Everyone in the blogosphere has been doing major league fisks of Algore's latest speech. There's really nothing more for me to add. Go look at my blogroll. Rachel, who really hates Algore (probably as much as I hate the Clintons) did an exceptional job. How can I possibly do better than that. So, I'm gonna break one of my rules.
One of my fav'rite things in life is to fisk Molly Ivins. In my one and only referral from Glenn Reynolds, he said sumpin' along the lines of, sure it's Molly Ivins, but this guy is new and he does it well. Got over 1500 referrals in one hour. But, fisking Molly is so easy and takes so little effort that I vowed to do her no more than once a month. Didn't want brain rot to set in. But, this column is just so wacko, I could not help myself. So, Jennie, this fisk is for you.
"What's so interesting is that he's given in at the ideal moment: really early, when it messes us up." -- Kenneth Pollack, an Iraq expert at the Brookings Institute, on Saddam Hussein's agreeing to weapons inspections as quoted in The New York Times.
Dontcha just love it when a column starts out wrong and then just goes down hill from there? Didn't Kenneth Pollack, the New York Times (All the News That Fits Our Views - thanks Paul), and Molly listen to the President's speech? If not, as a public service, I am reprinting a plain language version that I put in a blog last week.
Good day assholes.
Since I need an applause line, here's some money for UNICEF. I know you're gonna waste it, but I figgered if we gave you some money you'd think we really gave a shit about this worthless organization.
Since 1991 you assholes have passed numerous resolutions in regards to Iraq. I'll list 'em for ya but it ain't gonna do much good. It will just make y'all look stupid. Since Saddam Hussein has the same opinion of you dickheads as I do he has told you to go fuck yourselves and given you the finger.
We know he has chemical and biological weapons and is close to developing a nuke.
Here's your big chance to prove you're not just nattering nabobs of nothingness (borrowed part of the phrase from Spiro Agnew) and to actually prove that this organization is relevant.
Since I think you're just gonna talk a lot and say let's negotiate with Saddam, I'm going through the motions of actually pretending y'all might do sumpin'. That way I can tell the American people I tried to get the United Nations to actually do sumpin' but they're just worthless bogger eatin' moh-rons so fuck 'em, we're taking out Iraq anyway.
Thank you and blow me.
Now inspections are only one of the things required of the UN resolutions. Molly, like a good little liberal, is trying to point out that Saddam is ready to cooperate. Like most liberals she is too stupid or deluded (I never really can tell with liberals) to realize that the unconditional inspections already have conditions on them.
Don't you just hate it when the bad guys agree to do what we want them to?
No, Molly, I love it when the bad guys do what I want 'em to do. Unfortunately, that's not what is happening here.
If that's not a good reason to go in and take out Saddam, name one.
I can name several. How much time have ya got?
He's already invaded a sovereign nation and is likely to do so again. Fortunately Israel is safe since Bill Clinton said he'd pick up a rifle, fight and die for Israel. God, I hate that phony sonuvabitch!
He hates us and has already attempted an assassination of an ex-president.
He has chemical weapons and is not averse to using them. He used them on the Iranians and on his own people.
He is developing biologoical weapons. My friend Michael came up with a scenario where Saddam could send people into our cities with biological or chemical weapons and threaten to release them if we attacked him. Would that make you and Algore happy Molly?
He could give the chemical or biological weapons to al Qaeda and they could use them on us.
He's developing nukes. He could use 'em on us or the Israelis.
He could give the nukes to al Qaeda.
He's crazy.
How's that for a start?
But our Fearless Leader,
And isn't it refreshing to have a leader for a change and not an overgrown, adolescent pollocrat, who has to take a poll and convene a bunch of focus groups to decide what to do? Jesus H. Christ! If Algore were president, we would still be talking to the Taliban, and Jesse Jackson would be the lead negotiator.
not one to be deterred from war merely by getting what he wants,
Which, of course, hasn't happened yet, but why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument?
promptly moved the goalposts and issued a new list of demands Iraq must meet, including paying reparations to Kuwait.
Like I said, let's not let facts cloud our views. That was one of the UN resolutions that Bush cited. The goalposts didn't move an inch. For our European friends, that's approximately 2.5 centimeters.
If you step back and look at this debate, it just gets stranger and stranger.
Not for me. Not for most people who have brains and know how to use them. But, let's hear it from Molly's point of view. Maybe she just might make sense.
For one thing, all the evidence is that the administration has already made up its mind and we're going into Iraq this winter.
Well, yeah. Tell us sumpin' we don't know.
