Dinesh D'Souza is a fucking tool

If you don't already know who Dinesh D'Souza is, take a few moments to acquaint yourself: dave has his appearance on Colbert. Maybe we should let Mr. D'Souza describe the pound of flesh we rabid left-wingers have been extracting from his hide:

As a conservative author, I'm used to a little controversy. Even so, the reaction to my new book, "The Enemy at Home," has felt, well, a little hysterical.

"Ratfink writes new book," James Wolcott, cultural critic for Vanity Fair, declares in his blog. He goes on to call my book a "sleazy, shameless, ignorant, ahistorical, tendentious, meretricious lie."

In the pages of Esquire, Mark Warren charges that I "hate America" and have "taken to heart" Osama bin Laden's view of the United States. (Warren also challenged me to a fight and threatened to put me in the hospital.) In his New York Times review of my book last week, Alan Wolfe calls my work "a national disgrace . . . either self-delusional or dishonest." I am "a childish thinker" with "no sense of shame," he argues. "D'Souza writes like a lover spurned; despite all his efforts to reach out to Bin Laden, the man insists on joining forces with the Satanists."

It goes on. The Washington Post's Warren Bass writes that I think Jerry Falwell was "on to something" when he blamed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on pagans, gays and the ACLU. Slate's Timothy Noah diagnoses "Mullah envy," while the Nation's Katha Pollitt calls me a "surrender monkey" and the headline to her article brands me "Ayatollah D'Souza." And in my recent appearance on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," I had to fend off the insistent host. "But you agree with the Islamic radicals, don't you?" Stephen Colbert asked again and again.

Uh oh, someone's getting called on his shit!

But I'm not going to mock his bleatings for mercy. No, I'm going to marvel at the fact that the Hoover Institute at Stanford University will apparently hire any well-connected idiot to churn out worthless right-wing "theory":

Contrary to the common liberal view, I don't believe that the 9/11 attacks were payback for U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden isn't upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.)

"Liberals" are "fond of saying" that Bin Laden is upset that there are U.S. troops in Mecca? Really? I've never heard one leftist say anything about U.S. troops in Mecca. I do know that Bin Laden had demanded that U.S. troops leave Saudi Arabia - and they most assuredly were there when 9/11 occurred.

[Bin Laden] isn't upset because Washington is allied with despotic regimes in the region. Israel aside, what other regimes are there in the Middle East?

What other regimes are there in the Middle East?

Keep in mind, dear reader, that Mr. D'Souza is employed by an institution affiliated with Stanford University.

What other regimes are there in the Middle East?

Saudi Arabia? Egypt? The Gulf States? Pakistan? Jordan? Nations that have their fingers in both pots, by the way. But aside from Israel, what other regimes are there in the Middle East?

I don't know what's worse: that conservative "intellectuals" are this stupid, or that we've been losing ground to these morons since the 1980s.