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.

Molly Loves Zinni

Who woulda thunk it? There's actually someone in the military (or who used to be in the military) that Molly Ivins likes and agrees with. Of course it is Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret) who was a Clinton hack so that is understandable. Let's see what the old barking moonbat has to howl about this week.

Too bad for anyone who tuned in to President Bush's speech Monday night hoping to hear something that would cheer us up -- like a plan.

There was a plan. There were five steps. Weren't you listening or were you and your dried up old hag friend Ann Richards still crying about how Dubya kicked her ass? Here is the excerpt that states the plan:

There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom: We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government; help establish security; continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure; encourage more international support; and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people...

You were probably up pouring yourself another drink. But Molly continues.

That was as depressing as divorce. There he was, still peddling the phony idea that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11 -- I guess that one will never get too old or too disproved.

Actually Molly, it turns out that there were connections, but the only thing you liberals will accept is a picture of Osama and Saddam French kissing.

In case you think no one in public life is capable of intelligent thought about Iraq, I recommend a speech made by Gen. Anthony Zinni (well, OK, so he's slightly retired) May 12 to the Center for Defense Information. In it, Zinni lists the 10 mistakes he believes were responsible for getting us into this fine mess.

And as I stated before, Zinni is a Clinton hack, plus he's peddling a book so it does behoove him to make a lot of noise and the more anti-Bush he can sound, the more the lamestream media will support his book.

My own modest contribution to this task began the day we announced we would be using Saddam's main palace as our headquarters in Iraq. "No, no, no," I moaned. "We're Americans. We don't do palaces." We should have announced that all Saddam's palaces would be converted into universities.

It seems to me the military would want to set up headquarters where the best command and control infrastructure was. That would be Saddam's palaces, but since Molly is anti-military she wouldn't realize that.

"Should have" is not normally a helpful construction, but I thought Zinni's list useful indeed. Since Zinni expanded brilliantly on several points, I do disservice by simplifying -- even so, you'll see what I mean.

I guess if a military man worked for a Dimocrat president that automatically makes him brilliant. Zinni's points follow.

Misjudging the success of containment. Containment actually worked, we just didn't know it.

Tell that to the Kurds and to all the people in the mass graves. Tell all the people who were raped in the rape rooms by Saddam's sadistic spawn. Yeah, containment was a rousing success. You liberals are all pissed off at what went on at Abu Ghraib by a few asshole American soldiers but obviously think nothing about what went on at Abu Ghraib when Saddam was in power. He didn't humiliate them. He crippled, tortured and killed them. Yeah, containment. A rousing success. I thought you guys believed in human rights.

The strategy was flawed. that the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad, when just the opposite is true -- the road to Baghdad leads through Jerusalem. In other words, an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is the key to peace and progress in the region.

This is the biggest piece of shit in his entire speech. I guess he's trying to justify hs failure in the Middle East. There will be no resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict while Yasser Arafat is alive! None! Arafat wants the obliteration of Israel. He will settle for nothing less. He walked out of the best deal the Palestinians will ever get. And, since we took out Saddam, there is no more money for suicide bombers' families from him. Since we took out Iraq, the booming in Israel has diminished. The Middle East needed an enema and Iraq was the best place to insert the tube.

We had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. Zinni testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just before the war and was asked if the threat from Saddam Hussein was imminent: "No, not at all," he said. "It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of these."

One man's opinion, but opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. What if Saddam did have WMD's, and I think he did, and he gave them to al Qaeda and they were used on us? Zinni would be singing a different tune, unless of course, there was a Dimocrat in the White House. Then Bush would have been blamed for not taking out Saddam.

We failed to internationalize the effort. That's a point on which we have now reached near-universal agreement, including George W. Bush.

By internationalize, liberals mean we didn't get the permission of Germany and France. Great Britiain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Spain (until they turned tail and ran) and many other countries don't count.

We underestimated the task.

True. We won the war so quickly we didn't realize what the occupation would entail. But, there are more good stories coming out of Iraq than bad. It's just that the lamestream media is more interested in bashing Bush than reporting the good stuff. The electrical infrastructure is better than before the war. There are new schools. There is a good water supply. The southern marshes are being restored. Iraq, overall, is in better shape than before the war, but our liberal media wants us to bug out so they can get back to their agenda of implementing the socialist utopia and putting our country under the control of the United Nations. Asstards!

Propping up and trusting the exiles. Zinni ranks this as possibly our biggest mistake, taking up Ahmad Chalabi's "Gucci guerrillas." Zinni has the additional authority of having testified against the Iraqi Liberation Act back in 1998, telling the Senate then that the Iraqi National Congress was not credible and would "lead us into something that we will regret."

So we're fixing it.

Lack of planning. When Zinni was head of CentCom in the Mideast, they actually did a reconstruction plan. "The size of the CPA was about the size we felt we needed for one province, let alone the entire country."

Doesn't this fall under "underestimating the task"? I already covered this. So it looks like Zinni had nine points instead of ten.

The generals in Iraq, who are actually in Iraq, have stated that they have sufficient forces. Zinni is in Washinton DC. Whom are ya gonna believe? Someone who is in Iraq, or someone who is hawking an anti-Iraq War book?

Ad hoc organization. The extent to which the CPA never had a game plan is incredible and, as The Washington Post rather acidly reports, the place is staffed with busy little right-wingers whose only claim to competence is their political connections.

Yeah, like I'm gonna believe the Washington Post. Compared to other military operations, Iraq was a resounding success. Liberals would like to see a war where no one (including the enemy) gets killed, except when it's a Republican president. Then they want to see lots of deaths so they can cry about how bad we're losing and we need to give up and come home. Then we can vote in an asshole like John Fonda Kerry who thinks that the war on terrorism should be turned over to the United Nations. Like the Unitied Nations is gonna win the War on Terror.

A series of bad decisions on the ground. Disbanding the army, etc.

Hindsight is 20/20. So what would Zinni, in his divine wisdom, have us do?

First, Zinni recommends we stop digging the hole we're in. We need a U.N. resolution,

We had 14 UN resolutions over 14 years that were not enforced. Dammit! Ain't that just like a fucking liberal? We need more laws. Then they refuse to enforce the laws we already have on the books!

then we need a lot of Arab officers in as advisers, then he has a whole series of specific military steps. He also emphasizes jobs, jobs, jobs.

Has he not noticed that we are giving jobs, jobs, jobs to the Iraqis? We turned Fallujah over to an Iraqi officer. Does that not count?

"I would go to the contractors in there and say: 'I don't want to see truck drivers that are coming from Peoria, Ill. I want to pay truck drivers that are Iraqis.' It doesn't take a hell of a lot of talent to drive a truck. Why aren't Iraqis driving trucks for their own reconstruction and redevelopment?"

But Iraqis are driving trucks. We hear about that when an Iraqi is killed for working for the Americans.

He also notes there is no system of education for the electorate -- no political parties, nothing.

Iraq has been under one party rule for 40 years. Does he expect a political system with political parties to spring up overnight? People are taking this guy seriously? Poof! I now declare a full blown democracy! I, Anthony Zinni, the miracle worker. Put me in charge and I will have it accomplished in two weeks. How long did it take us after the Revolutionary War?

Another citizen with some valuable suggestions is New York lawyer Neal Johnston,

New York lawyer. Expect bullshit.

who was moved to write Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld concerning "proper controls upon the interrogation techniques of detainees held by our military forces abroad." Since we are extremely interested in getting the truth out of reluctant witnesses who may be covering up something, and since the Pentagon apparently feels it knows how to do this, Johnston wonders what would happen if the methods were more broadly applied. For example, he writes Rumsfeld, "When next you testify before a congressional committee, would your testimony be any more credible were you required to deliver it stripped naked? I think not.

Just gotta get Abu Ghraib in there dontcha Molly?

Even, Johnston suggests, shoving a rolled copy of the Bill of Rights up a delicate place on the secretary's person would not necessarily improve Rumsfeld's truthfulness at his next press conference. "My solution is really quite simple: The Iraqi scum should be handled with much the same restraint we would all want to be applied to you, should the present criminal investigations wind up reaching even deeper into your office than is already the case."

GMAFB! First off, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the "Iraqi scum". Neither does the Geneva Convention, since it is reciprocal and they do not abide by it. Even so, we treat our POW's better than the ragheads treat theirs. And, if there is another 9/11 and it turns out that any of the "Iraqi scum" had information we could have used to prevent it, you would be one of the ones screaming the loudest that the military did not use any means possible to extract that information.

It's Memorial Day and you America hating liberals make me sick to my stomach.

Time for another glass of wine.

A Fisk of a Mad Cow

I have a meeting with my new manager tomorrow where we will discuss my goals for the upcoming year, my current skill set, and my development plan to make me a more productive I/T professional. After all, I am a highly trained, highly paid, and highly motivated I/T professional. Since I always like to look and feel my best before these meetings, I slammed down a Stoly on the rocks and a half bottle of wine tonight.

So what is the easiest thing to write about when I'm half in the bag? Why not find a Molly Ivins column? I half to be drunk to read her incoherent screeds anyway. So as a public service (So you won't have to read her column in its entirety.) here is a fisk of her latest column.

So the Democrats have a candidate at last, and he is about bent over double with gravitas.

And nuance. Let's not forget nuance.

I think that means he doesn't have a humorous bone in his body. It's a good thing there's at least one serious person in this race; the Bushies are getting sillier and sillier.

This is Molly's world. Welcome to it.

Just when you thought no one could top Education Secretary Rod Paige calling the teachers' union "a terrorist organization,"

And just what is wrong with that? The teachers' unions have pretty much destroyed education in this country. And have you heard the latest bullshit that they have decided to do in the Atlanta Schools? Let's translate Shakespeare into English. I kid you not. The poetry of Shakespeare is just too fucking hard for students to read so they have provided an English translation on the opposite page. Here's an example from Julius Caesar:

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones."

And the translation:

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, give me your attention. I have come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do is remembered after their deaths, but the good is often buried with them."

Why not this?

Dudes! Check it out! The big guy's dead. All you're gonna hear about is the bad shit he did. The good stuff will be forgotten.

Get thee to a private school!

Dunno Molly. Sounds like educational terrorism to me.

along comes Veep Dick Cheney with this gem: "If Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two to three years, the kind of tax increases both Kerry and Edwards are talking about, we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had."

What's wrong with that?

Uh, in the first place, Kerry and Edwards are not talking about tax increases at all but about repealing part of President Bush's tax cuts

Only to a liberal. I'm now paying this amount of taxes. Kerry is gonna make me pay more taxes under the guise of repealing a tax cut. That is a fucking tax increase!!!!

-- so we would have had fewer tax cuts, not tax increases.

No Molly. If you repeal a tax cut you are increasing taxes!!!!

And in the second place, if losing 2.3 million jobs is "job growth," Cheney is a laugh riot.

And we would have lost a lot more jobs if we had not cut taxes. And the 2.3 million jobs bullshit is just that. Bullshit! Go out to the Department of Labor website and look at the actual statistics.

December 2000 Employment: 135,836,000

February 2004 Employment 138,301,000

It took me 10 minutes to dig this shit up.

We've got a $500 billion deficit this year, and Bush's idea of a solution is to make his tax cuts permanent -- a move that would cost about $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

It would be a lot less if Bush would quit spending like a fucking Dimocrat.

Their other helpful suggestion is to redefine burger-flipping as "manufacturing jobs." (Are these people never serious?) And if they can't redefine the problem out of existence, there's always the option of just announcing that bad is good.

That is a Dimocrat specialty. Ya know, like oral sex isn't sex and it all depends on what the definition of is is.

Think how surprised we were to learn from Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers: "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. … More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing."

And somehow we have the stongest economy in the world and 5.6% unemployment was a good thing under Clinton, but a bad thing under Bush.

I also like the dodge where Bush claims that the reason there's a $500 billion deficit is because "we're at war." Unfortunately, the cost of Iraq is not even included in the budget. It's going to be a supplemental surprise request after the election.

The reason we have a $500 billion deficit is because Bush and the Republican congress are spending like Dimocrats. Jesus Molly, you should be jumping for joy.

