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 zero;
the vote in the House was 420 to one. 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 pissed away 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.
