Gene Healy, the vice president of the Cato Institute who has done some really great work on the abuses of executive power, went to see Dinesh D’Souza’s anti-Obama documentary and points out some of the more absurd claims it makes. Some of these are so ridiculous that one wonders how anyone could believe them.
Putting aside D’Souza’s distortions of those positions, it’s a bit odd to hang a charge of anti-Americanism on insufficiently passionate attachment to Israel and British jurisdiction over the Falklands.
Odder still is D’Souza’s claim that Obama wanted to close Gitmo because “he sees [jihadis] as freedom fighters.” If so, you have to wonder why Obama keeps killing his “freedom fighters” with remote-controlled robot assassins.
Incredibly, D’Souza cites Obama’s decision to attack a North African country, Libya, as evidence of an Afrocentric, anticolonialist worldview — Obama should have attacked Iran and Syria, too, D’Souza suggests. But he never mentions the president’s construction of new drone and spy-plane bases, and our expanding troop presence throughout Africa. Kenyan anticolonialism ain’t exactly what it used to be…
“Then there was the health care bill” D’Souza segues. But who needs a decoder ring to explain why, like every Democratic president of the post-WWII era save Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama pushed for universal health insurance? Does “anticolonialism” explain Obama’s embrace of a plan cooked up in a conservative think tank and first implemented by his 2012 Republican opponent?
Healy calls D’Souza the left wing equivalent to Michael Moore, which is something of a stretch. Moore is a polemicist and he does sometimes say things that leave me scratching my head, but he’s also made some important points here and there. D’Souza is dishonest in his handling of the evidence from start to finish. He’s a pure fantasist.
14 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
benjaminburch
September 7, 2012 at 10:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You mean the right wing equivalent to Michael Moore, correct?
Raging Bee
September 7, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…Obama should have attacked Iran and Syria, too, D’Souza suggests.
In addition to our previous comittments in Iraq and Afghanistan? That “suggestion” alone proves D’Sozzled is nothing but a lazy, stupid, uncaring chickenhawk. Is he TRYING to make Bush Jr. look sensible? Even by neocon standards, this guy is a fucking idiot.
d cwilson
September 7, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee:
Actually, but neocon standards, he’s right on par. Iran and Syria have been next on their list of countries to attack for a long time now.
ruidh
September 7, 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d’Souza doesn’t make a lot of sense. Is being “anti-colonial” supposed to be a bad thing? Are we supposed to be “pro-colonial”?
anandine
September 7, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As I understand it, Obama is anti-colonialist, as distinguished from our founding fathers, who apparently were staunch colonialists, once they had successfully revolted from their colonial rulers.
Raging Bee
September 7, 2012 at 12:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d cwilson: yes, but the rest of the neocons were at least smart enough to slink away in shame after their “we’re a super-duper-hyper-megapower, we can conquer any country we want!” BS was proven disastrously wrong around 2005. Apparently D’Sozzled didn’t get the “run away and let the Republicans pretend you don’t exist” memo.
d cwilson
September 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee:
They didn’t slink away for long. One of GOP primary debates was sponsored by a leading neocon group and everyone in the audience was practically begging each of the candidates to announce that they’d be invading Iran in 2013. John Bolton is one of Romney’s chief foreign policy advisers (which explains what a disaster his European tour was) and you can bet he’s whispering “bomb Iran” into Mitt’s ear every day. Mitt’s been talking tough about Iran a lot lately and I have zero doubt that if he wins, we will be invading Iran very soon.
Area Man
September 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s the thing that makes me lol. That D’Souza actually admits just how bizarre and illogical his theory is, but rather than accept that the whole thing is bullshit, it becomes an excuse to justify his increasingly convoluted and fantastical narrative. I mean, gosh, if doesn’t make sense, just add more layers of derpitude until it does.
Akira MacKenzie
September 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
anandine @ 5
You don’t understand: The American revolution was about brave colonists throwing off the yoke of oppressive monarchy!
The anti-colonial movements in the Third World are COMMUNISTS who want to usurp the benevolent stewardship of the native populations by representatives of more developed civilizations. Those dark-skinned savages can be such children, afterall.
You see, there’s a big difference.
reverendrodney
September 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Benevolent colonists… One example: the French who colonized Indochina and exported rice while the natives suffered through famines. Or what the British did in India. But why wax negative when the colonizers brought Christianity!
typecaster
September 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why not? Dinesh is right in the tradition of Tertullian, who said (admittedly on another topic): “… it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.” Some have argued that he was being more ironic than not; however, such a supposition may not be entertained with the remarkable D’Souza.
hypatiasdaughter
September 7, 2012 at 11:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From the article:
WTF?? Why would Forbes publish a pile of dreck like this – D’Souza analyzing Obama based on his father’s dreams.
Why would the John Sullivan, director of “Schindlers List”, direct this movie?
Why would anyone give more than 5 seconds attention to D’Souza’s political “analysis”?
I tell ya, the USA becomes Crazy Town during election year.
cjtotalbro
September 10, 2012 at 10:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am so confused by Dinesh’s “logic” here.
Barack is against British Colonialism? Coming soon “1776: The Founders, The Communists”.
His underlying premise that colonialism isn’t a bad thing blows my mind.
Dinesh is just an uncle Tom.
ruidh
September 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
After speaking to someone who saw this (and who took the bait hook, line and sinker) “anti-colonial” means “anti-american marxist”.