Dinesh D’Souza has responded to my, uh, criticism of his smear piece that, shamefully, made the cover of Forbes with its claims that Obama is directed by a “Kenyan, anticolonial” worldview (as Newt Gingrich succinctly summarized it) that comes from his dad, whom Obama met once.
(White House Press Secretary Robert) Gibbs fired a second salvo a few days later, asking, “Why didn’t Forbes hire a fact checker…did they simply not care about the facts?” Gibbs offered no facts of his own, however. He merely linked to two web posts–one in the Columbia Journalism Review, one on “The Fourth Branch”–that disputed the article. The Columbia Journalism Review piece was high on invective (“the worst kind of smear journalism–a singularly disgusting work,” blah blah blah) but simply quoted large segments of the article as if they were self-evidently appalling–which of course they are to all confirmed Obamorons, who are only satisfied with hosannas and genuflections before the Anoined One.
Well, I did a lot more than quote it as if it were self-evidently appalling. Go read it yourself.
But I’ll admit I pulled up a bit on it. I could have written another 5,000 words dissecting D’Souza’s baloney. So here’s some bonus criticism.
Here’s D’Souza and Forbes:
Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling.” Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling—but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama’s backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro—not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.
I pointed out the other day one reason this was one of the most moronic paragraphs ever to appear in Forbes (which is saying something!).
Oil is fungible, dude. But also, the point of the Ex-Im loans, which were approved by Bush officials, is that they finance our exports. We lend foreigners money to buy our stuff and create jobs here. We do it all the time.
Oh yeah, and “Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.” That’s the Ex-Im Bank president writing last year in response to the fact-twisting Wall Street Journal editorial D’Souza cites.
In the paragraph immediately following that one, D’Souza pushes to break his own record in the annals of Forbes nonsense:
Obama railed on about “America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” What does any of this have to do with the oil spill?
Hmm. We need lots of oil, so we keep going further afield to drill for it. When you drill in two-mile-deep water, it’s hard to plug a well. And so it gushes for three months. Is it really that hard to understand?
The next graph is just plain ignorant:
Obama’s Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed’s “stress test” was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.
See, there’s this thing called bank regulation. You have to keep a certain amount of capital to remain in good standing. Some banks didn’t have enough capital and posed risks to the entire financial system. Also, every bank that’s wanted to pay back their TARP funds has been allowed to do so. This is what happens when you rely on The Wall Street Journal editorial page—and a year-and-a half-old piece by a Fox anchor at that!—to find your arguments
And the next paragraph:
The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%.