Bush has habit of exaggerating(Molly Ivins Extreme Vomiting Alert!)

Spokesman Review ^ | 03/24/2004 | Molly Ivins

[writer33]

It’s difficult to keep track of president’s fibs, distortions and flat-out lies, Molly Ivins says.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Naturally, when I heard President Bush is now claiming to be in the forefront of the fight against corporate crime, I thought it was an April Fools' joke. But no, there it is in print -- he made a big speech about it in Houston, of all places, not far from the Enron building.

“We had to confront corporate crimes that cost people their jobs and their savings,” he said. “So we passed strong corporate reforms and made it very clear, we will not tolerate dishonesty in the boardrooms of America.”

We did; we won't? Oh, he was talking about the Sarbanes bill, that set of inadequate corporate reform measures that he opposed until it passed the House of Representatives with just a handful of dissenting votes and he couldn't face the political heat any longer. That bill.

I notice a favorite quibble from the White House here -- its new explanation is that Bush didn't oppose the bill per se, he just opposed “many of its main provisions.” That would be exactly the same way he opposed “many of the main provisions” in the Patients Bill of Rights Act when he was governor of Texas: He hated it so bad he never did sign it and then later claimed, “We passed the Patients Bill of Rights in Texas.” I think he has a pronoun problem.

The people who spend their time keeping track of George W. Bush's fibs, exaggerations, distortions, misleading remarks and flat-out lies are working at a frenzied pace these days. I particularly enjoyed the Bushies' sober new analysis that John Kerry's fiscal plan would leave us $1 trillion in the hole. This is the same set of drunken sailors that wants to leave us $5 trillion in the hole over 10 years by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Great, let's save $4 trillion and vote for Kerry.

A weekend's wallow in media coverage of the first anniversary of the end of the Iraq war netted some prize specimens of spin. On one side, fawning pro-administration journos happily reported everything is tickety-boo over there, whole thing just a glorious success (not counting 570 dead Americans and the unknown number of Iraqi civilians).

The Pollyanna Sunshine award in this category goes to William Safire of the New York Times, who reported, “Free electricity keeps air-conditioners humming, oil is flowing, schools and businesses have come back to life.” I suppose the opposite pole would be the new prime minister of Spain's succinct description, “a continuing disaster.”

Most of the establishment press took the “glass half-empty and half-full” route. ABC News did a “scientific” poll, my favorite kind, finding Iraqis themselves pretty much divided on the “good thing-bad thing” question. Unfortunately, a closer look at the poll shows 83 percent of the Kurds on the “good thing” side, leaving a fairly significant “bad thing” majority among both Sunnis and Shiites. Not a happy augury.

As a congenital optimist, I'd like to go for the “half-full” option, but what you have to watch are the trends. Time is not on our side, and the death rate keeps going up. That the Pentagon FUBAR-ed (fouled up beyond all recognition) the occupation is painfully clear, and the latest reports of contracts gone awry, inefficiency and profiteering don't point to improvement. At the very least, we can conclude that bringing democracy at the point of a missile is a lot trickier than the neocons believed it would be.

I thought one of the most helpful evaluations was in the March 29 issue of The Nation by Jonathan Schell, who has the advantage of having studied weapons proliferation issues for many years. Schell draws back from the “is not-is so” pingpong match to inspect the war and occupation in a much larger context. He's not happy, either. The worst part of the hangover is probably our loss of credibility around the world. We attacked Iraq, which didn't have weapons of mass destruction, while doing nothing about Dr. Abdul Khan, the Pakistani who spread nukes all over the planet.

Then there's the case of Richard Clarke, the top adviser on counter-terrorism to both Clinton and Bush. In his stunning interview on “60 Minutes,” I thought the most chilling moment was what he said took place immediately after 9-11: “Well, Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq. And we all said, ‘But no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan.' And Rumsfeld said, ‘There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, ‘Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' ”

Clarke said it was as if, after Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt had wanted to attack Mexico.

Another Clarke insight, “I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they (came) back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years before.”

[writer33]

"But no, there it is in print -- he made a big speech about it in Houston, of all places, not far from the Enron building."

Does this irk anybody else?

"As a congenital optimist, I'd like to go for the “half-full” option, but what you have to watch are the trends. Time is not on our side, and the death rate keeps going up."

