While I can't claim to have read the book, D'Souza summarizes a couple of his arguments from the book:
Consider whether, without the Khomeini regime coming to power in Iran in 1979, 9/11 would have occurred. Radical Islam has been around since the 1920s, but for decades it was on the margins of power. Then in 1979 it captured a major state. Khomeini was the first Muslim leader to call America the Great Satan and to call for a worldwide revolution of Muslims committing martyrdom and jihad against the U.S. The Khomeini revolution paved the road to 9/11.
So how did we get Khomeini? When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1979 his liberal advisers told him that he could not consistently uphold human rights and support the Shah of Iran. Carter withdrew American support for the shah, and in trying to get rid of the bad guy, he got the worse guy. So here is a concrete way in which liberal foreign policy handed [emphasis mine] radical Islam control of its first major state.
Is this what passes for thoughtful analysis on the right? Carter's withdrawal of support for a despised tyrant and US puppet was responsible for the rise of Khomeini? Come'on!
Iranians hatred for the Shah pre-dates the Carter administration. Organized protests may have only begun in 1978, but the populaces' disapproval with the Shah and his policies didn't spring up overnight -- His regime was one of extravigance, over-indulgence and corruption. You'd think anyone looking at the situation might consider those to be the major factors in the populace's disenchantment with the ruling class... But somehow, in D'Souza's eye, our lack of support for this corrupt man caused the state to fall into Islamic revolutionary hands.
But not for D'Souza: for him -- as for many who call themselves "conservative analysts" -- the error is always traceable back to some left-leaning leader.
I simply don't understand how anyone can read this drivel and buy it... it takes only a few moments of reflection to realize the conclusions are built on a house of cards. Yet I'm sure his book is selling well.
What hope do we have when such non-sense passes for insightful discourse?