<< CORRECTION #2 ~ MAIN ~ JEWS "BIGOTED, RACIST, PATHETIC", AND UNABLE TO WRITE >>
CORRECTION
Molly Ivins apologises:
This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong ... I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter how you count Saddam’s killing of civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The massacre of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed at least 8,000; the infamous gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and seized documents from Iraqi security organizations show 182,000 were murdered during the Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, also in 1988 ...
My sincere apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.
Ivins has previously failed to check.
I think she should set a good example for Karl Rove and retire.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 14 at 01:27 PM • permalinkThe apology is appreciated, but the mindset of willful ignorance of history that makes a person actually believe a 2-year occupation has killed as many people as the 24-year dictatorship by one of the biggest monsters of the 20th century is rather scary.
What do these people think the U.S. military and its allies are doing over there, shooting civilians for sport or something?
Yeah, what PW said—the apology is nice, but the ignorance behind the initial statement is any one of a handful of overused terms—breath-taking, mind-boggling, awe-inducing, stupifying…
How could she possibly even need to check?!?
Posted by tim maguire on 2005 07 14 at 02:44 PM • permalinkHow could she possibly even need to check?!?
Helloooo??? Liberal Columnist here?? Tippity tap taps away on an iBook in her lair, enveloped in solitude, making stuff up and living the life of Reilly in Fantasy Land. Significantly further down the ‘you need to check this’ foodchain than the editors at the NYT or LAT or CBS for that matter. And if they didn’t think they had to make sure their sh$t was, like, FACT, why should a li’ ol’ Texass cowgirl check her stuff out?
But she is way ahead of the big boys with her apology. Now, if only she’d be shamed enough to keep her mouth shut and her pen sheathed. I know. Fantasy Land. File that under NOT so fast…
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2005 07 14 at 02:59 PM • permalinkHas anybody read the comments under the column? Now those are something else.
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2005 07 14 at 03:32 PM • permalinkMan, I just read those comments. Trust a lib’rul to take the fun out of accusing Clinton of genocide…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 14 at 04:15 PM • permalinkI assume BA means Bush Administration. Because if it meant something that could be sanely prepended to “goons” (say, Baathist Apologist), then the last word would be “crimes”, not “mistakes”.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2005 07 14 at 07:06 PM • permalinkSlightly OT.
Watching the (9:30pm) SBS news last night they had the story about that car bomb that killed mainly children in Iraq. The voice over was saying how some people blamed the suicide bomber whilst others blamed the American soldiers. Then they cut to this Iraqi man ranting (translated) about how the “US troops lure children and distribute gifts to them. So they used children as human shields. So their casualties are less, while the civilian and children casualties are more.”
I was not surprised that there was no translation of the locals who blamed the bomber, yet luckily they had one on hand to blame the US troops!
Checking their website this morning there’s the transcript of the same story from the 6:30pm show which had the translation of both locals’ views (anti bomber & anti US troops) listed.
Why then was only the anti US translation aired at 9:30pm? Were they both aired in the 6:30pm show, or is the transcript covering for the show’s bias? </cynicism>
Maybe the shock to her system will get her checking other “facts”.
Come on, we can hope can’t we?
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 07 14 at 10:45 PM • permalinkguinsPen: Molly, like many liberals, congratulates herself with being aware of—and even condeming—the crimes of Saddam Hussein while simultaneously being against his removal. It’s rather like driving around with a “Free Tibet” bumper sticker, really—expressing outrage without any intention of doing anything about it.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 07 14 at 11:13 PM • permalinkShe’ll be back to normal in no time. Give her a week and a few boilermakers and she’ll forget she ever said it…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 15 at 12:06 AM • permalinkGolly - not to check on something that your whole point hinges on (and is easily checked). What can you say to that?
What is the compulsion of the left today to defend military dictatorships (as opposed to totalitarian communist dictators - they’ve always defended them). Australian lefties I know claim it’s an innate pacifism. I tend to characture this as better to let a dictator kill people bit by bit than use military action to oust him/her and kill several at a time.
However I take the left’s claims to pacifism with a grain of salt. Western leftists have been happy to join leftist military movements (the Spanish Civil War is still written and talked about in romantic terms) and there are no shortage of leftist terrorist groups.
The usual explanation from our side is that the left’s distaste for the US is so obsessive that they will argue against any action the US take and implicitly talk up the opposing side, but can their motivation really be that reactionary?
PW - I’d like to believe you were wrong - but I suspect you’re not, at least for many less thoughtful, knee-jerk leftists (and while some on this forum will say there are no thoughtful leftists I’d have to disagree; but they certainly do seem in the minority - at least where I live). A girfriend of mine used to recite to me every accusation against US forces in Iraq - no qualifications or sense of context - no acknowledgement of what Saddam had done, everything was about the US.
Oh well, she was almost the perfect woman except for her political views.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
These days apologies are so rare that I’m taken aback when I see one that is unsolicited, sincere, and non-accusatory. Molly is sincere all right, and I’ll give her credit for that.
That said, it’s pretty creepy that she was waiting patiently for body counts to rise, just so she could score debating points in her June 28 column. You’d think she might have better things to so, like investigating corruption and terrorist cells and serious stuff like that.