I've always thought the LA Times is a pretty half-assed paper. They seem superficial and brief on most important issues and I can't remember the last time I saw something that had the words "LA Times" and "breaking" in the same paragraph. If it weren't for the occasional work from Dan Neil or the recurrent spots about the new restaurants in town, I'd have given up this rag long ago.
When I heard it had snowed in LA, I thought I'd stop in at the website and see what LA kids look like sledding. A moment later, I found myself in the OP-EDs reading Dinesh D'Souza, and a few minutes after that I was removing the bookmark from my news folder. I will not be visiting the LA Times again, not now not ever. I hope you'll join me for the jump and remove it from your bookmarks too.
Sure, I know you are thinking, "You're offended by some wanker's OP-ED piece, and I have to give up those delightful fashion and lifestyle articles? You can't be serious!" Sadly, I am. You see, I would expect this type of work from the NRO or Redstate, but this is the LA Times and they are engaged in the promotion of some of the absolute worst revisionism and propaganda I have ever seen.
If you do not know Dinesh D'Souza, look him up. He's the author of this brilliant new book with the imaginative title ""The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11." With that title, one might think that Mr. D'Souza is not a very creative man, but if you read the OP-ED I think you'll be surprised.
First there is this,
Pundits on the left say that 9/11 was the result of a "blowback" of resistance from the Islamic world against U.S. foreign policy. At first glance, this seems to make no sense. American colonialism in the Middle East? The U.S. has no history of colonialism there. Washington's support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can't be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region.
There are so many whimsical flights of imagination in this paragraph, I hardly know where to begin. I will start with the "blowback" not making sense. Actually it makes a tremendous amount of sense. It makes so much sense in fact that one has to marvel at the crystalline beauty of Mr. D'Souza's imagination. Why would our foreign policy come up in almost every communication outlet available to the jihadists? Is it a plot to confuse us? I would think that addressing the root of one's problem would be the best way to resolve it. Have you ever heard any communication from the jihadists that says, "We attack because Carter and Clinton were wimps! The American non-manliness incites our jihadist rage!"
Following this display of creativity, is a non-sequeter that would make Monty Python blush, he draws a line directly to a lack of US colonialism in the Middle East and says because we do not have any there, that our foreign policy is not the issue. WHAT? Can someone please explain what current foreign policy and past Colonialism have to do with one another? Seriously. I'm really confused.
Finally, Mr. D'Souza really distinguishes himself as a true savant of bullshit when he dispels the common myth - "Washington's support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can't be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region." Basically, he's saying that there is no way that anyone is pissed off that we supported the regimes that murdered family members, gassed villages, tortured, robbed, and so forth because... well... everybody does it. What an asshole. Oh yeah - and if they were so happy under these regimes, why did we need to go and rescue them?
Next - we have the real meat and potatoes of the OP-ED. Drum roll please...
What the liberals haven't recognized is that these blunders were the direct result of their policies and actions, and were carried out by Democratic presidents — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Okay folks, despite having 2 terms of Great Communicator and Bush the elderly, this is all Carter and Clintons fault. No Republicans has anything to do with it. No sir. Why? Because Carter and Clinton were not rough enough with the radical Muslims. They were weak and "the perception of weakness emboldens our enemies".
I lose my capacity for humor on this one. Perhaps Mr. D'Souza should open a paper or turn on the news or maybe even visit Daily Kos some time, because then he might know that the approach he is advocating hasn't worked out real well for the people in charge at the moment. In fact, a lot of people on both sides of the isle are pretty certainty hat we are in the process of creating a brand spanking new movement of radicals that poses an even greater threat to the US.
But wait, there's more...
Bin Laden argued, however, that the far enemy was actually weaker and more vulnerable. He was confident that when kicked in their vital organs, Americans would pack up and run. Just like in Vietnam.
This is so delusional I kinda wonder if Mr. D'Souza wasn't indulging in the liquid muse, or perhaps a little ganja. Plus, I just love this bit of lunatic revisionism - that the left made us leave Vietnam. That some how if we had just hung out for a little longer, dropped a few more bombs, killed a few more Vietnamese, that we would have won the war. That the North Vietnamese would have packed up and gone home. We had it in the bag, we just were not patient enough. Almost no serious historian believes this lie. This is revisionism in the extreme - just like what Hitler sold to the Germans after WW1 to stoke that fires of hard right nationalism. Think I am being dramatic? Go look it up.
And we close with...
If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the U.S. is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, 9/11 will be only the beginning.
And we close with this jewel of fallacy, this nugget of stupidity, this gem of idiocy...
If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the U.S. is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, 9/11 will be only the beginning.
Is it possible sir that the right-wing extremists who have governed this country for the past six year have run it like a dictatorship might some culpability in the “division” you speak of? Could it be the gross incompetence of this administration on every front that is making the American people “squeamish”? Do you believe that the lies, fictions, and fallacies you and men like you have used to pursue the “war on terror” are the thing that will make “9/11 will be only the beginning”. I certainly do.
The worst part about this whole OP-ED is the fact that some one ran it. Despite the fact that Mr. D'Souza neglected to mention so many things like the Saudi airbases after the first gulf war, our numerous foreign policy bungles in the region (The VAST majority under Regan and Bush 1), and our support for hideous regimes that torture and kill. He even manages to throw our relationship with Israel off in a cursory sentence.
Mr. D'Souza actually has the gall to trash Jimmy Carter for standing up for human rights and has the audacity to call Clinton incompetent, and the LA Times runs it. This is why, and I am sorry to say it, that so very many people in our country are so grossly misinformed about geopolitics and foreign policy. It is because papers like the LA Times run this bullshit. This type of irresponsibility in the media will be our downfall. Giving credence to this type of historical revisionism in a MSM publication is propaganda. The same kind of propaganda you find in Russia, Egypt, Cuba, China, and lots of other place where the press isn’t “free”. One place I will not be seeing it again from the LA Times, is in my bookmark folder. Well, goodbye LA Times, I will not miss you much.
I hope you will all join me in this effort.
Sorry if anybody already diaried this... somebody had to do it.
BTW, if you want to read this steaming pile tripe you can find it here...
http://www.latimes.com/...