President Bush went to the United Nations and demanded they back him,
Actually, he went to the United Nations and told 'em to enforce their own resolutions. And I really liked the line about the League of Nations and it being a debating society. Who wrote that speech? It was a masterpiece.
he's going to Congress to demand they back him,
He's going to Congress and ask that they give him authority to get Saddam before he provides al Qaeda the means to make 9/11 look like a picnic. And, Molly, all the polls say that's what the American people want. Oh, I forgot. The only time you liberals give a shit about the polls is when the American people don't want to throw a corrupt depraved bastard out of office because it is 'all about sex'. If it's about infanticide partial birth abortion or taking out a bastard trying to develop weapons of mass destruction to give to terrorists who hate us and want to strike devastating blows against us, like 9/11, polls mean nothing.
and there it is.
Yep. There it is.
This is not a debate,
Whadya mean it's not a debate? L'il Tommy Dasshole, Dick Head Gephardt, Snagglepuss 'the conscience of the Senate' Lieberman, and the rest of the Dimocrats can debate it all they want. And then they can see what happens in the November elections. The will of the people Molly. Isn't that what you liberals are always shouting about?
it's Bush in his "You're either with us or against us" mode.
No. It's Bush showing leadership. Which is something that has been sadly lacking in this country, especially during the eight years of the Clinton administration. See, character really does matter.
It is not a discussion of whether invading Iraq is either necessary or wise.
She's right. Anyone with the intelligence of a third grade pissant knows that taking out Iraq is necessary and wise. The only real debate is when.
If you add up all the reasons the administration has advanced for going after Saddam, the only thing left to say -- "Damn right, we need to take out Pervez Musharraf right now!"
Huh!!!! Musharraff? What's going on here? Two weeks ago Cynthia Tucker, Molly Ivins, and Maureen Dowd were all saying that we should attack Saudi Arabia. Now it's Pakistan? I wonder if Molly has told Cynthia and Maureen about the change in plans?
Musharraf has destroyed democracy in his country, he's backing terrorists in India, our democratic ally, his CIA was hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda, his military is riddled with militant Islamists, his madrasas teach hatred of the West, his heroes are Napoleon and Hitler, and he not only has nukes, he's threatened to use them.
But not against us. And he is not as crazy as Saddam.
Whereas the Islamists hate Saddam Hussein,
What???? They love him! He's shelling out $25,000 per suicide bomber. That has to count for sumpin'.
there's no evidence he's connected to Al Qaeda,
Doesn't matter. We know he sponsors terrorism.
he's broke
I wish I were as broke as he was. I wonder how much he has stashed away in Switzerland?
and his army is one-fifth the size it was the last time we beat him in a couple of days.
So what's the big deal out of taking him out? Oughtta be a walk in the park. I really wish I could understand liberal logic. The way their brains are wired must be truly amazing.
True, we know he has biological weapons because we gave them to him (see the depressing report in the current Newsweek: "How We Helped Create Saddam?")
Sorry. I don't read Newsweek. Eleanor Clift writes for it.
and probably chemical weapons, as well. The one thing sure to make him use them is an invasion, and frankly he's likely to lob them at Israel. Do we have a right to make them hostages?
See what I mean about the workings of a liberal brain? Let's examine her reasoning. We don't want to attack Saddam because he is no threat. We don't want to attack Saddam because he is a threat to Israel. But if he were willing to blackmail us with Israel, isn't it possible that he may blackmail us? See my friend Michael's scenario earlier in this post. Is it any wonder that France is made up of liberals since they have refined surrender to a fine art?
The man is certainly a repellent specimen,
One of the few things she's written in this column that makes any sense.
but there are lots of those around.
Bill Clinton, Algore, L'il Tommy Dasshole, Dick Head Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Billy McKinney. The list is endless.
It must be acknowledged that this is not a situation of moral clarity.
Dontcha just love it when liberals talk about moral clarity? It reminds me of a Senate Judicial Committee hearing when Ted Kennedy said he was morally outraged. How the fuck can Ted Kennedy (or any Kennedy for that matter) be morally ouraged about anything? Likewise, how can liberals talk about moral clarity ? They spent the eight years of the Clinton administration saying character didn't matter and doing as much as possibe to make sure there was absolutely no moral clarity whatsoever.
Pretending that there's no moral ambiguity here is a profound disservice to both truth and reason.
What did I tell ya? The masters of moral ambiguity are the members of the Dimocrat Party.
We have done real harm in our past dealings with Saddam Hussein -- among other things, we have now double-crossed the Kurds three times (a sextuple-cross?) Not a pretty record.
And now it's time to set the record straight before Saddam gasses the Kurds again. Just because we fucked up three times, by Molly's count, should we continue to fuck up?
The downside to taking on Hussein is not so much getting him out as what happens next.
Ah yes. Here comes the old 'create instability in the Middle East' Bullshit. Ask the Israelis how much they like how stable the Middle East is.
