‘Why the onslaught?’

Conservative activist/writer Dinesh D’Souza has, for some reason, apparently been criticized for blaming the left for the terrorists’ hatred of the United States in general, and 9/11 in specific. Apparently, it’s all about the culture. As D’Souza explains it, Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant … and D’Souza believes they’re absolutely right. Therefore, logically, the left invites attacks by reinforcing the beliefs al Qaeda has about the United States.

The answer, apparently, is to shift our culture to the right, appease the terrorists, and stay safe. After this jaw-dropping, book-length argument drew criticism, D’Souza took to the Washington Post to defend himself.

[I]n my recent appearance on Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” I had to fend off the insistent host. “But you agree with the Islamic radicals, don’t you?” Stephen Colbert asked again and again.

Why the onslaught? Just this: In my book, published this month, I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks.

First, Stephen Colbert did ask the question “again and again,” right up until D’Souza answered it — by acknowledging that he agrees with some of the things radical Islamic extremists are against in America. The problem wasn’t that the interviewer was incessant; it’s that D’Souza admitted that he was sympathetic to terrorists’ cultural critique of the United States.

Second, D’Souza does more than just argue that the left “bears a measure of responsibility.” He actually insists that the left is the “primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.”

It’s a little late to backpedal now, Dinesh. If you wanted to soften the argument, you should have started before the book was published.

In his WaPo piece, D’Souza, apparently feeling a little sorry for himself, said the response to his idea has been “a little hysterical.”

I’m having a hard time trying to imagine what kind of response D’Souza expected. He wrote what has accurately been described as a “sleazy, shameless, ignorant, ahistorical, tendentious, meretricious lie,” which blames Americans for terrorists’ hatred, and recommends doing more to appease those who want to kill us. How, exactly, are reasonable people supposed to react to such transparent lunacy? Did D’Souza expect to be invited to Harvard to host a symposium on how evil modern America is?

If D’Souza wanted to be embraced as a serious person with a credible thesis, he should have written a serious book with a credible thesis. Ridiculous screeds tend not to go over particularly well. The fact that D’Souza is surprised suggests he’s even less in touch with reality than his book indicated.

D’Souza seems particularly sensitive about his patriotism.

…I feel silly having to say it: I don’t hate America. My last book was called “What’s So Great About America,” and there is no question mark in the title. If I hated this country, why would I have left my family and friends in India and moved to the United States, married an American and become a U.S. citizen? I came here because the United States gives me the freedom to make the life that I could not have made in India.

D’Souza’s obviously confused. You can love America, but if you hate Americans, describe them as quite literally “the enemy,” and insist they change in order to appease terrorists, your patriotism might be suspect.

Just a thought.

and why does he think that WE have to change? why shouldn’t the islamic radicals change THEIR view?

  • So that’s why we have to create a fascist/theocratic state. To get the terrorists off our backs.

    Liberals have their own ways of fighting terrorism. Hey! Don’t bogart that joint. And take those panties off of your head. You’re emboldening the terrorists.

  • “I had to fend off the insistent host.”

    I saw the interview with SC and he could have evaded the question if he had his wits about him, but instead he opted for the stupidest possible response.

    Speaking as a minority, he also walked into the biggest possible hornets nest of all.

    Some folks look at me cross eyed when I respond to the question “Where did my relatives come from?” when I reply Korea till I answer South Korea as if they think I am some Boofant topped midget with a nuclear daddy complex.

    Borrowing Jon Stewart’s Camera 3 Device:
    Dinesh, have you looked in the mirror lately? Have you not realized that there is still a large number of unelightened folks who still think that all visual minorities look alike? Did you notice that a lot of Indians and Sikhs were accidentally labeled as terrorists during the post 9/11 hysteria because they looked “similar” to the hijackers even though they aren’t? Shitting on the culture isn’t the smartest thing in the world to do because even right wingers like sex (in a very dark scary closet) and Hollywood movies, too. But then again, it’s very hard to look in the mirror when your head is firmly lodged up your ass.

  • First, why the f*** does the WaPo insist on publishing pieces by this P.O.S? Was his book not enough to get his point across? Now he needs to be granted valuable real estate on the editorial pages of the WaPo? Reason number 2,348 why I do not subscribe to the WaPo. And they wonder why sales are down and stagnant.

    And I guess that D’Louza is comfortable then if we on the left propose a system of temporary marriages (well, I would call it legalized prostitution), just like that practiced by those who’s culture he is embracing.

    What a senseless little bitch.

