Huffpost Politics
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Ellis Weiner Headshot

"D" is for Diabolical

Posted: Updated:

Dinesh D'Souza professes to be a conservative patriot, but his actual agenda could not be more clear: to undermine America, subvert our values, and bring about our defeat at the hands of Islamic terrorists and Osama Bin Laden himself. Why do I say this? Just look here.

The Pelosi Democrats sometimes appear to be just as eager as Osama bin Laden for President Bush to lose his war on terror. Why do I say this? Because if the Pelosi Democrats were seeking Bush's success, then their rhetoric and actions now and over the past three years are pretty much incomprehensible. By contrast, if you presume that they want Bush's war on terror to fail, then their words and behavior make perfect sense.

The effect of this paragraph is plain: to equate disagreeing with the President with solidarity with the enemy. Every real American, of course, knows that it is not only "permissible" to dissent from an authority's position, it is quintessentially American to do so. Only in autocratic countries--like the one D'Souza clearly pines for--is dissent thought to be treasonous. Only in fascistic societies, like the one D'Souza longs for, is disagreement with the President said, ipso facto, to be support for the enemy. In reducing this discussion to such rigid and falsely-binary terms, D'Souza reveals his true subversive nature. He should therefore be shunned by all Americans, of every political stripe, and no one should read him. We read on:

Shortly before the November election, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi spoke about the American effort to capture or kill bin Laden. "Even if he is caught tomorrow, it's five years too late," she said. "He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But in fact, the damage that he has done is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer."

From the point of view of new House Speaker Pelosi and her fellow liberal Democrats, bin Laden today is, well, a small problem.

In that disingenuous "well" lies a deep...well, well, in which the water of democracy is, well, well-poisoned by the treachery of D'Souza. Why do I say this? Because surely he knows that President Bush himself has said, of Bin Laden, "I truly am not that concerned about him." In mocking the words of Nancy Pelosi, which are indistinguishable from those of the President, D'Souza seeks to sow confusion and treachery, which is treacherous and confusing.

Listen to Pelosi and her colleagues on the left speaking about Bush, however, and it's clear they regard him as a very big problem.

Sen. Robert Byrd compares Bush to Hermann Goering and the Nazis. Hillary Clinton accuses him of "turning back the clock on the 20th century ... systematically weakening the democratic tradition. ... There has never been an administration more intent upon consolidating and abusing power." Sen. Ted Kennedy charges that "no president in America's history has done more damage to our country than George W. Bush."

What emerges from these comments is the indignation gap -- the vastly different level of emotion that leftists and liberals employ in treating bin Laden and his allies as opposed to Bush and his allies. First there is the ritual qualification. "I'm no fan of bin Laden" or "Bin Laden is not a very nice guy." Having gotten these hedges out of the way, the leftist proceeds to lambaste Bush and the conservatives with uncontrolled ferocity.

This outrageous act of subversion must not go unmentioned with uncontrolled ferocity: Here the vile, Bin Laden-loving D'Souza seeks to criticize the very Democrats who, at long last, are making an effort to hold the power-mad Bush accountable, and to force him to respect and honor the Constitution even as he would (and as D'Souza would) try to rent it asunder. Or do I mean "render"? It does not matter. Even someone who would try to rent the Constitution is a scoundrel. O execrable d'Souza: The Constitution is neither for sale nor rent, sir.

(And only a traitor would condemn the Democrats for criticizing the President, when the President's actions are those only a traitor would defend. QED.)

Something very strange is going on here, and nobody seems willing to call it what it is. Pelosi is championing a congressional resolution strongly opposing Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. "There's not a carte blanche, a blank check for him to do whatever he wishes there," she said. A Bush spokesman, Alex Conant, welcomed Pelosi's participation in the debate and said, "We're glad the speaker wants us to succeed in Iraq."

This is typical Washington doubletalk. What Conant cannot say is that Pelosi no more wants Bush to succeed in Iraq than bin Laden does. Whether it realizes this or not, the Bush administration is facing a kind of liberal-Islamic alliance: a sympathetic relationship that leading leftists in America have with Islamic radicals around the world.

"Whether it realizes it or not, the Bush administration is facing a kind of liberal-Islamic alliance..." Can any sentence be more repellent in its untruth? Is D'Souza, in talking about an "alliance," suggesting the two groups actually like each other? It surely can't mean they despise each other, can it?

I'm not suggesting the two groups actually like each other. Actually, they despise each other. Leftists like Pelosi, Barney Frank and Michael Moore despise bin Laden and his fellow radicals because they are religious fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic holy law. That means goodbye to women's rights and gay rights and, in all candor, goodbye to people like Pelosi, Frank and Moore.

