The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 306

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-16-07 11:38 PM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 306

Edited on Mon Sep-17-07 02:47 PM by EarlG

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 306

September 17, 2007
So, Did Anything Interesting Happen While I Was Away? Edition

I dunno, I go away for a few weeks and all hell breaks loose. George W. Bush (1,2) has a new plan for victory in Iraq which looks eerily familiar. (If you guessed "stay the course," give yourself a pat on the back.) Meanwhile, The Petraeus Cheerleading Squad (3) goes all googly-eyed over the general, Dave Rye (5) and John Boehner (6) show us how to support the troops, and look out - Alan Keyes (10) is back! Don't forget the key...

George W. Bush

Earlier this year, Our Great Leader announced that "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job." Now, you may be wondering why, if that's the case, he fired Generals Garner, Shinseki, Casey, and Abizaid before plumping for General I'm Too Sexy For My Shirt Petraeus. Well the answer is simple. Those other guys just couldn't hang with the Bushmeister.

Petraeus is operating on a whole other level of awesomeness. Last week he gave his long-awaited report to Congress which concluded that - ta da! - the surge is working.

Let's see how well it's working. Last November, the American people booted out the Republican Congress and made it quite clear that they were done with Bush's Iraq quagmire. Bush's response was to put more troops into Iraq.

THE DECIDER, JAN. 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror -- and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

So how'd that go?

THE DECIDER, LAST WEEK: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment. In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.

I see... so you outlined a new strategy for victory in Iraq, and nine months later terrorists and extremists are trying to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. Wow, that sounds promising.

But let's step back for a moment and recall why Our Great Leader wanted this Manly Surge in the first place. According to Salon, Bush said in February that "What we're trying to do with this reinforcement of our troops is to provide enough space so that the Iraqi government can meet certain benchmarks or certain requirements for a unity government to survive and for the country to be strong. The success of that plan is going to depend upon the capacity and willingness of the Iraqis to do hard work, and we want to help them do that work."

Simple, right? More troops equals breathing room for the Iraqi government to provide a political solution. So what happened to those benchmarks for success? Again according to Salon:

...there was a time -- and it wasn't so long ago -- that the administration was insisting that the benchmarks would tell us "what's going on in Iraq," that they would be, in (National Security Advisor Stephen) Hadley's words, the "gauges for whether (the president's) strategy is succeeding."

With the GAO reporting that Iraqis have met just three of the 18 benchmarks they set for themselves, those gauges have now all but disappeared.

Hmm. So by George W. Bush's own standards, the surge has failed and failed miserably. Good job he's got General Gosh What A Dreamboat Petraeus to help him sell the surge to an as-usual-unsuspecting media...

George W. Bush

So here's the plan: at the time of the November election we had 130,000 troops in Iraq. Then we had the mighty surge, which added around 30,000 more troops. And now, thanks to Gen. Petraeus's testimony, George W. Bush has rather magnanimously decided to wait one year and then withdraw the 30,000 extra troops, bringing us back to where we started.

Essentially, this is because Bush thinks that the occupation of Iraq is like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

We're not losing the war on terror, because week after week we kill dozens of "Al Qaeda members," Anbar province is oh-so-peaceful again, (pay no attention to the assassination of that important sheik last week) and, er, that's it.

But we're not winning the war on terror, because that would mean we'd be able to pull our troops out of the meatgrinder and bring them home.

In fact the war on terror is just right. We're winning, and victory is around the corner, but it's a long hard slog and we can't pull the troops out because if we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them over here. So we'll just have to keep the troops in Iraq and throw ten billion dollars a month down the toilet until we a) kill every last terrorist, or b) get Raptured, whichever comes first.

Just one slight problem - at last week's Senate hearing, even General The Sun Shines Out Of My Butt Petraeus couldn't work up a gleam on this turd, no matter how hard he polished. Here's Sen. John Warner (a Republican, by the way), trying to find out whether the war in Iraq is making America safer.

SEN. WARNER: Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

SEN WARNER: Does that make America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind.

