Did Liberals Cause 9/11?

Bloggers On The Left Bash Dinesh D'Souza's New Book

(CBS)  Blogophile is written by CBSNews.com's Melissa P. McNamara

---

Did The Left Cause 9/11?

Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative critic and Hoover Institute fellow, has a new book out, and it's generating plenty of its own publicity. In "The Enemy at Home," D'Souza identifies more than 100 people and organizations as part of a "domestic insurgency" that is "working in tandem with [Osama] bin Laden to defeat Bush." But his most controversial assertion is that "the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11."

According to his Web site, D'Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways. They fostered "a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies — especially traditional and religious ones — and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world."

In his book, D'Souza explains his thesis further: "I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world."

But the "cultural left," or at least liberal bloggers, are not buying it and have taken to their keyboards to blog their disgust.

Kathy at Liberty Street analyses D'Souza's theories and concludes his "arguments are shallow, uninformed, and unconvincing. The right's standards for intellectualism are laughably low."

"D'Souza is also wrong in principle. If extremists and jihadists despise our culture and are using violence and threats to try and compel us to change, isn't it the grossest kind of cowardice to throw up our hands and say 'they're right, we need to align our culture with that of our enemies?' " PZ Meyers writes at Pharyngula. "That's basically what D'Souza is suggesting ..."

Others say D'Souza's message is historically inaccurate. "I can't help thinking that he makes a fundamental flaw," Alberto Testudo writes at The Ark and the Dove. "And that's assuming that there's only one cause. A common historical fallacy is to argue over 'the cause.' But in reality decisions usually come about because of the convergence of several factors. Analysis becomes all the more complicated the more people you have to deal with."

"If people are calling him on a clumsily articulated, overreaching, and dishonest argument, he's got only himself to blame," a blogger at Vanity Press adds.

Still, D'Souza has a loyal following online as well. A blogger at Worcester Right calls it an "excellent read."


Bloggers Discover Gay Sheep

When a scientist set out to understand sheep sexual orientation — so that others could determine which rams are likeliest to breed — it set off a firestorm in the blogosphere, the New York Times notes.

The heated controversy began, the newspaper reports, after the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals campaigned against and publicized Dr. Charles Roselli's research.

That sparked more criticism from animal rights activists and gay advocates who said the study would lead to sexual eugenics. Part of the criticism was misinformed, based on an article in the Sunday Times in London, which incorrectly stated that Dr. Roselli tried to "cure" homosexual rants and the work could lead to devising ways to "breed out homosexuality in humans."

Dr. Roselli told the New York Times he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. But word had already spread online. As the New York Times described it: "The story of the gay sheep became a textbook example of the distortion and vituperation that can result when science meets the global news cycle."

While some bloggers have corrected their posts, many stand by their notion that the research hurts animals, and perhaps people.

"In addition to being forced to endure invasive surgical procedures — only to be killed and then have their brains dissected — the sheep are kept in solitary confinement for up to nine days," PETA's Research Associate Shalin Gala blogs at The PETA Files.

Many say the speed at which this story spread raises interesting questions about the worth of the "global news cycle." Cerblogus blogs that it's "the same news cycle that I believe is willfully misused by political parties to spread misinformation about their opponents."

Coerulus offers a solution. "Universities ought to send the 'prominent' bloggers e-mails to tell them where they're wrong — something the article points out was done in this case — but don't wait more than a day to do so or else it'll be out of the news-cycle and may not be picked up," she writes.

But many say the frenzy to bash Dr. Roselli is unwarranted and misdirected. "The majority of the public reaction was based upon mis-information and media frenzy. As scientists are ever more pushed to justify their research for the good of humanity, society..whatever...we are checking them into boxes they just can't find their way out of," Anna blogs at InkyCircus.

"What can be known, will be known. What science does with the information is where we need to be vigilant," Joe writes at Joe.My.God in what is unlikely to be the last word.


An "Ic" Heard Around The Blogosphere

When President Bush delivered his State of the Union address last week, he left out a small suffix that had a big consequence to many bloggers. After honoring Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Bush said, "I congratulate the Democrat majority," he said, dropping the last two letters from "Democratic."

