with the Islamic radicals." What D'Souza neglected
to mention, however, was his response to Colbert's question. Asked by
Colbert on the January 16 edition of The
Colbert Report whether he "agrees with some of the things these
radical extremists are against in America," D'Souza
replied: "I agree with it."
Indeed, D'Souza repeatedly refers to elements of the radical Muslim critique of American culture as "valid" and "legitimate" throughout The Enemy at Home. On Page 2, he writes: "The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage -- some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left." Asserting on Page 21 that 9-11 was "a message" from Osama bin Laden and other "Islamic radicals" that the United States is a "repulsive sewer" and an "immoral, perverted society," D'Souza concludes: "Thus we have the first way in which the cultural left is responsible for 9/11. The left has produced a moral shift in American society that has resulted in a deluge of gross depravity and immorality." D'Souza asserts on Pages 122-123 that the "radical Muslim critique" of America largely relates to the belief that there is "no moral standard" condemning licentious behavior, concluding on Page 130, "It seems that there are none, just as the Muslims allege." On Page 131, D'Souza adds that the "Muslim case against American popular culture" is actually "understated" if one does not also take into account that America's "cultural depravity" is "actively championed by leading voices on the cultural left." He states on Page 119 that "[t]he accusation of decadence against the West is obviously valid in one sense: Western societies (including America) are not reproducing themselves."
D'Souza similarly suggested in his Christian Science Monitor op-ed that "the radical Muslims [are] right," and that "pious Muslims ... rightly fear that this new morality will destroy their religion and way of life." - D'Souza bemoaned in his Post op-ed
that Warren Bass, senior editor of the Post's
Book World section, claimed D'Souza "think[s]
Jerry Falwell was 'on to something' when he blamed the attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001, on pagans, gays and the ACLU." Yet while D'Souza
correctly noted in the op-ed that his book's argument "has nothing
to do with Falwell's suggestion that 9/11 was God's judgment on the
ACLU and the feminists for their sins," he did not address his assertion
in the book that Falwell nonetheless stumbled upon the true parties responsible
for 9/11:
The real issue raised by Falwell's comments is entirely secular. What impact did the abortionists, the feminists, the homosexual activists, and the secularists have on the Islamic radicals who conspired to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Unfortunately this crucial question got buried, and virtually no one has raised it publicly (Page 5).
D'Souza goes on to assert throughout the book that the groups Falwell targeted provoked the terrorists' hatred of America by exporting their values to the Muslim world. - In The Enemy at Home, D'Souza
asserts that bin Laden "developed his theory of American weakness during
the Clinton years," because "[i]t
was [former President Bill] Clinton, after all,
who ordered the withdrawal of American troops from Mogadishu
[Somalia]."
D'Souza dismisses the notion that Republican President Ronald Reagan
could have similarly emboldened bin Laden by pulling American forces out of Beirut, Lebanon,
after an attack on U.S.
troops there. "Although Reagan had ordered the pullout of America troops following the 1982 embassy
bombing in Beirut,
Muslim radicals recognized that Reagan was a strong leader,"
D'Souza writes (Page 213).
However, in televised interviews with conservative hosts Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson, D'Souza dodged the issue of Reagan's Beirut pullout when it was mentioned by each host, suggesting he agreed with their statements about Reagan's culpability for withdrawing troops from Beirut or at least did not object to them.
From the January 18 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:CARLSON: [H]ere's what I don't buy, the second part of your thesis, which is American weakness and examples of it. Our retreat from Somalia, for instance -- I assume you believe our retreat in '83 from Beirut would be another -- showed the Islamists that we are beatable, OK? And I buy that. But it doesn't explain why they hate us in the first place.
D'SOUZA: That's true. And I'm not saying -- I do explain that in the book, The Enemy at Home.
CARLSON: OK.
D'SOUZA: But here I'm getting at something a little different. After the Cold War, many of the Islamic radicals went back to their own countries. Bin Laden went back to Saudi Arabia. Al-Zawahiri went back to Egypt. They were fighting to overthrow what they call the near enemy, their own governments, to establish an Islamic holy state.
From the January 18 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:BECK: I am a conservative, sir, who is telling you the nut jobs over in the Middle East have used the fertilizer of things like Hollywood and liberalism, or the idea here of, you know, Bill Clinton emboldening them or even, dare I say it, Ronald Reagan doing the same thing in Beirut. Yes, that's fertilizer. That's not the root, Dinesh.
D'SOUZA: No, true. But I agree with this. But you have to realize that the radical Muslims, while they are exploiting these themes, are striking a resonant chord among traditional Muslims. And the traditional Muslims are the recruiting pool of radical Islam. - In the book, D'Souza touts the words of criticism bin Laden has issued
about U.S. culture, quoting extensively from bin Laden's November 2002
"Letter to America"
that criticized the United States for its "oppression, lies, immorality,
and debauchery" (Pages 102-103), while downplaying one of bin
Laden's major stated reasons, in the letter and elsewhere, for opposing
the United States: The American troop presence in the Middle East. Rather than
quoting bin Laden's frequent criticisms of this policy, D'Souza
simply asserts that bin Laden's "occasional condemnations" of
America's military
presence in the Middle East -- as well as his criticism of America's support for Israel -- "must be understood
in a metaphorical sense" (Page 100). Without citing bin Laden saying so
himself, D'Souza suggests that bin Laden opposes a U.S. military presence in the Middle East
only because he sees U.S. foreign policy as "the vehicle for the coercive
transmission of corrupt American values to the Muslim world":
Does the radical Islamic case against America, then, not have a foreign policy component? Of course it does. But as bin Laden and his associates see it, U.S. foreign policy is the vehicle for the coercive transmission of corrupt American values to the Muslim world (Page 103).