Hmm. If he couldn't fudge a "yes" out of that, we really are in deep shit.

The Petraeus Cheerleading Squad

Oh, I'm sorry, have I been criticizing General Petraeus? Heaven forbid! The next thing you know, Rudy Giuliani will be running a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning me.

Hey Rudy! You're an asshole! Now go run crying to Hillary Clinton and demand she apologize because I called you a rude name.

Yes, last week Rudy Giuliani blamed Hillary Clinton for a MoveOn ad in the New York Times which read "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" The ad was roundly denounced by conservatives. Apparently it's once again unpatriotic and un-American to suggest that we might want to think twice before blindly accepting the word of one of Gee-Dubya's generals, despite the obvious fact that if the guy was going to tell the truth Bush would have fired him ages ago.

The funny thing is, these conservatives are always banging on about "learning the lessons of history." Well how about this? It only happened five years ago so everyone ought to remember it:

Just in case you've forgotten, that was when another well-respected general gave a major speech to the U.N. Security Council which contained so much bullshit that the building had to be mucked out with shovels. Shortly after Colin Powell wagged his anthrax, the U.S. media were all aboard the shock-and-awe express and it wasn't long before we were racing to Baghdad.

Here's how it works:

Step One: Media goes ga-ga over Colin Powell and his WMD presentation to the U.N.

Step Two: Media insists that Powell is an unimpeachable source and that anyone who criticizes him must love the terrorists.

Step Three: Media demands that we must invade Iraq immediately before Saddam Hussein can drop anthrax down our chimneys.

Step Four: U.S. invades Iraq. No WMD are found. Things quickly turn to shit.

Step Five: Media wrings hands and spanks itself for getting swept up in war fever and not being critical enough of Powell.

Step Six: Media goes ga-ga over David Petraeus and his report to Congress.

Step Seven: Media insists that Petraeus is an unimpeachable source and that anyone who criticizes him must love the terrorists.

Etc. etc. ad nauseam.

But let's be fair to the media here. What's the likelihood that George W. Bush would send two well-respected generals to con the American people into going along with another one of his batshit crazy ideas? Surely that would be highly unlikely. After all, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I must work for CNN.

By the way, I hear that Gen. Petraeus is thinking of running for president in 2012. He should ask Colin Powell for tips. I remember when that guy used to be a shoo-in.

John McCain

Last week, John McCain got very excited about the Petraeus report and tried to claim that it made him right about Iraq all along. According to the Associated Press:

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said Tuesday that he was right from the start about the war strategy in Iraq.

"For almost four years we pursued a failed policy in Iraq. ... I condemned it, I was criticized by Republicans and others for doing so, and I saw it was doomed to failure and I argued for the strategy that is now succeeding," McCain said.

Here's a picture of McCain criticizing and condemning Bush's doomed-to-failure policy in 2004:

Dave Rye

"A consummate news professional, Dave Rye will go to any length to get both sides of a story, and his balanced presentation of the facts has been his hallmark."

Not my words - the words of the Northern Broadcasting System, which "delivers nearly 200 radio programs each week via satellite to listeners in nine states and parts of Canada."

So what has "consummate news professional" Dave Rye been up to that's earned him a spot on the list? Well, not so long ago seven U.S. soliders penned an op-ed critical of the Iraq occupation which was published in the New York Times. Two of those soldiers were killed last week; one was from Rye's home state of Montana.

Here's Dave Rye's "professional" and "balanced" reaction to the op-ed:

Pardon my skepticism, and certainly no disrespect for the dead Montana soldier, but in my time in the Army I never heard such a word as "recalcitrant" escape the lips of any Staff Sergeant. I doubt if it's spoken all that much in Ismay, either.

The soldiers had the help and probably the encouragement of a writer with an agenda, from a newspaper which has always had one. Its continually declining circulation now mainly consists of those who want desperately to consider themselves sophisticated as well as compassionate, even if that means always branding the U.S. as the chief villain on the world stage - in fact, especially if it does.