Does any of this strike you as grown-up behavior? Or even grown-up-behavior-related program activities?

Holy shit! We finally agree. The discretionary spending must be curtailed.

The dramatic-upward-cost surprise is getting to be a regular feature with the Bushies. Congress and the prez passed a horrible Medicare drug bill and then, oops, a week later announced that it cost $134 billion more than the advertised $400 billion. That's a 33 percent oops.

What the fuck are you bitching about now? Your party wanted to spend even more!!!

You may consider it churlish of me to still be holding a grudge because at least 45 percent of Bush's tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of the people in this country, but it's the kind of thing I get reminded of frequently. For example, the news that 375,000 people exhausted their unemployment in January, the highest number ever recorded for a single month, reminds me of that top 1 percent.

Here we go with the tax cuts for the rich. I don't know about the 45% number that she is bandying about, but I already disproved the 2.8 million jobs. I do know that the top 1% who earn 17% of the income pay 37% of the taxes. No wonder they get the biggest cut. They pay the most taxes. And do you know what "the rich" do with their money? They spend it. They invest it. They start businesses that create jobs. It's called capitalism. It works. It's why we are the richest nation on this planet. Even our poor people have color TV's and air-conditioning. Do you hear that France?

One symptom of the fundamental unseriousness of the Bushies is that they never, ever admit they are wrong. Nor do they pay penalties for being wrong.

So Molly how come I never heard any of this griping during the Clinton administration? Clinton went around the world apologizing for all sorts of bullshit that America did before he was elected, but I never heard him apologizing to the White House travel office staff, or about the 1000 FBI files, or to all of his enemies who were audited by the IRS, or to Kathleen Willey, or to Juanita Brodderick, or to Paula Jones, or to the sorry sumbitch at the aspirin factory in the Sudan, or to the goats killed in Afghanistan, or to ... the list goes on and on and on.

It is already a truism that this will be an event-driven election, and the spiraling chaos in Haiti

And that is Bush's fault because ... ?

and and the horrendous coordinated bombings in Iraq

Didja notice that they're not going after Americans anymore?

remind us that it is good to have grown-ups in charge when serious things happen.

Yeah. If Algore were in charge we'd still be negotiating with the Taliban for bin Laden. And with Kerry we don't know which Kerry we would get, the one who was for the war or the one who was against the war. Or the one who bitches about there not being enough body armor for our troops or the one who voted against body armor for our troops. I feel safer with the grownups in charge.

Molly, take some Valium and calm down.

Who says humans can't get mad cow disease?

Molly Does Spin

Bob sent me a fan letter and included this link to Molly Ivins' latest spewing of bullshit. This column also appeared in Monday's Atlanta Urinal and Constipation. What's the old hag pissed off about now?

There is something faintly risible about the American habit of thinking we can fix problems through better public relations.

It worked for Clinton didn't it?

We seem to think a positive mental attitude and high approval ratings can solve anything from shingles to famine.

Impeachment, sexual harassment, rape allegations, perjury.

Global warming? Spin that puppy right out of existence.

Junk science. No tangible proof. Spin that global warming puppy right into existence.

Economy bad?

7.2% growth rate in the third quarter? Go ahead Molly spin that puppy right out of existence.

Send the Treasury secretary out to predict the creation of 200,000 new jobs a month -- that'll make everybody feel better.

Job creation is the last thing that occurs during a recovery. What are you and the rest of the nattering nabobs gonna bitch about when job creation does occur?

We have public relations firms that specialize in business disasters.

Socialism works. Socialized medicine will work. Hillary Clinton cares. Bill Clinton feels our pain. Al Sharpton isn't a racist. Barbra Streisand has a brain. Howard Dean isn't a socialist. John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam, was against the war, but voted for the war becaue he was against the war and that's why he voted for it, but if he could jump in the Wayback machine, he would vote against the war but he does support our troops. Dick Gephardt's campaign will not be dead after New Hampshire. Bringing back Phil Donahue was a good idea.

Does one of your products turn out to kill people? Have you been putting asbestos in people's homes for years? Are you a notorious polluter?

Have you been getting blowjobs by an airhead intern? Do you have a history of groping women? Has someone accused you of rape?

What you need is a good PR firm -- yes, my friends, a multimillion-dollar campaign to convince people that, despite your current problems, your firm is warm and cuddly, cares about the environment and supports the Boy Scouts.

I feel your breasts pain.

I am told that in Hollywood, there are PR people who specialize in repairing the damage to the reputations of movie stars who get nasty divorces and otherwise misbehave.

And there was a couple in Hollywood who worked for Clinton. They even made a little piece of crap for the 1992 Dimocrat Convention called The White Trash Pervert Man From Hope.

Despite what I am sure are the invaluable services of the many PR people of our nation, sometimes it is actually smarter to attack the problem itself than the public relations surrounding it. I suspect that's where we are with the situation in Iraq.

Hey it worked for Clinton. Hire a bunch of private detectives to dig up dirt on all the women associated with good ol' Bill. Have James Carville talk about dragging $20 bills through trailer parks. Molly, you're giving us a pretty good description of the Clinton modus operandi. How come you didn't write this column then?

have enjoyed the administration's PR offensive. The Bush White House's touching efforts to try to get the media to report that the glass is half-full rather than half-empty have yielded several nuggets of black comedy.

What? That the war has been more successful than you liberals desired? That more people haven't been killed? That we haven't cut and run like we did after Beirut and Somalia? And before any trolls say that it was Reagan that pulled us out of Beirut, I agree. I think he fucked up and we should have sent a few cruise missiles into the Beka'a Valley.

George Nethercutt, a Republican congressman from Washington state, spent four days in Iraq and told an audience at home: "The story of what we've done in Iraq is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."

Isn't it amazing that in a column on PR and spin that Molly would give us a fine example of sumpin' right out of the Maureen Dowd style book? The exact quote went "it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day which, which heaven forbid is awful" Didja notice how Molly inserted a period and left out the highlighted text. And this in a column about spin?

Let's try our own take. Molly Ivins visited a nursing home and said that "it is sad that I had to see how old folks become senile and I had to see that one old women look like she had become a washed up old hag."

Major oops. "Let's ignore the dead soldiers" is not going to improve anything.

No one is ignoring the dead soldiers Molly. That's what happens in war: soldiers die. Should we cut and run like all the Dimocrats running for president want to do? Bin Laden said that he knew America could be defeated after we turned tail and ran out of Somalia. How does it feel to support bin Laden, you worthless dried up old hag?

The administration's efforts to spin the results of the conference in Madrid were equally unimpressive. Of the touted $18 billion pledged, only $4 billion is in grants -- the rest is loans. They want it back.

And I bet you and your liberal friends are happy about that aren't you? It's just like all you fucking liberals trying to spin the fact that the United Nations is an effective organization or the Palestinians want peace. Kiss my crippled ass!

President Bush has been touting the cheerful reports brought back by congressional delegations. Right. It's so secure in Iraq that the delegations spent their nights in Kuwait.

Earth to Molly! There is still a guerilla war going on in the Sunni Triangle of which Baghdad is a part. Talk about someone looking at the glass as half empty. Should we restore Saddam to power? Is that what you want? How does it feel to hate George Bush so much that you want us to fail in Iraq, you want American soldiers to die, and you want a tyrant like Saddam Hussein restored to power?

A Washington Post story by Dana Millbank reports that the Pentagon is enforcing for the first time a policy that dates back to Persian Gulf War I: No pictures of flag-draped coffins. This is apparently an attempt to control what Gen. Hugh Shelton calls "the Dover test" -- the public reaction to photos of coffins that flow into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

Yep! There's nothing that you liberals would enjoy more than seeing flag-draped coffins on the evening news every night. The more the merrier. Molly, I'm getting ready to puke.

The Pentagon believes that public support for a military action is eroded by photos of coffins,

So do liberals and America haters like you. That's why you're so pissed that they are not being shown.

so it's fixing that problem by stopping the photos. Reminding people of the real cost of Iraq, which is not in billions of dollars but in dead young Americans, seems to me something that the media have an obligation to do.

That way the American people could lose their resolve and we could get back to the more important stuff like implementing socialism and leaving ourselves open to more terrorist attacks so liberal fktards like you could wring their hands and ask, "Why do they hate us?"

However, the flag-draped coffin photo is only one way to do it.

But I'm sure the liberal media has other ways.

NewsHour With Jim Lehrer has been running photos of the faces of those who have been killed in complete silence at the end of the program.

Proletariat Broadcasting System. Using our tax dollars to undermine the resolve of America. Think of that during the next begathon. Fuck you, Lehrer you pinko sonuvabitch!

In another tragic triumph of reality over public relations, the al-Rashid hotel attack on Sunday "narrowly missed" Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, according to The Wall Street Journal.

And I'll bet that pissed you off that it "narrowly missed".

The attack injured 17 and killed a lieutenant colonel. The Financial Times reported that Wolfowitz was "shaken … unshaven, with his voice trembling shortly after the rocket attack."

No shit! Who wouldn't be? Bill Clinton would have been hiding under the bed curled up in the fetal position crying for his mommy.

Not to wish ill on Wolfowitz,

Oh shit! My bullshit detector just pegged. I think the fucking needle is bent.

but he is the one who promised us that this war would be "a cakewalk" and that Iraqis would greet us with dancing and flowers. Ironic that he got a chance to see the real results.

Once again, this is the Sunni Triangle. How much bad news have we heard from the rest of the country? The old glass half empty bullshit.

Since Bush declared our "mission accomplished" in Iraq, more than 200 American soldiers have died there, and thousands have been wounded. (The Department of Defense no longer gives out the number of wounded, like that's going to make it better.) That is not a public relations problem. That cannot be fixed by chipper reporting.

Didja notice that she doesn't offer any solutions? It's the typical liberal manta: Bush bad. War bad. I am kinda surprised that she didn't use quagmire. Must of been an oversight.

Why is this woman writing a syndicated column? Does she have pictures of someone?

Molly on Iraq Again

So I open today's Atlanta Urinal and Constipation and on the editorial page was another negative column by that washed up old hag Molly Ivins. I always wonder why it takes her so many words to say Bush is dumb, the Republicans are fascists, our country is doomed, and where is Osama bin Laden. Let's see what kind of Bush bashing bullshit she has to say this time.

Sigh. You write an article advocating what you think would be useful, constructive suggestions about Iraq, and you get an avalanche of right-wing reaction about "failuremongers" and "nattering nabobs of negativism."

Sigh. That's because everything you write about Iraq is failuremongering and you are one of the "nattering nabobs of negativism". I'm sure this column will carry on in that vein.

Bill Safire is back at the same old stand after all these years, denouncing "merchants of dismay" trying to justify their "decade of appeasement."

Yeah. Clinton defenders. Your hero turned down a chance to get bin Laden so maybe you should be carping at him about the whereabouts of binny. Just remember, bin Laden said that when he saw us leaving Somalia with our tails between our legs, that's when he knew America could be defeated. So go ahead and defend the Clinton administration's "decade of appeasement". Oslo and North Korea have been smashing successes haven't they?

Great, anybody who opposed this war in the first place was accused of lack of patriotism,

I am getting sick and tired of this "anybody who opposed this war in the first place was accused of lack of patriotism" bullshit. You people on the left are always screaming about this. It's one thing to be anti-war. That I can understand. But blaming America for all the troubles on the planet? That's bullshit. And another thing that pisses me off is people like you who want us to fail in Iraq just because you hate George Bush. I wasn't for us intervening in the Balkans, but I sure didn't want any of our troops to die there because I hated Clinton. You people on the left make me want to puke.

and now anybody who points out that it's not going well is guilty of defeatism.

Well, yeah. What's your point? You are defeatists. You'd be perfectly happy if we just packed up and went home.

If you raise your hand and ask where the weapons of mass destruction we were told were the reason for this war are, you're instructed to just Get Over It.

Jesus Molly, you fucking liberals were willing to give the UN years to find the weapons, but we were supposed to find them yesterday.

Well, I ain't gonna take it anymore.

Exactly when did you "take it"? And what's more, who gave it to you?

