[Vision2020] Bush Found Excuse to Invade Iraq

Thu Jun 30 12:58:07 PDT 2005

Hell, I'd rather they fight those guys over in Iraq than over here. She
can badmouth the President all she wants but I bet that molly ivins would
be the first one crying for the army to save her fat rear when a bomb
blows up wherever she's at. She probably just got mad because she voted
for that idiot Kerry and he lost so bad anyhow.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Tom Hansen"
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com
  Subject: [Vision2020] Bush Found Excuse to Invade Iraq
  Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:01:00 -0700

  >
  > > From today's (June 29, 2005) Spokesman Review Opinion Section -
  >
  >
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >
  > Bush found excuse to invade Iraq
  >
  > Molly Ivins
  > Creators Syndicate
  >
  > June 29, 2005
  >
  > AUSTIN, Texas - 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.
  >
  > 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. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing ravers
  never seem
  > to get tired of this old game. 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 latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Karl Rove, 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."
  >
  > 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."
  >
  > "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."
  >
  > What a deep mystery. Let's see if we can help the San Diego
  thinkers solve
  > it. On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing
  the
  > president to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98 to
  0; the
  > vote in the House was 420 to 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.
  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 George Bush has wasted with his war in
  Iraq.
  >
  > 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.
  >
  > 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.
  >
  > 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?
  >
  > The first furious assault on the patriotism of Democrats came right
  after
  > the 9/11 commission learned President Bush had received a clear
  warning in
  > August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was planning a hijacking.
  >
  > Batten down the hatches: This is the beginning of an administration
  push to
  > jack up public support for the war in Iraq by attacking anyone with
  enough
  > sense to raise questions about how it's going.
  >
  > -----------------------------------------------------------
  >
  > Take care, Moscow.
  >
  > Tom Hansen
  >
  > "What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not
  that they
  > are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what
  they say
  > about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
  >
  > -- Robert F. Kennedy
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > _____________________________________________________
  > List services made available by First Step Internet,
  > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
  > http://www.fsr.net
  > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050630/9c93fd32/attachment.htm