Why is this man being published and I am languishing in obscurity??

Disclaimer - I really don't want to dish political in my postings. I didn't start posting to piss off one party or another or to win people over to my side. My political leanings are like my salary and my sex life - not for public consumption.

But I don't think it's overtly political to say I was shocked that the WaPo published an op-ed piece by conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza (sorry not linking to it, so petty, I know) in which he defends his recent book The Enemy at Home. Full disclosure, I have not read the book, but spent some time reading reviews and excerpts. The bottom line is that Bin Laden attacked us because:

Contrary to President Bush's view, they don't hate us for our freedom, either. Rather, they hate us for how we use our freedom. When Planned Parenthood International opens clinics in non-Western countries and dispenses contraceptives to unmarried girls, many see it as an assault on prevailing religious and traditional values. When human rights groups use their interpretation of international law to pressure non-Western countries to overturn laws against abortion or to liberalize laws regarding homosexuality, the traditional sensibilities of many of the world's people are violated.

Soooo, it's our overwhelming support for abortion and homosexuality that led bin Laden to attack us. There's absolutely nothing in statements, writings, suicide videos, or any other form of communication from Al Qaeda to back this up, nor has there been anything close to overwhelming support for Planned Parenthood in recent history but never mind. Again, I have NOT read the book, but quotes from reviewers et al cite passages where D'Souza claims bin Laden is “a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person.” There you have it.

Now we can argue till the cows come home about why bin Laden wants to attack the US or whether Islam is at odds with other religions and whether there's a clash of civilizations, fine. My problem is that D'Souza has been able to peddle his poorly-researched, in many cases outright false assertions on anything besides public access television. He claims bin Laden isn't upset about US troops in Mecca (and handily includes a parenthetical that there ARE no troops in Mecca, thankyouverymuch). In 1998 when bin Laden issued his fatwa against the US, this point was explicit and we did. He neglects to mention that there are plenty of words written about how furious bin Laden was that the Saudis asked the US to defend Mecca against Saddam pre-Desert Storm and how bin Laden considered that troop basing a tremendous insult. He also claims that bin Laden isn't pissed because we support despotic regimes in the Middle East. To this both lefty and righty commentators are screaming "Mubarak, Hashemite, al-Saud" but his rejoinder? His next sentence states "Israel aside, what other [despotic] regimes are there in the Middle East? It isn't all about Israel." The implication is, obviously, that Israel is the only despot in the region? Maybe, if it's opposite day and no one told me. Not to belabor a point, but in his book he also claims terrorism has been around for 25 years (any hack student of terrorism will have to wait until the soda he snorted up his nose when he heard that stops making his eyes tear before retorting); that it was Carter abandoning the Shah that started this whole problem (clearly he's unaware that the rage that led to the popular uprising in Iran AND the takeover of the Embassy in Tehran had a little something to do with Carter's uniform support for the Shah and his allowing the Shah to receive medical treatment in the US). How is this okay, and more importantly, how does this hack make the front lines of the Washington Post?

In this op-ed, he tries to distance himself from his statements in the book, claiming, no, he really does hate bin Laden. Other quotes from the book, though, suggest that he is in favor of polygamy and claims Western women's sexuality and the boon to men who are recipients of this godless behavior make them much better off than poor polygamists. He pins bin Laden and similar types' rage on the threat posed by Western values and institutions - those very institutions promulgated by "Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan", and makes their cause for terrorism sound quite righteous. So in a perverse twist, he's absconded with those leftys' arguments - that we, in fact, are responsible for 9/11 and that bin Laden's cause has merit.

What struck me about this bruhaha was that Mr. D'Souza has accomplished something very few others have - blogs on both sides of the aisle are united in their trashing of this book and his theories. I don't think this is a political post, after all - I'm arguing on behalf of intellectual integrity - or any shred of intellectualism whatsoever.