I am not shutting up for Bill O'Reilly or anyone else.

And this is some kind of new policy on your part?

I opposed our unprovoked, unnecessary invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it would be a short, easy war followed by the peace from hell.

Good for you. Do you have a few days so I could explain to you in very simple words what is going on? How we are now engaged in World War IV and Iraq is the first battle of that war? You liberals did everything you could think of to make us lose World War III (the Cold War). And even two years after the Pearl Harbor of World War IV, the war against radical Islam, you are trying to make us lose this war also. Just like in World War III, everytime we elect a Dimocrat president, it will only extend the war.

I predicted every terrorist in the Middle East would be drawn to Iraq like a magnet. I was right, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

And exactly why is it wrong for every terrorist in the Middle East to be drawn to Iraq like a magnet? Bring 'em on! We won't have to hunt 'em down. They're coming to us. We have soldiers there. They're paid to fight. We won't have to go to Saudi Arabia to find 'em.

I also realize the future in Iraq is a lot more important than any petty "I was right" vindication.

But I notice that hasn't stopped you from saying "I was right" you petty sow.

I don't know if the glass in Iraq is half-empty or half-full, but what is clear is that the situation is deteriorating.

You can't even find the fucking glass! And the situation is not deteriorating. I know you want us to fail in Iraq, but we are not.

That's why the Bush administration has changed course 180 degrees and is now asking for help from the United Nations.

We're asking for help so we can send some of our soldiers home. Also, we're trying to get the UN to pay for part of the reconstruction so we won't hear daffy dizzy dingbats like you natter on about how much we're gonna spend in Iraq.

But naturally, we're not supposed to mention that the administration has reversed itself -- no, no. As Paul Wolfowitz, who now has all the credibility of Ken Lay,

Dontcha just love liberals, after spending eight years defending Bill Clinton's credibility, bitching about the current administrations's credibility?

explained, the new U.N. resolution "didn't sort of emerge out of nowhere a few days ago. It's been on our agenda ever since the fall of Baghdad."

Maybe it has. Were you at any of the administration's meetings on Iraq? I didn't think so.

He said the bombing of U.N. headquarters was "a breakthrough -- a sad one. The bombing, I think, changed the atmosphere in New York, and it looks like we can move forward in that area."

Kofi: Holy shit! The turbans are gonna bomb us too? Maybe if we contribute a few troops and some money the Americans will protect us.

Right. The United Nations changed its position, we didn't change ours.

We were always willing to have the United Nations on board. That's why we kept going back to it and trying to get it to enforce its own resolution. When we finally realized it was useless, we, the British, and some other nations invaded Iraq.

How dumb do they think we are?

Do you really want me to answer that question?

I am tired of being asked to swallow lies by this administration.

Now you know how I felt during the eight years of the Clinton adminisration. Of course, Clinton was often trying to get people to swallow other stuff besides lies.

For $87 billion bucks, the least we deserve is some candor.

That's how I feel about the $4 trillion we've spent on the War on Poverty. When's it gonna be over? How much more are we gonna spend on it. Iraq's only been going on for a few months. The fucking War on Poverty has been going on for almost 40 fucking years!

I want to know who was responsible for the whole weapons of mass destruction fiasco, and I want to see some accountability for it -- resignations and firings.

And I want to know who's responsible for our sorry educational system. Oh, wait a minute. I do know. It's liberals and the teachers unions. When are we gonna see some accountability there?

In May of this year, President Bush said, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." No, we didn't. We have yet to find any evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

But we found a whole shitload of mass graves. I thought you liberals were so caring and compassionate. Y'all should be happy that we freed the Iraqis from a horrible despot and we are now engaged in nation building. Oh yeah. It's a Republican doing it so it must be bad.

President Bush's entire speech Sunday night was devoted to Iraq as "the central front" of the war on terrorism.

Actually it is. The Bush administration has an ambitious plan to reform the Arab world as a first step in World War IV. If it works it will make the Marshall Plan look like a walk in the park. There was an excellent op-ed in today's AJC about the reconstruction of Europe. One paragraph.

It took the United States four years before a German government could be established to help rule the nation in a democratic and orderly fashion, free from Nazi rebellion or resurgence.

Bush said after 9/11 that the War on Terror would be a long war. The only real setback will be if we elect a Dimocrat president.

The biggest bait-and-switch move of this whole administration has been to substitute Saddam Hussein for Osama bin Ladin.

You just gotta get the "where is Osama bin Laden" in here dontcha Molly. I'll tell you where he is. He's dead. He's worm food. He's looking for his 72 virgins.

Iraq had nothing to do with the acts of terrorism perpetrated against the United States.

And your proof is ... ? Didja use a Ouija board and talk to the 19 dead terrorists? How are Qusay and Uday doin'?

The real villains, both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, are now regrouping in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, while we're stuck in the quicksand in Iraq.

Yep! We wiped out a bunch of Taliban last week. Bring 'em on! And you used the wrong Q word. It's quagmire not quicksand.

I am trying hard to be a responsible citizen here:

When did that start?

I don't think the choice is between "staying the course" or "cut and run." I think we need to change course and be honest enough to admit it to ourselves and everybody else. The security situation in Iraq is deteriorating because we had a poorly planned and badly botched postwar strategy. We need help, and we need to ask for it nicely.

GMAFB! We're going to the UN to free up some of our troops to send 'em home and to shut up liberals like you who keep saying, "Go to the UN!" So we're going to the UN. Are you happy? No! Now you're pissed because we won't let them run the show. We're not gonna let them run the show because if we do they'll fuck it up. Exhibit A: Africa. Exhibit B: the Balkans. Any questions?

The eeriest part about Bush's $87 billion request is that it may not be enough. Sixty-six billion will go to the military and intelligence, leaving a relative pittance for actually rebuilding Iraq. According to most experts, getting the lights and water back up, not to mention the oil industry, is critical to the security situation.

The eeriest part about the $4 trillion spent on the War on Poverty is it hasn't been enough.

Meanwhile, indications are that homeland security is still pretty much a pathetic shambles. With Al Qaeda stirring around again, we might do some rethinking in that area, as well. I've been taking off my shoes at the airport to make us all safer, but don't you think we need to work on the ports, start screening container shipping, and take a look at our chemical and nuke plants?

What? You're badmouthing the TSA? These are gummint employees and they're very professional. Remember, little Tommie Dasshole said "to professionalize we must federalize." That's why we refuse to profile Middle Eastern males. And I do agree about the ports. This is probably the only time in this entire column that you make any sense. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Speaking of people trying to be constructive, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley had a piece in Sunday's Washington Post pointing out that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are once again in the toilet and suggesting that it's time to start at the other end. Instead of a step-by-step approach, work out a two-state map with international backing and present it with an international force to back it up. Since everybody knows that's the only way it can end, why not start there?

Now there's a fantastic idea. Give Yasser Arafat his own state. Then he could raise a real army with real weapons. And then let's put some UN peacekeepers between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Pretty good idea, I thought.

Pass me the bong Molly. You've had enough.

Molly Blows in the Wind

Don't know who sent this one.

When I got home from work, I didn't know what to write about and damned if I didn't open the editorial page of the Atlantal Urinal and Constipation and there I found Molly Ivin's latest column. The AJC doesn't put her column on their web page (Do you blame 'em?) So I have to go find it somewhere else.

The title was The Answer my Friend ... as in Blowing in the Wind, which Molly does real well.

When in the midst of a Blame Typhoon, with charges and countercharges being hurled in all directions, I find it most useful to consult those two polar stars of utter wrongheadedness, Tom DeLay and The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

As opposed to Molly Ivins and the New York Times Editorial Page. Let's not forget Jayson Blair and the New York Times motto: All the news that fits our views.

Both are good for a chuckle, and both are perfect weather vanes for the wrong direction.

Yep! Molly Ivins and the New York Times Editorial Page. New motto: All the news that's fit to distort.

When in doubt,

Disagree with Molly.

Disagree with DeLay

Disagree with the New York Times.

And you'll be OK.

Yep!

The Journal, in addition to meretricious arguments,

Whoa! Gotta get the dictionary out on this one. meretricious - 1. Of, pertaining to, characteristic, or being a prostitute. 2. alluring by false show; gaudily, and deceitfully ornamental.

I don't know Molly. This sounds more like the New York Times to me. See Blair, Jayson.

of pertavast

Gotta get me a new dictionary. Mine doesn't have pertavast in it. Who the fuck does she think she is? William F. Buckley?

leaps over relevant stretches of fact and history,

Sounds like Jayson Blair to me.

and an awesome ability to bend any reality to its preconceived ideological ends, also offers that touch of je ne sais quoi, that ludicrous dogmatism that never fails to charm.

Yep! She has to be talking about the New York Times.

A column about energy politics by George Mellon in Tuesday's Journal contained just the right mix of irrelevant argument

Something that Molly knows about since it is her specialty.

(he's very upset that a bunch of nervous nellies want to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant, as though this had anything to do with the frail, undercapitalized transmission grid that caused the blackout earlier this month);

One of the reasons the transmission grid was overloaded was because of the inadequate generating capacity in the Northeast, but let's not let facts interfere with some good old fingerpointing and environmental bullshit. And let's shut down all the nuclear plants. Will that make you happy you harpy? I just wish that we could figger out a way to only drop power to the environazis' houses everytime we had a blackout.

expedient forgetfulness (uh, actually, OPEC had quite a bit to do with the gasoline crunch of the 1970s); and perfectly delightful nuttiness.

I think that pretty much describes where this column is going.

"Millions of Naderites are trying to peddle windmill farms, even though these inefficient H.G. Wells monsters are already destroying the scenic beauty of places like Palm Springs and the Dutch coast." (Scenic beauties of the Dutch coast?)

Here's an idea. Why don't we put one in front of Molly's mouth? That oughta generate a lot of electricity. And we could put one on Barbra Streisand's estate. Shit! Let's just put 'em up in Hollywood. That would pretty much solve all of our energy problems.

When Mellon goes on the aesthetic offensive against unsightly windmills -- as compared to the ever-so-sightly coal-fired plant, oil refinery and nuclear power catastrophe-in-waiting -- we must snap to attention.

I'm all for Windmills in the Northeast. Guess who's against them?

Veteran newsman Walter Cronkite doesn't want Gordon's wind farm here either. Cronkite likes to sail on Nantucket Sound. He did a commercial for a group that's fighting the wind farm. In it, he says, "Our natural treasures should be off limits to industrialization and Nantucket Sound is one of those treasures."

In other words. Not in My Backyard! But back to Molly.

As for the aesthetics of windmills, most people find them fascinating to watch.

Not Walter Cronkite and, by golly, he used to be the most trusted man in America.

Cars pull over by the highway in West Texas so the kids can watch the things go round and round.

Yep! But golly gee, they're just a bunch of dumb ol' Texans. They like to watch grass grow and paint dry. They're not sophisticated like them people up there in Nantucket. Which brings to mind a limerick.

There was a young man from Nantucket
Whose ...

Aw y'all have heard that one before.

The only trouble with the wind farm out by Palm Springs is that the fools built it in a bird flyway, which could easily have been avoided.

Now who do you think runs California? Last I checked it was Dimocrats. Is Molly calling Dimocrats "fools"? It just shows that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.

Clean, cheap, endless energy -- no radioactive waste, no air pollution, no strip mining, no oil spills and no gas pipeline explosions.

Sounds like a great idea to me. Let's put up a bunch of 'em in Nantucket Sound.

Yet the Bush administration wants to spend billions subsidizing coal, oil, gas and nuclear power, and leave both wind and solar technology -- with all their advantages, including cost -- unsubsidized and unhelped. Now is that a stupid policy or what?

Ask Walter Cronkite.

Every energy source in this country has been vastly subsidized, including hydropower by government-built dams. If wind power were subsidized at a fraction of what we already spend with tax breaks, loopholes and outright corporate welfare for polluting and destructive energy sources, it would already be the cheapest, not to mention the cleanest, energy source available.