Earlier, D'Souza states as fact that "Islamic hatred of America ... is not based on the presence of American troops abroad" (Page 25).
But in his Post op-ed, D'Souza went even further in seeking to discredit this alternative explanation for bin Laden's hatred of America, setting up a straw man argument that "Bin Laden isn't upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.)" D'Souza cited no examples of liberals explaining bin Laden's fury under the mistaken assumption that the United States has a military presence in Mecca, either in the op-ed or upon explaining that "there are no American troops in Mecca" in his book (Page 100). In his appearance on the January 17 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, D'Souza falsely claimed that bin Laden "talks about U.S. troops in Mecca" in the November 2002 "Letter to America." - Despite the fact that the central premise of D'Souza's book is that
"[t]he left is the internal enemy that is helping the external enemy
achieve its goal of the destruction of America" (Pages 272-273), he
still manages to complain that liberals attack President Bush more frequently
and viciously than they criticize Islamic terrorists. He writes: "[T]he
left's war is not against bearded Muslims who wear long robes and carry
rifles; it is against pudgy white men who wear suits and carry Bibles. While
the left is certainly not comfortable with Islamic mullahs, it is vastly more
terrified of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Antonin Scalia, James Dobson, and Rush
Limbaugh" (Pages 10-11). In a January 20 interview with
Salon.com, D'Souza referred to this purported phenomenon as "the
left's" "indignation gap ... a gap of shrill denunciation
at Bush and no shrill denunciations of bin Laden and Saddam that are comparable
in volume and temperature."
However, D'Souza moderated this assertion in his Post op-ed, complaining only that "the far left seems to hate Bush nearly as much as it hates bin Laden."
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
By D'Souza's logic, then, it's his own fault if somebody kills him because they hate his idiotic "books."
One Man's Revenge--9-11
OBL said in one of his first videotapes--"I have had nightmares for years of the American Warship shelling Beirut and watching Tall buildings fall.I have dreamed of the day when I could watch Tall Buildings Fall in America".
It was One Man's Revenge used by Neo-cons to fulfill their Imperialist Goals.
clarence swinney
I thought what has angered muslims in arab countries has been americas blind and unconditional support of Israel, imperial ambitions, desire to police and rule the entire planet, and arrogant way of forcing its agenda and dominance through economics and brutal foreign policy.
The left wing is usually not the party of arrogant imperialism. They are usually anti-war
The ignorance displayed in a recent Cal Thomas notwithstanding ("Whatever mistakes in judgement this president has made, he is right and consistent in his diagnosis of the war against those who would destroy our country and way of life. Can any of his critics present evidence to the contrary?"), these critiques of the Left are made by the same people who apparently quite sincerely thought our American troops would be welcomed with flowers and chocolates by the peoples of Iraq.
But let's hear from the former CIA Bin Laden expert, Michael Scheuer: "We assume, moreover, that bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms, and democracy -- not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. military now has a ten-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world." ["Imperial Hubris," p. 165]
Mr. Scheuer also notes (p. 166) "our [U.S.] relentless support for tyrannical and corrupt Muslim regimes that are systematically dissipating the Muslim world's energy resources for family fun and profit while imprisoning, torturing, and executing domestic dissenters."
This book sounds like a great fairy tale woven by an inept story teller. I might actually read this thing to see for myself just how ridiculous it indeed is. It sounds like an "Ann Coulter type" hit job book, which is once again, trying to make Americans think that liberals are the enemy, and that we need to move back to 1950 in order for America to be "strong" again.
"I might actually read this thing to see for myself just how ridiculous it indeed is."
That's CLASSIC, even for you, Mag.
i will agree with one thing he said. he said bin ladin went back to saudi arabia to establish his own brand of islamic state. but that proves his central point wrong. if saudi arabia, one of the most conservative of islamic countries, fails to live up to his standards, then how could we decadent westerners expect to? women are second class sitizens, people are forced to pray, and beaten by the religious police for the slightest infractions against islamic law. and that to me is the main problem in the islamic world. it's muslim killing muslim over the slightest differences. main example: iraq. and although it has received little press, hamas and fatah are in all but a full war in the gaza strip. though it is not noted here, d'souza wrote an op-ed in the los angeles times on 1-18 in which he said: "in 1993 islamic radicals bombed the world trade center. the clinton administration did little." a flat out lie, all the perpetrators were tracked down and arrested. the 9-11 report says on page 72: "as a result of the investigations and arrests, the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals". d'souza lies.
to make it clear. if the saudis don't live up to bin ladin's standards, how are we to?
D'Souza is just another NeoClown twerp. For some reason, I thought it was the CIA that overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah of Iran in 1953, not Hollywood.
