The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 260

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-17-06 09:09 PM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 260

Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 04:05 PM by EarlG

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 260

September 18, 2006
United Against Bush Edition

Last week was the fifth anniversary of 9/11, so to mark the occasion George W. Bush (2,3,4) trampled on an American flag and said that bin Laden was "not a top priority." Bob Ney (5) pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges. George Allen (7) had his picture taken with some brown people. And Dennis Hastert (10) - who is only third in line to the presidency - forgot the words to our national anthem. As usual, don't forget the key!

GOP Hypocrites

Last week Our Great Leader interrupted prime-time programming on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 in order to send an important message to America. The message: I have no frickin' clue what I'm doing.

Bush told the nation that "America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over." Damn straight America did not ask for this war. The Bush administration wanted it and they did everything in their power to make sure they got it: they lied their butts off about weapons of mass destruction, they lied about Saddam Hussein's connections to al Qaeda, they lied about the ease with which the war would be won, and they lied about the cost.

Oh, but wait - which war is he talking about again? The war in Iraq or the war on terror? Are they the same thing? Or not? It's really hard to tell when Bush keeps jumbling them together like soggy clothes in a spindryer.

"Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country," said President Numbnuts, "So we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."

Put aside our differences... so how's that going? Well, Democrats had barely had a chance to open their mouths before House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Naturally) heeded Bush's call for unity by announcing that, "I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they're more interested in protecting terrorists than in protecting the American people."

Wow! Now that's what I call putting aside your differences. Hey John, why don't you take that "unity" and cram it up your ass?

Next up was Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Obviously) who said that any criticism of George W. Bush or his Iraq policies "gives comfort to the enemy." And "If you embolden the enemy, you are hurting our cause." So I guess when the Republicans talk about "unity" it really means either we all unite behind Dubya's utter failure of a presidency, or the terrorists win. Sometimes I think it must be nice to live in the GOP's black-and-white fantasyland. So cozy and safe.

Finally, it was left to Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Fecal Matter) to put the icing on the cake. "If you listen to the Democratic leader," he said, "our lesson is: Let's put domestic politics ahead of the security of this country. That's the message."

Makes sense. I guess if the Democrats hadn't been wasting everybody's time with gay marriage, flag burning, Terri Schiavo, and the war on Christmas, the Republican-controlled Congress could have carried out the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by now.

George W. Bush

Mind you, it's not just the Democrats who apparently want to bend over and spread their cheeks for Al Qaeda - George W. Bush has also decided to accuse some top Republicans of aiding the enemy.

During a press conference last Friday, Our Great Leader explained that "the nation's ability to defend itself would be undermined if rebellious Republicans in the Senate did not come around to his position," according to the New York Times. At issue is Article III of the Geneva Conventions, which bans "outrages upon personal dignity." Essentially, Bush wants to rewrite the Geneva Conventions so that his torture programs can continue - and conveniently shield him retroactively from accusations of war crimes.

John McCain, Colin Powell, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham - military veterans all - are leading the charge to prevent Bush from weakening the Geneva Conventions. And much as I dislike these four (they've all appeared in the Top 10 list at one point or another) they're dead right on this particular issue - which of course means that according to the president, they're helping the terrorists.

What's George's problem anyway? Well, during the press conference he explained it like this:

This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"?

So to put this in a nutshell, George W. Bush doesn't know what "human dignity" is. You know, I think that pretty much sums up his entire presidency.

George W. Bush

Okay, I think somebody needs to sit down and explain this to me really slowly. A few weeks ago, not long after Donald Rumsfeld compared critics of the administration's "war on terror" policies to Nazi appeasers, George W. Bush said this:

Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is "Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"

And then last week, this happened:

Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that "bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism." Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources."

So let me get this straight: bin Laden is Hitler, and anyone who thinks we should ignore him is a Neville Chamberlain clone - but capturing him isn't a top priority for the Bush administration?

If your brain hasn't melted into a confused puddle of mush yet, I'm afraid there's more. During the same press conference in which he accused his fellow Republicans of helping the terrorists, George declared that we couldn't go into Pakistan to get bin Laden anyway, because:

First of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation," Bush said. "In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

Er, like we were invited into Afghanistan and Iraq? Forgive me, but how does George square this newfound respect for national sovereignty with his soaring rhetoric of 2001?