Windpower is great except it seems the only place we can put windmills is in Texas. No one else seems to want them. And Molly obviously hasn't been to any of the windmill farms outside of San Francisco. Everytime I've driven by there, most of them are not being used. Must be the birds. And the gummint is throwing money at solar power. Unfortunately, it is hard to generate a lot of power via solar. But, gas, oil, hydro, and nuclear works today. And we need the energy today. See blackout, Northeast.

And why do we have such dumb, damaging, self-destructive energy policies? Do you think it has anything to do with corporate campaign contributions? Do you think it has any connection to the fact that Dick Cheney wrote the National Energy Plan? (In secret, with the advice of oil, gas and coal executives and lobbyists.) A couple of Ken Lay's suggestions in his famous memo to Cheney were incorporated word for word in the Cheney plan.

Oh shit! It's all about the ooiiillll!

As for the always egregious Tom DeLay, the Exterminator, two years ago he blocked a program of loan guarantees for upgrades to the transmission system. Said he of the Democratic proposal, "It's pure demagoguery." The first thing he did when the lights went out was to blame the Democrats, of course.

That's because the current energy bill in Congress, that does address upgrading the transmission grid is being held up by the Dimocrats.

Now, according to The New York Times,

And we know we can always depend on the veracity of the New York Times.

the Republicans are refusing again to pass stand-alone transmission grid improvements.

When the Dimocrats refuse to pass stand-alone legislation it's good politics. When the Republicans do it it's evil.

They insist on including the rest of the Cheney rip-and-run plan, including drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other economically marginal and environmentally disastrous schemes.

Do y'all remember what an economic disaster the Alaska pipeline was gonna be? The caribou herds love it. Even though Alaskans overwhelmingly want drilling, the treehuggers, who have never been to Alaska, are against it.

They are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of economics, the wrong side of technology,

Wait a minute! If you want to talk about technology which party was it that filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBM? Hint. It wasn't the Republicans. Which party filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft? Hint. It wasn't the Republicans. Which party always wants to tax the crap out of business, which takes dollars that could be used for research and development and develop new technolgies? Hint. It isn't the Republicans. Which party has so many laws and regulations that stifle innovation and small businesses? Hint. It's not the Republicans.

the wrong side of progress and the wrong side of the environment.

Fuck the environment. I am really getting sick of the environazis. Most of their bullshit is junk science anyway. If they're so concerned, have 'em move back to nature and use candles for light. Have 'em turn off their air conditioners. Have 'em wash their clothes by hand. Have 'em hang up their clothes to dry. Have 'em sell their cars and use mass transit. When they start doing all that shit, then they can lecture the rest of us, those hypocritical bastards!

These free-market fundamentalists are the people who regularly remind us that being in the buggy-whip business after the automobile was invented was a no-hoper.

As opposed to the environmental Luddites who want us to return to better days when we respected nature and were at one with the planet. Ahhh! The halcyon days of yesteryear when the noble Indians roamed the plains hunting buffalo. Those were the days.

Here Molly. Here's some buffalo hide and a bow and arrow. Have at it.

Molly, Lies, and Google

Bad Taste Barbie Week continues:

Whoa baby! Is that Bill Clinton with that $20 bill?

z sent me an e-mail with a link to Molly's latest bullshit ravings, so I guess it's time once again to fisk Molly's latest..

You've got to hand it to those clever little problem-solvers at the White House. What a bunch of brainiacs. They have resolved the entire problem of global warming: They cut it out of the report!

You've got to hand it to Molly that when she writes a column, she turns off her brain.

This is genius. Everybody else is maundering on about the oceans rising and the polar icecaps melting and monster storms and hideous droughts, and these guys just ... edit it out.

Probably because it's not the catastrophe all the environmental wackos are raving about. And wouldn't it be nice if we could just edit out Molly's bullshit?

"The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tailpipe emissions, and could threaten health and ecosystems," reports The New York Times. Presto -- poof!

The New York Times - Motto: All the news that fits our views. Did Jayson Blair have anything to do with coming up with the "references to many studies"? I'm sorry Molly, the New York Times is not the most credible source these days.

What do they care about health and ecosystems? Think of the possibilities presented by this ingenious solution. Let's edit out AIDS

Good idea. Then we won't have to send $15 billion to that shithole known as Africa. Works for me.

and all problems with drugs both legal and illegal.

Good idea. I'm for legalization of drugs. Legalize, regulate, and tax.

We could get rid of Libya and Syria this way -- take ‘em off the maps.

I'm all for that too, but my process involves bombs.

We can do away with unemployment, the uninsured, heart disease, obesity and the coming Social Security crunch. We could try editing out death and taxes, but I don't think we should overreach right away. Just start with something simple, like years of scientific research on global warming,

And after years of "scientific research" it still has not been scientifically proven that we are causing global warming. This could be a normal climate change. There is simply not enough data yet. The earth has gone through many climate changes. There was a little ice age 600 years ago.

and blue pencil that sucker out of existence. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

True. It describes the Dimocratic Party and a lot of other dipshits on the left, Molly included.

Inspiring as the remarkable Bush approach to resolving global warming is -- the simplicity of it, the beauty of it, I cannot get over it -- does it not suggest a certain cavalier je ne sais quoi about the future? What I mean is, is anybody there concerned about what happens to people?

Nope. Bush wants to kill everyone. Dammit! Now the secret is out.

realize the energy industry and auto industry and other major campaign contributors would prefer to think global warming does not exist, but how long do you think it will take before reality catches up with all of us? The White House editors (hi, Karl) instead chose to insert a new study on global non-warming funded by ... ta-da! ... the American Petroleum Institute.

And Molly and the rest of the environmental wackos cite studies by ... ta da ... Greenpeace.

Dear old API, author of innumerable ringing editorials on the desperate need to leave the oil depletion allowance at 27 percent (certain Texas newspapers that shall remain nameless used to run those editorials without changing a single comma), is really swell at representing the oil bidness. Fond as I am of many of API lobbyists I have known over the years, I am not quite sure I want those bozos calling the shots on global warming.

Politics is politics. Like the teachers' unions haven't destroyed gummint schools. I love this next line.

I have watched them buy law and bend regulations for decades now, and while I admire their chutzpah, I am impelled to warn you: They have no scruples, they have no decency, and they have no shame.

Holy shit! It sounds like she is talking about Bill and Hillary Clinton!

Well now, danged if that doesn't bring us to the subject of lying and the White House.

She is talking about the Clinton's!

Let us set aside the vexing case of the missing weapons of mass destruction and focus on a few items closer to home.

Looks like she wasn't. About them thar weapons of mass destruction. Could those be the ones that liberals like Molly wanted to give the inspectors more time to find? The inspectors went back in and were there for six months and liberals were screaming, "Give them more time!". We've been looking for three months and they're screaming "Where are the weapons?"

Anyone remember President Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address? No, no, not the one where he said Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

Give us more time!

The one where he said he was going to expand AmeriCorps by 50 percent, from 50,000 up to 75,000, because giving all those young people a chance to work their way through college by doing good for the community is so noble and effective.

And?

Last week, Bush and Republicans in Congress cut AmeriCorps by 80 percent. According to Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, Congress, under pressure, restored some of it, but it still leaves Americorps with a 58 percent cut and tens of thousands of fewer participants out there teaching poor kids to read, helping old folks in nursing homes, setting up community gardens, and a thousand other good and useful tasks -- many of which get the young people started on careers in that kind of work.

So, Molly, you, Bill Clinton, Patrick Kennedy, and a bunch of empty-headed Hollywood liberals think you're undertaxed. Why don't all you bleeding hearts start a fund for AmeriCorps?

Alter notes that restoring AmeriCorps to its current level would take $185 million, about one-half of one percent of the president's latest tax cut for the rich. The radical Republicans in Congress, apparently egged on by a Heritage Foundation study from April 2003, have decided AmeriCorps is (gasp, shudder) a jobs program.

Bill Clinton has $80,000 he said he doesn't need. That would be a start. Hillary should get a good chunk too. Ask her for some money. I'm sure Meathead Reiner would like to contribute. Howza 'bout Babs? And maybe Janeane Garofalo. Ooops! I forgot. Her series with ABC didn't pan out. Just let me keep mine.

What have these people got against national service?

Ask Clinton. He was called. He dodged. Didja hear that someone threw a beer at Clinton? It was draft beer so he dodged it easily. (Rim shot!)

Speaking of said same tax cut, too bad about the children of the working poor.

If they're poor they shouldn't have children.

Congress just announced it's too busy to get around to the restoring the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income families (known to The Wall Street Journal as "lucky duckies" because, you see, they pay little or no income tax. They only pay 19 percent of their meager incomes in other taxes.).

That's right. They pay no income tax so why should they get an income tax refund? That's what the tax cut was: an income tax cut. Only in the mind of a liberal. And I've written many a time about in most cases, being poor is due to making bad choices. And if someone cannot make enough money to have children, he shouldn't have children and expect me to pay for 'em.

And now for some of that noted Molly Ivins' humor.

FYI: If you put "George W. Bush" and "lies" into the Google search engine, you get 250,000 references in nine-tenths of a second.

Oh what a neat game. Let's see what z said in his letter.

I only got 172,000 in .32 seconds.
With Bill Clinton, got 128,000 in .21 seconds. With Bill Clinton and "sex", 230,000 in .46 seconds.

With Molly Ivins, 5,320 in .22 seconds -- but she's not as well known as presidents. Molly and "sex" -- 7,580 in .18 seconds.

On the basis of all that, there's a strong correlation between Molly and BJ Clinton -- so Monica wasn't the only one?

Wotta load of nothing. Absolutely no meaning to any of the searches. Maybe proves that Molly is using a phone modem?

What a neat game! Let's do more.

Molly Ivins idiot - 1950 in .23 seconds

Molly Ivins stupid - 6450 in .20 seconds

Molly Ivins bitch - 1110 in .17 seconds

Molly Ivins moron - 790 in .30 seconds

Going the wrong way here. But come up with your own Molly Ivins search. It's fun and can keep you occupied for minutes.

It's better than reading her columns.

Molly on Iraq

Clueless Molly is at it again and like all the anti-war liberals wants to know where the WMD's are.

Much as I hate to interrupt what is apparently a deeply felt triumphalism on the American right,

Yeah pretty neat, huh? What happened to all the house to house urban warfare you liberals were wringing your hands about?

now that it's over, does anyone see any reason for our having invaded Iraq?

I see lots of 'em. But let's see what bullshit Molly is gonna shovel here.

I realize that's what we all kept trying to figure out before the invasion,

What's this we shit, Molly? Do you have a turd in your pocklet? It was mostly you liberals who felt this way. Those of us on the right knew exactly what was going on.

but don't you think it should at least be visible in hindsight?

Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass it would. Do I have to explain it to you? Did you see the jails and torture chambers? That alone was reason enough.

Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire.

Yep! Gotta get that quagmire thing in. Let's see. The war ended about two months ago. The country is in chaos and we're supposed to have everything all peachy keen by now. How long did it take us to rebuild Japan and Germany after WWII? Jesus Molly, maybe we oughta send Jimmy Carter and the Clintons over to Iraq. They'd have things fixed in two days.

These are early days, certainly, to attempt a full historical evaluation.

No shit!

Could be a case of the forest and the trees. Perhaps we're well along the road to having everything work out magnificently, and I'm just missing it.

Yep! You're right there.

Still, I can't see anything that's going right.

After only two months.

Iraq is in chaos, and apparently the only way we'll be able to stop it will be to kill a lot of Iraqis.

War is hell!

Just what Saddam used to do.

Except he was killing innocent people. We're going after the bad guys. Typical liberal moral equivalence bullshit.

The other day, we announced we were going to shoot looters, and when that produced nightmare scenarios of children dead for stealing bread, we had to cancel that plan.

It was you fucking liberals who were screaming about us not doing anything about looters. Will you make up your fucking mind!

Now we're going to try gun control -- that should have the enthusiastic support of the NRA.

Jesus Molly! Do you even have a clue?

Meanwhile, the chaos in Iraq seems to be costing us whatever goodwill we earned for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the one unmitigated good to have come from all of this.

Holy shit! She admits that there was sumpin' good to have come from the war.