  • Wow, I’m really sorry about Dinesh. I didn’t realize he didn’t mean any offense, insult, or fightin’ words when he described me (and most of my friends) as immoral and said we were to blame for the deaths of thousands of people in terrorist attacks because we’re the reason terrorists attack The West. I can’t imagine how I could have been so wrong to have taken his suggestion that I am causing the scourge of terrorism so personally. Does this mean Coulter was really just funnin’ me when she said I was treasonous, too? I just feel terrible that my emotional reaction to such allegations hurt his tender feelings. If there were any way I could make it up to he and Ann, why you know I’d. . . drop them head first from a B-1 into Anbar province unarmed and wearing nothing but American Flag underwear. Then lets see who it is the terrorists don’t like, moron.

  • Here’s a suggestion to Dinesh & the radical muslims:
    Leave us the f**k alone.
    Perhaps I need all caps to shout it.

    Next, the whole argument is absurd. Didn’t Osama bin Laden say that his intent for the 9/11 attack was to emulate the destruction that he saw in Lebanon? Buildings were destroyed by American made military weapons. Anybody see left-wing values there?

    Dinesh is a right-wing hack trying to chang the subject. We should tell him that this is what he will have to endure if he wants to keep the subsidies received from the right wing plutarchs.

  • Silly me, I thought at the time that bin Laden was railing against the presence of the Infidel on Sacred Ground–American military bases and Mecca/Medina in the same country.

    Confusing the issues and ascribing your own motives to someone else’s actions are a hallmark of “right wing intellectualism”. (oxymoron alert)

  • A man who thinks WE promote religious fundamentalism because we don’t make our women wear burkhas… who accuses US of incivility for taking issue with being called the source of radical Islam’s justified hatred of the West…

    Why did the WP publish this garbage? Why was it so important to give this man a platform to defend his up-is-down slander, unchallenged?

    Does the WP hate bloggers for their biting partisanship, or because the riff-raff are taking liberties far beyond their station?

  • A quick lexicon of right wing terminology:
    -“debate” – A right winger postulating a completly irrational idea that is not to be answered or rebutted by anyone else, lest its true foolishness be exposed.
    – “seriousness” – the ability of right winger to put forth completely batshit crazy ideas about who to hate and why with a straight face and expect to have it treated as a work of great philosophy, deep thought and accomplishment.
    – “civility” – the need for right wingers to have their irrational thought treated wih some sort of respect when in truth it should be scorned, derided and mocked for the hate-filled diatribe it really is.
    – “Dinesh D’Souza” – A brown skinned foreign national who puts forth ” serious debate” saying we must hate and fear “other” brown skinned foreign nationals because after all they are unclean and stupid and expects people to respond to him with “civility.”

  • bubba, for the record, the post publishes this garbage because donald graham and fred hiatt want to publish this kind of garbage. it doesn’t happen by accident.

  • Did D’Souza expect to be invited to Harvard to host a symposium on how evil modern America is?

    It’s not just a symposium. At Harvard, that’s a required course! 😉

  • Funny how D’Souza won’t quote any conservatives (say, Dean Barnett, Scott Johnson, both of whom found his book atrocious).

    But you have to love this quote:

    “..I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks. President Jimmy Carter’s withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran, for example, helped Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime come to power in Iran, thus giving radical Islamists control of a major state…”

    D’Souza argument:

    Carter – withdraws support for Shah. Islamists get mad.

    [Note to Dinesh, the Shah was a secular ruler. And a bastard. But apparently, Islamists are supposed to be mad because Carter would not support a bastard secular dictator. I guess they must also have hated us for not supporting Iraq’s bastard secular dictator.]

    [Further note – Bin Laden routinely refers to Iranians as “the Shi’ite dogs”. So yeah, I guess Osama really gets mad that we’re threatening regime change in Iran. Really mad that we keep on knocking over his sworn enemies.]

  • I have a better question – why is this guy given an editorial in the WP? The guy is a crackpot. From the end of the piece:

    It is that the far left seems to hate Bush nearly as much as it hates bin Laden. Bin Laden may want sharia, or Islamic law, in Baghdad, they reason, but Bush wants sharia in Boston. Indeed, leftists routinely portray Bush’s war on terrorism as a battle of competing fundamentalisms, Islamic vs. Christian. It is Bush, more than bin Laden, they say, who threatens abortion rights and same-sex marriage and the entire social liberal agenda in the United States. So leftist activists such as Michael Moore and Howard Zinn and Cindy Sheehan seem willing to let the enemy win in Iraq so they can use that defeat in 2008 to rout Bush — their enemy at home.