I await the inevitable onslaught from outraged liberals. (Is there any other kind?)

Well if that's what you want Dave, looks like plenty of other people http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/15/151715/572">got there before me.

But let's just get this straight... Mr. Rye assumes that the op-ed was written by a liberal stooge because - according to him - it's simply unthinkable that a soldier could use polysyllabic words. And how does he know this? Because, "in my time in the Army I never heard such a word as 'recalcitrant' escape the lips of any Staff Sergeant." QED, the troops are morons.

Oh, but "no disrespect for the dead Montana soldier."

John Boehner

Of course, if you really want to disrespect the troops, you need to bring in a professional. How about House Minority Leader John Boehner?

Last week Boehner was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer for CNN's long-running comedy series "The Situation Room." Here's part of the transcript, courtesy of Talking Points Memo:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

Get the picture? "The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month" is, according to Boehner, a "small price to pay." I wonder if Boehner would be willing to meet with the families of all those dead soldiers and tell them that their sacrifice is a "small price?"

Mind you when the president refers to the war as a "comma," I suppose this is the kind of crap you're going to get from the Republican leadership.

Larry Craig

Would you believe that since the last edition of the Top 10, the entire Larry Craig story unfolded? Since I haven't had the opportunity to comment on it yet, I thought it wouldn't be a bad idea to do a quick recap. Let's begin at the beginning.

1998: Sen. Craig goes on television to denounce Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. He calls Clinton "a bad boy, a naughty boy ... a nasty, bad, naughty boy." This is what's known in the literary world as "foreshadowing."

2002: Sen. Craig votes to prevent the federal definition of hate crimes from including sexual orientation.

2004 and 2006: Larry Craig votes in support of amending the Constitution to discriminate against gays. Can you see where this is going?

May 2007: During an interview with the Idaho Statesman, Craig is asked about an accusation that he engaged in oral sex with man in a bathroom at Union Station in Washington DC. He responds, "I am not gay and I have never been in a restroom in Union Station having sex with anybody." Craig is also asked about the time he allegedly hit on a guy at an REI store in Boise. He responds: "I'm not gay, and I don't cruise, and I don't hit on men. ... I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"

May-August 2007: After receiving complaints of public sexual activity, a police sting in a Minneapolis airport bathroom results in the arrests of 41 men over a four-month period. Common behavior in the arrests: staring into occupied stalls; tapping one's feet in a particular fashion; attempting to touch the foot of the man in the stall next door; waving one's hands under the divider.

June 2007: Larry Craig is arrested in the very same Minneapolis airport bathroom after staring into occupied stalls, tapping his feet in a particular fashion, attempting to touch the foot of the man in the stall next door, and waving his hands under the divider.

August 2007: Two months after his arrest, Craig pleads guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct and pays a $500 fine. Craig decides it's probably a good idea not to mention his arrest and conviction to anyone, including his wife and the GOP Senate leadership.

August 2007: Craig's arrest becomes public. He holds a press conference to announce that "I am not gay. I never have been gay ... I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport." He doesn't say if he'll run for re-election or not, but he does resign as co-chairman of Mitt Romney's Idaho Leadership Team.

September 2007: It is revealed that Craig had already decided not to seek re-election before the scandal broke. How convenient!

September 2007: Craig announces that he will resign from the U.S. Senate.

September 2007: Not so fast! Craig announces that he might not resign after all!

September 2007: Craig pulls out all the stops and decides to try to reverse his guilty plea, saying that the plea was entered "under stress," that he was in a state of "intense anxiety" and that he "panicked." (Despite the fact that he pleaded guilty two months after he was arrested.)

So what's next for Sen. Craig? I would humbly suggest that as law-breaking hypocrite and an incorrigible flip-flopper who has lost any shred of integrity or credibility he may have once had, his next role should be:

David Vitter And Friends

What's the difference between bathroom-botherer Sen. Larry Craig and prostitute-humper Sen. David Vitter? Simple: prominent Republicans everywhere were quick to condemn Craig for his actions and call for his resignation, but when David Vitter recently apologized at a Republican Senate luncheon he apparently received a "loud standing ovation." Believe it or not, Vitter is still Rudy Giuliani's Southern regional chairman.