I hate to be picky, picky, picky,

When you're a fucking idiot, idiot, idiot!

but there are still no weapons of mass destruction.

Uh, Molly, they have determined that the trailors they found were indeed mobile biological labs, and Saddam had four years to hide the weapons. If there were no WMD's why did Saddam kick the inspectors out in 1998? Why was he still playing hide and seek with the latest inspectors?

In fact, we've apparently even stopped looking for them.

Huh? When did this happen?

Since Iraq never had anything to do with Al Qaeda or Sept. 11

Wrong again. Links between al Qaeda and Saddam have been found.

-- despite American public opinion on this issue -- it was certainly no surprise to see Al Qaeda back again, with strikes in both Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Bush's announcement that we had broken up the organization seems to have been a trifle premature.

Molly have you been reading Maureen Dowd? Bush never said we had broken up al Qaeda. He said we had damaged al Qaeda.

There was much un-muted griping from American intelligence about the total Saudi failure to cooperate before the attack there. (As one antiwar sign reminded us before the recent events, "Sept. 11 equals 15 Saudis, 0 Iraqis.")

Molly you just don't understand what's going on do you? We had to take out Iraq first. Believe it or not, it was about the oil. It was about guaranteeing the oil supply so we could go after Saudi Arabia (and when we do, you'll be one of the loudest voices screaming about that) and Iran. We need to drag the entire Arab world (and the Iranians) kicking and screaming into the 21'st Century. It ain't gonna be easy since they're stuck in the 7th Century.

Meanwhile, one of the other sales pitches we were given was that, for reasons never explained, getting rid of Saddam Hussein would make it easier to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It's not looking promising. Didn't look promising before the war, doesn't now.

He's no longer giving $25,000 to families of suicide bombers. I'm sure that he was financing terrorism in other ways also.

President Bush came out with his Roadmap for Peace, and the Israelis took the first exit. Ariel Sharon, so memorably described by Bush as "a man of peace," wasted no time undercutting that proposal.

He has since accepted it.

The always-unhelpful Palestinian terrorists attacked,

Duh! That's all they know. They don't want peace. They want the total destruction of Israel. They have never made a secret of that. And that fat fuck Arafat is already undermining the Roadmap to Nowhere by saying he is in charge of negotiations. That pretty much stops the Roadmap right there.

and Sharon counter-attacked

I would too.

and then cancelled his trip here to discuss the peace plan.

The Roadmap to Nowhere.

The usual ugly pictures and refueled resentments ensued; the same-old, same-old of this 50-year-old cycle. So far, getting rid of Saddam seems to have had zero effect on this old deadlock.

Close your eyes. Tap your shoes together and say "Peace. Peace. Peace."
Jesus Molly! You expect everything to happen immediately dontcha? Getting rid of Saddam was just one step in a process.

Meanwhile, Iraq looks more and more as though it will be costing us the high-end estimate of $20 billion a year,

Pretty cheap since the original estimate was $79 billion.

for which they have yet to appear noticeably grateful.

Some of 'em are.

The Shiites hate us,

Not all of 'em do.

the Kurds are killing the Arabs,

What's wrong with that?

we're hiring old Ba'athite thugs to run things and generally becoming about as popular over there as a whore trying to get into the SMU School of Theology.

Ha! Ha! Good one. Molly, you sure are a card.

As John Henry's cousin Eddie used to say of the Vietnamese, "If they don't like what we're doin' for ‘em, why don't they just go back where they come from?"

Another knee slapper.

OK, if this is the situation -- and it's certainly what's being reported -- I don't get why we're still hearing Bushies saying, "Ha, ha, ha; we won the war." Was there anyone who said we wouldn't?

Nope. But there were lots of people on the left saying it would be a quagmire with thousands of American soldiers dead and 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead.

Since I am in the happy position of having predicted a short, easy war and the peace from hell,

Congrats. You finally got sumpin' right. Do you want an award?

I think I'm looking like a genius prognosticator about now.

Cool. Where's the Dow gonna be in six months?

I can't figure out why the Republicans are happy about this.

The war was won in three weeks and came in under budget. What's not to be happy about?

Sure, it was a great photo-op for the president on the aircraft carrier, but if you think the American people won't notice $20 billion a year because of some nice pictures, you have sadly underestimated the common sense of this nation.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. This is the country that elected Bill Clinton twice.

I realize that what we see depends on where we stand, but there is a substantial body of emerging fact here, none of it encouraging for optimists.

I don't know. I'm usually pessimistic, and I'm encouraged by what's gone on so far.

We may yet see hopeful developments, but damned if I can see any cause for celebration now, or even for building a presidential re-election campaign around footage of our triumphant pres flying out to the aircraft carrier.

Bush on the aircraft carrier sure did piss off the liberals didn't it?

There's a very real possibility that by November 2004, Republicans will very much want everybody to forget the war now called Dubya Dubya II. (Sorry, I don't know whom to credit for that one, but it's not original with me.)

No. I think it's gonna be Dimocrats who will want to forget about it.

I've got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I've had a bet out that I hoped I'd lose.

I think she's right about the Americans being killed, because since there is anarchy in Iraq, and the Religion of Peace™ is gonna want to kill as many Americans as possible, it will take time to pacify the country. As for the Iraqis, how many died in the war? We need to know that before we can make a comparison. And if they die, it will be because the Religion on Peace™ sent them off to blow themselves up, or they get killed attacking Americans.

So here we have it: typical nattering negativity. Any suggestions on what would correct all the problems Molly has listed? Nope. Bush bad. That's pretty much all the left has to say. And as long as that's all they have to say, it looks like the 2004 election will be a disaster for the Dimocrats.

And that would be a good thing.

Molly Explains North Korea

My sister sent me an email last week asking why I do a Fax from Babs every week, but only do a Molly Ivins fisk once a month. It's not that Molly Ivins fisks are hard to write. On the contrary, they write themselves. I've even done one or two when I was under the influence of an adult beverage, which is probably the best way to read Molly's bullshit. No, the reason I only do them once a month is because it involves reading a Molly Ivins column all the way through. And I have to read it more than once. Do you realize what damage that can do to one's brain? Anyway, let's see what Molly has to say about North Korea.

When we need a laugh in grim times, we count on our Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Whoopi Goldberg of the Bush administration.

And when we need a laugh anytime, all we have to do is read a column by Molly Ivins, the Robert Fisk of American journalism.

Last week, Ashcroft took time off from tracking down terrorists in order to bust 55 people for selling rolling papers, pipes and other drug paraphernalia.

They were probably preparing to read a Molly Ivins' column. They make more sense if you're stoned.

Nice to see a man who's got his priorities straight.

Friends don't let friends read Molly Ivins.

Onward. Let's review the bidding on North Korea. "Review the bidding" is a bridge term for "How did we get into this mess?"

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter?

In 1994, the Clinton administration came to something called the Agreed Framework with North Korea, under which Pyongyang agreed to put its 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods -- which can be easily converted into weapons-grade plutonium -- into storage, watched over by U.N. inspectors and cameras. In return, the North Koreans were supposed to get two light-water nuclear reactors and economic and diplomatic relations.

Sounds good on paper. How did it work out?

Unfortunately, we didn't quite live up to our end of the bargain.

Huh? We didn't live up to our end of the bargain? Hey John, when you were bustin' the stoners, you should have dropped by Molly's place. I think she's been doin' a little tokin' herself. I can't wait to read her explanation of this.

As usual, the Republicans had a cow and decided that anything agreed to by Bill Clinton (not to mention the dread Jimmy Carter) must be a sellout.

Well, yeah, what's your point? How did we not live up to our end of the bargain?

We did, however, provide a substantial amount of food and fuel aid over the years, and in 2000 the Swiss company ABB agreed to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho. Interestingly enough, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB at the time, though a Pentagon spokeswoman says the secretary does not recall the $200 million deal ever having been brought before the board.

OK, we gave 'em fuel and food. How did we not live up to our end of the bargain?

So in comes George W. Bush, and six weeks into his term, March 2001, Bush humiliates President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea during his visit to Washington by announcing that we would not support his "sunshine initiative" to improve relations between the Koreas, for which Kim Dae Jung won the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize.

Yeah. Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. Jimmy Carter won one, too. BFD! Chirac has even been nominated for one. How did we not live up to our end of the bargain?

North Korea had been sending lots of signals that it was ready to deal, ready to open up and to make concessions. But the Bush administration denounced it as a "rogue state" and used it as a prime excuse to promote the national missile defense system.

It is a rogue state. It's run by a crazy loony. But I still want to know how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?

Bush, ever the soft-spoken diplomat, told a reporter that he "loathes" Kim Jong Il on a "visceral level" and also called the dictator "a pygmy." True, Kim Jong Il is vertically challenged and a repellent dictator, but insulting paranoiacs with nukes is not smart.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I still want to know, how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?

Then came the "axis of evil" speech in 2002. According to Bush's speech writer David Frum, North Korea got thrown into the axis as an afterthought, apparently for rhetorical purposes. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il, like, kind of took it personally. Then the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive war" was announced, along with the policy of using nuclear weapons to maintain American hegemony.

American hegemony? Jesus Molly, you sound like a Red Chinese propagandist. Who's more likely to use nukes? North Korea or us? Oh, and how did we not live up to our end of the bargain? I'm starting to get a little pissed here.

In October, North Korea admitted that it was running a secret uranium enrichment program, so Bush promptly renounced the Agreed Framework and cut off the food and fuel oil supplies we had agreed to. (Don't ask me to explain this, but apparently an enriched-uranium program is not nearly as dangerous as making plutonium.)

I'm still waiting to hear you explain how the fuck did we not live up to our end of the fucking bargain? And it doesn't matter what the difference is between enriched uranium and plutonium. You can make nukes with both. What does matter is your bullshit about us not living up to our end of the bargain, which you have never bothered to explain in this entire bullshit column and how the North Koreans snookered Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter from the get go. I'd like to hear you explain that also.

The North Koreans said they would drop the uranium enrichment and allow inspections to continue in return for a promise of no pre-emptive strike from us and a normalization of relations.

GMAFB! And they have such credibility. I'm sure both you and Jimmy Carter believe 'em dontcha? Oh, and how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?

Bush refused.

Wonder why?

A few months later, the North Koreans kicked out the U.N. inspectors and announced that it would begin making plutonium from the spent fuel rods.

Which they would have done anyway.

Bush then announced that we absolutely would not negotiate with the North Koreans. Then, in January, he announced again that we would not negotiate but would "talk."

It's called diplomacy. Sumpin' Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter aren't very good at. (See original deal where they got snookered.) Just go over in the corner and play Molly, while the grownups deal with the evil North Koreans. Don't let it bother your silly little head.

The North Koreans want direct talks with the United States, while we want multilateral talks -- Bush endorses multilateralism at last!

That's what you wanted. You should be happy. But, nooooo! Now you want unilateralism. Make up your mind!

-- with Japan, China and South Korea, and possibly Russia, Australia and the European Union. China, Australia and South Korea have all urged us to have direct talks.

But whose problem is it? Japan and South Korea will be affected most of all. We will be affected if the North Koreans sell or give nukes to terrorists. If North Korea nukes one of our cities, there will be no more North Korea.

Meanwhile, the South Koreans have elected Roh Moo Hyun to succeed Kim Dae Jung, and he, like his predecessor, favors the sunshine policy.

Well, fine. No one's stopping him from talking to North Korea.

(Before you start on the "How dare they?," "Those ingrates!" and "Worse than the French," please recall that for 25 years the United States supported a military dictatorship in South Korea, so they tend not to take our rhetoric about "democracy" really seriously).

We supported a lot of dictatorships during the Cold War. And isn't it amazing that many of them are now democracies? Y'know, the eastern European countries take our rhetoric about democracy very seriously.

All in all, a nasty situation. Colin Powell has just returned from a trip to South Korea and may be able to work out some straddle on the direct-talks issue. Meanwhile, it looks as though the North Koreans are busily building nuclear bombs, and no one doubts that they'd sell a little spare plutonium to anyone who paid them enough. Oy gevalt.