    When I began writing my new book, this concern was largely theoretical, because the left was outside the corridors of power. Now I fear that the extreme cultural left is whispering into the ears of the Democratic Congress. Cut off the funding. Block the increase in troops. Shut down Guantanamo Bay. Lose the war on terrorism — and blame Bush.

    What total nonsense. Does he quote anyone? Who on the left hates Bush as much as Bin Laden? Who thinks that Bush will bring Islamic law to the US? What is the common position(s) of Michael Moore, Howard Zinn and Cindy Sheehan? My guess is that they oppose the war in Iraq, but their opposition comes from very different points of view. The Left doesn’t want to the US to lose in Iraq – it points out that we have essentially lost already and there is no point in continuing to throw away lives and money on a failed policy. If someone opposes the surge, wants to bring the troops home and to shut down Guatanamo Bay, does that make them a member of the “extreme cultural left”? Then a large number of Americans are members of the “extreme cultural left”. Why does someone’s foreign policy positions define where they are culturally?

  • Dinesh D’Nitwitta, Andy “Gay Doofus” Sullivan, and Michelle “Concentration Camps” Malkin are all walking, twittering arguments for retroactive immigration reform.

  • What bin Laden and his cohorts resent is being on the losing side of the major historical shift which is taking place in the world at a rapidly accelerating pace.. Their exclusively male, tribal society, with a single, universally required, strict religion, is thoroughly medieval, something the West left behind centuries ago.

    The rate of change, under the influence of modern travel, communication and economic interdependence is overwhelming them, and they resent it, just as the knuckle draggers in this country did, faced with 20th century erosion of white, male and straight privilege. I don’t know those languages, but I’ll bet early Dylan would sound great in Arabic, Hebrew and Farsi.

  • This is the weakness of Dinesh:

    He bases his assumptions of the standard political model which places the Left and the Right at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But this isn’t a political spectrum we’re looking at here; rather, it’s an inverted ideological spectrum—with “moderation” at both ends, and the low point of the curve being in the middle The “low point is divided by a line at it’s lowest point, with each side of the line representing a political extremist point. One side is Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, with its literal interpretation of the Bible that proclaims everything outside its domain to be “inherently evil.” Just across the line is the radical fundamentalism of Islam—which operates on an identical interpretation of their holy text.

    This “volcano of anger” actually straddles the line, and the anger is brought about by the proximity of the two exremist POVs. They are symbiant; each feeding the other, each needing the other as ideological nutrition to stave off malnutrition and eventual death….

  • In his WaPo article he blames the Left – but upfront blames Carter for abandoning the Shah and Clinton for not responding forcefully enough to terrorism (funny – no mention of Reagan cutting and running from Beirut) – and only then does he address the social traits of the Left (i.e. an open secular society) which he claims does so much to inflame the islamists. I felt dirty enough readind the article – I won’t be reading the book – but the press this has gotten on the blogs that I’ve read focus almost exclusively on the his blaming the social left. I was actually quite surprised in his article that he put the political left (did either Carter or Clinton really follow a “Left” foreign policy vis-a-vis the Middle East – to me that’s kind of rewriting history) – did he give the political argument that much “up front” space in the book – or was that just covering his assets for the WaPo audience?

  • Shorter Dinesh D’Souza:
    If liberals were more like the people I hate, I wouldn’t hate them so much.

  • Yes, my favorite dishonest part of the piece was when D’Souza “explains” to liberals that there are no U.S. bases in Mecca. As if anybody has actually said that.

    As most normal humans know, it was the basing of military operations in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War that was one of the key factors that radicalized Al Qaeda against the U.S.

    As this article states, “Many Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and some–including Osama bin Laden–had used this as a justification for terrorism.”

    Is the distinction between “bases in Mecca” and “presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islan’s two holiest sites” that hard for D’Souza to navigate?

    Oy vey zmir.

  • First, why the f*** does the WaPo insist on publishing pieces by this P.O.S? Was his book not enough to get his point across? Now he needs to be granted valuable real estate on the editorial pages of the WaPo? Reason number 2,348 why I do not subscribe to the WaPo. And they wonder why sales are down and stagnant.

    Not only that, but he got a nice long verbal essay on “All Things Considered” on NPR last Friday afternoon.

    He says this batshit crap and all these people blink and say “well, would you like to discuss this further?” This is the kind of guy who takes advantage of “civility.” He needs to be taken out in a dark alley and introduced to the myriad other uses for a Louisville Slugger than playing a game.

  • There are two questions: 1) does America have some bad traits, and 2) what should we do about them?

    Most agree that America is not perfect and needs some improvement. In fact most Americans would even agree with conservative Islamists that american culture is overly materialistic.

