Molly Ivins: Saddam Even Worse than Shrub
Molly Ivins has admitted (h/t: Michelle Malkin) that her claim we have killed more Iraqis than Saddam was way off base. No, seriously, she did, and without the usual neoclintonian caveats or they-a culpas one might normally expect under circumstances like this. She did explain how she arrived at that conclusion, but made no excuses for it. For someone like Ivins to apologize so thoroughly is beyond the usual “man bites dog” story; it’s more like “man gets down on all fours, humps a dog’s leg and sniff’s another dog’s butt.” You just don’t see this stuff every day (I hope). Molly ends her column thusly:
There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.
I was certainly under no illusions regarding Saddam Hussein, whom I have opposed through human rights work for decades. My sincere apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.
Apology accepted. Now, if you could just add a word or two about that time travel thing…
July 13th, 2005 at 10:41 am
I had to go back and re-read your headline as I first read it as “Molly Ivins: Shrub even worse than Saddam.”
Which is a fine example of reading what you expect. My response was, “Yeah, and?”
That surely is a man humps dog story.
July 13th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
The woman annoys me, but this is the kind of stand-up admission of guilt that really enhances someone’s credibility. Good for her. Would that those in Big Media would own up to their mistakes so completely and forthrightly on a regular basis.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:21 am
Just keep Molly Ivins away from my leg and my butt!
ttyler5
Texas
July 15th, 2005 at 5:00 am
Molly Ivins is one the few columnists capable of making M. Dowd look like a research expert.
Were Ivins prepared to own up to all her boners, my request for retraction would be for something she wrote during the runup to the Iraq war.
In the article, written to explain why France wasn’t taking part, she makes some whopper claims. Aside from giving the French credit for being morally opposed to unilateralism, she asserted that the Algerian war produced some of the bloodiest battles in history (forgetting such sanguinary affairs as Gettysburg, Stalingrad, and any number of WWI battles); and that colonialism was far worse than both Nazism and Stalinism (as evidence she recommended a book detailing the colonial history of the Belgium Congo all while noting that France’s colonial record was spotty. She never picked up on the fact that France wasn’t the colonial master in the BC).
July 16th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Molly Ivins Is Not A Complete Idiot
Well, I am impressed. It appears that Molly Ivins is not a complete idiot after all.
I’m impressed.