The diabolical scheming of this man knows no bounds. First he suggests an "alliance," only to reverse himself completely and say the parties "despise" each other--and that this is "a sympathetic relationship." He bandies the phrase "in all candor" when in fact he eschews candor for lies, half-truths, and total fibs. We are in the presence, here, of a master manipulator, in whose vile hands no rule of logic, argument, or rhetoric is safe.

By the same token, Islamic radicals like bin Laden detest the American left because, as they see it, the left is the party of atheism, family breakdown and cultural depravity. The left is in the vanguard of imposing secularism, no-fault divorce, gay marriage and libertine social values not only in America but also abroad.

More treachery, more reversal, more attempts to cloud men's minds and insert his hateful pro-Bin-Laden propaganda. For surely D'Souza is aware, as every schoolchild is aware, that Bin Laden has stated openly, and often, that he objects to America's political behavior, not its societal mores. It was the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia that kindled his Islamic fundamentalist hatred--a hatred now share by D'Souza who, in an unholy alliance with Bin Laden, wants to confuse all of us about everything until we pass out or throw up and surrender to him, and them, and all of them.

Why do I say this? Because obviously D'Souza himself sees the "left" as "the party of atheism, family breakdown, and cultural depravity." If this is not a tacit admission of his sympathetic relationship with Bin Laden, I don't know what is. And, in fact, I don't know what is. So it is.

But the man who threatens the Islamic radicals and the American left even more than either group threatens the other is Bush. Leftists don't like radical Muslims like bin Laden but they absolutely hate Bush. Why? Because from the left's point of view, bin Laden threatens to impose sharia in Baghdad but Bush threatens to impose sharia in Boston. Bin Laden is the far enemy but Bush is the near enemy.

And D'Souza is the nearer enemy--the enemy of the left, the right, the top, the bottom, and all Americans. He will say literally anything. Although perhaps there is one thing even he will not say. It is possible that even D'Souza would not say that the left (which has championed middle-class causes, from health insurance to affordable prescription drug programs to workplace safety to child care to the minimum wage, and so on) is now a party that cares mainly about sex.

In the past generation, the left has gone from a party that mainly cares about working people to a party that mainly cares about sex.

The cur. He would and did say it, despite knowing full well that it is the right that is obsessed with homosexuality, gay marriage, concealing information about contraceptives, ending abortion, and so on. It is the right that wants to create a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

Labor unions are now a low priority, and abortion and gay rights have become the centerpiece of the left's social agenda. Bin Laden doesn't threaten these rights, but Bush does. One more Supreme Court appointment by Bush, and Roe vs. Wade might be jeopardized. The biggest obstacle to gay marriage today is the president and his allies on the religious right.

Having declared the left mainly concerned with sex, here he reverses yet again and declares--this time correctly--that the biggest obstacle to gay marriage is the President. Does he mean to suggest that the President and his "allies" (with whom he has a "sympathetic relationship") on the religious right, for all their obstruction of gay marriage, don't "care" about sex, as the left does? This is a calumny and D'Souza knows it. Everybody cares about sex.

Consequently the left seems to have developed a devious strategy to share the aims of the enemy abroad in order to defeat the enemy at home. It started in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Leading leftists like Kurt Vonnegut, Toni Morrison, Barbara Ehrenreich, Katha Pollit, Jane Fonda, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone and others took out full-page newspaper ads to galvanize public opposition to Bush's planned invasion of Afghanistan. The left organized more than 100 rallies to stop this action. If the left had been successful, the Taliban would still be in power and the al Qaeda training camps might still be in operation.

--as they are, indeed, more and more, in spite of the left's not having "been more successful." Result of the left's failure and Bush's success: The Taliban are resurgent and the training camps are surely not far behind. One knows this. The Taliban have announced they will spend $1 million on schools, while the Afghan government's ability to keep schools in operation is shoddy at best.

And let us note that the villain fails to cite the "Pelosi Democrats" with regard to Afghanistan because he knows they were just as in favor of the invasion (currently being botched by the administration) as he was. Is there no depth to which he will not stupidly stoop?

The left could not stop Bush in Afghanistan, but it is on the verge of stopping him in Iraq. Now that Iraq has become the central front in the war on terror, the left is working overtime to engineer a Saigon-style evacuation of the American military. The left's view was passionately stated some time ago by Moore. "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'terrorists' or the 'enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." It's pretty obvious whose side Moore and his fellow leftists are on.

Of course as an elected official, Pelosi can't admit she wants America to lose in Iraq, but what she can do is erect obstacles at every juncture so that it's impossible for Bush to succeed there. First, try to block the request for more troops. Then, try to block the call for needed additional funds. Then, when the time is right, push to redeploy American troops away from the fighting and to places in the Middle East, where they are powerless to stop the insurgency from toppling the elected Iraqi government.