Sure, NutZog. And the plane didn't crash into the Pentagon...and Elvis, Marylin and Hoffa are sharing an apartment in Hollywood.
Putz. The overthrow of Mossadegh isn't even a dusputed historical fact. Of course, I realize that your highschool library may not have any information on it.
You didn't know about Mossadegh? Wow!
." In his January 25 op-ed in The Christian Science Monitor, D'Souza asserted that Muslim distaste for the "popular culture" of "blue" America "can blossom into the kind of anti-American pathology that partly fueled the 9/11 attacks."
Wait....
I thought they hated us for our freedoms?
OR...
Could their grievances stem from U.S. policy in the Middle East? Our interference in their affairs & our one-sided support of Israel?
Also, I thought only bleeding heart liberals cared why the terrorists hate us. Is D'Souza now going to offer "therapy and understanding for our attackers?"
J2: they hate us for our freedoms. Period. Please stop flaunting your hatred of America.
Sorry Rusty--what was I thinking?? :-O
They hate us for our freedoms and for those loose morals being forced on us all by them Liberals.
Thanks for the wake up call.
What I wrote was inexcusable, why I think I might have even been giving aid & comfort to the enemy, and undermining the troops.
I ask for forgiveness for my my UN-American post.
Dear Jeter,
Although I would like to forgive you, it might be interpreted as a sign of weakness by our enemies. Or an un-American gesture from some of our pundits.
If it were up to me alone, I would gladly absolve you, but we never know who's reading these posts. I don't want to be the weak chain in the link and ultimately responsible for the fall of civilization as we know it.
I'm going to have to go along with Worrier here, Jeter. To forgive you would undermine our troops' morale. Maybe next time.
Let us not utter liberal ideas of forgiveness as well. Remember, that is why they hate us. You are emboldening the enemy with such talk.
Hey King & Rusty,
I completely understand.
In fact I'd implore you both NOT to get involved, I think they are watching me & recording everything I write here...
I hear I've made Cheney's LIST of Rouge Republicans.
Novak wrote about it in his column today.
Rumors are flying that the leak about *The List* may have come from Scooter Libby :-O
Jeter2: "I thought they hated us for our freedoms?"
Apparently, they do hate us for our freedom, and D'Souza's answer seems to be that we should restrict those freedoms more and more so the terrorists won't get angry.
But isn't that appeasing the terrorists, and rewarding them for their attacks on our country?
His arguments make no sense. He deserves all the ridicule he is taking for his book.
Excellent point. And D'Souza apparently agrees with the terrorists about those pesky liberals. I wonder why he hates America.
So by LIVING and DOING WHAT WE WANT, we bring the fire from above to our homes....riiiiiigghhht...and, really, 'U.S. foreign policy is the vehicle for coercive transmission of corrupt American values...'??? Then by his logic, ALL foereign policies of ALL COUNTRIES ust be a vehicle for 'corrupt values..'
Okay...let's think like a NeoClown...They hate us for our freedoms; thy hate us for our Liberal values; they hate us because of our cultural diversity...The solution? We must become more like them! Yes...Fascism will save us! But, if that's the case, why the hell are we fighting them? What, exactly, are we fighting to preserve?
"They hate us for our freedoms. They hate us for our Liberal values". Threrefore, Liberal values equals our freedom. SEE!!!
"They hate us for our freedoms"?
Uh, no, they hate infidels. Period.
Just quoting the Prez.
Yeah, and the Prez says that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that illegal aliens are just here to do the jobs that Americans won't do. I think he's drinking again.
Yeah? Illegal immigrants don't do the jobs Americans don't do, you say?
Homework assignment for you: Go to any upscale hotel in your area. Count the number of Anglo housekeepers you see.
Then go to a local restaurant, and count the number of Anglo dishwashers/busboys you see.
Then take a drive through a ritzy neighborhood. Count the number of Anglo landscape workers you see - not counting the owner, of course.
Let us know how that goes.
hey sportsguydave - i'm a dyed in the wool liberal - and i think the "jobs we won't do" crock is just that. I hang drywall for a living... and have had quite a few jobs get taken by illegals working for MUCH less - and before you ask, yes I DO know they were illegals, the crew got busted by INS several months after taking some very lucrative jobs I would otherwise have gotten. so peddle that line elsewhere
Hmmm...why do some people have a problem with the U.S....military bases all over the world- no...invading countries for no reason- can't be...isolating ourselves from the world- what?, that's crazy...overthrowing foreign governments because it suits us economically- puh- leeze...consuming 25% of the world's resources and not helping the less fortunate out- I don't think so...kidnapping, toturing, and holding indefinitely people who have been convicted of NO crimes- blasphemy...I, I just don't get it, ALL FOREIGNERS must be CRAZY ZEALOTS who hate mickey mouse!!!
Isn't this book BLAMING AMERICA FIRST, which is all I heard from the right if I dared to even mention that Bush was president when 9-11 happened, which was typically followed up with blaming Clinton for 9-11, which is OK since he's a Democrat therefore a liberal, and now that I have wrapped my mind around that circular logic, D'Souza'a book makes perfect sense.
Yes, remember that according to D'Souza's intellectual colleagues like Coulter and Limbaugh, we liberals march in lockstep with the terrorists ideology-wise. So of course it's our fault that they attacked us.
