Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
|This topic is archived.|
|Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles|
|top10 ADMIN (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore||Mon May-05-08 12:56 AM
|The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 335|
Edited on Mon May-05-08 12:57 AM by EarlG
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 335
May 5, 2008
Baby Elephants Edition
This week the RNC (1) throws a tantrum while John McCain (2,5) flip-flops on Iraq. Elsewhere, Paul Broun (6) wants to end military masturbation, and Douglas Bruce (7) returns with a vengeance. Don't forget the key!
Last week the Republican National Committee finally revealed their strategy for the upcoming 2008 elections: they're going to whine and piss their pants like a bunch of little crybabies.
The Republican National Committee demanded Monday that television networks stop running a television ad by the Democratic Party that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said the ad deliberately distorts what McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, said.
The committee's chief counsel, Sean Cairncross, said he sent letters Monday to NBC, CNN and MSNBC insisting that they stop airing the commercial.
All together now...
Waaaah! What a joke. The DNC's ad shows McCain answering a question from a member of the public about George W. Bush's claim that we could be in Iraq for 50 years. "Maybe 100," says McCain. "That would be fine with me." The DNC then juxtaposes McCain's comments with footage from the Iraq war and says "If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for Americas' future?"
Foul, cried the RNC! Those clips were blatantly taken out of context. Sure, McCain did actually say, "Mabye 100, that would be fine with me." And yes, he's also indicated that perhaps one million years would be better, but be fair - he has clarified this by saying that it would only be okay if there were no more U.S. casualties.
And those dastardly Democrats forgot to put that part in! Why, in all my years I've never seen dirty politics of this magnitude!
Ahem. So okay, leaving aside the RNC's ridiculous hairsplitting, I have a question. How long will it take for Iraq to get to a place where U.S. troops are taking no casualties, given that we've been there for five years and the whole country is still one massive clusterfuck? Another five years? Ten years? Fifty years? Is McCain saying that we could be in Iraq 100 years from now taking no U.S. casualties and that would be fine with him - but to get to that point it could conceiveably cost hundreds, if not thousands more of our troops and billions, if not trillions more of our dollars?
Because when you put it in context, his argument looks so much better. Gosh, suddenly I've changed my mind! I think that we should keep troops in Iraq for 100 years after all! Why not?
Still, it's nice to dream about - Iraq as a secure, peaceful trading partner, with a permanent U.S. presence and no casualties. Just one problem: you'd have to be a fucking moron to believe that's going to happen. But don't take my word for it...
When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it.
Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.
In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan -- something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign -- the senator offered nothing short of a categorical "no."
How come McCain has done a triple back-flip on this issue? Why, the surge of course! Since George W. Bush's masterful strategy - or should I say, John McCain's masterful strategy (see Idiots 331) - was implemented, nobody can deny that things are getting better in Iraq. That's why last month only 52 U.S. troops were killed, the highest monthly total since last September. Meanwhile, "At least 1,073 Iraqis were killed across the country in April, most of them slaughtered in fierce fighting between security forces and Shiite militants," according to AFP.
So as you can see, the surge is working.
The Bush Administration
What about this?
I thought so.
Last week marked the fifth anniversary of the day George W. Bush packed up his tackle and landed aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to declare that "the mission continues" in Iraq. That's right. You may have been under the impression that George was there to declare mission accomplished, but that's a common misconception. According to my records, it was Dan Bartlett in September of 2003 who set the record straight and laid the blame for the now-infamous Mission Accomplished banner squarely at the feet of the captain of the aircraft carrier.
But - and I must admit I am personally quite troubled by this - it turns out that Dan Bartlett was not telling the truth. Can you believe it? For shame.
On the anniversary of Mission Accomplished day last week, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino revealed that in fact it was the administration's idea to hang the banner after all. But don't be mad at them - you see, things have been pretty rough for the Bushies ever since.
"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner."
Thanks for putting things into perspective Dana. Looks like the Bush administration has been the real victim of this whole Iraq thing.
George W. Bush
Yes, poor George W. Bush. None of this has been his fault really, you know. He was led astray by people like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. He wanted to be part of the cool crowd and the peer pressure was too much for him. Now he's a shadow of his former self, weighed down by the burden of a sputtering economy, a crumbling infrastructure, the spectre of global climate change, an unwinnable war in the Middle East, his failure to capture the man who attacked America on 9/11, and the total destruction of America's image abroad. Plus, the knowledge that his orders caused the deaths of thousands and the torture of hundreds.
Indeed, George W. Bush is a broken man.
Okay, maybe not. But he would be if his advisers told him what was really going on in the world. For example, you can be sure that they won't be telling him about the results of this new poll...
A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.
"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
Turns out Bush is now officially more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned. Congratulations, George! You suck!