Oh, yeah. Like we'd believe she's an optimist. Right now she's a bald faced liar. She's a mean, nasty...I can't finish it.

[COEXERJ145]

Every now and then I find myself wishing the Earth would open up and swallow all of Travis County.

[FUMETTI]

Seriously, I cannot stand the woman. Her latest editorial was so outrageous, suggesting Bush does not care about the 500 or so soldiers killed in Iraq, that I wished she was in my presence so I could punch her squarely in her fat, ugly old face (and I am not a violent person!). I have relatives there right now and all their letters say how proud they are to be there serving their country and giving democracy to the Iraqi people.

[AlbertWang]

Ever notice thast the Democrat Womyn (Hillary, Jant Reno, Donna Schillallallilli, Molley, Nancy Pellosi, Boxer, etc) are dogs but the Conservative Ladies are hot?

[Qwinn]

You know what difference I consistently see in a conservative versus liberal editorial like this?

Ivins cites that Bush's defense was the he was opposed to some of the main provisions... but she doesn't explain what those provisions were - AT ALL.

When Republicans report on Kerry doing the -exact same thing-... like with Kerry claiming he supported an anti-Castro bill, which turned out to be total BS, he only supported a watered down version that was missing, surprise, MAIN PROVISIONS.... Republicans give -details- on what those main provisions were and why what the Democrat claimed doesn't hold up.

But Molly doesn't explain. She just gives you the barest surface of Bush's defense, ridicules it, and then changes the subject.

Repulsive. And typical.

Qwinn

[writer33]

"Ever notice thast the Democrat Womyn (Hillary, Jant Reno, Donna Schillallallilli, Molley, Nancy Pellosi, Boxer, etc) are dogs but the Conservative Ladies are hot?"


I have noticed that, which makes us far better off. Doesn't it.

[writer33]

Remember. Feminism was created so that unattractive women could easily access the mainstream. Conservative women don't seem to have that problem.

[Liberty Valance]

As a native Texan, I humbly apologize for Ms. Ivin's illtempered remarks. We promise to keep her here in Texas so we can keep an eye on her. She has apparently gone off her meds again since her latest girlfriend left her. :^)

[writer33]

"She has apparently gone off her meds again since her latest girlfriend left her. :^)"

I was gonna ask why my fellow Texans let her live there in perfect harmony. Couldn't somebody...No, I better not. :) HA!

Apology accepted.

[milkmanD]

You know what difference I consistently see in a conservative versus liberal editorial like this?

Partisans are Partisans are Partisans

Bernie Ward, Molly Ivins and their ilk will spin, distort, and walk the line (and sometimes cross it) in order to make the case that their opinions are correct and you should agree with them.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their ilk do the _exact_ same thing.

Our job is to wade through the hyperbole and 1 sided arguments and form our own opinions.

[dalebert]

Molly is a long time Bush hater. She is also a disgusting slob who is soooooooo impressed with herself.

[daybreakcoming]

It's been said before but...."Just so you know - we're ashamed she's from Texas"

[Codeflier]

Whenever a Molly Ivins article is posted, I am tempted to click on the Report Abuse link. Be careful out there because not even Barf Alerts are good enough for her columns.

[Richard Kimball]

I suppose you have to see her stuff for the "know your enemies" section, but other than that, they're 99% fact free reporting.

Clarke said it was as if, after Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt had wanted to attack Mexico.

Or Germany?

[T. Jefferson]

She's consistent, I have yet to finish a single article, nor found one worthy of wiping my butt with.

[Let's Roll]

Molly, Get over it ... you just aren't his type.

[Free ThinkerNY]

Just read Molly Ivin's article

[Diddle E. Squat]

[Squantos]

Molly is very sick.............clearly her illness is effecting her ability to even think much less write it down. As much as I despise this cunning runt I understand she is suffering from cancer and her editors need to understand her inability to compile her routine pile reflects on the socialist presstitutional community in Austin as a whole (hole).

Put this mad cow out to pasture till she's off the mind altering drugs............:o)

Her stupidity and lack of intelligence only enhanced by her current health situation and intense hate for liberty and our republic makes it an unfair fight. I refuse to mistreat a big sick itch like her till she's better.

Stay Safe !..............:o)

[writer33]

Oh, God. Don't scare me this morning. :)