Of course we deserved to be attacked. Did you see the way America was dressed on 9-11? America was just asking for it.
D'Sousa is a true nut. He's a nut, and he is considered a leading light in the right wing's stable of intellectuals. He stands tall among right wing thinkers like Coulter, David Brooks, William "Cakewalk" Kristol and Chuckie Krauthammer. They are all frauds, all freaks, all committed to one thing: the establishment of bin-Ladenism as the guiding principle of America.
"He stands tall among right wing thinkers like Coulter, David Brooks, William "Cakewalk" Kristol and Chuckie Krauthammer."
This seems to be my day for correcting people on which wingnut said what. The "cakewalk" sentiment was originally attributable to Jeanne Kirkpatrick protege and PNAC member Ken Adelman in two seperate Washington Post articles. It was a natural mistake though; since cakewalk was very much in line with the easy war that Kristol was selling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Adelman
More reading for the intellectually lazy.
I believe you become like what you hate. I think there is no better example of this dynamic than D'Souza... unless of course, you want to talk about Grand Ayatollah Dick al-Cheney.
Someone should ask him why the archetectural targets on 9/11 were those to which the rightwingers lay sole claim. If 9/11 was a attack on "liberalism", then why didn't the hijackers crash planes into gigantic symbolic objects like, say, the Sundance Film Festival or Ted Kennedy?
Good point! Why didn't they crash the planes into Hustler of Hollywood? This reminds me of the Troglodytes claiming that God uses natural disasters to punish people. A few years ago in Nashville, Tennessee, a tornado ripped through town, hopped over "The Worlds Largest Adult Bookstore" and flattened a beautiful historic Church. Damn! Missed again!
will someone at MM report on this.
Bush brags about "Net" job creation.
Bush-70,000 per month--6 years(l ses one month)
Reagan-175,000 per month--8 years
Carter-218,000 per month--4 years
Clinton-237,000 per month--8 years.
Bush record is one of all time worst.
His people try to deceive by dropping first two years. Reagan people tried same deception.
I cannot comprehend a boast!
clarence swinney
cwswinney@netzero.net
poliical research historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II administrations
Conservative Policies
Anti-American--So what! The world hates us. We are sitting on the Mountain Top of power.Laser them.
Anti-Christ--Poor too lqzy. To heck with them. They are a drag on $$$$ profits.
Anti-World--go ahead cough your head off. We do not care. Business First you know! $$$ profits
clarence swinney
So, let's set the record straight, liberal/left. What is your view of Bin Laden? Hero for exposing America as the imperial swine it is? or is he a misguided warrior for righteous but misunderstood people of color?
I wasn't aware there were only two options. Which do you think he is?
Even more importantly, which are YOU, Dirty Sanchez? I mean, donkey punch.... er...whatever..
Are you a hero or a villain?
Well, he's both, Disgusting Quasi-Sexual Act Guy! Thanks for asking!
Alright, I'll take a troll-stab. How about this...
a.) American imperialism didn't NEED exposing - it's been blatantly obvious since the Spanish American War back in 1898
b.) NO ONE on the left is lionizing Bin Laden. First of all, he's a murderous douche bag. Second of all, if anyone should be honored for standing up to imperialism the CORRECT way, as a true hero and champion, it should be Gandhi.
c.) Bin Laden is not a champion of "righteous but misunderstood people." He is a champion of violent extremists. Muslims ARE largely misunderstood by the American people - and "righteous" Muslims around the world DENOUNCE violence and extremism.
d.) Even if liberals DID support Bin Laden's ideologies - which we DON'T - it wouldn't necessarily follow that we supported his methodologies. To say so would imply that every pro-lifer holds Eric Rudolph in the highest regard - as a heroic, though perhaps "misguided" warrior for righteousness.
come back when you have an argument.
Thanks for the somewhat serious reply.
I'm wracking my brain to figure out which portion of my comment you didn't take seriously
Okay southparklib, I'll take your reply seriously.
1) I don't find America particularly imperialistic, relative to our place in the world. We left WWII with less territory than we started. Pretty rare for a victor of that magnitude.
2) Maybe no one on the left is lionizing Bin Laden, but not much energy is spent criticizing him, or marking out your ideological differences.
3) "Muslims ARE largely misunderstood by the American people..."
I think we know them well enough.
"..."righteous" Muslims around the world DENOUNCE violence and extremism"
It is a muted denouncement.
4) The question is not if you support his ideologies, but rather if Bin Laden is some kind of vague ally in attacking the parts of America you don't like.
ludicrous
1 Imperialism isnt about taking territory anymore that is soo 19th Century. Why would the US TAKE Iran instead of overthrowing their democratically elected leader and installing a puppet Shah that took care of US oil interests, or the democratically elected leaders of Chile (Salvadore Allende) Guatemala, (Jocobo Arbenz) Brazil (Goulart) and the Dominican Republic (Juan Bosch) Do we want to be responsible for the education, and social programs for these people? NO we just want out corporate interests to be taken care of in these countries
2 Baloney, the left is often talking about how he IS the enemy and asking why we took our eye off of him
3 Nonsense this just keeps being repeated by rightwing propagandists, I once linked to more than 50 public group denunciations of terrorism and violence by Islamic groups and leaders. I dont feel like spending the next hour doing it again, but they arent that hard to find, that is just propaganda.
