The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 280

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-26-07 12:46 AM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 280

Edited on Mon Feb-26-07 12:50 AM by top10

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 280

February 26, 2007
Not An Oscar Special Edition

Welcome to the 280th edition of the Top 10 Conservative Idiots. It's become a bit of a tradition over the last several years for me to do a special edition the day after the Oscars, but this week I just didn't really feel like it, for a couple of reasons. First, I haven't been able to turn the TV on all week without encountering incredibly tedious and equally soul-destroying coverage of Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears, which hasn't really put me in the right frame of mind to write a "celebrity" edition, and second, the news out of Walter Reed and Iraq - which has been largely ignored by the mainstream media in favor of stories about Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears - doesn't really deserve to be lumped in with a Hollywood awards ceremony. No key this week either. Perhaps I'll be in a better mood next week.

The Bush Administration

Support the troops? Sure. To demonstrate just how much the Bush administration supports the troops, let me quote the first paragraph from last week's Washington Post article on Walter Reed Army Medical Center:

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

Like I said, that's just the first paragraph. It gets worse.

The common perception of Walter Reed is of a surgical hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely - a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients. Almost 700 of them - the majority soldiers, with some Marines -- have been released from hospital beds but still need treatment or are awaiting bureaucratic decisions before being discharged or returned to active duty.

They suffer from brain injuries, severed arms and legs, organ and back damage, and various degrees of post-traumatic stress. Their legions have grown so exponentially - they outnumber hospital patients at Walter Reed 17 to 1 - that they take up every available bed on post and spill into dozens of nearby hotels and apartments leased by the Army. The average stay is 10 months, but some have been stuck there for as long as two years.

Those are the third and fourth paragraphs. There are 92 paragraphs in the whole piece. You should read all of them.

The White House

Once the Walter Reed story broke, White House press secretary Tony Snow had his hands full. Here are some choice snippets from a recent press conference in which Tony tried desperately to avoid letting the media find out "what the president knew and when he knew it."

Q The administration's mantra for a long time has been "support the troops." What is the reaction, then, when you read this series of stories in The Washington Post about troops coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan and being treated so poorly, apparently, based on this long investigation? What's the President's reaction?

MR. SNOW: There are a couple of things. First, it's not a mantra. I would really choose words carefully. It's a commitment to support the troops. And the President, as you know, has visited the wounded many times at Walter Reed and we are concerned about it.

Other things that the White House has been concerned about:

"The President is concerned about the impact high gas prices have on families and workers and small businesses." -- Scott McClellan, April 18, 2006

"The President is concerned about genocide in Darfur." -- Tony Snow, October 1, 2006

"The president is concerned that once again The New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens" -- deputy press secretary Dana Perino, June 22, 2006

Things that the White House has been very concerned about:

"The American people saw yesterday that the Vice President is very concerned about his friend Harry Whittington." -- Scott McClellan, Feb 16, 2006

Things that the White House has not been concerned about:

"In particular, one reporter asked Scott McClellan whether the president is concerned about a stink of corruption surrounding the Republican Party, specifically referring to the investigation into the sale of stock of HCA by the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, questions about Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist with close ties to Tom DeLay, and other charges. The White House said no..." -- Norah O'Donnell, September 29, 2005

Okay, let's get back to Walter Reed and whether or not the president knew about the problems there before the Post report.

Q Were you aware?

MR. SNOW: We are aware now, yes.

Er, okay. But were you aware?

MR. SNOW: Look, the men and women who have gone and fought for our country over there, they deserve the best care.

Q So why has that not been guaranteed, then?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- you know, when you find a problem, you deal with it.

Q So you're saying the President learned about this from The Washington Post?

MR. SNOW: I don't know exactly where he learned it, but I can tell you that we believe that they deserve better.

Aha, another Tony Snow "I don't know" moment. Congrats Mr. Snow - you are the least knowledgeable press secretary in White House history.

Q Tony, can I follow on that? As Bob Dole might ask, where's the outrage?

MR. SNOW: There's plenty of outrage.

Q Is there?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Yes, plenty of outrage - that the stinkin' treacherous Washington Post has made the Bush adminstration look stupid by daring to print the truth.

Q But is there any evidence that it was even looked at before the paper printed its two stories?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Whoa! So the administration did know about the conditions at Walter Reed?

Q Then tell us about that evidence.

MR. SNOW: That's why -- again, I would refer you, Bill, to the Department of the Army, which runs the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This is the place where if you want to get --

Q That's just an easy way for you not to have to talk about it.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a way of pointing to the proper authorities, which is what you would want.

