If you can't beat them, ridicule them

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.”

The truly amazing thing is that so many in the Republican leadership seem perfectly OK with rhetorical savagery such as Rove’s. When asked if the President would be asking Rove to apologize for his remarks. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, “Of course not.” GOP Party Chairman Ken Mehlman just barely stopped short of wanting to beatify Rove (Perhaps he remembered that in order to beatify someone, the honoree in question must, in fact, be dead….).

Demonization and ridicule is not merely the sole property of Conservatives. Lord knows I’ve engaged in my share of it, though I don’t believe that it has ever risen anywhere close to the level of Right-wing trolls like Rove, Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. The Right has discovered that when you cannot win an argument on it’s merits, you can also achieved the desired results by engaging in bluster, name-calling, and ridicule. Yep, make ‘em look silly, and no one will bother to notice that your argument couldn’t hold water if the future of the Republic depended on it.

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.

Indeed, since my name is Jack Cluth, and I do in fact think for myself, I will tell you that I resent the hell out of self-superior, self-righteous Conservatives deciding that resorting to name-calling and insults is an appropriate way to refute my arguments. I try to respect the opinions of Conservatives, though it is admittedly difficult to do at times. I do not pretend to have all the answers, and frankly, I resent those who think they do.

Those of you who have hung around these parts for any length of time will recall that I initially supported the war in Iraq. Though I virulently oppose George W. Bush (to this day, I still will not the word “President” followed by his name in the same sentence….) and everything he stands for, I decided at the time that there are times when unity of purpose and the national interest can and should trump individual opinions and self-interest. I opined at great length about how it was time to put partisan politics behind us and work toward the common good. Though I am by nature a pacifist, I recognize that sometimes one is forced to fight Evil on it’s own turf. Given the “evidence” provided by the Bush Administration, I decided (to my everlasting shame and dismay) to give Our Sainted President the benefit of the doubt.

Fool me once….

I love my country and I support our men and women in uniform, who are doing yeoman’s work in a pointless and wasteful cause, a war in which we have created the very terrorist threat Our Sainted President is so determined to fight and defeat. What I resent is having to admit to myself that we were lied to. And this is not a lie along the lines of “I did NOT have sex with that woman”. The only things damaged by Bill Clinton’s lies were a blue dress and a woman’s reputation.

George W. Bush and his minions lied and manipulated the available intelligence to support a policy objective that had long since been decided upon. These lies and manipulations have resulted in the deaths (so far) of more than 1700 American soldiers and marines in Iraq. At least no one died when Clinton lied.

By the way, isn’t Bush the one outlined his true feelings in March, 2002- a full year prior to the invasion of Iraq- by saying…

F—k Saddam. Weíre taking him out.

…during a meeting with three US Senators?

Memo to those who happen to disagree with me: Don’t EVER question my patriotism or devotion to my country. I love this country, though I thoroughly detest and resent the direction that BushCo is dragging it in. I have no problems in making my feelings known. If dissent is truly the highest form of patriotism, and I firmly believe that it is, no one should be able to question my patriotism.

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.

Yessiree…if you’re not marching in ideological lockstep with BushCo, you clearly do not support the troops. And could ANYTHING be more despicable?? Well, as a matter of fact, yes….