4 And the answer is that its Bush and Ben Laden that are allies. Getting as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq, getting OBL as many recruits as possible in the middle east. Keeping the march going toward the Holy War both OBL and Bush want. You know the basic conservative agenda
Alright, lets try this again... point by steaming point. I apologize in advance for this being so long, but the information against you is fairly comprehensive, and I want to be thorough.
1.) You say "relative to our place in the world" - show me another country that is MORE imperialistic in relation to us?
According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:
Afghanistan Albania Algeria Antigua Argentina Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chad Chile China Colombia Congo Costa Rica Cote D’lvoire Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia FijiFinland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Guinea Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Mali Malta Mexico Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Netherlands New Zealand NicaraguaNiger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Sierra Leone Singapore Slovenia Spain South Africa South Korea Sri Lanka Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
Refute that
2.) I would thank you to direct your energies at who YOU would like to criticize. I don't see you directing all that much energy marking out your ideological differences from, say... Fred Phelps. Here's why... NO ONE LOGICALLY ASSUMES YOU SUPPORT IDIOTS UNLESS YOU PROFESS TO SUPPORT THEM.
3.) a partial list - gleaned from a 2 minute google search... [link to www.washingtonpost.com] If you actually read the article above, Mr. D'Souza himself is the one regarding Bin Laden as a "vague ally" - He claims that some of the Muslims attacking America were acting on "legitimate concerns"!!! Here's a question - how many liberals even "jokingly" call on the terrorists to blow up the coit tower? (Rush Limbaugh) How many recommend that a political candidate be shot? (Ann Coulter) How many advocate blowing up the U.N.? (Michael Savage) I could go on, but the point I'm making is that radical right wingers seem for more likely to "ally" with the terrorist agenda than do left wingers.
Sorry about that, number 3 didn't display correctly...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072702082_pf.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/4/1389A15C-DC77-4735-A2F3-3601A4083C8D.html
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_against_terrorism.php
http://www.aicongress.org
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/18/the_real_muslim_moderates/
http://www.dawn.com/2005/09/27/top13.htm%3C/p%3E%3Cp%3E[link to the.honoluluadvertiser.com]
"how many liberals even "jokingly" call on the terrorists to blow up the coit tower? (Rush Limbaugh)"
To be fair to Rush, this particular piece of drivel was spouted by Bill O'Reilly.
My apologies to Mr. Limbaugh.
1) I count Russia and China as more imperialistic than the US: they do more of the population shift thing to take over another country. We do things like build a canal and then give it away.
Then there's the complaint that the US has some indeterminate number of CIA agents who run around installing more user friendly governments to serve US corporate interests. I suspect such agents are less powerful than you would like to believe.
As for the big list of countries where we have troops: opening an embassy,staffed with marine guards, hardly qualifies as imperialism.
2) Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've read, I don't see any urgency from progressives to counter Bin Laden. He's just another critic who will go away once we get more enlightened policies downloaded onto America.
3) I hope you are correct about moderate muslims denouncing the radicals. I don't see the level that I think should be there.
We left WWII with less territory than we started.
What? How do you think the Caroline Islands, the Marianas, the Marshall Islands and Palau became territories? I know, they don't count, as there are only brown people there, but what about
# Austria and Vienna (1945-1955)
# West Berlin (1945-1991)
# South Korea (1945-1948)
# West Germany (1945-1949)
# Japan (1945-1952)
To an utterly inane and insulting loaded question by the way when did you stop selling weapons to our enemies last week or last month?
I think bin laden is a real piece of clevelandsteamer if you ask me.
LOL I'm sorry but this question is like S. Colbert's
Bush? great president or the greastest president.
meaning it's not really a question that has an answer.
have you stopped beating your wife,dog, etc. yes or no?
That's easy. OBL, of course, is a right wing religious conservative.
So Dinesh,
Your apparent solution would be to appease the terrorists by becoming just like them. Censor entertainment/information. Institute religious law. Torture prisoners. Don't allow women to vote...etc. All in the name of not offending the Muslim fundamentalist sensibilities and keeping them from attacking us again.
This is just a shallow new pretense to push for very self-serving and failed ideas.
Nice. This is the very thing I've been saying for some time now. Isn't it funnythat, when you break it down issue for issue, it's actually people on the Rightthat have more in common with our enemy than the evil, hate america, secular progressives. Hmmmm.
Why is it that every time somebody clearly states the threats to America from Islamofacsim, MMFA demonizes them?
Before answering your question, I'd like clarification of its two premises:
1) How is the author of this book clearly stating the threat to America from "Islamofacsim"? (I find it curious that you had no problem spelling the "Islam" part... or perhaps you were aiming for a truly interesting and novel term, "Islamofacsimile"? Now that would be a notion worthy of discussion.) It seems to me that the author is clearly stating his argument that a particular group of Americans should be held to a measure of account for what happened on September 11th, 2001.
2) How is MMFA demonizing the author?
D'Souza is certainly acting like an islamofacsimile, railing against the decadent West. That's a very interesting point.