We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.

Come on, Dubya. This is just getting ridiculous.

George W. Bush

Time now to take a look back in pictures at George's big day on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Here he is with Laura placing a wreath at Ground Zero in New York:

Let's pan out a little and see how the rebuilding is going.

A little further...

Well, I guess it's only been five years. For those of you who missed it, Keith Olbermann had one or two choice words on this rather sore subject last week.

Next, Our Great Leader stopped off at the Ladder Company 10 firehouse, where he and the First Lady took part in an impromptu and unusual photo-op. One can only imagine the calls from photographers which prompted him to do this:

"Mr. President, Mr. President! Over here!"

"Mr. President, stand on the flag please! That's it, right there!"

"Now wipe your feet on it! Really grind your heel in!"

"That's right Mrs. Bush, walk all over it! Great!"

Er, WTF?

Bob Ney

Hey, hey, Robert Ney, how many laws did you break today? Last week Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements in the ongoing Jack Abramoff scandal (yes, it's still ongoing). Ney signed a plea agreement which would limit his jail time to around two years, "after months of stoutly denying wrongdoing," according to the Associated Press.

Nice to see a Republican taking personal responsibility for his actions, although the occasion is spoiled slightly by the fact that Ney repeatedly claimed his innocence and only fessed up when it became clear that he was about to enjoy an extended stay in the big house. Oh well. We'll take it where we can get it, I guess.

Ney also revealed that he's got a problem with the bottle. In a statement, he said:

I have gone through a great deal of soul searching recently, and I have come to recognize that a dependence on alcohol has been a problem for me. I am not making any excuses, and I take full responsibility for my actions. Over the years, I have worked to help others, but now I am the one that needs help. I am seeking professional help for this problem I am hopeful that with counseling, time and the support of my family and friends, I will be able to deal with my dependency.

So there you have it folks - Ney isn't using his problems with booze to excuse his illegal activities, he just thought now would be a good time to bring it up. Recovering alcoholics everywhere salute your conveniently-timed soul-searching, sir.

By the way, did I mention that as of December 2003, Ney had an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition for his "pro-family" voting record?

Dick Cheney and Randy Kuhl

At the end of September, Vice President Dick Cheney will attend a fundraiser for Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-NY). So what? Well, funny story actually - it turns out that both Dick Cheney and Randy Kuhl have been involved in shotgun-related incidents.

As you all probably know, earlier this year Cheney shot 78-year-old Harry Whittington in the face after mistaking him for a quail (see Idiots 233). But what you probably didn't know is that, according to Roll Call, "widely reported divorce records showed that Kuhl, currently running for his second term, pulled not one but two shotguns on his wife during a 1994 dinner party at their home. Kuhl's ex-wife also described him as an abusive drunk who 'hustled women.'"

So, okay, funny story unless you happen to be Harry Whittington or Randy Kuhl's wife.

Somewhat improbably, we here at DU have managed to obtain a flyer for the event...

George Allen

After repeatedly coming under fire for allegations of racism, Senator Macaca managed to take pandering to new heights (lows?) last week. Believe it or not, George Allen held an "ethnic rally" where he posed for pictures with people of varying degrees of skin shade. See? Pay no heed to that photo with the Klan-related Council of Conservative Citizens. Never mind those stories about the Confederate flag. And forget about that "Welcome to America" moment. George Allen is not a racist, and he's got the pictures to prove it!

Of course, when Allen's advisors proposed an "ethnic rally" it's quite possible that he originally envisioned people of color racing round a dirt track trying to set the fastest time, but that's neither here nor there.

Meanwhile, Allen's campaign has blown a gasket over the fact that his opponent, Democrat James Webb, has recently released an ad featuring Ronald Reagan praising Webb's military service. According to the Washington Post:

The ad shows Reagan saying: "James's gallantry as a Marine officer in Vietnam won him the Navy Cross and other decorations." An announcer's voice continues as Reagan's image morphs into pictures of Webb as a Marine.

