The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 247June 11, 2006
Subdued Celebration EditionFor the first time in a long time, we had some encouraging news out of Iraq last week, but we didn't see much celebration from George W. Bush (1, 2), presumably because he knows it's unlikely to make much difference in the long run. But with the 2006 elections looming just over the horizon, he and the Senate Republicans (3) have another trick up their sleeve: The anti-gay card (again). Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh (4) gets punked, Ann Coulter (6) attacks the 9/11 widows, and Dick DeVos (7) shows how Republicans support the troops. Don't forget the
key - which you can now also see in the right-hand column of this Journal.
George W. Bush Early Thursday morning, it was announced that the US Military had succeeded in killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and quite possibly the best-known terrorist in the world after Osama Bin Laden. Clearly, this is the first piece of somewhat encouraging news to come out of Iraq in quite some time. But given the extremely grim reality with regards to everything else in Iraq, most Americans couldn't help wondering: Will it make any difference at all?
Maybe not. Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clark
said that the death of al-Zarqawi would not hasten the end of the Iraq War. And no lesser authority than the current US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said that he anticipated "in the coming hours and days, the terrorists will seek to increase their attacks to demonstrate they are still relevant, and to take revenge." Which probably isn't such a good thing.
So the news of al-Zarqawi's death presented something of a conundrum for the Bush Administration. After three years in Iraq, we have seen more than our share of important milestones, tides turned, and
Missions Accomplished, yet each day it seems like we are further and further from actually winning the war. How, exactly, do they convince the American people that this is big news, while simultaneously sending the message that we shouldn't really be getting our hopes up?
The answer: Have the president make a brief statement, and then shut up about it. On the Bush Administration Iraq War Milestone Celebration Scorecard, this was about a two. Compare that to previous Iraq War Milestone Celebrations: Dress up in a flightsuit, pretend to land an airplane, prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier, have photo-op in front of giant "Mission Accomplished" banner (Celebration Score: 10); Deliver prime-time televised address from the Oval Office, tell Iraqi people "You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again." (Celebration Score: 6); Have friends in Congress to dip index fingers in purple ink, wave them around (Celebration Score: 4). Is it just me, or is there is a trend here?
The situation is so dire that the Administration doesn't really have any clue how to deal with good news anymore. Bush went so far as to
say that the death of Zarqawi was "severe blow to al Qaeda" and "significant victory in the war on terror," but that's about it. The only visible evidence of anything resembling celebration was the elegant wood picture frame used to present the photograph of al-Zarqawi's bloated head. Fancy!
George W. Bush Someone stick a fork in George W. Bush - he's done. Last week Our Great Leader
lent his support to the GOP's latest base-whipping exercise, the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Because there's obviously nothing more important going on in the world right now than stopping gay people from entering into lifelong commitments to one another. Heck, if we allow gay people the freedom to marry, the terrorists who hate us for our freedoms will have won. Or lost. I don't know - it's so confusing these days. But the bottom line is that if gay terrorists have the freedom to marry then... um... fool me won't get fooled again.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had it right last week when he ran off a
checklist of things that the U.S. Senate
won't be focusing on while they debate gay marriage:
So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day:
High Gas Prices.
The War in Iraq.
The National Debt.
Health Care.
Senior Citizens.
Education.
Crime.
Trade Policy.
Stem Cell Research.
Each issue begging the President's attention, each issue being ignored -- valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.
Which really brings us to the crux of the matter: what, really, is the
point of this administration? They can't govern, America is demonstrably worse off than it was when they took over, and the only thing they have left is the tired old canard that gays are going to destroy people's marriages. Oh yes - and
flag burning.
I'm telling you, this duck isn't just lame - it's on life support.
Senate Republicans (mostly) So how'd that Constitutional amendment work out anyway? As predicted, last week's 49 to 48 vote in the Senate left it about a mile shy of the 60 votes required to move the process forward. So after a couple of days of shameless bigotry to rile up the GOP base, we're back to square one.
Or are we? As Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
said, "Clearly as time goes on there will be more votes in favor of this. We make a little headway each time this is debated."
A little headway indeed. Last time the Senate voted on this pressing issue in 2004 (hey, wasn't that an election year too?) it got 48 votes. This year it got 49. So let's see, if they do this every two years and it gets an extra vote every time, then Republicans should finally be able to put those uppity gays in their place by, oh, 2030 or so.
In their dreams, anyway.
Rush Limbaugh Not so long ago, Rush Limbaugh took what he described as a "profound" and "moving" phone call from a Lt. Col. Luke Fitzpatrick, stationed with the 336th Tactical Air Wing in Iraq. Here's a sample of the call:
FITZPATRICK: As terms of the drive-by, Rush, I was here from -- I was here originally from (Operation Desert) Shield. I was the second unit deployed here from Shield from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, the 4th Fighter Wing. I was here from Shield through (Operation Desert) Storm through (Operation) Enduring Freedom, now Operation OIF -- Iraqi Freedom. The reason I came back is because I felt that the job was not finished. And it's not finished. Yes, we have a standing government, but I get shot at every night. I come home with holes in my airplane, Rush. Granted, they're not critical, but one --
LIMBAUGH: What do you fly?