Exactly! I think it's a much more productive term, as it rather eloquently describes the way an uncanny, reproduced or reflected image of fears about Islamic extremist terrorism has been mobilized in America.
You have GOT to be kidding me? Is this "lob softballs to the lefties" day? Alright, round two of troll-stabbing.
a.) Precisely what threats from "islamofascism" was Mr. D'Souza "clearly stat[ing]?" It seems to me the thrust of his book was that the threats were in fact from liberal elements within our own borders. Agree with him or not, his book is not about the threats posed by terrorists.
b.) We shall use the American Heritage dictionary here - sounds stuffy and neo-con-ish enough...de·mon·ize v.1. To turn into or as if into a demon.2. To possess by or as if by a demon.3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
the closest one you could even have CONCEIVED of using here is definition 3, as I'm sure you would agree that MMFA is not turning Mr. D'Souza into anything, nor possessing him in any fashion. And to address number 3 - MMFA may be representing him as inaccurate, inconsistent, misinformative, perhaps even disingenuous, but I defy you to point to anywhere in the article where he is portrayed as evil or diabolic.c.) I'll address your use of "islamofascism" as a term last, because if I'd addressed it first your "logic filters" may have just tuned out the rest of the response. Frankly, it's offensive AND inaccurate. I'll let the argument be made for me by better speakers..."There is nothing in any part of the Muslim World that resembles the corporate fascist states of western history. In fact, clan and tribal-based traditional Islamic society, with its fragmented power structures, local loyalties, and consensus decision-making, is about as far as possible from western industrial state fascism. The Muslim World is replete with brutal dictatorships, feudal monarchies, and corrupt military-run states, but none of these regimes, however deplorable, fits the standard definition of fascism. Most, in fact, are America’s allies." - Journalist Eric Margolis "There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term." - Security expert Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International StudiesThere is no better way that the right can spread the belief that we are fighting a religion, not prosecuting a war on terror, than by using the term "islomofascism." - that actually IS me.
Try again, with a real opponent, not the straw ones you are bringing to the boxing ring.
"lob softballs to the lefties day"
Would that we had any other sort of day aroud here. Yawn.
I know - I far prefer actual, REASONED arguments from conservatives. I can respect those, and sometimes they actually cause me to re-examine my views. Hell, I can be just as wrong as the next guy. But all this whistling in the wind is, in the words of John Stewart, just "hurting America"
I mean, occasionally we do get a good, principled argument - one that I may disagree with but is honestly and forthrightly argued. I don't want to say our "friends" on the other side never offer anything of substance. But, more often than not lately, it's just been gross assertions and arguments from dogma, not real debate. And it's a lot less interesting and fun like that.
and what exactly are the threats to america that he has so clearly stated?
Well, I think we knowTruth Deflector's new screen name now.
At least Falwell only blamed gays and the ACLU. Did the terrorists forget to crash a plane into the Playboy Mansion?
The "liberal left" of Hollywood?
The owners and power-brokers of the major studios and television/radio outlets have almost to a man NEVER been "liberal" nor progressive in the modern FDR definition. In 1934 Irving Thalberg and Louis Mayer at MGM both Republicans set about and succeeded to destroy the gubernatorial campaign of Democratic muckraker Upton Sinclair, who besides exposing the Jewish mafia in Hollywood in his book "Upton Sinclair Presents William Fox" had the audacity to call for a Social Security-style California pension system for the elderly and a socialization of abandoned industrial properties. MGM demanded a political slush fund from all its salaried employees and produced fraudulent propaganda newsreels which aired across the state effectively ending Sinclair's campaign. That has set the tone for the "Hollywood liberals" to this very day. In the modern age the infamous doctored audio of the "Howard Dean Scream Speech" is the closest analogy, replayed over 700 times nationwide, while only once did ABC apologize for misleading viewers with what was essentially doctored material. Let's not forget that Reagan and Schwarzeneggar both had handlers that were anything but left wingnuts! The manipulation of American politics and exploitation of the American economy in whatever manner that turns a profit, including the promoting and selling of "cultural left" material D'Souza claims caused the attacks of 9-11 has been consistently developed and promoted by arch-right wing types since the beginning of the modern American mass propaganda apparatus was created. The beauty of American propaganda is that the creators have succeeded in convincing the masses that conservatives are liberal and right wing fanatics are center mainstream! Propaganda works best when you don't realize it's working.
One must remember that D'Souza is a NOTHING anyway (or, as I wrote in a book review, that he graduated from Dartmouth challenges the credibility of that bordello, and of the Ivy League in general).
He's become another Ann Coulter: sell to the extremists who'll by your waste.
D'Souza seems to demonstrate poor scholarship if he blames the jihadist movement on contemporary "leftist" culture. One of the founding fathers of this movement, Sayyid Qutb studied at a teachers college in Greeley, CO. He was negatively affected by what he saw as depraved American culture and it was a touchstone for his writings on radicalizing Islam for a struggle with the west. His U.S. sojourn, however, was in 1949. So his impressions of American depravity came at the beginnings of the Cold War and McCarthyism, not during the counterculture 60s. In fact, as a founder of the Moslem Brotherhood, he was executed in Egypt in 1964, the year the Beatles came to the U.S. Ironically, Greeley at the time was a dry community and very church going. So I guess we have to blame it all on Eisonhower, Truman, Nixon, etc. not the far-left wing secular progressives.