The subtle master of the big fat lie of omission here reveals his subtle, big fat lying hand: He omits to mention that the "obstacles" to Bush's "success" include the manifest incompetence of the post-invasion occupation, the stubborn refusal of Donald Rumsfeld (and Bush himself) to heed the military's repeated complaints and requests for men and materiel, the bonehead dysfunctional rivalry between Defense and State, the graft-ridden and crony-clogged reconstruction, and the terminal disillusionment of the military and many Republicans with the whole miserable fiasco. O subtle lying master of big fat lies of omission! I and all right-thinking Americans rebuke thee!

Who knows what will happen next? It seems likely that Islamic radicals of one sort or another will assume power in Iraq. But an even safer bet, if Pelosi succeeds, is that Bush's Middle East policy will fall into ruins, he will go down in history as a president as bad as Nixon, and conservative foreign policy will be disgraced for a generation.

"If Pelosi succeeds..." Not "if Bush continues, as he has his entire life in everything he has attempted, to fail." This, a statement of self-evident idiocy, is meant to boggle the reader's mind. It is as though D'Souza were to say, "If beer truly is, as the old wives' tale has it, the urine of the fairies, then we shall all be impotent before we are fifty." It is, in other words, the "Chewbacca Defense," in which someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely.

Since foreign policy has traditionally been a political strength for the Republicans, what could be better from the left's point of view than to turn the war on terror into a millstone around the neck of the right? Yes, we may lose Iraq to the Islamic radicals and this would further jeopardize American interests in the Middle East, but all of this would be a price worth paying for inflicting a cataclysmic political defeat on Bush and the right wing. Hillary could walk into the Oval Office in '08.

More treachery: every single thing the Bush administration has bungled, blown, corrupted, or destroyed in seven years is the fault of "the left." Knowing that this is patent idiocy, D'Souza asserts it nonetheless, for his goal is nothing other than the destruction of our tradition of free speech. "If free speech means a horse's ass like D'Souza is allowed to say such things in the public square, then by Christ I'll have none of it!" declares every red-blooded American man and woman. Who can blame them? And yet to say that is to allow D'Souza, and therefore the terrorists, to win.

Bin Laden, it seems, is ready to do his part to work with the American left. Some may think him reluctant to cooperate with "infidels," but we know from al Qaeda's collaboration with Baathist insurgents in Iraq that bin Laden is quite willing to ally with one type of infidel in order to expel from the region the greater infidel, America. Bin Laden terms the alliance between Islamic fundamentalists and secular Baathists a "convergence of interests."

Oh does he? And how, pray, would D'Souza know that? Unless he is a close confidant and intimate of the hated Bin Laden? Here the master apologist for terror betrays a bit too much...

One indication that he seeks a similar alliance with the American left is that bin Laden, who used to attack all Americans as evil, has in recent videotapes dramatically changed his tune. He now openly praises American leftists like Robert Fisk and William Blum and calls for a "truce" in which states that oppose Bush are exempt from future terrorist attacks. What bin Laden seems to be saying to the American left is pretty clear: I and my radical Muslim friends will supply the terror, and you use the casualty lists to demoralize the American people and convince them to get the United States out of Iraq and the Middle East. In this way, bin Laden and his American allies can achieve their shared goal of defeating Bush's war on terror. Another "convergence of interests."

It "seems" to be "pretty clear." If something seems, then it isn't particularly clear. But never mind that. It seems pretty clear that D'Souza wants Bush to prevail in all his bellicose ineptitude, relentless mendacity, and boundless corruption, for how better to subvert our values and destroy our society?

So Bush faces two kinds of enemies: the radical Muslims abroad and the Pelosi left at home. The two groups, whose values are sharply opposed and who never speak a word to each other, are nevertheless working in a kind of scissors motion, each prong operating separately, but toward the same end. Bush may discover that his enemy at home is no less dangerous than the enemy abroad. The war on terror might be lost not on the streets of Baghdad but in the corridors of Congress.

The conclusion is as diabolical as it is devilish: radical Muslims and "the Pelosi left," who "are sharply opposed" and "never speak," are nonetheless working together. The laughable absurdity of this would be laughable if it were not so absurd--and that is D'Souza's chief strategy. For, although he is a dishonest and deceitful writer of terrible articles and disgusting books, he nevertheless uses them in a kind of scissors motion, each prong (although scissors don't have prongs; they have blades--as he knows full well) operating separately (although what makes them scissors is that, by definition, they work together--the swine!) to destroy us by driving us mad, I tell you, mad, with the inanity of his writing as presented by publishers who, we used to assume, knew better. Damn his eyes!