According to the prepared text of the speech, which the White House sent out, Mr. Bush was supposed to say, "Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate — and I congratulate the Democratic majority."

So was the slip on purpose or merely a grammatical accident, many continue to ask. The president said it was merely an oversight, that he wasn't trying to disparage the party now running Congress. But many liberal bloggers are not convinced.

"For all of Bush's talk tonight about crossing party lines to work with the new Democratic Congress, it is the missing two letters that may offer the clearest indication of whether partisan tensions are really like to fade in the waning years of Bush's presidency," a blogger at Dem Bloggers writes.

"Dropping the 'i' and the 'c' at the end of the Democrat Party's preferred pronunciation and spelling, as Democratic, is an old Republican Party move. It riles the Dems something fierce--who seem to think they have a special right to be considered small 'd' democratic...," Dick Stanley notes at The Texas Scribbler.

Some conservative bloggers, however, point out that people have poked fun at Mr. Bush's speaking abilities for years. "Understand, that these are the same people who have mocked Bush for 7 years about his mangling of the English language," a blogger at Crazy Politico's Rantings writes.

Others say the Democrats are just being petty. "Of all the things to get upset about," Rick Moore at HolyCoast blogs.

Blogophile RSS Feed

[edjohn66]

The history of the Right in general is rather interesting. In the 1800s, as democracy was rapidly gaining favor in Europe, the old agricultural conservatives and the large business owners realized that they needed to join forces to fight the new-found power of the masses. Even this alliance wasn't enough, however, and the rich (old and new) were in danger of losing their centuries-old grip on power.

The answer? Manipulate the electorate through fear. Since there was no way for the Right to convince voters to voluntarily support the selfish interests of large plantation-like farmers and greedy industrialists, the new Right realized that only fear would keep poor voters in line behind the rich.

The Right's tactics have not changed in the last 200 years. The American Right is just the same as the European Right that was forged in the 1800s. The American Right gave us things like two Red Scares, they prolonged the Cold war and they manipulated terrorism into a new justification for their policies. Its always been "support us or horrible things will happen."

Now that voters are beginning to realize what a sham the Right is, the Right has only one target left to try and stir up fear (and support): attack the opposition as traitors.

Well, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Americans are waking up to the culture of fear from the Right, and we aren't going to fall for it again.

At least not so soon.....

[rafterman1]

"Stir it up CBS, stir it up."

No, Dinesh D'Souza is stirring it up. But blame the messenger as usual.

[rafterman1]

By the way, aren't the righties that ones that say who cares about what other countries think and you are a pu$$y if you do care?

[huskerarmy]

edjohn66,

Excellent post. One other fear that the right triest to exploit is a fear of each other, our neighbors and co-workers who are different from us.

[rafterman1]

"is "working in tandem with [Osama] bin Laden to defeat Bush."

To "defeat Bush"? Hmmmm. Not to defeat America, but to defeat "Bush". Interesting choice of words Mr. D'Souza uses there. Sounds more like a cult of personality to me.

[sunderan]

Regardless of what D'Souza says, and he knows, that America's role in the world today incites great hatred. Never in the history of the US has hatred against it been so vocal and so stong. It was a GREAT priviledge to have an American Passport and go through the lines of Immigration in many countries with virtually no objection. Now, many are seeking double citizenship, and are using the other nations' passport to visit foreign countries. It is a very sad commentary on the history of the US, that US friendship and its peoples character should fall to such a 'low'. And this is only because of GWBUSH. His arrogant attitude 'that we can do anything we want' is the mainstay of the hatred against the US. Travel the world and see that it is so. Does Pres. Bush even show a certain gentlemanship or culture that is warranted by the office of the President of the US? Everytime he is on TV, one gets a view of an uncivilized, uncultured person, who is such a 'redneck' that we offen shudder when going abroad to think that we have a leader of such minimal character and nobility.