FITZPATRICK: -- one day, it may be and you will read about me on CNN and I will be that blurb and I will show up in that 2600-some-odd casualty figure that the -- the drive-by media is obsessed with of how many people have died over here because we are an all-volunteer force. And that is the main reason that we called in today. I'm calling in. I just so happened to be the mouthpiece for the squadron here, the 336th Tactical Fighter Wing from Seymour Johnson -- the Rocketeers. We're an F15E Strike Eagle Squadron. We fly by night. Our motto is "Raining fire from above for the freedom that we love."
LIMBAUGH: Wow. Wow. Wow.
Wow indeed. You can almost hear Rush wishing that he never had that anal cyst which got him out of Vietnam. Curse you, anal cyst.
But unfortunately the Palm Beach Pill-Popper had to
apologize to his dittohead followers two days after the call, because it turns out that there isn't actually anybody in the U.S. military called Lt. Col. Luke Fitzpatrick. Nor is there a 336th Tactical Fighter Wing operating in Iraq. Oh well.
Nonetheless, Limbaugh continued to hold out hope that, like Santa Claus, Luke Fitzpatrick
does exist. First Rush speculated that the military might have been lying to him. Then he said that the Pentagon told him that while Luke Fitzpatrick doesn't exist, "it might be a nickname for him." Yeah, I can see that...
Speaking of pill-popping, there was an
interesting story in News of the Weird last week which noted that a wheelchair-bound man who had committed the exact same crimes as Rush Limbaugh was sentenced to 25 years in prison back in 2004. Meanwhile the Crapulent One got off with addiction treatment, and as Chuck Shepard notes, "if Limbaugh complies with his plea bargain, his conviction will be erased."
Why such a light sentence? Well I would think it's obvious - Rush Limbaugh is a pillar of the community who has demonstrated through a multitude of good works that he is a man of outstanding moral fiber. For example, here's what he
had to say about Haditha last week:
...this is the final big push on behalf of the Democratic Party, the American left, and the Drive-By Media to destroy our effort to win the war in Iraq. That's what Haditha represents - and they are going about it gleefully. They are ecstatic about it… Folks, let me just put it in graphic terms. It is going to be a gang rape. There is going to be a gang rape by the Democratic Party, the American left and the Drive-By Media, to finally take us out in the war against Iraq.
Pillar of the community I tell ya.
San Antonio Republican Conventioneers Republicans
gathered together in deepest Texas last week to bemoan the state of the nation and complain - as usual - about how they're being oppressed. Oh woe! If only those rotten Democrats didn't control the House, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court. Then American would be a
much better place!
As you might expect, the clowns were out in force. Take Tina Benkiser, for example, who thinks that the GOP is the party of God. No really. I mean it's
really the party of God.
At Saturday morning's prayer meeting, party leader Tina Benkiser assured them that God was watching over the two-day confab.
"He is the chairman of this party," she said against a backdrop of flags and a GOP seal with its red, white and blue logo.
Nice to know that Republicans have found a job for God, I suppose. So what's Jesus's role in this operation? Treasurer? Secretary?
Then there was the Rev. Dale Young, wooing the Hispanic vote:
"Lord, your words tell us there's a sign that this nation is under a curse, when the alien who lives among us grows higher and higher and we grow lower and lower," he preached.
Meanwhile:
Houston activist Bobby Eberle, a candidate for party vice chairman, organized the Friday evening rally. Taking the stage, he took aim at "the ACLU, liberal Hollywood, Democrats and these left-wingers" who have bedeviled the GOP.
"We need to continue to fight, whether for the pro-life movement or for decency in programming," said Mr. Eberle, whose Internet enterprise had its own recent dust-up over decency.
In case you were wondering what the "dust-up" was all about, allow me to refresh your memory. Bobby Eberle's Internet enterprise was
Talon News, and his only employee was the famous White House correspondent slash gay prostitute Jeff "decency in programming" Gannon.
So all in all it was just another giant hypocritical GOP whine-fest. Move along, there's nothing more to see here.
Ann Coulter Gag me with a spoon, we're smack in the middle of Ann Coulter's annual festival of hype for her latest bargain bin stuffer. This time the weighty tome is entitled
Godless: The Church of Liberalism. You'll never guess what it's about.
Turns out that Ann has really upped the invective this time around, and, presumably bored with taking on such easy targets as the "
lucky" Max Cleland, has decided to go after the 9/11 widows. She writes, "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."