He wrote a book about his experiences, The America I Have Seen.
I remember something about that, wasn't one of the places he visited, and wrote about, a church service?
You know what gets me about people like Dinesh is that they just don't want to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before they shoot off their mouths. So smart that they're stupid. I don't know about anyone else, but if I saw my country get pilaged by the same people over and over again, saw my family and friends get hurt or killed by the same people, have no job opportunities, have to worry about walking the streets for fear of being killed, no clean water, no electricity, and then suffer in 100+ degree heat? That's a recipe to make anyone nutz. But people never look at things in those terms. Dinesh is a fool and needs to shut up. I want to know what causes a person to actually write a book that is so blatantly foolish, and the not man up about its central premise. What a coward.
I would say Qutb is an example of the wrong kind of person who came to a leadership posistion in Islamic thought.
Along with green lawns and sporting events, he railed against jazz music and dancing, the liberal parts of American culture at that time.
Well, he said it himself. He agrees with the Islamic radicals.
Would it kill you guys to point out the real primary cause for the 9/11 attacks? U.S. support of Israel. When will Media Matters finally expose the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
Thomas Friedman and others are lying about why they hate us.
I put together a ton of background info at the links above, please read it over instead of dismissing it. The facts are all there.
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't <!-- container id -->I can picture the cartoon:...
Uncle Sam mounting a scantily clad Statue of Liberty, while onlooker Dinesh says to Osama, "They keep askin for it.".
Bin Laden has been quite clear about this attitudes and motivations. The "west" has had its hand half way up the ass of the middle east for the better part of a century."We" have looted their resources, carved them into countries, installed leaders, and if they got frisky we shelled them and killed their babies, or like Iraq choked them to death economically before bombing them back into the stone age.The "Left" as used by D'Souza and his cultic pals is an incideous anti-concept...an elaborate boogeyman they have spent years "describing". David Horowitz has made a career out of creating an alternative history that justifies the way the neo-cons believe or want to believe reality is. Books like this are central to this effort. Whether American or Muslim, cultists of all stripes have nothing to offer humanity except more god wars and blood wars. Call them out...
I'll give Dinesh one thing: It takes a lot of nerve to publish a work whose fundamental positions are so wholly without merit as to be almost hyterical. But it's really frightening that a so-called "intellectual" would attempt to pass off such a blatantly vicious smear campaign as a legitamate historical perspective. It's like he heard Rev. Falwell's post-9/11 speech and said, "He's right! And I'm going to prove it." Equally frightening is the fact that D'Souza's conclusions appear to be ripped from the pages of the Fascism handbook: Make scapegoats of liberals? Check. Fault individual freedom? Check. Blame artists, scientists and intellectuals? Check.
George W. Bush told us that the Islamic terrorists "hate us for our freedom," right? You have to really ask yourself why Bush said that. Was it to reassure us that the terrorists are simply insane? I mean who would hate freedom but some really crazy nutjobs, right? That may have been part of it, but more likely it was an attempt (and a pretty cunning one, I'll admit) to answer people's questions before the questions were asked. If you tell the American people 9/11 was an attack on freedom, they will less inclined to draw their own logical conclusions as to the underlying causes of the attack (U.S. imperialism, Mid-East meddling, over-consumption of resources, oil, etc). The White House made the war on terror an idealogical battle, when it should have been about policy and diplomacy. Any idiot could tell you the causes of 9/11 did not come from within the U.S. but from without. Bush couldn't get the support he needed for the war on terror if people believed the terrorists' actions had any basis in reality, thus the "hate us for our freedom" line.
But even Bush would have to take a step back from the claims made in D'Souza's book. Bush's reaction would be something like this: "Whoa, little brown fella. You know I didn't mean that whole 'hate us for our freedom' bit, right? That's just words, man, don't mean nothin'." Even if Bush really did believe the terrorists attacked us for our freedom, I don't think he would conclude that our freedom is a bad thing.
But suppose D'Souza is correct, that it is liberal Americans that are responsible for 9/11. Ignoring the obvious faults in logic, my only question would be, why haven't the terrorists attacked other "liberal-friendly" nations of the world with as much zeal? Why does Canada get a free pass? What about France and Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, India, Brazil, Australia and Argentina? One would have to assume that if liberal values were solely responsible for 9/11, these countries would have been hit as well. Since 9/11, Great Britian and Spain have been targets of terrorist attacks, and while they would probably be considered more liberal nations, oddly enough, they both initially supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Seriously, I don't know how the "Blame Hollywood First" crowd became viable, but their rhetoric is really getting tired. I'm no "Ivy-league intellectual" but I think I can safely say that on a terrorist's list of grievances with The West, Emilio Estevez does not rank very high.
Many Western European countries are more liberal than America. They are secular too. In many ways Australia is liberal too (they allow gay union). According to D'Souza's logic, bin Laden would have attacked them first, right?
