I realize that political publications lob softball questions at ideological fellow-travelers all the time, but National Review’s “interview” with Dinesh D’Souza about his bizarre Forbes cover story is truly embarrassing. First, he gets basic facts wrong:
But conventional liberals don’t come out for the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Conventional liberals don’t return the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Conventional liberals don’t block oil drilling in America while subsidizing oil drilling in Brazil. Conventional liberals don’t try to turn the space agency NASA into a Muslim-outreach program.
The Brazil drilling theory has been widely debunked. Did Obama actually come out in favor of releasing the Lockerbie bomber? Here’s the State Department’s letter opposing Megrahi’s release. Even the least charitable interpretations of Obama’s stance acknowledge that he didn’t actually want to let this guy out of prison.
And D’Souza’s other assertions are begging – begging – for follow-ups:
My anti-colonial theory beautifully explains all these facts. If Obama views America as the neocolonial occupier of Iraq and Afghanistan, then Muslims fighting against America are anti-colonial resisters and deserve a measure of sympathy; no wonder Obama has no problem with releasing the Lockerbie bomber.
So Obama demonstrates his sympathy for the Afghan insurgency by . . . letting a Libyan terrorist out of jail? Leaving aside the factual issues with D’Souza’s account, isn’t the Administration’s massive commitment of American manpower and material to Afghanistan a data point in the other direction? Shouldn’t somebody be asking D’Souza these questions?