Diplomacy is often likened to chess -- you have to be able to think several moves ahead. There's no evidence the administration has thought past Step One.
Yeah, but I bet they're way ahead of you and the Dimocrats.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican libertarian, has come up with an impressive list of 35 questions that need to be considered.
And Stephen Green has considered them and found them lacking.
As several commentators have noted, one irony of this situation is that the only real discussion of this campaign is among Republicans (with apologies to Rep. Denis Kucinich and Sen. John Kerry, gutless Democrats abound). Reducing the discussion to sound bites of "chicken hawks" and "appeasers" is of no help at all.
So Molly is actually admitting that Dimocrats are gutless? I'm shocked!
A post-Saddam Iraq will be a mess (Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites fighting),
And that is worse than what exists because ... ?
and adding that much more instability to the Middle East is not smart.
As opposed to the stability that exists today.
Bush claims he wants to further democracy in the region, but every indication is that friendly regimes
Like our friends the Saudis
would be replaced by Islamists after a revolution.
Just like every indication was that Afghanistan would be a quagmire. We don't know what will occur and it can't be much worse than what we have now.
The old problem, of course -- the root of the resentment -- is what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
Oh yeah. Here we go. 'Root cause.' It's all the Jews fault. Didja hear about the latest thing the Jews did to the Palestinans? They took a liver from a Jewish victim of a Palestinian homicide bomber and used it to save the life of a Palestinian child. Oh, those heartless bloodthirsty Jews!
We are held to be just as responsible as they are by the Arab world.
Fuck the Arab world! Those bastards have been trying to drive the Jews into the sea since 1948. They have had many opportunities to have peace. Their definition of peace is the total eliminatioon of Israel. This is one thing I cannot understand. The Arabs have never made a secret of this fact. Never. Why is this concept so hard to understand?
The smart way to go after Hussein is to wait at least until an Arab-Israeli settlement is reached, and that is a do-able deal.
No. That is the dumb way and not a do-able deal. Saddam is one of the sponsors of Palestinian terrorism. Take him out and an Arab-Israeli settlement will be easier to achieve.
Instead, we've let Ariel Sharon inflame the situation --
Here Molly has her history wrong. What a surprise. Barak gave Arafat the best deal the Palestinians would ever get. Since it didn't entail the Israelis committing suicide, he walked away from it, emptied the jails, and started the current wave of terror. The terror campaign was what got Sharon elected.
more settlements on the West Bank, now there's a genius move.
This is the Corleone school of negotiating. Every deal ya turn down we give ya less. And anyway, the settlements are negotiable. What liberals like Molly cannot get throught their thick skulls is that all the Arabs want is the total elimination of Israel. Den Beste stated it best in one of his posts that the only way there will be peace is when the Arabs are so soundly defeated that peace will be the only option. Defeating Saddam is part of that plan.
(Naturally, equal credit to the suicide bombers.)
What kind of sick society could so pervert a religion to allow suicide bombers?
Hussein is notoriously tricky when it comes to weapons inspection.
That's why we're not asking for weapons inspections.
By agreeing to the return of inspectors, Hussein has effectively agreed to Security Council resolution 1248, from 1999, which sets a lower threshold for weapons inspections, including delays and complications.
But ... but ... but ... I thought the letter he sent to Kofi Kup Annan were for unconditional inspections. You mean there were gonna be conditions? I'm shocked!
Seems to me the first step should be to get the Security Council to beef up that resolution, even if the French won't accept an "and if you don't ..." clause.
Bush doesn't really give a shit about the Security Council. Why should he? And as for the French. No one gives a shit about them.
Bush is the "if you don't."
That's right. If you don't , we will.
The most unpleasant and unhelpful aspect of this "debate" is the implication that anyone who expresses serious doubts about this venture is unpatriotic
Not necessarily unpatriotic, but certainly incredibly stupid.
-- and it often comes from the same people who spent eight years eaten alive with Clinton hatred.
And for good reason. Clinton, due his lack of response to the terrorist actions committed against this country let the terrorists thinlk that we were a country of pussies, just like our cowardly leader.
Being patriotic doesn't mean agreeing with the government.
That's true. But being patriotic means wanting to defend your government and ensure that it is kept safe from terrorists. I think our president is doing the right thing.
The most fundamental American right is to not agree with the government and to raise hell about it.
So let your patriotic heroes of the Dimocratic party start the debate. We're waiting.
I've always liked Sen. Carl Schurz's definition of patriotism at the turn of the 18th century: "My country right or wrong. When right, to keep right; when wrong, to put right."
Neat quote. I kinda like my quote about clueless liberals, "When ya don't know what you're talkin' about, shut the fuck up."
Posted by denny at September 24, 2002 12:51 PM Category: Molly Ivins Fisks