He has an article in the Washington Post.
Ya know, I heard him on MPR just today. I was listening as I put the second coat of paint on the walls of the guest room. I didn't agree with everything he said, but at the very least, he was speaking more-or-less reasonable and measured and refrained from acting anything like Ann Coulter. And I actually agreed with some of his basic ideas.
So I followed the link at Pharyngula to the WP article, and to my surprise, he comes off as a megalomaniacal nut in print:
The second reason can be gleaned from the common theme in the reviews: that mine is a dangerous book. But if a book says things that are obviously untrue and can be disproved, then it is not dangerous -- it is merely fiction and should be ignored. A book is dangerous only if it exposes something in the culture that some people are eager to keep hidden.
And what is that? It is that the far left seems to hate Bush nearly as much as it hates bin Laden. Bin Laden may want sharia, or Islamic law, in Baghdad, they reason, but Bush wants sharia in Boston. Indeed, leftists routinely portray Bush's war on terrorism as a battle of competing fundamentalisms, Islamic vs. Christian. It is Bush, more than bin Laden, they say, who threatens abortion rights and same-sex marriage and the entire social liberal agenda in the United States. So leftist activists such as Michael Moore and Howard Zinn and Cindy Sheehan seem willing to let the enemy win in Iraq so they can use that defeat in 2008 to rout Bush -- their enemy at home.
When I began writing my new book, this concern was largely theoretical, because the left was outside the corridors of power. Now I fear that the extreme cultural left is whispering into the ears of the Democratic Congress. Cut off the funding. Block the increase in troops. Shut down Guantanamo Bay. Lose the war on terrorism -- and blame Bush.
Pointing this out is what makes me dangerous.
He must have given that part of the speech while I was out of the room replenishing the paint in my paint tray.
He's all, you know, ooooh look at me, I'm a big scary subversive. As if opposing a Gold Star Mother best known for camping in a field, a documentary maker, and a Poly-sci professor while supporting the guy who has all the trained troops under his command is soooo subversive.
Here's another quote:
One radical sheik even told a European television station a few years ago that although Europe is more decadent than America, the United States is the more vital target because it is U.S. culture -- not Swedish culture or French culture -- that is spreading throughout the world.
It's dangerous to say that American Culture is pernicious, infectious and offensive to religious fundamentalists? Well, maybe. It might inspire some Eric Rudolph wanna-be to set of a dirty bomb in L.A.
But I have to wonder, how is it that WE get saddled with the pop culture? I mean, when I list the five or so people who I personally know who don't own televisions; only one considers himself a conservative - and he's not opposed to gay marriage, thinks Bush botched the handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis, and is disgusted at the management of the war in Iraq despite the fact that he was all for it before it happened (I think he just doesn't like to pay taxes).
Most of the liberals I know consume very little mainstream culure. Most of them are voracious readers of books across a wide spectrum of subjects and styles. Almost all of them are married and in bed by ten o'clock most nights.
They still think Brittney Spears is the current teeney-bopper pop star. Many could not pick Brittney Spears out of a Tiger Beat line-up.
Seriously, make up your mind people, are we the "Intellectual Elite" in our Ivory Towers with our tweed jackets and plether elbow patches, or are we the mainstream heartbeat of America’s decedent culture? Or are we just everyone you don't like lumped into a big stew pot you call "liberal" and there's really no reason to it at all?
Seriously, I think you should all just get together, have a meeting, decide once and for all who the "liberals" are, and what their REAL agenda is (we can't build the fire while we're pouring the water, now, can we?)
At any rate, the one that burns me up is this: how is it that "liberals" want us to lose in Iraq so that we can defeat Bush at home? Who do these people think we are? Do they think we don't have friends and family fighting that damned war? No, we may not have wanted it to begin with, and we might want it to be over as soon as possible…but we DO NOT want to lose this war.
And, intellectual elite that we are, we would know that it was a bad deal to sell out our men and women in uniform to defeat a guy who can't even stand for re-election.