The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 309

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-07-07 11:27 PM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 309

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 309

October 8, 2007
Tortured Explanations Edition

This week we learn that The Bush Administration (1) definitely does not torture, at least not in public. Meanwhile George W. Bush (2) hates poor kids, Rush Limbaugh (3) hates the troops, and Fred Thompson (5) barely knows where he is or what his name is. Enjoy, and don't forget the key!

The Bush Administration

"We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture." -- George W. Bush, June 2004

"This Administration does not condone torture." -- White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, July 2004

"We do not torture." -- Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Febraury 2005

"We do not torture." -- Press Secretary Scott McClellan, March 2005

"We do not torture and we do not condone torture." -- Press Secretary Scott McClellan, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050928-2.html">September 2005

"We do not torture." -- Press Secretary Scott McClellan, October 2005

"We do not torture." -- George W. Bush, November 2005

"We do not torture." -- NSA Adviser Stephen Hadley, December 2005

"We do not torture." -- George W. Bush, December 2005

"We do not torture." -- Press Secretary Scott McClellan, January 2006

"We don't condone torture. We don't participate in torture. We don't do torture." -- Press Secretary Tony Snow, October 2006

"The United States does not condone torture, does not practice torture." -- Press Secretary Tony Snow, February 2007

"We do not torture." -- Press Secretary Dana Perino, October 2007

Get the message? We do not torture. We do not torture. We do not torture. Repeat it often enough and you might even start to believe it. Last week, according to CNN:

The White House and Justice Department on Thursday strongly denied a published report that a secret Justice Department opinion in 2005 allowed the torture of terror detainees, months after the government publicly renounced it.

White House press secretary Dana Perino confirmed the existence of a previously undisclosed February 5, 2005, memo by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel which addressed "specific applications" of the earlier memo.

But Perino insisted the classified document did not undercut or reverse the public December 2004 memo, which rejected the use of torture in prisoner interrogations as "abhorrent."

"U.S. policy is not to torture -- and we do not," Perino told reporters.

Sure we don't. And you can trust the White House - after all, they have a really strong record on this sort of thing. For example, compare this exchange from a White House press conference in December 2005:

Q: Do you think we're spreading democracy when you spy and put out disinformation and do all the things that -- secret prisons, and torture?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I reject your characterizations wholly. I reject your characterizations wholly. The United States is helping to advance freedom in a dangerous region of the world.

...to this announcement nine months later:

The CIA operates secret prisons abroad for holding key suspects in the war on terror, President Bush acknowledged Wednesday.

See? We don't run secret prisons. And we do not torture. Pay no attention to last week's New York Times article which calls the secret Justice Department memo "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."

We do not torture.

Come on, trust the White House on this one. After all, Dana Perino was quite clear about the president's position on human rights when speaking last week about the recent troubles in Burma:

PERINO: Well, unfortunately, intimidation and force can chill peaceful demonstrations. And reports about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where they could be held for years without any representation or charges, is distressing.

Why yes! The idea that innocent people could be thrown into detention and held for years without representation or charges certainly is distressing!

But only when other people do it, I guess.

George W. Bush

So while the Bush administration's position on torture may remain, er, ambiguous, there's one thing they want to make crystal clear: poor kids with no health insurance can go jump off a cliff. Last week George W. Bush cited his desire to see "private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system" before vetoing an expansion to the SCHIP program, which currently insures 6.6 million children from low-income families.

The bill that Our Great Leader vetoed would have insured an extra 3.4 million children. But hey, what's more important - making sure that we don't have "socialized-type medicine," or making sure that children are able to receive medical treatment?

Surely the answer is obvious - after all, the United States spends twice as much money on healthcare as Sweden and France, and yet all of their citizens have easy access to doctors. What a bunch of stupid commies!

Rush Limbaugh

Last week I noted that Rush Limbaugh had dug himself a bit of a hole by referring to troops who are critical of the Iraq occupation as "phony soldiers." One slandered soldier - Brian McGough, a veteran who was seriously injured in Iraq - appeared in a VoteVets ad last week in which he told Limbaugh:

Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real, my traumatic brain injury was real and my belief we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real. Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service.

Limbaugh's response? If you were expecting chagrin, I'm afraid you just don't know Rush. Red America's favorite drug-addled draft-dodger replied thusly:

"This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into," Limbaugh said today.