Your heroes, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter created this situation. Do you think Bush can fix it just like that? I don't know what the solution is either. But I know whatever solution you would think up would be worse than what we have now.

I'm for lettin' 'em starve.

Oh, and how did we not live up to our end of the bargain?

Molly Hates CPAC

I realized I haven't fisked anything in a while, and when I got to the Opinion section of the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, durned if I didn't see a column by Molly Ivins. Now, y'all in Texas, does anyone in your state take her seriously? Is she writing satire? Geez!

Normally, I don't bother to follow the doings of the far right. Having lived in Texas all these years, I figure I don't have much to learn on that score. But I was much struck by a report in Salon, the online magazine, on the recent conference of the Conservative Political Action Committee.

And as we all know, Salon is fair and balanced.

It sounded no more than usually loony to me

And if anyone should know loony, it would be Molly. She's fast approaching Helen Thomas loony.

-- equating Islam with fascism and terrorism,

Uh - Earth to Molly. 9/11. Osama bin Laden. al Qaeda. USS Cole. Embassies in Africa. What do these have in common? Radical Islam is fascism and terrorism. .

attacks on feminazis,

Called self defense. Isn't there sumpin' Martha Burk could do to benefit women rather than trying to get Augusta National (a private club) to admit a woman member?

the dread environmentalists,

Environazi's

family planning,

Abortion.

Harry Potter and other menaces to civilization.

If they're upset about Harry Potter, I'll give Molly that one.

No crazier than the John Birch Society or the militia movement I've known all these years.

Or PETA or the enviro fuckwits who put spikes in trees to injure loggers. There are crazies on both the left and the right.

But reporter Michelle Goldberg noted one striking difference: The conference was attended by people in power. Vice President Dick Cheney gave the keynote speech, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao spoke, as did House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Senate Whip Mitch McConnell, Republican National Committee Chair Marc Racicot, etc.

Duh! CPAC is a Republican PAC. I guess it wasn't any more loony that the funeral in Minnesota that turned into a political rally. Y'know they missed one real good touch at that funeral. They needed to prop Wellstone up in his coffin and have him say "Vote for Fritz!"

"Most of the action took place in a ballroom on the second floor, where speakers lambasted liberals from a stage draped in red, white and blue, and backed by two American flags and two enormous video screens," reports Goldberg. "It was like a right-wing version of a Workers World rally, with one crucial difference. Workers World is a fringe group with no political power.

This sounds like all the Dimocratic rallies (like one in Minnesota) where Clinton would bash Republicans.

CPAC is explicitly endorsed by people running the country.

And this is wrong for what reason...?

Its attendees are Bush's shock troops,

Holy shit! It's the Bush Brownshirts! Run for the hills!

the ones who staged the white-collar riot during the Florida vote count

Ooops! It's the White Shirts with Pocket Protectors. The dreaded WSPP! It's the attack of the killer engineers! Hide the children Ethel! Damn Molly, that wasn't anywhere near as good a riot as any Dimocratic Party supportin' union could put on. There's actual head banging goin' on then.

and harassed Al Gore in the vice presidential mansion."

Poor Al!

Cheney told the crowd, "CPAC has consistently championed those ideas that make America great."

And what's wtong with that?

The great ideas that followed were Ann Coulter,

Yum! Yum!

who has to be one of the silliest woman in America,

- insert your own pot calling kettle black joke here -

attacking "the treason lobby" -- the Democratic Party -- whose platform "consists in breaking every one of the Ten Commandments." Aw, Ann, we're very big on "Honor thy father and thy mother."

Ya notice Molly didn't deny the Dims breaking the other nine? And I'm not real sure about the "Honor thy father and thy mother".

"To attend CPAC is to crash through the looking glass into a world where passionate worship of the president is part of a brave rebellion against government,

And the Dimocrats didn't worship Clinton for eight years? They defended the most corrupt president this country has ever seen. And they still kneel before him (yes I really mean that) because he can raise so much money.

where Sweden is a hellish dystopia

It's getting there fast.

and Tom Daschle a diehard Marxist," Goldberg observes.

Yeah Tommy Dasshole, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, just to name a few, are Marxists.

"It's to realize that despite the conservative hold on the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court, and the utter dejection among Democrats, right-wingers still fancy themselves to be an embattled minority facing an army of wily, ruthless leftists, whom they hate with the righteous fury of the downtrodden."

Amen to that! Ever vigilant. The Dims haven't given up. Haven't you been listening to Hitlary? And don't forget the leftwing bias of the lamestream media.

Environmentalists apparently stir strange passions on the right.

For a real good reason.

"For CPACers, standing up to environmentalists is not merely a matter of opposing regulations seen as onerous. Rather, they've framed it as a creationism-style holy war.

Probably because the envirowacko's look at what they are doing as a creationism-style holy war.

David Riggs, who runs the anti-environmentalist Green Watch project at the Capitol Resource Center, took to the stage to the sound of jungle roars and declared that ‘environmentalism has nothing to do with bunnies and bambis. It's about destroying free enterprise and private property.'

Which is what Kyoto would do.

Floyd Brown of the Young America's Foundation announced, ‘A lot of people who used to claim their color was red now claim their color is green.'"

Can't disagree with that.

I've been red-baited by better people than that, but I do think it's a bit much to smear all the turtle-savers, bird-watchers, backpackers and nature-lovers with trying to destroy free enterprise and private property. Get a grip, people.

No some of them are stupid idealists, others are just stupid, and the rest do want to destroy free enterprise and private property. The Republicans do not want to poison the air and the water and destroy the environment like the envirowackos, and the Dimocratic Party say. They're the ones who need to get a grip!

The nastiness of right-wing paranoia is not a new story, but the creepy resemblance of the current crop of true believers to the Leninists of yesteryear is genuinely troubling. Haters are always a menace, and those who turn political differences into jihads are not helping this country.

How ironic that she is comparing Republicans to Leninists, while the real Leninists (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the loony left wing of the Dimocratic Party) are just as guilty as what she is accusing the Republicans of. This is Molly's world. She just lets us live in it.

For a refreshing look at the perfect absurdity of the right's obsession with "liberal media," I recommend Eric Alterman's new book "What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News." (Obligatory disclaimer: I know Eric, and I think his daughter is adorable.)

I guess since his daughter is adorable, the book must be factual? I recommend Bernard Goldberg's Bias. Does he have a daughter? And, if so, is she adorable? Of course there is a leftwing bias in the media. Compare the press' treatment of the Bush daughters to that of the Gore children. Did you know that little Al was busted for pot? Chelsea's got quite a play in the British tabloids, but nary a peep from the American press. The reason liberals don't think there is bias in the media is because they think they are in the center. You always hear about the far right of the Republican Party. You never hear about the far left of the Dimocratic Party, do you?

Alterman is an excellent writer and a Ph.D.-trained researcher. But you don't have to be either to know that what he points out is all but self-evident. He questions why the media have been so complaisant in the face of "the deeply ignorant and dishonest conservative offensive" and diagnoses a case of media masochism.

GMAFB! I just diagnose a case of massive bullshit!

Hey, a business that can produce an hour of investigative journalism on the subject of Michael Jackson's face surely has nothing to beat it itself up about.

That's the best line of the whole column! I agree! I guess even a blind squirrel can find an acorn every once in a while.

But seriously. Can't someone in Texas do sumpin' about Molly? Maybe take her and Ann Richards and put 'em in a home for dried up disgruntled Dimocrats.

We don't need another Helen Thomas.

This One's For You, Jennie

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."

A Fisk For Bob

Here we are at the start of a long weekend and I just feel terribly lazy tonight. And what do I do when I feel terribly lazy? Why I fisk someone. And who is the easiest person on the planet to fisk? Why Molly Ivins of course.

I had a nice e-mail exchange from Bob in North Dakota. I remember when I fisked an insipid Robert Jenson op-ed and mocked his analogy about Canadians invading North Dakota. I poked some good natured fun at North Dakota and I told Bob I hope he didn't take offense. Bob said no and also said the Canucks weren't likely to try and invade North Dakota because there is just too much military up there. He also agreed that the Nodaks and the Canucks would just get a few cases of Moosehead and have a big ol' party. Somewhere in the exchange he asked me what fisking meant. Well Bob, this fisk is for you.

Let's see what pearls of wisdom Molly has for us this week.

Here we are, playing hawks and doves again on the matter of Iraq - war or no war?

I vote war. Sooner rather than later.

- with particularly peppy exchanges from our more excitable brethren
on the right concerning "appeasement"

Appeasement never works. Remember Neville Chamberlain?

and lack of patriotism on the part of anyone who isn't
ready to nuke Baghdad now.

We're not questioning patriotism, just common sense. Better to nuke them before they nuke us. What will it take Molly? Another 9/11?

Bubba and Joe Bob have a question: "Why don't we git Oh-sama bin first?"

Bubba. Joe Bob. What makes you think we haven't got Oh-sama bin? Heard anything from him lately? He didn't look too good on that last video.

I bring this up because it seems to me that what the right wing is fond
of describing as "the media elites" are so absorbed in their own tong
warfare

Also known as the politics of personal destruction which was perfected by the Dimocratic party. When your only ideas involve seizing money from successful people and giving it to unsuccessful people ya gotta muddy up the waters so no one realizes that all your ideas are nothing but socalist bullshit. I know. Socialist bullshit is redundant.

that they quite forget the American people have a great deal of uncommon
good sense.

Some of us do. The ones who watch Oprah, Jerry Springer, and MSNBC and vote for Dimocrats don't.

Does life in Washington actually resemble an endless
round of Crossfire, or does it just seem that way from the boonies?

For once Molly has stumbled onto the truth. Even a blind squirrel can sometimes find an acorn. Life in Washington does resemble an endless round of Crossfire with the Dimocrat Carvilles and Begalas ranting and raving and saying absolutely nothing. Shut the fuck up!

At last count, we were already involved in military actions in seven
countries, counting Colombia, which is either a different set of
terrorists or a civil war.

Molly conveniently omits the fact that only one of those military actions, Afghanistan, started during the current administration. The other six started during the administration of her buddy, Bubba Clinton.

Seems like that's a lot on our plate now. Under the new Bush
doctrine of "unilaterally determined pre-emptive self-defense,"
we get to go around attacking anyone we want without provocation.
Not so much as a "Remember the Maine!" or a Tonkin Gulf resolution.

Where do you live Molly? Howza 'bout we let 'em nuke your city? Would that be provocation enough? I really don't want that to happen since I think Molly lives in the Dallas Fort Worth area and I know some people there. I would not like to see Rachel and Kim go.

Did anybody ever get to vote on "unilaterally determined pre-emptive
self-defense"?

OK. Let's vote. I vote yes. All in favor of killing them before they kill us raise your hands.

According to published reports, the administration is
also contemplating the use of earth-penetrating nuclear
weapons in Iraq.

Works for me. Saddam, you better hope your bunker is deep enough.

Whatever happened to the no-first-strike policy"?

9/11

Did anyone ever get to vote on that?

Let's vote now. I vote yes.

Has anyone studied the consequences of violating it?

Molly. Before, when we were dealing with the Russians they didn't want to die. Mutually Assured Destruction worked. We're dealing with fanatics. These dudes think they get to go to paradise and get to bang 72 virgins. You can't reason with the bastards. Gathering around a campfire and singing Kumbaya ain't gonna get us anywhere. I don't think you realize that war was declared against this country.

Hard to find a soul in this country who doesn't think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good idea,

Oh, I don't know. Walk on to any college campus. Call up James Zogby, the Arab buttboy apologist. I bet he doesn't think it's a good idea. Remember, Islam is a religion of peace.^TM

but there are lots of people wondering why it's up to us to do it,

'Cause we're the only country with the balls and the ability to do it. Jesus, do you think the French would do it? Bwahahahaha!

and also asking, "What happens then?"

The other Arab countries will be falling all over themselves to be our friends or they could be next. Maybe the Saudis would quit sponsoring terrorism. Maybe the Palestinians would quit blowing up. The possiblities are endless. Use your imagination. The Middle East couldn't be any worse than it is right now.

Given our experience with George W. as governor, that's a particularly relevant question.

