Lone-Star-state reader Greg Lange points out this bit of all-too-typical tripe and "shrub" bashing from the unredoubtable Molly Ivins. It's all pretty bad, but the part that really got to me was:

Sharon himself started this second Intifada with his cruelly reckless and deliberately inflammatory visit to the Temple Mount. Took no genius to see what that was going to touch off. If you want to blame this Intifada on someone in particular, Sharon is the leading candidate.

Yes, Molly, ignore the evidence that the Intifada was planned for months leading up to that, and the visit was an excuse--not a reason.

Anyway, I don't have time to dissect this properly right now--maybe someone else will take a crack at it.

This has long been one of my least favorite arguments -- Sharon and the Isrealis had to know this was a provactive act!

I admit it probably was intentionally provacative and politically craven. but why? How does one man's visit to a site that's also rligiously significant the the Jews justify a rash of suicide bombings? It only does if people are looking for something the get pissed off about.

Yes, I'm not a Muslim, and thuse probably don't understand the Mount's importance to Muslims. But I'm a Christian, and I see Palestinian forces are taking refuge and hostages in the church that marks where my Savior was born, and the Israelis are besieging the same church. Seems to me that this is a significant desecration on a very religious site for Christians (and Muslims). Yet I don't see Christians planning or executing suicide attacks on Arabs or Jews.

This pointing to the Temple Mount visit is another example of the subtle racism that says that Arabs cannot be held responsible for their actions -- they are all the result of Israeli or American provocation. Bull. This is like blaming a mugging victim because she made eye contact with her mugger.

Its all a lie there is no way Molly Irvins is a Texan this great state would not produce a crack smoker like her I don't know how she keeps her job.

Salim Muwakkil advanced the same argument in the "Chicago Tribune" the other day. It's a load of crap.

There was a time, in the 80's perhaps, when Molly was the most interesting writer in Texas. She caught the lowdown on every oficeholder and canfidate in the state. She was funny, apt and articulate. In syndication, she has lost it. She lacks knowledge, foremost, and she has the boilerplate editorial to write in. Nothing good for a writer there. She is an example of the Peter Principle.

...