    But what do we do about it? Should we work through diplomatic and democratic processes do effect change, or should we slam airliners into buildings, killing thousands of innocent civilians.

    In this bin Laden and Bush are fairly close.

  • He mentions Carter, but not, say, Saint Ronnie who actually helped fund bin Laden against the Russians and then ignored them afterward, and gave weapons to Saddam which he later used on his own people, which is why they hung him.

    I’m still trying to figure out how these people get air time, while anyone on the left is completely ignored.

    On the bright side, at least he didn’t point out that Michael Moore is fat …

  • NeilS: In fact most Americans would even agree with conservative Islamists that american culture is overly materialistic.

    I would argue that American culture is necessarily materialistic. The world’s strongest economy depends on full-throttle consumerism. Shop-til-you-drop is a virtue. Just ask the Pentagon.

    If “most Americans” are uneasy with this, they’ve managed to keep their misgivings in check

  • Moses sez: Saint Ronnie … gave weapons to Saddam which he later used on his own people…

    Actually, Rumsfailed visited Saddam to make nice even after Saddam was known to be using gas on the Iranians, and got him more of the stuff he needed to make more WMDs, and the intel to use it more effectively. So our WMD assistance was actually given before and after it was well known that Saddam was using the WMDs.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

  • If al Qaeda is to hell-bent on going after our country for being “too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant”, then why are Canadians getting off scott free?

  • Dinesh, I have your solution! You and all who agree with you can move to,say, “Dixie” and you can all live the life the Islamofacists will find acceptable. You will all be safe and the rest of the godless heathens will likely be blown up one office building at a time.

    This guy is ranting on NPR as I type. How the hell did his opinion gain any creedence anyway? He sounds like Mr. Sulu trying to pick up GWB at a bar by flattering him.

    NeilS, thanks for pointing out how the extreme left is driving the American culture to unacceptable materialist levels. Everyone must have a Volvo and at least 3 pairs of Birkinstocks.

  • 2Manchu,

    If al Qaeda is to hell-bent on going after our country for being “too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant”, then why are Canadians getting off scott free?

    Brilliant. Every interview with D’Souza should begin (and end if not answered) with this question.

  • If al Qaeda is to hell-bent on going after our country for being “too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant”, then why are Canadians getting off scott free?

    Or Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands …

    People like Dinesh just can’t get their pea-sized brains around the fact that it’s the American government and is decades of meddling in the affairs of others that are primarily to blame.

    While always painted by the powers that be that we are in (insert country here) to help the people of that country, in the end we’re only there due to some asinine “doctrine” (see: Truman) or to exploit whatever we can (see: most of Africa).

    Too bad Dinesh and others don’t get it — if they did, maybe we could stop doing that and dedicate ourselves to actually, you know, helping those who need it (like Darfur, which our government has all but ignored).

  • ”The enemy of my enemy is my . . . no, wait!”

    Hasn’t D’Souza really muddied the waters of conservative ideology with this thesis? Not too long ago, it seemed that conservatives were all up in arms because of “PC liberal” publishers who refrained from printing the Danish cartoons that many muslims found offensive. The liberals in our societies, we were told, were capitulating to extremist muslims, and we’d all soon be forced to give up our western freedoms and have our women start wearing veils.

    With D’Souza and his pseudo-intellectual invective, conservative thought seems to be chasing its own tail. Because it seems that these same liberals who are said to bend over backwards to placate muslims fanatics—are simultaneously providing them with their entire rationale to perpetrate terrorism against our societies. You see, er, if only we were more like the Islamo-fascists, maybe they wouldn’t hate us so much. Our women may not have to wear veils—yet—but if only more of us would, you know, go to church, maybe the radicals would leave us alone.

    Or, looking at things from a different angle, perhaps the methods of demagogues of all stripes have a lot in common. Dishonest political movements often resort to formulating phony grievances against groups of people who are deemed to be their enemies, appealing to the bigotry of gullible followers to create political momentum. D’Souza’s rhetoric may not be so blatant or virulent, but he owes an unacknowledged debt to Qtub and bin Laden in his screed.

  • Apologists for Fascism like D’Souza are always blaming others for their own actions. Just as another (horrible) example, take the evangimental cases – as seen in the HBO doc “Friends of God”. They complain that they are being attacked for being “Christian” when the reality is that 1) they are the ones doing the culturally-based and culturally-biased attacking, and 2) they aren’t really Christian.

    D’Souza does indeed sympathize with the terrorists, that’s why he’s so frightened.

    And right-wing fear is the greatest danger facing America today – whatever the source or inspiration.

  • Comments are closed.