Q The White House doesn't want to be on record with a more emphatic expression of amazement and upset about this?

MR. SNOW: No.

And why's that? Because they hadn't yet figured out whether or not it was going to cause them more or less damage to be outraged. See, if it came out that they knew about Walter Reed all along, then pretending to be outraged would make them look even worse. Playing it cool is a much safer strategy. Which is why...

Q Do you think the President is going to say something about this later?

MR. SNOW: No.

George W. Bush

But of course Our Great Leader did say something about this later, once the White House spin controllers had had time to fully assess the situation and focus-group their response. And the verdict is: George W. Bush did not know about the conditions at Walter Reed before he read about them in the newspaper. And you can't prove otherwise.

The White House acknowledged that George didn't know by adding a tiny addendum to the transcript that I've linked to above. It reads:

The President first learned of the troubling allegations regarding Walter Reed from the stories this weekend in the Washington Post. He is deeply concerned and wants any problems identified and fixed.

See? Now he's deeply concerned, and that's serious. And he wants those problems fixed! As the Washington Post reported the day after Tony's fateful press conference:

At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow said that he spoke with President Bush yesterday about Walter Reed and that the president told him: "Find out what the problem is and fix it."

I'm pretty sure that's not Tony Snow's job, but there you have it. Bush then presumably returned to his enthralling game of solo Connect 4, which had been keeping him occupied for the past several days.

Do-Nothing Republicans

So how come this dreadful situation has been unfolding at Walter Reed for such a long time, but has only just come to light? Simple - up until very recently, Republicans were in charge, and they preferred to sweep this sort of thing under the rug. You see, it's one thing to repeat over and over again that you support the troops, but it's another thing altogether to put your money where your mouth is.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) appeared on Meet The Press last week and, according to Think Progress, "argued that the Senate Armed Services Committee did not conduct oversight of the treatment at military facilities in recent years because 'they did not want to embarrass the President.'" That's quite an allegation - and given the reputation of the do-nothing 109th Congress, it's entirely believeable.

The Bush administration has spent billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars conducting an ill-planned and poorly-managed occupation of Iraq, to the tune of 3,150 American lives and more than 23,400 wounded. When those wounded troops come back from Iraq, they find a Veterans Administration that has been systematically weakened and defunded by Bush & Co. over the past six years.

And where was the Republican-led Congress while this was going on? Picking its toenails, apparently.

Do-Nothing Republicans (again)

It seems that GOP holdovers from the do-nothing 109th Congress are still determined to do nothing now they're in the minority. Last week Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters that "a new Democratic effort to repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution would meet the same fate as two previous efforts to limit President Bush's authority: blocked by procedural obstacles," according to the Washington Post.

Of course, this comes hot on the heels of the Republicans' last awesome legislative success, when:

A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

So much for "the world's greatest deliberative body." Republicans don't even want to have a debate about a debate.

The GOP certainly seems to have an unusual take on the message that the American people sent when they rose up and threw the bums out last year: apparently America didn't vote for change or answers to the crisis in Iraq last year - they actually voted for more of the same: more non-debate, more "stay the course," more meaningless rhetoric. The GOP could easily pull that off when they were in charge, and it looks like they're happy to do it now they're in the minority.

Yes, the message from Congressional Republicans is quite clear: do nothing, and do it often!

Alicia Colon

Last week, the New York Sun's Alicia Colon decided to go after John Murtha and "other congressional defeatists" who have been criticizing George W. Bush's Manly Surge. Unfortunately, Ms. Colon decided to fill her article with bullshit. Enjoy this section, where she absurdly attempts to defend Dubya by comparing military deaths under his watch to deaths during Bill Clinton's presidency:

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

Me! I'm counting!

Let's take a look at the available stats, and unlike Ms. Colon, let's include the years before 1993 and after 1996. Also note that these numbers are from all causes of death, which include accident, homicide, hostile action, illness, suicide, and terrorist attack.

YEAR    TOTAL MILITARY     TOTAL DEATHS

JIMMY CARTER 
1980    2,159,630          2,392

RONALD REAGAN 
1981    2,206,751          2,380
1982    2,251,067          2,319
1983    2,273,364          2,465
1984    2,297,922          1,999
1985    2,323,185          2,252
1986    2,359,855          1,984
1987    2,352,697          1,983
1988    2,309,495          1,819

GEORGE H.W. BUSH 
1989    2,303,384          1,636
1990    2,258,324          1,507
1991    2,198,189          1,787
1992    1,953,337          1,293

BILL CLINTON 
1993    1,849,537          1,213
1994    1,746,482          1,075
1995    1,661,928          1,040
1996    1,613,675          974
1997    1,578,382          817
1998    1,538,570          827
1999    1,525,942          796
2000    1,530,430          758

Ms. Colon's stats are a little off from the ones provided by the Department of Defense, but as you can see, total military deaths from any single year when Bill Clinton was president are lower than the total deaths from any of the previous 13 years. Not only that, but total military deaths steadily declined every year under Bill Clinton (with the exception of a slight bump in 1998). But who's counting?