People who have been following John McCain's presidential campaign closely (which is, let's face it, practically nobody) have noticed that the Senator is determined to fight against Congressional earmarks this year. In fact, just last week he blamed earmarks for not just the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota, but also the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. For real.
Funny story though - turns out that it's not actually the earmarks McCain object to, it's the process. According to Think Progress:
Yesterday, McCain held a health care event at the Lehigh Valley Hospital in Allentown, PA. While there he met Mary, a woman with ovarian cancer who was treated "in a $80 million clinical trial program funded by an earmark." Confronted with this "human face of earmark spending," McCain again backed away from his campaign rhetoric:
McCain praised the woman's treatment and later said some earmarks were clearly worthy.
So there you have it - John McCain will fight to his last breath to eliminate earmarks that cost the U.S. billions of dollars! Except for earmarks which saved the lives of people he actually has to meet face to face.
And that, my friends, is called "having the courage of your convictions."
Two weeks ago U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced a bill which would, according to Raw Story, "close what he calls a loophole that allows the continued distribution of pornography to soldiers, to their moral detriment, with the help of taxpayer funds." Basically, Broun and some of his friends in Congress (not to mention various right-wing "pro-family" groups) would like to ban nudie magazines like Playboy and Penthouse from the top shelves of military base stores.
So let me get this straight.
Brave Americans who want to serve their country join the military. (Or, recruiters prey on kids and encourage them to lie and cheat to get in.) The Pentagon sends them over to Iraq to fight in an illegal war. We keep them out there for years and prevent them from leaving the military via the stop-loss policy. We provide them with tainted water and substandard equipment. Dozens die every month. If they die, we hide them from view. If they're injured, we put them in rotting, rodent-infested hospital rooms. If they make it home safe, we cut their benefits.
And Paul Broun wants to take away their porn? Nice to see he's got his priorities straight.
Vito Fosella and Mike Krusee
Maybe Paul Broun should stop hassling soldiers and turn his attention to what seems to be a growing problem among GOP lawmakers. First, according to the Houston Chronicle:
A state lawmaker who helped pave the way for major toll road projects is facing drunken driving charges.
Rep. Mike Krusee of Round Rock, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation Committee, was charged with first offense driving while intoxicated late Wednesday.
Meanwhile, that very same night...
Rep. Vito J. Fossella (R-N.Y.) was arrested overnight in Alexandria and charged with driving while intoxicated, court records showed today.
Fossella is scheduled to appear in Alexandria General District Court on May 12 for an advisement hearing, the records said.
Expect to see a lot more of these stories as the GOP drinks itself into oblivion before this November's coming electoral apocalypse.
Let's check in once again with Colorado lawmaker Douglas Bruce (R-Obviously) who has been racking up quite a string of successes since he was sworn in earlier this year. According to a recent story in the Denver Post, he:
* Drew the ire of some lawmakers for delaying his start date in the statehouse so that he would serve less than half of a two- year term. That allows him to run for an additional eight years in the House instead of six.
* Became the first lawmaker in state history punished with censure after kicking a photographer on the floor of the House.
* Refused to co-sponsor a resolution honoring members of the military - saying he doesn't vote for nonbinding, symbolic resolutions - and was stripped by GOP leadership of a committee assignment as a result.
* Was criticized for placing fliers attacking his opponent in this year's GOP primary on the desks of several House Republicans.
He was also featured on last week's list for calling Mexican migrant workers "illiterate peasants."
So what can Douglas Bruce possibly do to top that this week? Prepare to be amazed...
Rep. Douglas Bruce was instructed Wednesday to stay away from a woman working at the state Capitol who lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him.
Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, handed Bruce a letter on the House floor. Bruce read it, then he and Romanoff briefly met in the speaker's office.
Bruce, a Colorado Springs Republican, would not comment.
Incredible. Even his GOP colleagues were unimpressed:
Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, said Bruce's antics throughout the session have turned off many of his GOP colleagues.
"You're dealing with an extremely bright 7-year-old boy in a 54-year-old's body," she said.
Personally I don't see how that makes Bruce different from most other elected Republicans, but there you go.
The Department of Homeland Security
Guess what? The U.S has Nelson Mandela on its terrorist watch lists. That would be former president of South Africa, Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela. I won't be surprised if you're not surprised. According to USA Today:
Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.
The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.
When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died, Berman's legislation says.
Brilliant. But don't worry - Homeland Security chief and hero of Hurricane Katrina Michael Chertoff is on the case...
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed. He says the issue "raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not."
Well, we can probably start here:
And finally, leave it to Dick Cheney to sum up George W. Bush's legacy in a way that can only be described as
DICK: When the history is written, it will be said this is a safer country and more hopeful world because George Bush was president.
Maybe. Or maybe when history is written, it will be said that Dick Cheney was a power-mad pathological liar who was apparently prone to epic delusions.
See you next week!
|Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top|
|Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC