She doesn't like it that Karl Rove thinks he can get away with calling her a liberal and then characterizing what she does or does not believe. So Molly Ivins decides to speak in her own name.
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 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 (italics added for emphasis).
Down-home Molly is entirely within her rights to oppose the war, fully entitled to question how the war began. But: what kind of credibility does this woman deserve, when she can claim — with no hint of irony or apparent intention to exaggerate for rhetorical effect — that the U.S. effort in Iraq has caused the deaths of more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did
? The claim is false on its face — obviously, ludicrously so.
I'm beginning to think, post-Durbin, that there exists some sort of Law of Conservation of Lunacy now at work on the left, a principle that somehow dictates that, at any given time or place, a prominent leftist must stand up and utter something completely nuts. Some kind of serial contagion — first Dean (several times), then Durbin, now Ivins. They take turns uttering their respective idiocies, followed by half-hearted clarifications that get falsely labeled as "apologies" by their fellow travelers in the MSM ("If I said anything that was misunderstood by some unsophisticated moron, I apologize for their stupid lack of comprehension"), and then, in the space that ensues, the next raving Blame America Firster steps up to the plate.
The only difference this time is that Ivins almost certainly won't respond to criticism. The current "hardening of the categories" on the left makes anything approaching contrition (let alone caution) likely. Smelling blood in Bush's low poll numbers, the left intends to go for a kill if they can. What's their alternative vision? Increase taxes, nationalize a new segment of the economy, despise anything resembling traditional values. Of course, they're smart enough politically not to articulate any of that directly. Do everything possible to amplify Bush's lame duck; hope the Dems regain one or both houses of Congress; pray that cyclical electoral dynamics somehow result in a second president named Clinton: that's
the left's only agenda now.