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.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Tom Hansen" <THANSEN@MOSCOW.COM><BR>To: vision2020@moscow.com <BR>Subject: [Vision2020] Bush Found Excuse to Invade Iraq <BR>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:01:00 -0700 <BR><BR>> <BR>> > From today's (June 29, 2005) Spokesman Review Opinion Section - <BR>> <BR>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- <BR>> <BR>> Bush found excuse to invade Iraq <BR>> <BR>> Molly Ivins <BR>> Creators Syndicate <BR>> <BR>> June 29, 2005 <BR>> <BR>> AUSTIN, Texas - The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to <BR>> let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I <BR>> think for myself. <BR>> <BR>> I am not "you liberals" or "you people on the left who always. ..." My name <BR>> is Molly Ivins, and I can speak for myself, thank you. I don't need Rush <BR>> Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe. <BR>> <BR>> Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has <BR>> become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right. Make some <BR>> ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how silly <BR>> it is. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing ravers never seem <BR>> to get tired of this old game. If I had a nickel for every idiotic thing <BR>> I've ever heard those on the right claim "liberals" believe, I'd be richer <BR>> than Bill Gates. <BR>> <BR>> The latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Karl Rove, who is not, <BR>> actually, an objective observer. He is George Bush's hatchet man. Last week, <BR>> Rove, in an address to the Conservative Party of New York, made the <BR>> following claim: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and <BR>> prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted <BR>> to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our <BR>> attackers." <BR>> <BR>> This seemed to the editorial writers at the San Diego Union-Tribune such a <BR>> reasonable summary of the liberal position they couldn't figure out why <BR>> Democrats were "hyperventilating" and getting "bent out of shape." <BR>> <BR>> "What is harder to understand is how Democrats can think they can have it <BR>> both ways," they wrote. "Even as they beat their chests and profess support <BR>> for military action, they can't help but criticize the military and do <BR>> everything they can to undermine the war effort." <BR>> <BR>> What a deep mystery. Let's see if we can help the San Diego thinkers solve <BR>> it. On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the <BR>> president to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0; the <BR>> vote in the House was 420 to 1. The lone dissenter was Democrat Barbara Lee <BR>> of California, who expressed qualms about an open-ended war without a clear <BR>> target. <BR>> <BR>> Find me the offer for therapy and understanding in that vote. Anyone <BR>> remember what actually happened after 9/11? Unprecedented unity, support <BR>> across the board, joint statements by Democratic and Republican political <BR>> leaders. The whole world was with us. The most important newspaper in France <BR>> headlined, "We Are All Americans Now," and all our allies sent troops and <BR>> money to help. That is what George Bush has wasted with his war in Iraq. <BR>> <BR>> The vote on invading Iraq was 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the <BR>> House. By that time, some liberals did question the wisdom of invasion <BR>> because: A) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and B) it looked increasingly <BR>> unlikely that Iraq actually had great stores of weapons of mass destruction, <BR>> since the United Nations inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find <BR>> any sign of them - even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed we knew exactly where <BR>> they were. <BR>> <BR>> Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly <BR>> why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this <BR>> country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, <BR>> and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today: I think it is bad for <BR>> us. I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I <BR>> think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that <BR>> our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated <BR>> our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did. <BR>> <BR>> I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam Hussein. I have been active <BR>> in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was a miserable S.O.B. <BR>> back in the '80s, when our government was sending him arms. <BR>> <BR>> I did not oppose the war because I am soft on terrorists or didn't want to <BR>> get Osama bin Laden. To the contrary, I thought it would be much more useful <BR>> to get bin Laden than to invade Iraq - which, once again, had nothing to do <BR>> with 9/11. I believe the case now stands proved that this administration <BR>> used 9/11 as a handy excuse to invade Iraq, which it already wanted to do <BR>> for other reasons. <BR>> <BR>> It is one thing for a political knife-fighter like Karl Rove to impugn the <BR>> patriotism of people who disagree with him: We have seen this same crappy <BR>> tactic before, just as we have seen administration officials use 9/11 for <BR>> political purposes again and again. But how many times are the media going <BR>> to let them get away with it? <BR>> <BR>> The first furious assault on the patriotism of Democrats came right after <BR>> the 9/11 commission learned President Bush had received a clear warning in <BR>> August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was planning a hijacking. <BR>> <BR>> Batten down the hatches: This is the beginning of an administration push to <BR>> jack up public support for the war in Iraq by attacking anyone with enough <BR>> sense to raise questions about how it's going. <BR>> <BR>> ----------------------------------------------------------- <BR>> <BR>> Take care, Moscow. <BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen <BR>> <BR>> "What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they <BR>> are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say <BR>> about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." <BR>> <BR>> -- Robert F. Kennedy <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _____________________________________________________ <BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com <BR>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ <BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
--
<p>___________________________________________________________<br>Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com<br>
<a href="http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01" target="_blank">http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup</a></p>