This, despite another accusation last week by a woman who claims to have had a sexual relationship with Vitter in 1999. The woman alleges that Vitter visited her for sex "two to three times a week ... between July and November 1999."

But of course there is one other major difference between Larry Craig and David Vitter: the governor of Idaho (Craig's state) is a Republican, and therefore would appoint a Republican to replace Craig if he resigned. However, the governor of Lousiana (Vitter's state) is a Democrat, so the GOP would lose another seat if he were to resign.

And so it's pitchforks-and-torches for Craig, and a standing ovation for Vitter. Nothing to see here - just Republican party politics as usual.

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson is in the race! Fred Thompson is in the race! Now if his campaign can just get him to stay awake until January, he might have a chance.

As the New York Times reported last week:

At his second campaign stop of the day on Friday, just after 2 p.m., Fred D. Thompson was deep into a riff on the benefits of high-quality American health care.

"It's allowing us to live healthier lives and to live longer," Mr. Thompson, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, said at a Jaycee park here. "That's good news. But we have more retired folks. I hope to become one of them one of these days."

Nervous laughter from the audience.

"Not too soon," he added hastily.

Way to go, Fred - kick off your campaign by telling everyone how keen you are to retire! Even 96-year-old John McCain doesn't do that.

The Times noted that Thompson has a sparse campaign schedule: ("Since Thursday morning, when the tour began, Mr. Thompson has made no more than three campaign stops a day, with long stretches in between") and concluded their report thusly:

But once off the bus, Mr. Thompson has shown occasional signs of discomfort. In a speech here on Friday, he sweated profusely under the afternoon sun, breathed heavily and, while struggling over a question, asked no one in particular if his microphone was on. (It was.)

Some audience members, in a crowd that easily reached into the hundreds, winced as Mr. Thompson sweated through the question-and-answer session.

"I'm surprised they didn't pull him out of there," said John Chambers of nearby Punta Gorda, after the speech ended. Suzanne Miranda, who watched the event from a lawn chair, said, "I felt bad for him."

Jeez, forget about keeping him awake - sounds like they're going to have trouble keeping him alive till January.

Alan Keyes

And finally, move over Fred Thompson, because another old GOP stalwart and friend of the Top 10 also announced last week that he was running for the highest office in the land. That's right - Alan Keyes is back, and he could be the next president of the United States!

Keyes filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC last week - although nobody seemed to notice, which is a shame because he has a lot to offer. According to the press release:

This election cycle, Keyes has already significantly influenced the debate, according to some observers, who note that at least a few of the GOP candidates appear intent on imitating some of Keyes' well-known positions, in an effort to woo moral conservatives - without which no Republican is likely to win in the general election.

Yup - it seems that this election cycle, everybody wants to be like Alan. So let's take a short walk down memory lane and recall some of his greatest hits, as covered right here in the Top 10...

August 2004: Alan accuses Hillary Clinton of carpetbagging and then moves from Maryland to Illinois so he can run for Senate against Barack Obama. (See Idiots 166.)

August 2004: Alan compares women who have had abortions to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. (See Idiots 167.)

August 2004: Alan suggests that Americans should be able to openly carry machine guns on the street. (See Idiots 168.)

September 2004: Alan calls Dick Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist." (See Idiots 169.)

October 2004: Alan tells supporters at a campaign rally that incest is "inevitable" for children raised by gay couples. (See Idiots 176.)

February 2005: Three months after a crushing defeat at the polls, Alan throws his daughter out of the house for being "a liberal queer." (See Idiots 187.)

You know, I'm starting to think that Alan has got everything the other Republican candidates have - and so much more. Why eat hamburger when you can have steak? Given the sorry state of their other candidates, I reckon he could be the GOP frontrunner in a matter of weeks. Go Alan!

See you next week...

-- EarlG