An open letter to Dinesh:
Dear Dinesh D'Souza:Your written statements, in bold italics, and my comments below:"While racism remains a problem, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs, and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place"It was only through the lifelong struggles and sacrifices culminating in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's that a person of color, and having been born outside of the US, could have risen to the affluence and societal status you now enjoy. It is manifestly hypocritical and offensive that you now focus your attacks on the loyalty and worthiness of American liberals -some of whom died in that movement - for the rights you now take for granted. You question the morality of our culture, yet enjoy the same freedom of speech you would stifle in the dissemination of your jingoistic detritis. By the way, you should go driving through some of the rural areas in Alabama and Mississippi by yourself on a weekend to experience firsthand how completely you've been embraced by your new homeland! Those rednecks you will encounter are historically a key constituency of the right-wing base you now embrace.-- America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history.I really feel like vomiting when I read your statements.Why don't you go to Baghdad and imbed yourself with some of the mercenaries who are over there commiting atrocities on the Iraquis? Or, as an educated man of the world, why don't review Amnesty International's Annual Report http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/ so you can include some of their salient observations on your next $10,000 speech supporting Bush's policies.Our own intelligence has reported that our continued occupation of Iraq, and our violations of human rights are fueling the insurgency. Not the antiwar movement.You have made a career of attacking progressives on the basis of your supposedly superior qualities of patriotism, morality, and virtue. In reality, you are obstructing those of us who love America and want it to fulfill its promise through nonviolence, respect for social justice, advancement of human rights, and non-judgmental equality for all.In reality, all you care about is making money and your own self-importance, which is the true neocon paradigm. You may be book-smart from your time at Dartmouth and Stanford, yet remain utterly devoid of the wisdom and ethics of compassion first espoused by someone named Siddhartha in a country called India.Here is a quote from Mr. D'Sousa'a book. It was reviewed in today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/books/06kaku.html
“Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of blue America.”
All I can say is "WTF?".
Rather than reading any more of this right wing nonsense, I'm just going to hit myself in the head with a brick. At some point the self inflicted pain will subside. These right wingnut excuses for logic will hurt my brain forever.
This book sounds like a rip-off of Savage's, The Enemy Within.
FLAME AWAY.
Why would we flame? You simultaneously insulted Weiner and D'Souza. Nicely done.
You call that flaming? I thought you might regale all of us with your enormous list of bestsellers.
<> Rusty S., the great author of.......nothing.
Game, set , and match, pal.
<>Among the literate, "nicely done" is considered a compliment.
Oh, so you wrote, "nicely done"; I stand corrected.
I'm sure it was a real page turner.
All 3 of them.
My new book,
The REAL cause of 9/11
Here's part of it:
"While many were angered over US policies, the true cause of 9/11 can be directly linked to "Fox News" and the 2000 US presidental elections. Due to these two items many believed that the majority of US citizens had gone insane and were a risk to the world at large with its large number of WMD's."
I'm just joking here, (snow day, school closed)
D'Souza once wrote a book called The End of Racism, which was a studiously written tome about the history of racism and its place in modern culture. While I disagreed with many of his points, his prose was, for the most part, polite and respectful. I have no idea what has happened to D'Souza in the years since, but I suspect it is the pressure from book publishers to write something particularly scandalous. Either that, or he has traded in his status as something of an intellectual for a seat next to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. What a shame.
ok, i know i'm going to get blasted for this, but didn't he used to work in a 7/11? fortunately for him, there's a large enough population of uneducated idiots out there, who actually buy into his unsubstantiated nonsense, that he doesn't have to do what he's truly qualified for: flip burgers at mc d's.
7/11?
You didn't really need to go there. There's plenty about his POV that can be ridiculed without going there.
Plus it's a gross insult to the honest, hard-working people who work at 7-11's.
Hey everyone, long time reader, first time writer
It seems obvious that the problem with De Souza's book is his disregard of the opposing viewpoint: to me it is much more credible to hate someone because their foreign policy has screwed your country up than because of their TV programs.
A serious writer would concede that while OBL hates American culture, at least equal weight must be given to well-documented foreign policy decisions. Cultural alientation and foreign policy decisions form two different sides of the belief system.
Besides, even if OBL's motivation was solely cultural, it doesn't make any sense to go on and demonise the liberal left for his warped decision-making.
Why was this guy ever taken seriously in the first place?
I'm a long time reader, and, as of yesterday, a first time writer as well. Welcome.
As for D'Souza, yes, there was a time in the early 90's when he was taken seriously--two of his books, Illiberal Education and The End of Racism, were very literate and studious examinations of their respective subjects. While I disagreed with some of his arguments, he presented them in a respectful manner. That's clearly not the case anymore.
How right this man is. Al-Qaida was motivated primarily by justified revulsion at abortion-rights, gay marriage, and pornography.That's why al-Qaida has consistently and mercilessly targeted civilians in Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Italy, Ireland, South Africa, Belgium, and other hot-beds of social liberalism.
Or possibly not.
D'Souza's remark about the US withdrawal from Somalia is especially interesting. According to James Meek in last week's London Review of Books ('The Birth of al-Qaida'), it was the US invasion of Somalia that provoked 'Bin Ladin to give up growing sunflowers in the Sudan and take his jihad to America in the first place. I recommend Meek's article for a more informed analysis of the genesis of 9/11, and one that - unlike D'Souza's - recognises that there is a whole world of complex geopolitics outside of the United States and its petty culture wars.