And what would a Molly Ivins column be without a little Bush bashing? And are we also gonna hear about the neverending 2000 election?

Not that it's on par with a nuclear first strike, but Texas now faces a deficit
of $7 billion and rising.

Molly. We happen to be in a recession. Did ya hear about that? It's been in all the papers.

As governor, Bush inherited a surplus, pushed through
two big tax cuts

And I'll bet the people in Texas are happy about that.

and left virtually nothing in the Rainy Day Fund, so now we're not just
broke but in the hole.

Maybe the Texas gummint might want to think about cutting spending. That's what us common folk do when our income drops. Why can't the gummint?

As witness the case of the charter schools in Texas,

I don't have a clue as to what Molly is talking about here. Maybe someone from Texas can 'splain to me what the charter school thing is. At least in Texas y'all don't have the lowest SAT scores among the states. In Georgia, We're number 50! We're number 50!

the man does have a habit of coming up with not-very-bright ideas and
then wandering off to leave someone else to clean up the mess.

He's no where near as good at that as Jimmy Carter. And Clinton did a great job of destroying our intelligence agencies. But hey, even if we had known 9/11 was coming, we couldn't have prevented it because you politically correct dimwits would not have allowed us to single out men of Middle Eastern descent for extra security because it might hurt their feelings.

Speaking of cleaning up messes, how smart is it to get involved in a war
with no allies?

So the reasoning here is we let Saddam nuke us because we have no allies?

Canada announced Tuesday that it won't support a war.

And this affects us how?

That means, among other things, that we have to pay for
all of it ourselves, unlike the Persian Gulf War.

OK. Let's let some madman nuke us because we can't afford to go to war. Great logic Molly.

Our fiscal house is not in good order now. Bush and Congress
both blew the surplus in record time and will leave us with $742 billion and
rising added to the national debt by the end of the decade.

At least she assigns part of the blame to the Dimocrats.

That's without a war.

OK Let's declare peace. I feel better now.

Joseph Nye argues in his new book, The Paradox of American
Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone, that
anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we don't give a
rat's behind how the rest of the world feels about anything.

I don't know about y'all, but I don't really give a rat's ass about how the rest of the world feels about anything. They're jealous of us and they hate us. Fuck 'em!

That's the famous "arrogance" for which we get criticized.

Yet still they come, hats in hands, begging us for money and protection.

On that count, a war with Iraq could play right into terrorist hands.

Oh?

It's apparent that our ally Saudi Arabia has a far stronger
connection to Sept. 11 than our enemy Saddam Hussein,

Molly, you need to talk to Maureen Dowd. She thinks we oughta attack Saudi Arabia first. I read it in her column this morning.

so attacking Saddam makes us look like hypocrites willing to sell
out our foreign policy for oil.

Saudi Arabia does not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq does. Don't ya just wonder what passes for logical thought processes in a liberal's brain?

That we'd also have to kill a whole of lot of innocent Iraqis

War is hell. Better innocent Iraqis than innocent Americans.

(next guy who uses the words "precision
bombing" has to eat them)

Precision bombing. Yum. Yum. How many Afghanis did we kill with our precision bombs? Not too many. Certainly not as many as the hypocritical human rights groups claimed.

should count for more than it probably does with all those hard-nosed
Bush foreign policy advisers who have never seen war.

I have seen war Molly. You haven't. But we both saw 9/11 when 3000 innocent civilians were killed. I'd much rather see an Iraqi civilian die than an American civilian die. War is hell. Tell the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. We didn't start this war, but as long as we can keep dumbshit liberals like you out of power, we'll finish it.

The ideological struggle over foreign policy - unilateralism vs.
internationalism -

How about survivalism?

is in danger of becoming one of those futile -ism
fights, where people get so engaged in putting down
their opponents that they lose sight of reality.

I often wonder how Molly can successfully put one foot in front of the other. Everytime I read one of her columns I think that she lost sight of reality a few years back. We're talking about taking out a madman who may unleash nukes or biological weapons against us and we have to get the rest of the world's permission to protect ourselves? And we have to listen to wimps like L'il Tommy Daschle and L'il Dickie Gephardt sayin' that we need to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. Molly, you're sounding loonier than Cynthia McKinney fer chrissakes.

We used to give an award for it in the Texas Legislature:
"If He Votes Yes, Then I Vote No."

Molly was in the Texas Legislature????

It's smarter to stick with what works.

Ya mean like what worked in Afghanistan?

Life is not Crossfire

If it were, Carville would have been shot by now.

- there are more than two sides. So is there a better way? Nye thinks
there is.

I await with bated breath.

Since terrorism flourishes in the "failed states," why not
support international efforts to get these wretched places
on their feet?

This sounds like that shit they're talkin' about down in South Africa. 'We're poor because we screwed up our countries. Give us money so our corrupt dictators can screw up our countries even more while they squirrel the money away in their Swiss bank accounts.' Yep. That works.

There was a poll of foreign affairs experts and scholars at the
end of the 20th century, and it found widespread agreement that
the single most effective American foreign policy effort of the century
was the Marshall Plan.

But with the Marshall Plan we were rebuilding developed industrial democracies. We weren't trying to rebuild third world feudal countries living in the Tenth Century.

Seems to me that the lesson of Sept. 11 is that we cannot
afford to ignore what the rest of the world thinks.

No the lesson of Sept.11 is having some pussy president like Bill Clinton bite his lip, feel our pain, promise to hunt down the bastards who blew up our embassies and the Cole and then go get a blowjob by an airhead intern only shows the rest of the world that we're all talk and no action. Overthrowing the Taliban, taking Saddam out and going after any one else who fucks with us will prevent future 9/11's.

Why does she make it so easy?

More Fun With Molly

It's been a while since I've had some fun with my favorite humorist, Molly Ivins. So Without further ado, let's go to work on this column about war and peace.

"Jaw, jaw," said Winston Churchill, "is better than war, war."

Unless dealing with Hitler, Hitler. Or Saddam, Saddam.

I bring up the not-often-contested notion that peace is better than war only
because it seems the Bush administration is incapable of grasping the
self-evident.

The self evident is that peace is better than war, but war has been declared on us.

According to The New York Times,

All the news that's fit to distort.

President Bush has directed his top security people -- a
happy nest of neo-con hawks -- "to make a doctrine of pre-emptive
action against states and terrorist groups trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction.

And this is bad because...

" This means, we declare war first. This dogma "will be the foundation of a new national security strategy."

No, once again, war has been declared on us. We're just going after the bad guys before they nuke us.

Let's see, we already have our military in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Georgia and the Philippines. We are also deeply into Colombia as part of the Drug War and have fairly regular deployment by special ops in Somalia, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

And coming soon, to a theater of ops near you Iraq (and maybe Syria, too).

Good thing for India and Pakistan they made it into the Nuclear Club before the deadline, eh? Let's see, add Iran, North Korea and some of the nuttier princes, kings, sheiks, presidents-for-life -- I make that between 20 and 30 wars we'll have to fight under the new doctrine.

India and Pakistan did not declare war on us. Anyway, they're too busy fighting each other. And guess what, Iran is starting to suck up to us. Betcha they get real friendly if we knock Saddam off. Just like all the 'nuttier princes, kings, sheiks, presidents for life'. Just a couple of military operations and I think the little pissant countries will fall in line.

Then you have to add in all the "failed states."

I thought we covered that with the 'nuttier princes, kings, sheiks, presidents for life'.

The administration says it is "fine-tuning" the
doctrine to include joint operations with other powers:

If the Euroweenies want to help out OK. If not we'll do it ourselves.

"Potential targets include weak states that have become,
in the words of one official, 'petri dishes' for terrorist groups."

Like Afghanistan, maybe?

You can't exactly have a war between, say, Sierra Leone and
the United States. When there's no actual government, we end
up trying to control a bunch of warlords -- and, as we have learned
in Somalia

Bush is not Bill Clinton.

and Afghanistan, it ain't easy.

Did I miss something? I thought Afghanistan went pretty well.

The trouble with such non-wars is that there's no exit
strategy; we're in for indefinite occupation.

Go in, kill the bad guys and leave. If it works in Afghanistan, (and we'll see if it does) we oughta be able to make it work elsewhere. Don't know unless we try.

Do we really think this is a good idea?

Yep!

OK, what we're really trying to do here is set up some policy rationale for
attacking Iraq

We've already done that.

and possibly the other Axes of Evil, as well.

Have you heard the news out of Iran? They're sucking up. Plus the mullahs are losing control. If we successfully take out Iraq, I don't think we'll have to worry about Iran. As for North Korea, its economy is in shambles and its people are starving. It just may implode like the Soviet Union did.

It's not that easy to argue against taking out Saddam.

Good. Let's not bother.

But as Joshua Marshall

Who's he?

points out in the current issue of The Washington Monthly,
the people who are urging us to attack Iraq are either dishonest
or simplistic, or both, in their arguments.

Are these the same people who wanted to go after Afghanistan?

They are failing to ask, much less answer, some basic questions
about the risks. Their cheerful premise that it will relatively easy
to take out Saddam is based on their equally cheerful ignorance.

I'm sorry, I missed that Defense Department strategy meeting. Was it on MSNBC? No one watches that network. Molly, no one said it would be easy to take out Saddam. If it were, we would have done it already.

What the hawks hope is that the Iraqi people hate Saddam Hussein

They do.

and will be delighted to see us show up and liberate
them.

The people of Afghanistan were pretty happy to see us.

Unfortunately, we'll have to bomb them first. In case you
hadn't noticed, this tends to make us unpopular.

Depends on how many people we kill. Our bombs have gotten pretty selective. Not too much collateral damage in Afghanistan. I know the Kurds and the Shi'ites will be happy to see us. They hate Saddam. He gassed 'em.

Marshall reports, "When asked what would happen if America
encountered an embittered civilian population after fighting a grisly
battle for Baghdad,

We're hoping that doesn't happen. Iraqis surrender better than the French. At least they did in 1991.

Perle replied with a question, 'Suppose the Iraqis are dancing
in the streets after Saddam is gone?'"

Could happen. Lot's of Afghanis were doing it after the rout of the Taliban. Cue the music.

That non-answer is based on the false premise that
if the Iraqis hate Saddam, they're bound to love us, which is
nonsense.

Actually, we don't care if they love us. Just don't make weapons of mass destruction and be good little Iraqis.

Asked about the possibility that an attack on Iraq would so upset Arab
peoples they would overthrow now-friendly governments in Jordan, Egypt

Ain't gonna happen. And if it does, we got Israel to cover our flanks, thanks to Bush's latest policy on the Middle East. Pretty neat, huh?

and Saudi Arabia,

Mustn't forget out 'friends' the Saudis.

the neo-cons dismiss the question. "All the better if
you ask me," Adelman told Marshall. What's better about
having Islamist fanatics running Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

Egypt loses $3 billion a year. The Saudi's? That's a good question. The regime couldn't be worse than what they got now. What regime do you think sponsors most of the terrorism?

If we're going to do this, I suggest the administration prepare the
country for exactly how big the risks are.

I seem to remember a few speeches about that. Maybe Molly missed 'em. They were on all the networks. One of them was the State of the Union.

Unfortunately, it seems more inclined to question the patriotism of
anyone who asks questions.

Depends on the questions and who asks 'em. If it's Barbra Streisand the administration would probably just burst out into hysterical laughter.

As for the longer menu of war and near-war under the Bush Doctrine,
why not try peace instead?

All we are saying is give peace a chance.

The hope of the world has been the slow growth and
development of international law.

Stop it! Your killing me! International law? Who enforces it? The United Nations? Pass me the bong. I need a real good hit after that one!

Announcing that we will declare war "pre-emptively" whenever
we feel like it does nothing to promote peace.

Huh? She lost me there. We're not trying to promote peace. We're trying to prevent lunatics from killing us.

What makes us think our intelligence is good enough to learn
if and where such weapons are being developed?

After eight years of Clinton it's not. But we're working on it.

When Clinton tried to go after Al Qaeda,

To distract us from Monica.

he missed Osama bin Ladin by an hour

Dammit! Just missed! All I got were a few goats!

and destroyed a harmless pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
The FBI, the CIA and the rest of them managed to ignore the
warning signs on 9-11.

