Molly Hates Straw

It's been a long time since I've fisked a Molly Ivins column. One reason is that the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, in a rare case of common sense, quit carrying her column so I never see them anymore. Now if they would only quit carrying Richard Cohen but I guess that that is too much to ask. Anyway, I came across a link to this column and it was just so hilarious that I had to share. What's funny is the column that appears in the Star Telegram is a little different than the column in its original state. It seems that the Dallas newspaper edited out some of her more idiotic sentences.

The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself.

And after reading a few of her columns we know that must be true because not too many people would admit to thinking for her.

I am not "you liberals" or "you people on the left who always ..." My name is Molly Ivins, and I can speak for myself, thank you. I don't need Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe.

Since what you believe is mostly unbelievable maybe you should give it a try.

Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right. Make some ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how silly it is.

But we don't have to make some ridiculous claim about what liberals think. We only have to quote them. They share all of their silly thoughts with us. Molly will provide a sample later in this column.

If I had a nickel for every idiotic thing I've ever heard those on the right claim "liberals" believe, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.

The same game would work with what Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Molly Ivins think conservatives believe. They want to starve the poor, oppress minorities, blah blah blah.

The latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Karl Rove,

Ya see, to Molly, if you dare to tell the truth about liberals it must be an idiotic statement.

who is not, actually, an objective observer. He is George Bush's hatchet man. Last week, Rove, in an address to the Conservative Party of New York, made the following claim: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." "

Sounds like a fair assessment to me.

This seemed to the editorial writers at the San Diego Union-Tribune such a reasonable summary of the liberal position they couldn't figure out why Democrats were "hyperventilating" and getting "bent out of shape."

Me neither. I guess the truth hurts.

"What is harder to understand is how Democrats can think they can have it both ways," they wrote. "Even as they beat their chests and profess support for military action, they can't help but criticize the military and do everything they can to undermine the war effort."

I quess Molly must have missed that whole Turban Durbin flap.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1. The lone dissenter was Democrat Barbara Lee of California, who expressed qualms about an open-ended war without a clear target.

Find me the offer for therapy and understanding in that vote.

Any politician who would have voted against that resolution would have been totally out of touch with the rest of the country. Let us not forget that Barbara Lee represents Berkeley and as such Barbara Lee would be against any war.

But Rove wasn't talking about politicians. He was talking about liberals like Michael Moore, the Koz Kidz, the wackos at the DU and our friends at Moveon.org. I remember reading right after 9/11 how the liberal intellectuals were shocked at the outpouring of patriotism and alarmed by the displays of American flags. Those are the liberals Rove was talking about and they have been joined by more and more Dimocrat politicians like Patty Murray who talked about Osama bin Laden building schools, hospitals and daycare centers. I'm trying to envision the Osama bin Laden Daycare Center. But let's not let facts get in the way of the beliefs held in Mollyland.

Anyone remember what actually happened after 9-11? Unprecedented unity, support across the board, joint statements by Democratic and Republican political leaders. The whole world was with us. The most important newspaper in France headlined, "We Are All Americans Now," and all our allies sent troops and money to help. That is what Bush has thrown away with his war in Iraq.

It wasn't Iraq that changed opinions, it was Afghanistan. In fact, before we even went in to Afghanistan liberals were claiming it was gonna be a disaster and a quagmire. The left just cannot get enough of the word quagmire. They love it.

The liberals said that we were gonna fail in Afghanistan because both the British and the Soviets did. The last successful conquest was by Alexander the Great. Much to their dismay, we toppled the gummint. So they had to fall back on "where's bin Laden?" I'll tell you where he is: hiding out in a cave.

Just 13 months later, in October 2002, the vote on invading Iraq was 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House.

By that time, some liberals did question the wisdom of invasion because (a.) Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and (b.) it looked increasingly unlikely that Iraq actually had great stores of weapons of mass destruction, given that the U.N. inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find any sign of them -- even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed that we knew exactly where they were.

Ah yes. No WMD's. We can't even find a girl on a small island like Aruba. Finding WMD's in a country the size of Iraq has to be harder. Saddam had a long time to hide them after he kicked the UN inspectors out the first time. He also had plenty of time to ship them out of the country to Syria in the runup to the war. We knew he had them after he kicked the inspectors out. Where did they go?

Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq:

This oughta be good.

because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today -- I think it is bad for us. I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did? WTF? This sentence was edited out of the column as it appeared in the Dallas paper. Wonder why? And she accuses the evil Dark Lord Karl Rove of making an idiotic statement?

On the rest of the drivel, it amazes me when I read simplistic bullshit like this. Cleaning out a country that was a center of terrorism is wrong because it creates more terrorists. So we do what? Nothing? Now when you ask the Michael Moores and Mollys of the world what we should be doing they say we should be asking why they hate us. Karl Rove, how dare you point that out!

Saddam financed terrorists. Ask the Israelis. He paid families of suicide bombers. Blow yourself up, get a check. And look what happened as a result of Iraq. Libya gave up its quest for WMD's. Syria is leaving Lebanon. I'd like to say that things are looking up on the Israel/Palestine front, but I don't have much confidence there.

Molly and her ilk are the same people who were against Reagan and didn't want to fight the Cold War so they are reverting to type. Molly is about as patriotic as Michael Moore.

It is one thing for a political knife-fighter like Karl Rove to impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with him: We have seen this same crappy tactic before, just as we have seen administration officials use 9-11 for political purposes again and again. But how many times are the media going to let them get away with it?

In Molly's world she thinks the media is aiding and abetting Karl Rove. Quite the contrary. The problem is that the Lamestream Media having failed with bogus anti-Bush stories has no credibility with the American people. We've seen the crocodile tears on the left trying to make a big thing about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. All the LSM feeds us is bad news from Iraq. When you talk to returning soldiers it's a different story.

To you, any war waged by a Republican president is wrong. If Clinton took us into Iraq you would probably be for it. Here's the difference. I despised Bill Clinton, but if he were president and invaded Iraq I would have backed him.

Quite frankly Molly, you and the rest of your ilk are strawmen who don't have the stomach to fight the War on Islamic Terror. If anything Rove was too easy on you assholes.

Posted by denny at July 7, 2005 10:14 PM  Category: Molly Ivins Fisks