In the Times-News, Mariana Mink recently applauded a Dinesh d'Souza op-ed, "To Say Bush Lied on Iraq is Itself a Lie." She mustn't miss d'Souza's, "How The Left Led Us Into 9/11," and his book, "The Enemy at Home."
But she'd do well to ignore Alan Wolfe's book review and opinion of d'Souza as a writer.
"Like his hero Joe McCarthy, he has no sense of shame. He is a childish thinker and writer tackling subjects about which he knows little to make arguments that reek of political extremism. His book is a national disgrace..."
It does take an ability to ignore mid-East experts in order to see the overwhelming clarity of d'Souza's charge that, "What disgusts [Muslims] is not free elections but the sights of hundreds of homosexuals kissing one another and taking marriage vows."
An unsurprising conclusion from a man who also ignores most history of western involvement in the mid-East to decide it was Clinton and Carter weakness that made us a target for 9-11 in the first place.
Walter Uhler writes that, "D'Souza writes history as if he studied under the tutelage of that historian-imbecile, Ann Coulter."
Ms. Mink mustn't allow the existence of recorded speeches (lies) by Bush, which dismiss all fact as contrary to the message, or allow fallout like the Libby trial to diminish her hero worship.
After all, d'Souza's logic is an eerie match for George's meanderings. In a December 2003 interview with Diane Sawyer, Bush excused statements that Saddam had WMDs as hard fact by responding, "What's the difference?"
Tell me, does that mean whether you actually have WMD, don't have WMD, dream about WMD, or want WMD, then you do, even if you don't?