Posted on 01/31/2007 2:01:19 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza, who has drawn outrage for his new book that blames "the cultural left" for 9/11, spent half of his talk at the University of Wisconsin Tuesday night defending the war in Iraq.
Iraq has become, perhaps unwittingly, the centerpiece for the war on terror, D'Souza told a group of about 800 in the Union Theater who had come to hear the speaker as part of the Distinguished Lecture Series.
Recently, while visiting a different college campus, D'Souza said he was asked if, in retrospect, invading Iraq was a mistake. In retrospect, it would have been better for America to have focused its attention on Iran instead, D'Souza replied.
Iran has been in the grasp of radical Muslims for a generation, D'Souza said. "It has been pursuing the weapons of mass destruction with the same determination and evidently more success than Saddam" Hussein.
D'Souza told the student: "Don't be too cocky about it because no president, no statesmen, ever got to make a decision in retrospect. Presidents don't have the benefit of hindsight. They are in the moving current of events and have to make decisions with the information available at the time."
A public policymaker and fellow at Stanford University, D'Souza's books, "Illiberal Education" and "The End of Racism," were both best sellers.
His new book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" was published this month by Doubleday and has been quickly attacked from the left and the right.
In it, D'Souza argues that American progressives bear some responsibility for the anger that erupted in the Muslim world and fueled the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran helped Ayatollah Khomeini's regime gain power in Iran, giving radical Islam control of a major country, D'Souza said.
"In trying to get rid of the bad guy, we got the worst guy. A huge blunder of American foreign policy," D'Souza said.
He also points out that President Bill Clinton's failure to respond to Islamic attacks confirmed bin Laden's perceptions of American weakness and emboldened him to strike on Sept. 11.
"I'm not saying that the left bombed the World Trade Center. But I am saying that if you look at liberal foreign policy, it gave radical Islam control of its first major state, which became a beachhead for global Islamic jihad."
The Madison audience was largely polite and the discourse was civil during a question-and-answer period afterwards.
Mike Barrett, a Madison consultant, told D'Souza that he reads his articles in the Wall Street Journal and asked why a "real smart guy" like D'Souza would ally himself "with a moron like George W. Bush."
"Bush reminds me of the toy soldier who kind of walks into the wall and keeps going," D'Souza replied to laughter and applause. The thing about Bush, said D'Souza, is that he has a strength and he has a weakness, and they are both the same.
The president's "ability to absorb political pain is beyond comprehension," he added.
It is fair to ask what we are doing in Iraq, D'Souza said. What are we trying to accomplish? Is it a reasonable objective? And can we succeed?
Muslims living in the Middle East today have a choice between two types of regimes - Islamic tyranny (Iran) and secular tyranny (everybody else), he claimed.
"That's a pretty sad set of choices," D'Souza said.
The United States is attempting to put a third option on the table. "Call it Muslim democracy," D'Souza said, adding that he's not advocating spreading democracy all over the world.
"We are not the world's policeman and foreign policy is not philanthropy," he said, adding that in Iraq the United States is not trying to impose democracy everywhere, but merely trying to impose it somewhere.
Most people think that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq, but D'Souza said that there is only one way to lose the war in Iraq, and that is "in the American mind."
---IMHO, it's an improvement that he was allowed to speak at all at the UW-Madistan---
I agree.
I'm surprised he wasn't shot on site at this university.
I was at the speech. There wasn't any heckling of the speaker, but there were 4 police officers on hand to prevent that from happening.
The commies did question him with the normal "you're a Chickenhawk and Right wing cracker" line of questioning, but that was the extent of their action.
I think this guy has a good way of putting the reality in words that a nitwit like me understands. my tagline is also going to be my Ottobiography----Raised on RED WHITE and BLUE SHEETS....
Very surprising and it must have been to the writer also to have noted it.
I'll have to look out for his writings, he seems like a pretty smart guy.
I'm surprised he wasn't "jumped" afterward, but I didn't hear that he was. :)
Excellent speaker but I disagree with his assessment of the President.Bush is not a good impromptu speaker but he is actually quite intelligent. I think, in reality D'Souza was just being polite to the name-calling inquiry. Bush is a determined leader on a mission and if it succeeds he will be a hero and the RAT party and the terrorists know it, which is why they are so desperate for him to fail.
It must've been too cold for the hardcore lefties to come out. That's the only explanation I can think of. ;)
Dianainwisconson my earlier reply was meant to go to you . I like this guys way articulatinghis thoughts.
not like me
If you criticize Bush you are given a lot of slack..
while the prez deserves a lot of credit for his resolve on warring with the islamowackos, it would be great if he communicated from the perspective that one-half of the country needs its ass handed to it
His books are very good, and hard for me to get at my 'Local Liberal Library' but I keep trying! I actually got a Mark Steyn book (America Alone) rather quickly, which amazed me.
I posted partly for a little added exposure for the author. :)
It's the political that causes us to lose.
And the dividing that makes us weak in the war.
Our nation's leaders decided - Bush (and Clinton, Berger, Albright.. before), that Iraq and Saddam were unacceptable. The executive and both branches of Congress decided to do so with force before the initial attack.
They all agree now that defeat is unacceptable.
Hindsight is irrelevant. We decided not going was unacceptable, we decided that losing is unacceptable.
Why we cannot be united in winning is a shame, IMHO.
if only
the rats are united only in their hatred of america
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.