[hillaryin08]

HILLARY 2003: There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

[hillaryin08]

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

[hillaryin08]

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

[rafterman1]

I would also object to D'Souza's contention that Muslims hate us for our "decadence". In many countries, including ironically, Iran, many of the young people like Americans - they want to be like us, have our clothes, our movies and our music. After all, the Iranians had the "decadent" American lifestyle themselves before the revolution in Iran. The fist shaking "Death to America" crowds are a loud minority. This is what the conservative clerics in Iran fear the most, that the young people just aren't angry any more. But Bush is playing roght into the Clerics' hands by creating an anti-American backlash that is even angering the moderate America-loving Iranians.

[samthetvcat]

Somebody did a book summary of this over at townhall and basically the author just centers the book on his hatred for Liberals and then tries to rationalize it rather than it being the other way around, and he seems to have found an audience in like-minded people. If you challenge the arguments he puts forth they don't hold water.

[hillaryin08]

HILLARY 2003: There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

[hillaryin08]

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

[samthetvcat]

So what's your point Hillaryin08? And how is your comment even relevant to the topic? Another neo-con that makes absolutely no sense . . .

[rafterman1]

You sound pretty angry yourself there getreal.

[gunownerdan]

LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE DESTROYING AMERICA.
The sheep will follow.

[hillaryin08]

The liberal left of America and the enemies of America share the same enemy. You made it easy for them.

[house015]

edjohn66 may want to brush up more on the Right. By pushing Russia into a ridiculously expensive arms race, the Republican party called its bluff and effectively pushed the Cold War to an end. Also, this wonderful Democratic left supported slavery. The Right has made plenty of mistakes, and should be called on them, but try to stick to the facts and avoid the self-righteous soapbox of the Left.
janem4, you're absolutely right. CBS is the left, Fox is the right, I'm just reading the two and sifting out the chaff.

[rafterman1]

"So what's your point Hillaryin08?"

He's trying to make the point (in every thread it seems) that because Clinton authorized regime change in 1998, that somehow lets Bush off the hook for Iraq. But, as I pointed out in another threat, Clinton (and Bush I) weren't dumb enough to invade Iraq to do it.

[hillaryin08]

The liberal left of America and the enemies of America share the same enemy. You made it easy for them just by being yourselves.

[acauble1]

My statement is quite simple:


Dinesh D'Souza = reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels

[rafterman1]

"this wonderful Democratic left supported slavery"

Uh...no. Conservatives supported slavery and the old way of life in the South. Those "crazy" liberals were the abolishionists. If you are referring to the democratic party, then yes, the democrats at the time were the conservatives and the republicans were the more liberal. But party is meaningless because times change and political parties come and go. What hasn't changed though is the fight between conservatives and liberals. And conservatives have been on the wrong side of most social issues throughout history.

[macusweil]

Disgusting filth!! But, yes it's all true.. we anger other repressive societies by not oppressing our women as much as they do!!!

[Syndicate]

If Liberal American Ideals have offended other societies well thats just to dam bad. We have the most powerful military on Earth to protect this "decadent and depraved American culture". The real problem are the ultra conservative societies with the stick up thier collective a$$es.

As for the liberals trash talking Bush. I get the distinct feeling that if they could make a secret deal with Bin Laden to get Bush they would. The only reason they don't is because the publicity would ruin them. Its pretty bad when the left would like to see us get defeated in Iraq just to gain politicly in the short term.

[hillaryin08]

Your absolutely right Rafterman1. The Enemy knew that Clinton wouldnt touch them. Thanks to the Liberals, they know that you will not touch them now. Your absolutely right............

[house015]

Wow, the left really hate any opposing viewpoints. For a group that espouses freedom of speech, they sure do seem to fear anything that they don't like. One widdle conservative book gets a lot of press, but do an Amazon search on Bush causing the Iraq war and it fills the screen. Where was the conservative outcry on all those books?

[hillaryin08]

house015

Same place as your outcry from Bush causing the Iraq war and it fills the screen.

[jimbo miller]

hi
it beggars belief how the us keeps churning out these nutcases, The fact that their are bigger fools than the current arrogant administration.