Apparently Ann's beef is that she's "not allowed to respond" to the widows because they lost their husbands on 9/11. Here's what she
told Matt Lauer on "The Today Show" last week:
LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration: "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." Because they dare to speak out?
COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.
(snip)
LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.
Yeah, those 9/11 widows should shut their holes, because it really sucks that Ann Coulter isn't allowed to respond to them. I mean, sure, she's written a book saying that they're "self-obsessed," "unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation," "the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony," and called them "broads" who are "reveling in their status as celebrities" and "enjoying their husbands' death." And she's all over TV and radio promoting that book.
But other than that, poor Ann simply hasn't been allowed to respond.
Dick DeVos In perhaps the stupidest election-year partisan attack ever, the Democratic Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, was
criticized last month for ordering flags flown at half-staff to honor American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this may seem absurd to... um...
everyone with a brain, apparently there exists a small number of flag-fetishists in Michigan who believe it "cheapens the gesture" if the flag is lowered to half-staff for insignificant nobodies like the men and women who are making the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
Perhaps sensing a unique opportunity to pander to the semi-retarded troop-hater vote, Granholm's opponent in the 2006 campaign, Dick DeVos (R-Amway), joined in the partisan attack against Granholm and said through a campaign aide that he would reverse the flag-lowering policy, because "lowering the flag has typically been reserved for heads of state." Isn't that special. Apparently DeVos feels so strongly about "supporting the troops" that he'll gladly slap them in the face if he thinks it'll score him some cheap political points.
And if it doesn't score him some cheap political points? Well, he's not too proud to flip-flop.
Facing an outcry from patriotic Americans from across the state, DeVos felt it necessary to "clarify" his position. In a letter to the Detroit Free Press, he
said that flying the flag at half-mast "is the least we can do to honor those who have given their lives for the sake of our freedom."
Way to go...
Dick. Tom DeLay After a series of scandals and an indictment on charges of money laundering, "The Hammer" finally resigned in disgrace from the House of Representatives last week. Unlike some previous members of Congress who chose to resign with conciliatory words of bipartisanship, the former pest exterminator showed his true character by going out in a flash of white-hot partisan rage.
DeLay talked at length on the
virtues of partisan hatred and took a number of cheap shots at his liberal opponents, who he said wanted "more government, more taxation, more control over people's lives and decisions and wallets." This is odd criticism coming from perhaps the most corrupt House majority leader in modern history, who served during the most irresponsible period of deficit spending in the history of our country, and who rubber-stamped Bush Administration efforts to snoop into every facet of our lives.
But DeLay's resignation from Congress doesn't necessarily mean he'll be gone from the ballot back in Texas – even though DeLay himself (somewhat humorously) has been trying to get himself off it. In his
efforts to be declared ineligible, DeLay claims to no longer be a resident of the district, and has produced a Virginia driver's license, voter's registration card and state tax documentation. But Democrats have filed suit to keep him on the ballot in Texas, pointing out that the United States Constitution only requires that he be a resident of the district
on the day of his election. A temporary restraining order has blocked the Texas GOP from naming a replacement for DeLay.
And to make matters worse, since DeLay ran in the GOP primary with no intention of running in the general election, it is now apparent that he was engaging in fraud when he collected all those campaign contributions under false pretenses.
Looks like the Hammer might be going to the Slammer.
(On a related note, check out this
hilarious online game from Tom's Democratic opponent, Nick Lampson.)
The Pentagon In an extremely disturbing example of "putting the horse after the cart," the US Military has decided to change its detainee policies to
remove a Geneva Convention rule banning "humiliating and degrading treatment." According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, this change could mark a "permanent shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards."
So, it would seem that official policy for dealing with detainees previously forbade "humiliating and degrading treatment." Either some of the folks at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have a totally different idea than I do of what constitutes "humiliating and degrading," or else they didn't really give a shit what the guidelines said. Considering the abuses that took place under the old guidelines, one shudders to think what might happen now that this rule has been eliminated.
This is a classic example of the Bush Administration culture of responsibility. If you get caught breaking the rules, don't change your behavior – just change the rules.
Fox News And finally, it seems that the stock market hasn't been doing so well recently, but never fear! The folks over at Fox News have figured out a way to get the Dow Jones Industrial Average moving again. It's simple, really: Bomb Iran.
During the June 5 edition of
Your World with Neil Cavuto, Jonathan Hoenig (a member of the Fox News "Cashin' In" crew)
said, "if you want to see the Dow go up, let's get the bombers in the air and neutralize this Iranian threat."
There it is folks: the conservative idiot's economic agenda to get our country moving again. Apparently managing the economy really isn't that difficult. Don't worry about all that complicated liberal mumbo-jumbo about deficits and taxes and regulations and wages and all that. Whenever there's a downturn, just dump a few thousands tons of live ordinance on some brown people halfway around the world, and the Dow will shoot right back up! See you next week!
-- EarlG & Skinner