Molly Ivins: Batten down the hatches

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.

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.

<snip>

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

I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam Hussein. I have been active in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was a miserable s.o.b. back in the '80s, when our government was sending him arms.

I did not oppose the war because I am soft on terrorists or didn't want to get Osama bin Laden. To the contrary, I thought it would be much more useful to get bin Laden than to invade Iraq -- which, once again, had nothing to do with 9-11. I believe the case now stands proved that this administration used 9-11 as a handy excuse to invade Iraq, which it already wanted to do for other reasons.

more...

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19272

Bravo Molly. :applause:

She raises so many excellent points, one of the best of them being:

"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?"


Yes, Lying Mainstream Media... how long are you going to feign ignorance and pretend like he's not lying outright? :grr: :argh:


way to go, Miss Molly! :applause:

they are declaring war on us. it is not spurious or unsurprising that Rove used the language of "therapy" in dressing down the dissent he imagines after 9-11. "therapy" requires critical thinking and self-examination. if he can keep his minions away from their brains, he MIGHT be able to maintain his position. but it requires getting the masses of asses to REINVENT REALITY once again.

the good thing is his quip about therapy makes NO SENSE at all. "therapy for suicide bombers?" aren't they already dead? aren't they? I thought we found mo atta's passport on top of the rubble? is he alive?

WE NEEDED THERAPY after september 11. i remember talking to my therapist a year ago when bush was using his squawk box during the televised debates. i needed therapy for that. i needed therapy to know that i wasn't the only one seeing an emperor prancing around naked on television and my therapist who has been in biz since the late 70s said nearly all his clients needed some on-the-clock time to talk about bush... something that never happened -- not even during the reagan years.

WE NEED THERAPY -- b/c of the cognitive dissonance created with all the lies. why are we in iraq? WMDs? terrorists? space aliens? i can't keep it straight. i feel like i'm losing my grip on reality.

oh yeah, there is no reality, except THEIR reality. fuckers. i hate them and i'm okay with that.

If we can go to war (ie military adventure) on this sort of basis, the world has slipped its moorings and we are adrift in a lawless sea of 'might-makes-right'.

The meat grinder will ultimately consume us all.

I hope you are all battening down the hatches in your little parts of the country. It's about to get even bumper FAST.

That is exactly right, we have be alert to those people's attempts to define us. We start off behind in the argument if we let that happen.

I can think for myself too, but she is more than welcome to be my voice. Damn I love her.

:applause:

Democratic leaders using these exact words -- not the normally nuanced criticisms which they eek out from time to time.

over the last 5 years. She has always made me feel not so alone in my views on Iraq.

She can speak for me almost anytime she feels like it.

but I did find this snail mail address:

Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.

I am sure she would love to hear from you.

but this is so clear and honest it almost moves me to tears, maybe it just hits too close to home.
I :loveya: Molly Ivans.
Grand Slam indeed.

:yourock:

The straw (person) argument is exactly true. Once again, facts don't matter to repukes...

Molly wrote:

The vote on invading Iraq was 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 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, since the United Nations inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find any sign of them -- even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed we knew exactly where they were.

------------------------

The vote took place before the UN inspectors were re-admitted, so votes against the IWR couldn't have been based on inspections turning up zilch. Nevertheless, there was plenty of reason at the time to doubt the overhyped WMD claims coming from the WH & Pentagon.

Too bad the vote didn't take place after the inspections turned up zilch -- maybe the vote would have gone the other way.

I didn't think of that. Maybe it would have gone the other way!

through at that time. Reminds me of the '04 election - were it held today, Bush would've LOST by a landslide & probably no amount of vote-fixing would've helped. And they KNOW that.

Al Gore's thoughts about Iraq in late spring/early summer of 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress - since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network."

Good for her!

Now if more newspapers picked up her column for people to read, maybe more "liberals" would learn to think more like her!

:applause:

kept saying "The American people want this," and "The American people think that."

I would yell at the TV, saying How do YOU know what we want? The American people didn't want YOU! Most of us didn't vote for you.

By the time the election started coming around, everybody was putting words in someone else's mouth. It would make me so mad whenever I heard "John Kerry wants...," "John Kerry thinks....," "John Kerry would do that." When did republicans become mind readers?

Having the liberal blues? 2 doses of Molly in one day will clear those right up.

You should hear her speak, very soft spoken but FIRM!

Give 'em hell, MOLLY

She is pure greatness.

:kick: