Controversy Over Dinesh D'Souza Book -
"The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 911"
(read the author's introduction to the book here)

He speaks here to the barrage of criticism leveled at him because of the book in an article in the Washington Post titled "Bin Lade, the Left, and Me". Excerpt:

"Why the onslaught? Just this: In my book, published this month, I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks. President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran, for example, helped Ayatollah Khomeini's regime come to power in Iran, thus giving radical Islamists control of a major state; and President Bill Clinton's failure to respond to Islamic attacks confirmed bin Laden's perceptions of U.S. weakness and emboldened him to strike on 9/11. I also argue that the policies that U.S. "progressives" promote around the world -- including abortion rights, contraception for teenagers and gay rights -- are viewed as an assault on traditional values by many cultures, and have contributed to the blowback of Islamic rage."

Dinesh has caused quite a stir on the Left and on the Right. See
Serge Trifkovic, author of "Sword of the Prophet"
ChroniclesMagazine.org where he argues:

"It is now, perhaps inevitably, the turn of a phony conservative to join CAIR's ranks. In his latest book, The Enemy At Home, Dinesh D'Souza writes that,

"In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet.....D'Souza assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims, which is indeed the case, but it makes hash of his entire thesis—that social conservatives should ally themselves with these "traditional" Muslims:

"For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if such presentations will just drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place?.....It is noteworthy that D'Souza is condemning our writings (his and Robert Spencer's) as "Islamophobic" without further elaboration. Like the term "Islamophobia" itself—a classic product of the Hate Crime Industry—his technique is characteristic of the totalitarian Left. I remember reading, as a teenager in Tito's Yugoslavia, similarly worded condemnations of dissident writers and their "tracts" in the communist-controlled press. Once they were defined as "anti- socialist," "reactionary," or "nationalist," no further elaboration was needed and no debate allowed. "

Article: "Dinesh the Dhimmi"
Also see Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch

Last evening d'Souza and Robert Spencer debated the issues on Lores Riskalla's Los Angeles radio program (KRLA). Below are audio excerpts from the very interesting discussion:

Audio Part 1: (5:56)
Audio Part 2: (11:57)
Audio Part 3 (12:16)

Tags: Dinesh d'Souza, Robert Spencer, Lores Riskalla, culture wars, Islam, 911