These people are more of a danger and a threat to your democracy and free will than al qeda will ever be , and moreover they do have influence. i was watching the short piece with bush when he said" i make all the the decisions "

i was shouting at my pc screen " iknow you do texas pete, but they are all the bloody wrong ones "
i thought one of the attending MEDIA? would have maybe made that point to him.....

i have not got to hand the name of the first black governer of mass...but i am sure if De Souza had his way the guy would still be at the governer's mansion but unfortunately he would be polishing shoes, with rest of the staff cleaning and scrubbing,with the Star of David sewn on to their coats. jimmy fri scotland

[samthetvcat]

"The liberal left of America and the enemies of America share the same enemy. You made it easy for them."
Posted by hillaryin08 at 10:30 AM : Jan 31, 2007

Ah ha ha ha ha - LMAO . . . no wonder you tried to couch your message in a way that made you sound somewhat rational. Now if I could just make sense of your moniker . . .

[rafterman1]

"Your absolutely right Rafterman1. The Enemy knew that Clinton wouldnt touch them. Thanks to the Liberals, they know that you will not touch them now. Your absolutely right"

Yes, because Bush's approach is working so well...3000 dead, an insurgency that continues to grow, no exit plan, no plan for victory and an Iraqi government that (still, after 3+ years) can't hold their own collective d1cks to take a pi$$ without American help.

[hillaryin08]

Hey, all they have to do is hold out until 08. After that, they know that the liberals wont lay a glove on them no matter what happens.

[samthetvcat]

"Wow, the left really hate any opposing viewpoints. For a group that espouses freedom of speech, they sure do seem to fear anything that they don't like. One widdle conservative book gets a lot of press, but do an Amazon search on Bush causing the Iraq war and it fills the screen. Where was the conservative outcry on all those books?"
Posted by house015 at 10:37 AM : Jan 31, 2007

Wow I think you're WAY too sensitive here if you're reading emotions into the dialogue. And where indeed WAS the conservative outcry on all those books?

[notblue]

Liberals did not cause 911, the radical Islamists caused 911. Liberals unfortunately, are in a state of denial regarding the extremist threat because of politics, ideaology, and there hatred of president Bush and his policies. Hopefully the divide in this country won't enable another 911.

[rf35]

Montana residents, beware! The sheep are no longer nervous and a gay one may be sneaking up behind you soon!

[macusweil]

wOw all the right wingers, neo-phucs are out on this one like flies on sh*t!! guess they can't resist the smell of filth - i.e this book.

[gunownerdan]

In 1993 the World Trade Center got bombed by Islamic extremists. If only Bill Clinton would have done something about it, 9/11 could have been prevented!

[rafterman1]

"Wow, the left really hate any opposing viewpoints."

So we aren't allowed to disagree and discuss without being accused of hating other viewpoints? Then what's the point of these forums?

"One widdle conservative book gets a lot of press, but do an Amazon search on Bush causing the Iraq war and it fills the screen."

Do one on Clinton being a bad guy. Same result, so what's your point?

"Where was the conservative outcry on all those books?"

Uh, right here in forums like these and everywhere?

[changeit4]

What about the thievery of many of these countries' greatest natural resource by the oil companies here in America, those champions of the right-wing, like Bush and Cheney? Of course that's not a factor at all.

D'Souza is writing an account of historical fiction, the sort of confabulation of history that conservative right-wingers eat up. You sew the gloom of the present to the events of history, stuff it with the blame of hindsight and voila! If you've blamed the right people (in this case, liberals) you've got a blanket that you can cover the entire mess with! Also in typical right-wing fashion, it doesn't matter if it's historically accurate or based in fact, if there are omissions or extrapolations of information; all it has to be is emotionally plausible.

D'Souza is preaching to the converted here, folks. It is of no relevance that his premise be credible, because those who buy it (key point) want to believe it. Simultaneously, our analysis, critique, and rebuttal, however accurate or well-grounded, only serve to justify D'Souza and the conservative cult that our mere faculties of reason and sense are but paltry defenses against their Indefatigable Truth: they are good and everyone else is bad. Sounds a lot like the fascists, huh?

[hillaryin08]

macusweil

Hey, show some tolerence! Your not being a good lib and Hil is going to be dissapointed.

[huangagain]

As usual, conservatives always wanna reduce complex issues into simple black and white. Not all conservative people are ignorant, but all ignorant people are conservative.

