Actually, I’d like to know how D’Souza thinks
I realize that political publications lob softball questions at ideological fellow-travelers all the time, but National Review’s “interview” with Dinesh D’Souza about his bizarre Forbes cover story is truly embarrassing. First, he gets basic facts wrong:
But conventional liberals don’t come out for the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Conventional liberals don’t return the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Conventional liberals don’t block oil drilling in America while subsidizing oil drilling in Brazil. Conventional liberals don’t try to turn the space agency NASA into a Muslim-outreach program.
The Brazil drilling theory has been widely debunked. Did Obama actually come out in favor of releasing the Lockerbie bomber? Here’s the State Department’s letter opposing Megrahi’s release. Even the least charitable interpretations of Obama’s stance acknowledge that he didn’t actually want to let this guy out of prison.
And D’Souza’s other assertions are begging – begging – for follow-ups:
My anti-colonial theory beautifully explains all these facts. If Obama views America as the neocolonial occupier of Iraq and Afghanistan, then Muslims fighting against America are anti-colonial resisters and deserve a measure of sympathy; no wonder Obama has no problem with releasing the Lockerbie bomber.
So Obama demonstrates his sympathy for the Afghan insurgency by . . . letting a Libyan terrorist out of jail? Leaving aside the factual issues with D’Souza’s account, isn’t the Administration’s massive commitment of American manpower and material to Afghanistan a data point in the other direction? Shouldn’t somebody be asking D’Souza these questions?
As someone who has been in this guys cross hairs and seen his debates on religious topics, I can assure you that he has no need to make sense or stick to facts. He strikes me as the definition of a bullshit artist. He doesn’t actually care if what he is saying is true or not, he just wants you to think he is smart and right.Report
Dinesh D’Souza is truly bizarre. I am amazed that he was published.Report
It was a jawdropping article. I’d always thought he was so thoughtful and honest and then he plops down this ball of rank dishonesty wrapped about with idiocy.Report
To really put the interview in context, it should be pointed out that K-Lo was the NR scribe conducting the interview. I’m startled she didn’t shoehorn some idolatrous praise to the Pope in there somehow.Report
Hey, I’m the one who said Imam Barry was a cultural Muslim and a Kenyan Marxist and its Dinesh that racks in the money on the talking head circuit…whas up wid dat?Report
@Robert Cheeks, National Review hates Paleo’s Bob, they’re too forthright.Report
@North, I know Northie, I know!
BTW, did you see where Joe Sobran passed on to his reward. I loved the guy. Maybe the bloggers here will not that?Report
@Robert Cheeks,
I loved the guy.
Bob, I thought that Holocaust denial would be too much even for you.Report
@Mike Schilling, Hep me here, did he deny or question certain aspects? BTW, not even Imam Barry is right about everything.Report
@Robert Cheeks,
Not even Kleagle Bob.Report
@Robert Cheeks, ….not even! But, you meant the late Grand Keagle Bobby Byrd, a commie-Dem of the great state of West Virginia?Report
@Robert Cheeks,
Ah, but unlike you, he’s a repentant Klansman.Report
@Robert Cheeks, Talking with you takes me back to jr. high.Report
@Robert Cheeks,
You had nothing to say then either?Report
I think D’Souza is saying that Obama has a natural sympathy for those in occupied or exploited countries, not that he will ail to execute the war — he has to execute the war, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t sympathetic with the resisters. It’s not strange that Obama was influenced by the ideas of his father and mother and views much of America’s past as exploitative of third world countries — many on the left believe that who didn’t even have the parental influence. It’s not strange that America could elect a president with socialist tendencies — the left is open about socialist ideas, and the ideas are being bandied about everywhere, especially among unions.Report
@MFarmer, Mike have you read D’Souza’s article? He’s making enormous leaps and truely outlandish claims. Considerably more wackadoodle than what you’re suggesting here.Report
@North,
I don’t blame Mike for not reading the article. That was wise decision as he only gets so many year, days, hours, and minutes on this earth. Why spend it reading something D’souza wrote?
It is for that exact reason that I will never finish reading Atlas Shrugged and I won’t start and of her other books either.Report
@ThatPirateGuy, …I KNEW you didn’t finish AS! So, that’s the problem!Report
@Robert Cheeks,
If he had finished it, he would see the light.Report
@North,
I watched him explain his book the other night in detail. It’s plausible. I’m not saying it’s true, but it’s wackadoodle — what in the article do you reject as impossibly, wackadoodily crazy, specifically?Report
@MFarmer,
Everything. The whole thing is “wackadoodle.”Report
@silentbeep,
The reaction to his book is pretty wackadoodle, if you ask me. Odd.Report
@MFarmer, Have you read the Forbes article Mike? If you haven’t then I’m confused as to why you’re reflexively defending it?Report
D’Souza asserts that Obama’s administration underwrote and supported offshore drilling in Brazil but not in America. In actuality the support he cites was issued by the Export-Import Bank which at the time of the decision was five member board, 3 republicans 2 democrats, all appointed by…. President Bush!
D’souza asserts that Obama’s June 15th speech regarding the oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on railing about America’s proportional consumption of the worlds oil.
In doing so D’souza seemed to have missed the first 2/3rds of the damn speech which were all about cleanup and on top of that D’souza got his numbers so wrong that even Forbes prostrate fact checkers had to issue a correction.
D’souza asserts in the article that Obama was solely responsible for TARP and has forbidden the Banks from paying TARP funds back in order to keep a leash on them. This of course ignores the original author of TARP (which Obama did admittedly vote in favor of in the Senate) Bush and ignores the fact that as of now over half of the funds have been paid back by the very banks Obama is supposedly preventing from paying back.
Frankly there’s damn little to consider not insane or incorrect in the article, especially when he goes winging off into lala-land by holding quotes from Obama’s book to his forehead and thus coming to some intuitive understanding of the motives and thoughts in Obama’s head.Report
@North,
You know what — I’ll drop this for right now, because if there are pertinent facts regarding Obama’s influences and ideology, they will be revealed, and we can all decide for ourselves. I believe America elected someone they knew little about, and I blame the media for not doing its job. If I’m wrong about Obama, I will be one of the first to apologize. It’s useless to argue at this point, because there’s too much hyperbole and defense. The facts will be revealed and then I’ll make a final judgement. What might seem plausible could be false — who knows?Report
@MFarmer, Very gracious of you Mike.Report
From a British POV, it’s quite clear that Obama is pissed off about the Scottish (not British) government’s decision. But then, it’s also clear that Obama is a moderate conservative and the Tea Party etc are bigoted know-nothing loons. Perhaps distance lends perspective in such cases.Report
Shouldn’t somebody be asking D’Souza these questions?
No, they should be ignoring him completely. His 15 minutes were up decades ago.Report