Also, in 2000, Clinton's military was 66% the size of the military under Ronald Reagan in 1985. Yet in 2000, the number of military deaths from all causes was only 34% the number of military deaths in 1985. But again, who's counting?

Now let's take a look at the military under George W. Bush:

GEORGE W. BUSH 
2001    1,552,096          891
2002    1,627,142          999
2003    1,732,632          1,410
2004    1,711,916          1,887

As you can see, military deaths rose substantially in 2001, and have increased every year since then.

Also note that after four years of George W. Bush the military was 12% larger than Clinton's military in 2000. But military deaths from all causes in 2004 rose by 149% over deaths in 2000, from 758 to 1,877.

And let's not forget that these numbers are from all causes of death. In Ms. Colon's article, she disingenuously compares all deaths under Clinton to deaths only in Iraq under Bush. So, okay, you want to make that unfair comparison? Let's take a look at 2005 and 2006.

In Iraq alone, 846 soldiers were killed in 2005, and 821 in 2006. Those numbers are higher than the numbers for any single year between 1997 and 2000, and they don't include any deaths by accident, homicide, hostile action, illness, suicide, or terrorist attack anywhere else in the world, including Afghanistan.

But hey, who's counting?

George W. Bush

Historians, ready those barf bags - last week George W. Bush compared his "War On Terror" to George Washington's endeavors during the American Revolution. Considering that Mother Jones noted last week that "fatal jihadist attacks worldwide" have increased sevenfold since we invaded Iraq, one can only assume that Washington is rolling in his grave.

According to the Associated Press:

President Bush honored the 275th birthday of the nation's first president on Monday, likening George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to a nation to the war on global terrorism.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River.

"And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Bush continued...

On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive.

By the way, Dubya, you do know that George Washington was one of the greatest insurgency leaders of all time, right? And since you're the one who's always telling us we have to watch what we say so we don't embolden our enemies, do you think it's a good idea to let 'em hear all that stuff about mighty empires and overwhelming odds?

George W. Bush

Last week - and I'm not making this up - it was revealed in a biography of Ariel Sharon that George W. Bush once told the Israeli leader what he intended to do to Osama bin Laden.

Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon's delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: "I will screw him in the ass!"

He's not joking - it's official policy.

"Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out." -- Seymour Hersh on Abu Ghraib, 2005

Dick Morris

A recent report by Connecticut's News Channel 8 indicates that "The state is looking for money from delinquent tax payers who owe millions of dollars in back taxes." And one of those deliquent tax payers just happens to be Fox News consultant and professional Clinton smear merchant Dick Morris. According to News Channel 8, "Morris owes over $280,000 and has been on the state's list of tax delinquents for years."

Er, hello? Dick Morris owes the state of Connecticut more than a quarter of a million dollars?

I was curious to see how Connecticut has treated other tax delinquents in the past, and a quick search revealed these stories: in January of this year, a bowling alley owner was sentenced to six months in prison after failing to pay the state $806,000. Earlier this month, a plastic surgeon was sentenced to 20 months in prison for "cheating on his taxes and health care fraud." He was ordered to pay $375,000 in back taxes. And when accountant David Montesi pleaded guilty to one count of income tax evasion after failing to pay $56,272 in 2005, he was sentenced to 27 months in prison.

And yet Dick Morris walks free. Well, I say "walks," more sort of slithers across the ground on his belly.

George W. Bush

And finally, Zogby recently ran a poll asking Americans to rate U.S. presidents as "great, near great, average, below average, and failure." And the winner is... George W. Bush, who is viewed by 30.2% of Americans as a "failure." Our Great Leader even beats out Richard Nixon who only managed to muster a 23% failure rating.

Bill Clinton was way back with an 11% failure rating - but then, 21% of people also viewed his presidency as "great," compared to, er, 7.9% for Bush.

So as a tribute to Our Great Leader, here's a picture of him sniffing a bottle of ethanol:

At least, I think he's sniffing it. He might be resisting the urge to glug it down.

See you next week...

-- EarlG