[hillaryin08]

Like I said before, all the enemy has to do is hold out until 08. After that, they know we wont lay a glove on them.

[rafterman1]

"In 1993 the World Trade Center got bombed by Islamic extremists. If only Bill Clinton would have done something about it, 9/11 could have been prevented!"

He did do something about it. Most of the guys who did it were caught, tried and jailed - as is required by the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that Constitution does it say that fear should make you disregard it.

[brainworms1]

Using this line of reasoning one could say that Hitler would never have invaded Poland if they had been keeping the Jews in prison camps where they belonged.

I once had a history teacher who told us (during the Vietnam war) that if America has to become totalitarian to defeat totalitairanism, then we've already lost. Islamosfascism or Corporatocracy. We're losing big time.

[rafterman1]

"if America has to become totalitarian to defeat totalitairanism, then we've already lost"

Unfortunately, a point consistently lost on conservatives. They see any effort to follow the laws and principles of our nation (not to mention the world) as being weak and defeatist - as if the ends justifies the means. But like the old Roman saying went, I would rather die a free man than to live as a slave.

[carlitos0903]

as long as there is different religion beliefs around the world, people are never going to agree on anything, religion is very important to people but at the same time it can also be a very dangerous thing. that's the main reason we are in this war right now, the so called enemy called it a religious war, we call it War against terrorism because we are a country where freedom of religion is everybody's right so we don't want to **** anybody off by calling it a religious war. I agree when he says that "a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies". we are in 2007 and still we see racism everywhere, we see a lot of different religions feeding hate instead of compassion towards other people. We should start acting like human beings with reason, with understanding of this world, understading people and their needs, leaving behind all these ideas of different religion and embrace just one: DEISM. We are not different than anybody else, one religion cannot be holier than another one. But when you say:"One Nation under God" what you are really saying is "One Nation under The Bible" until the goverment stops approving laws based on some ideas from the bible we will always have this problem.

Nice work CBS. By giving credibility to this insane proposal with your title (Did Liberals cause 9/11?) you discredit yourself. Just because some idiot makes an assertion, does not be mean you have to repeat it as if it were a sensible thing to have a reasonable discussion about. Being fair and balanced and all, how about a response piece - Did Republicans cause 9/11? You'll have a lot more material to work with.

[acauble1]

A previous comment brought up "religion".

It's quite clear that Dinesh D'Souza's religion is Neo-Conservatism, with his self-made diety being George W. Bush, (and Sean Hannity as the equivalent of 'St. Peter').

And like most religious people, any disagreement, or questioning of their religion, and they become belligerent and sometimes downright rude in their responses. Name calling, finger pointing, false accusations...

...all the signs of a religious fanatic, whether their religion is of a political ideology or a ficticious diety.

[motherjones-2009]

D'Souza wants to blame a "liberal" decadent American popular culture for arousing the ire of religious fundamentalists in the Middle East. His argument is lame and absurd. He fails to address that the popular culture- media, fashion, rock and rap music, movies, television, etc.--is a product of capitalism. Music with nasty lyrics, immodest clothing for women and young girls, nudity and vulgarity on the silver screen and TV, you name it! It wouldn't be here if no body was BUYING it and there was no PROFIT in it. It's not the "liberals" (whoever they are).It's the free market, baby! So if D'Souza wants to assign blame for this egregious state, he should be looking at Wall Street, not Hollywood.

[oleander8]

The more words expended on this book means more money in the author's pocket. You play right into his hands when you talk about it.

[calliope6]

Do you see a pattern here? First, CBS starts blocking its own reporters (Lara Logan the most recent case in point) from getting the truth out. Second, for TWO DAYS IN A ROW, it runs headlining stories trying to discredit Bush policy critics as "conspiracy theorists" (Jan. 30's story: Are Conspiracy theorists undermining "real" news?) or traitors (Did Liberal Bloggers Cause 9/11). The idiots at CBS are the real conspiracy theorists (afterall, they bought the Iraq WMD tale and ran with it like Chicken Little), and traitors: they are putting national security at great risk by consistently refusing to tell the truth - the whole truth, and all for financial gain.