And even if we did, we couldn't have stopped it because it would have involved profiling men of Middle Eastern descent which you liberal twits won't let us do.

We're not competent enough to go around declaring
"pre-emptive war."

For the millionth time, the war has been delared against us. If you sponsor terrorism, you are against us.

Why not announce in advance that we plan to work with other
countries on solving the problem of terrorism.

Saddam, we'd like to talk to you about terrorism. Could we come over next Tuesday. Let's do lunch.

Why not try waging peace first?

Kumbaya.

A.J. Muste said, "There is no way to peace: Peace is the way."

George Bush said, 'In the war on terror, you are either with us, or against us'.

What can this doctrine possibly achieve except creating more
hatred of the United States?

Ya know Molly, I don't really care if they hate us or not. I just don't want to see any more 9/11's.

Molly Does Moral Clarity

Time once again for Molly Ivins. I had a little trouble with her this week, because, I guess, she was dealing with a subject that she, as a liberal, is not really too good with: Moral Clarity. But why don't you go read the column yourself. It's right here. Take your time. I had to read it a few times myself to make any sense of it. I'll be here when you get back. Ready? Let's take a trip into her fantasy land.

When in the course

of human events? What is this? The Declaration of Independence?

of the usual reasoned civil debate on public affairs - conducted with courtesy and good cheer

Excuse me Molly, what planet are you living on? Carville? Begala? Dasshole (little mister trial balloon)? Gephardt? a shreaking Eleanor Clift? Courtesy and good cheer? I'd hate to see the attack dogs.

one finds one's self snarling

So much for courtesy and good cheer

Oh, shut up!' one has, I fear been reading too much

Molly Ivins? No, Molly says,

George Will.

What, has he been writing about baseball again? That's usually what gets me going about George Will.

Being instructed what to think by the peerlessly, pompous Will

Or the equally pompous Hillary Clinton, or, by Molly, herself.

perched upon his

her

superiority

Hillary, The Smartest Woman in the World.

and apparently in a permanent state of dudgeon over everyone else's stupidity

Those ingrates didn't realize how great HillaryCare was.

is reminiscent of being bullied by a snotty teacher

Or of being lectured to by Bill Clinton, Sleazy Bubba, wagging his finger in our faces. Hey Bill, if you do that again, I've got a finger I'm gonna wag in your face

One is tempted to respond with the classic, frozen-faced Texas reply, 'No bull?"

Actually, I think it's 'No shit?' or 'No bullshit?' But you cannot say that in the print media. Long live the internet and its creator, Al Gore!

Will is often worth reading

unlike Molly, unless I need sumpin' to fisk.

if only you can figure out why you disagree with him.

I don't have that problem with Molly. I always disagree with her. She goes on to say that

he has been leading an entire phalanx of right-wing commentators in full cry over President Bush's loss of 'moral clarity' in the Middle East. The sheer implausibility of finding moral clarity in the Middle East does not deter them.

It doesn't deter me either. Arafat is a terrorist. He has led the Palestinians into disaster. They are evil. Any society that advocates strapping bombs on children and sending them off to murder civilians is bad. Golda Meir said that there would not be peace until the Palestinians loved their children more than they hated the Jews. No problem finding moral clarity here. The Jews have offered land for peace since 1967. There was a Palestinian state in 1947. It was called Jordan and included the West Bank. Arafat does not want a state as much as he wants to kill all the Jews. Clear enough?

Better minds tha Bush's are defeated by that challenge,

Hmmm, could she mean Sleazy Bubba and Jimmy Carter?

but the moral-certainty crowd admits no shade of gray.

There is none. Arafat and the Palestinians are terrorists. We are in a war against terrorism. Seems pretty clear to me. But I'm not a liberal so I have logical thought processes.

Will ...dismisses 'the intellectual confusion and moral miasma...that now permeate U.S. policy and media coverage

I have to disagree with George here. U.S. policy and media coverage are two different things, unless you get your info from the net or Fox News.

concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'

There is much speculation that the apparent confusion in American policy is actually rope-a-dope to buy us time to replenish our supply of weapons. Then, it's goodbye Saddam. If we control Iraq, we control Iragi oil. Then our 'friends', the Saudis, better watch their asses. See opinions from various warbloggers in the blogosphere.

Personally, I think Sharon is a continuing, shattering disaster for Israel

As opposed to Ehud Barak, who gave Arafat the best offer he will ever get. Arafat walked away and started the current intifada, which, incidently led to Sharon's election. Got any better ideas Molly? I know, Let's have the Israelis throw down their arms and give peace a chance.

If it is not clear to all

it's not

by now that his policies - leaving aside their morality -

Morality? Morality? He's fighting a fucking war for Christ's sake. Listen you liberal twit. The first war Israel loses is the last war Israel fights. Jesus. I'm getting so pissed off I'm beginning to sound like Michael Savage!

don't work.

How many Israelis have been killed by suicide bombers since the offensive started? Not as many as before. What do you want Sharon to do? How many times do I have to say this? ARAFAT DOES NOT WANT PEACE!!! HE WANTS THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL!!

How much more evidence is needed?

See above. But now Molly careens off into South America and the coup in Venezuela. Enron didn't work so let's try to tie the Bushies to the coup in Venezuela. Let's see, since we didn't denounce the coup, we obviously must have had a hand in it.

'senior members of the Bush adminstration met several times in recent months with leaders of the coalition that ousted...Chavez, and agreed with them and said he should be removed from office', according to the New York Times

That notoriously pro Bush newspaper. Calling Cynthia McKinney. Let's have an investigation. Did we send in the Marines? Did we recognize the new government? No. We stayed out of their affairs. Isn't that what you liberals want? Anyway, Molly continues

Our own assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, Otto Reich, was on the phone with the head plutocrat advising him.

Advising him to do what? Molly doesn't say. Now let's smear Reich.

He was a recess appointment byPresident Bush for the simple reason that he could not get confirmed by the Senate.

But that was OK when Sleazy Bubba used the same ploy to appoint Bill Lee to the Justice Department.

While heading a State Department office in the 1980's, Reich ran a covert propaganda effort against the Sandinistas.

And this is bad because...? Oh, I forgot. To liberals socialism is good. In their minds, the only reasons socialism has never worked is because the right people haven't been in charge. Ya know, like Hillary Clinton. Or that enough money has not been used to fund it.

He is also believed to have helped get Orlando Bosch a known terrorist, asylum in the United States.

Believed...Kind of like alleged.

Bosch was pardoned by Big George Bush - I suppose indicating some lack of moral clarity there,too.

As opposed to all the moral clarity of Sleazy Bubba with all the terrorists he pardoned to either get his wife elected (Puerto Rican) or the massive going out of business pardon sale when he left the White House. I'm not even gonna put the quote in by 'one administration official' as that provides her lead in to her Carthago Delenda Est. OK Just in case anyone does not know what that means. During the 2nd Punic War, Cato, the Elder, a Roman Senator, ended every speech he made in the Senate with Carthago Delenda Est...Carthage must be destroyed. It seems liberals keep bringing up the neverending election. Her she goes.

Sometines a mojority of the voters lose out to a five-to-four vote on the Supreme Court.

OK. Let's try this one more time. Gore lost in district court when the manual recount could not be completed past the date, BY FL0RIDA LAW, that the Secretary of State had to certify the results. The Florida Supreme Court, all Democrats, legislated from the bench. The U. S. Supreme court slapped them down, they did it again, the Supreme Court slapped them down again. The results were certified. Bush won. Gore lost. Neener neener neener. Also, it turns out that with all the recounts, BUSH STILL WON! Now let's contrast that to what happened in Missouri where they elected a dead man!!! Ashcroft had every right to contest that election, but he showed graciousness and class, something sadly lacking in the Democratic Party.

Are we all morally clear now?

It all depends on what your meaning of 'morally clear' is.

Good Golly Miss Molly

One thing you can always count on from Molly Ivins is a good laugh. Unfortunately, reading one of her columns can be hazardous to your brain. I can only read a little at a time. The Atlanta Urinal and Constipation prints one of her columns every Monday in the editorial section. It should really be on the comics page. I tried to find last Monday's column in their archives, but they must be ashamed, so I had to go to the Fort Worth Star-Telegraph to find the column. Some excerpts follow:

Across the length and breadth of this great land of ours, from the mountain to the prairie, from every hill and dale

from the oceans white with foam...God Bless America

comes the question

the country waits with bated breath

Where are the Democrats?

For sure, that's the question I've been asking myself, but Molly continues

They're among the missing,along with Judge Crater and Osama bin Laden. So this is what it is like to live in a one party country.

Yep! Them thar Republicans in the Senate borked Judge Pickering, defeated drilling in ANWR, and will not bring up making the tax cut permanent. Ya know, prominent Republicans like Chuckie Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, and Tommy Dasshole. She goes on to ramble about the Republicans.

the John Ashcroft-Trent Lott school of patriotism

as opposed to the Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and John Lindh school of patriotism

which holds that questioning our elected (or even not-so-elected) leaders

News flash Molly! The election is over. Bush won. Gore lost. As the Clintonoids were fond of saying over and over 'Let's just move on'.

one only has to look at the performance of these same definers of 'patriotism' as blind obedience when Bill Clinton was struggling to fight a war.

And that war was ..against the Constitution? Against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Against impeachment? Against truth? Against justice? Against the American way? Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Sleazy Bubba! Wait! It gets better.

When the Clinton administration was trying to track and kill bin Laden

Let me count the ways: one aspirin factory in the Sudan and a tent in Afghanistan. Not to mention the collateral damage to the goats. He also tried to track him at lots of fund raisers and many golf courses. Hey OJ if you help me find bin Laden, I'll help you find Nicole's killer. Maybe we can get Condit to help us and we'll help him find Chandra.

Republicans gratuitously dismissed the entire effort

Two cruise missiles..Damn! Just missed him!

as an attempt to change the subject from the all important Monica Lewinsky

And it was actually...???? Molly doesn't say. Here's a knee slapper.

we have forgotten what principled opposition means

Clinton attack dogs James Carville, Paul Begala, Sidney Blumenthal. Now there are fine examples of principled opposition. Yeah Molly. I guess we have forgotten what principled opposition means. We haven't seen it from the Democratic Party in some time.

However President Bush's sex life"

Unlike Bubba's

has nothing to do with the fact

this is a good thing

that his foreign policy is so inept

Clinton really solved that Israeli-Palestinian thing didn't he? And took decisive action for the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. Look his lip is bleeding from all the times he bit it and felt our pain.

that all the Arab countries, including our friends and allies the Saudis

bin Laden and 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. With friends like these...

and the Egyptians

Amazing what $3 billion per year can buy.

are now siding with Saddam Hussein instead of the United States. You really have to work at it to produce a result that bad.

Hey Molly, I bet if we kick Saddam's ass, the Saudis will be falling all over themselves to be our friends.

We still haven't caught bin Laden.

Even though Sudan offered to turn him over to the Clinton administration...Oops, forgot about that. Hey this next part is kinda neat.

Why not point out that suggestions and solutions offered before Sept. 11 were ignored by Bush?

Molly Ivins, meet Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia, Molly. More liberal twittering.

Nineteen Democratic Senators recently voted with Rebublicans against requiring automakers to increase gas mileage.

Molly, here is how this works. The American people do not want this. Have you ever heard of polls? Remember, the American people didn't want to impeach Clinton. You were for public opinion then, right? So public opinion was good then, bad now? Just checking. Now some sermonizing about Kyoto and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and

the International Criminal Court (which would have been such a useful option for dealing with bin Laden)

First, Bill, OJ, and Condit have to track him down. But the way the international community is against us, we would probably be brought up on charges for the war in Afghanistan. Also, there is a slight matter of the Constitution. Remember the Constitution? That's that pesky document that liberals call a 'living document' and keep reinterpreting and trying to circumvent . In all probability, since the International Criminal Court would take precedence over our laws, it would violate the Constitution. The last sentence of the column is

Let's get started."

No. I'm finished.