Economist's View: Paul Krugman: Missing Molly Ivins

リンク: Economist's View: Paul Krugman: Missing Molly Ivins.

Paul Krugman pays tribute to Molly Ivins:

Missing Molly Ivins, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Molly Ivins, the Texas columnist, died of breast cancer on Wednesday. I first met her more than three years ago, when our book tours crossed. She was, as she wrote, “a card-carrying member of The Great Liberal Backlash of 2003, one of the half-dozen or so writers now schlepping around the country promoting books that do not speak kindly of Our Leader’s record.” ...

Molly never lost sight of two eternal truths: rulers lie, and the times when people are most afraid to challenge authority are also the times when it’s most important to do just that. And the fact that she remembered these truths explains ... her extraordinary prescience on the central political issue of our time.

I’ve been going through Molly’s columns from 2002 and 2003, the period when most of ... the press cheered as Our Leader took us to war on false pretenses, then dismissed as “Bush haters” anyone who complained... Here are a few selections:

Nov. 19, 2002: “The greatest risk for us in invading Iraq is probably not war itself, so much as: What happens after we win? ... There is a batty degree of triumphalism loose in this country right now.”

Jan. 16, 2003: “I assume we can defeat Hussein without great cost to our side (God forgive me if that is hubris). The problem is what happens after we win. The country is 20 percent Kurd, 20 percent Sunni and 60 percent Shiite. Can you say, ‘Horrible three-way civil war?’ ”

July 14, 2003: “I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it would lead to the peace from hell, but I’d rather not see my prediction come true and I don’t think we have much time left to avert it. That the occupation is not going well is apparent to everyone but Donald Rumsfeld. ... We don’t need people with credentials as right-wing ideologues and corporate privatizers — we need people who know how to fix water and power plants.”

Oct. 7, 2003: “Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire. ...

“I’ve got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war, and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I’ve had a bet out that I hoped I’d lose.”

So Molly Ivins — who didn’t mingle with the great and famous, didn’t have sources high in the administration, and never claimed special expertise on national security or the Middle East — got almost everything right. ...

Was Molly smarter than all the experts? No, she was just braver. The administration’s exploitation of 9/11 created an environment in which it took a lot of courage to see and say the obvious.

Molly had that courage; not enough others can say the same.

And it’s not over. Many of those who failed the big test in 2002 and 2003 are now making excuses for the “surge.” Meanwhile, the same techniques of allegation and innuendo that were used to promote war with Iraq are being used to ratchet up tensions with Iran.

Now, more than ever, we need people who will stand up against the follies and lies of the powerful. And Molly Ivins, who devoted her life to questioning authority, will be sorely missed.

_________________________
Previous (1/29) column: Paul Krugman: The Sum of All Ears

[Note: Links to columns added.]

Posted by Mark Thoma on February 2, 2007 at 12:15 AM in Economics, Politics, Press | Permalink | Comments (10)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7741032

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul Krugman: Missing Molly Ivins:

Comments

Nice tribute. And such a clear note to recognize honesty ahead of deference to authority, rank or craft.

Posted by: calmo | Feb 1, 2007 9:37:14 PM

Let's honor the living as well as the dead. I met Paul Krugan when he came to Portland on his Great Unraveling book tour. He too was one of those few public voices who was willing to stand up to the follies and lies of the powerful.
So thanks and goodbye to Molly Ivins. And thank again to Paul Krugman. Keep up the good work Paul.

Posted by: dale | Feb 1, 2007 11:59:20 PM

Who is Paul Krugan?

Posted by: | Feb 2, 2007 12:14:02 AM

What bothers me so, is that it was so easy to understand how crazed American foreign policy became in 2002 as we drove to war and an occupation that was rarely considered or mentioned but was taken so for granted that the defensive phrase "cut and run" was a reporters staple from the time the Iraqi government was deposed.

We need to ask why and how Molly Ivins knew and Paul Krugman knew what so few knew, what too many, especially many in political office, do not know even now. We need to leave Iraq immediately.

Thank you, Molly and Paul.

Posted by: anne | Feb 2, 2007 1:33:19 AM

The most contemptible thing now, I believe, is the pusillanimous Congress that is unable to do anything with any teeth to stop this crazy President from pushing further into his folly. If this Congress had any cojones or guts, or was able to respond to the popular will, it could bring this war to an end right now. It hasn't the guts to do so. Cowards. The damn cowards.

Posted by: maria | Feb 2, 2007 1:54:53 AM

It was easy to spot the fiasco in Iraq ahead of time. Look at dubya's business dealings years before: several failed enterprises, a few with questionable SEC filings and a sweetheart investment in the Rangers while his Daddy was moving into higher circles. The same has been said of Nixon as well.

So I guess I just don't get the right-wing, shoulder-shrugging "Who could have known" or the more moderate variation "Well it was a mistake then, but we have to follow it out now". No, we don't - we have the option to call both this presidency and this foreign policy what they are: mistakes.

Posted by: richard | Feb 2, 2007 7:02:06 AM

It was the parade and the marching music; that, and the sense one got from looking at Bush that something was amiss. In the late fifties, I think, I saw two young girls watching Jerry Very Reverend Falwell for the first time roll in the floor with laughter. They just knew.

Posted by: ken melvin | Feb 2, 2007 7:14:00 AM

This is the level of Republican hypocrisy that reminds us all how far the Dems have to go. I tell you what. Let's all hold hands together and sing, "Oh the Farmers and the Cowboys Should Be Friends!" Just not, please, Newt Gingrich, the man whose contribution to civility was to recommend that all Democrats be referred to with such words as cowards, traitors, commies, godless, liars and other such bipartisan-promoting terms.

Please, anyone but Newt.

Now, from my hours spent battered and half brain dead listening to the fatuous, self-important commentators of our nation, I learn that the people of this country did not elect liberals to Congress last week. Nope, they elected populists! Well, gosh all hemlock. I'll be go to hell. Populist! I AM one. Honest -- been a populist so long I'm on my third bottle of Tabasco.

Who knew? ...

Posted by: anne | Feb 2, 2007 7:45:07 AM

Guess the voice?

http://www.creators.com/print/opinion/molly-ivins/now-they-re-all-for-bipartisanship.html

November 14, 2006

Now They're all for Bipartisanship
By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- Having watched election coverage nonstop all week, I sometimes wake screaming, "Bipartisanship!" and scare myself.

Of all the viral members of the media who have been suggesting that the Dems cooperate with their political opponents, the one who rendered me almost unconscious with surprise was Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich, the Boy Scout. Newt Gingrich, the man who sat there and watched Congress impeach and try Bill Clinton for lying about having an extramarital while he, Newt Gingrich, was lying about having an extramarital affair. (This all took place during his second marriage. The first one ended when he told his wife he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment.)

This is the level of Republican hypocrisy....

Posted by: anne | Feb 2, 2007 7:47:29 AM

I like all the posts. But I demur re Nixon. Nixon did not have a succession of business failures in his record, and certainly no family to pave his way. He was the exemplary self made man (politician). What one needed to realize early about Nixon was that he would stop at very little (an early Rove?) to attain his goals. He was right about Alger Hiss, but he liked to smear his adversaries, e.g., Helen Douglas ("pink right down to her panties"). Not really comparable to Bush. And as Carl Bernstein has said, "Bush has done the nation far more damage than Nixon ever did."

Posted by: maria | Feb 2, 2007 8:10:08 AM