Allen has been trying to portray himself as the heir to Reagan's legacy, so an ad showing the Gipper praising his opponent has really ticked him off. Allen therefore did what any red-blooded Republican would do - he started blubbing and tried to hide under Nancy Reagan's skirt. Allen's campaign managed to get a letter from one of Nancy Reagan's staff which read, "Using the president's name, image or likeness implies endorsement which is neither fair nor respectful of any candidate, certainly not after President Reagan's death. At the direction of Mrs. Reagan, please refrain." Funnily enough, Allen himself has been using Reagan's likeness in campaign materials.

But never mind the fact that Webb served as Secretary of the Navy as well as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs under Reagan, and Reagan did actually say those words. It's a damn shame that Webb would stoop so low as to show, er, real footage.

In fact, the Allen campaign was so disgusted that they decided to let Webb know what Ronald Reagan really thinks, even though he's dead. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

"We are disappointed that James Webb is dishonoring the memory of President Reagan by using an old video clip to imply that Ronald Reagan would be supporting him," they said.

They said Reagan would be supporting Allen, "Who is the true heir to President Reagan."

Webb's response? "If George Allen's people want to go in the Reagan archives and find something nice that Ronald Reagan said about George Allen, then they ought to put it on the air."

Mind you, regardless of the Reagan flap, Allen might have a harder time recovering from this new ad produced by Vote Vets and starring Pete Granato of the U.S. Army Reserves, an Iraq War veteran:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/13/va_sen_blistering_new_ad_hammers_allen_over_body_armor_vote">

Watch it. It's the best political ad of the season so far.

The Bush Administration

In George W. Bush's first presidential debate with Al Gore in 2000, the following exchange took place:

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

Yes, believe it or not, back in 2000 George W. Bush insisted that the U.S. military should only be used if "the mission was clear," if there was an "exit strategy," and that he would take this responsibility "seriously" and be "very careful about using our troops as nation builders."

But for those of you who are scratching your heads at Bush's anti-nation-building comments given his new-found penchant for spreading democracy across the Middle East at the barrel of a gun, don't worry - he never really intended to build a nation in Iraq.

Last week the Washington Post reported:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans - restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance - but had applied for a White House job - was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2-year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors.

Yes folks, "the mission was clear" all right - it was to line the pockets of Republican party cronies at the expense of innocent Iraqi civilians and American troops. I'm glad Bush is taking his responsibilities "seriously."

David Robert McMenemy

The Bush administration has been very proud of the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 - unless you count those inconvenient anthrax attacks of course. But I suppose it really all depends on what your definition of "terrorism" is.

Last week, David Robert McMenemy of Sterling Heights, Michigan, was charged with second-degree arson after crashing his car into an Iowa women's health clinic and then setting it on fire. According to Davenport police Detective Mike Bowers, "He drove into the clinic and set his car on fire using an accelerant. He knew what he was doing. He planned it. It wasn't an accident. ... He has admitted looking them (abortion clinics) up in phone books and online. I have no idea why Iowa."

Here's a picture of the delightful Mr. McMenemy:

But of course crashing your car into a women's clinic, dousing it with gasoline, and setting it on fire doesn't count as an act of terrorism - why, it's just the act of a concerned citizen determined to make a political statement against abortion. Or something.

Here's the really dumb part: according to the Quad City Times, "The facility was founded in 1972 to provide prenatal care and medical services to low-income and underprivileged women. It does not perform abortions, nor does it make abortion referrals, Center President Tom Fedje said."

Er, whoops.

Dennis Hastert

And finally - pop quiz: what are the first two lines of the National Anthem?

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?

Wrong!

According to Dennis Hastert, appearing in concert on the steps of the U.S. Capitol for the 9/11 Remembrance last week, the first two lines of the National Anthem go like this:

Oh, say can you see, by the star's fairly lie,
What so proud parts we wail, as the twilight's last gleaming?

For the rest of Hastert's performance, which is truly worthy of Leslie Nielsen as Enrico Pallazzo in "The Naked Gun," hop over to Crooks and Liars. You don't want to miss it.

See you next week!

-- EarlG