"This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him, they aren't hurting me. They are betraying this soldier."

So there you have it. Brian McGough is not a "phony soldier" after all. Instead he's a brainwashed suicide bomber.

The terrible irony? McGough's traumatic brain injury - for which he received a purple heart - was caused by an actual suicide bomber.

But don't expect Limbaugh to apologize - believe it or not, he's the real victim here! According to his website, Limbaugh's troubles are the fault of:

* Harry Reid
* Tom Harkin
* Media Matters For America
* MoveOn.org
* Hillary Clinton
* The "Democrat" Party

Now that's what I call taking personal responsibility.

Jack Kingston

Yes, poor Rush is under attack from Democrats and the liberal media. It's a smear campaign! They're taking him out of context! What can this stinking rich talk show host with unfettered access to millions of radios worldwide possibly do to defend himself?

Fortunately Rush still has some friends in Congress, and so it was last week that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Naturally) introduced a resolution to commend the man with the golden microphone.

Here's some text from the resolution, via Think Progress:

Whereas Mr. Limbaugh's commitment to American troops serving both here and abroad remains as strong as ever: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives -

(1) recognizes Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his support of the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation and for providing free subscriptions for active-duty servicemembers;

(2) recognizes Mr Limbaugh's desire to see American troops achieve a successful outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever soldiers are stationed; and

(3) commends Mr. Limbaugh's tireless public support for American troops and their families through radio broadcasts, fundraising and other public support.

Hmm. I see he left out the part about calling American soldiers "phony" and comparing them to suicide bombers.

Fred Thompson

Fred "The Human Cabbage" Thompson staggered into Iowa last week and wowed a group of his most ardent supporters at a campaign rally in Marshalltown. Here's the story of Fred's success, as reported by the New York Times:

Twenty-four minutes after he began speaking in a small restaurant the other day, Fred D. Thompson brought his remarks to a close with a nod of his head and an expression of thanks to Iowans for allowing him to "give my thoughts about some things."

Then he stood face to face with a silent audience.

"Can I have a round of applause?" Mr. Thompson said, drawing a rustle of clapping and some laughter.

"Well, I had to drag that out of you," he said.

Oh, Fred. You know the campaign is going well when you finish a speech only to discover that the audience has slipped into a coma.

The same article also notes that during an interview with Radio Iowa, Thompson suggested that we should be concerned about "the Soviet Union and China." Pssst, Fred! The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. It was kind of a big deal at the time, but whatever.

John McCain

Mad old John McCain is still apparently running for president, and last week he announced that if he wins he's going to get Alan Greenspan "dead or alive."

Republican John McCain said Thursday that as president he would appoint Alan Greenspan to lead a review of the nation's tax code -- even if the former Federal Reserve chairman was dead.

"If he's alive or dead it doesn't matter. If he's dead, just prop him up and put some dark glasses on him like, like 'Weekend at Bernie's,'" McCain joked. "Let's get the best minds in America together and fix this tax code."

Great idea! Because let's face it, an administration comprised of propped-up dead people wearing dark glasses would probably be preferable to the current crew.

In fact, screw John McCain, let's just make dead Ronald Reagan president again. After all, that's what Republican primary voters really want.

Rudy Giuliani

Republicans who danced with joy when Ralph Nader siphoned enough votes from Al Gore to throw the 2000 presidential election into dispute might want to look up the definition of the word "karma." Last week the powerful head of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, revealed that if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee next year, the shit's going to hit the fan. (Well, he didn't specifically use those words, but you know what I mean.)

According to Talking Points Memo:

Recently it was reported that around 50 pro-family leaders gathered behind closed doors to discuss what to do if a pro-choice politician -- read: Rudy -- won the GOP nomination. The reports were a bit vague as to what happened, suggesting that the group said they would "consider" nominating a third-party challenger.

Now, however, one of those leaders, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, has published an Op ed piece in The New York Times clarifying exactly what happened: The group voted almost unanimously not just to "consider" backing such a challenger, but to definitely do so. In other words, Dobson made it official, saying that if a pro-choicer wins the GOP nomination, these leaders will be going third party. Dobson wrote:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

TPM also notes that a new Rasmussen poll indicates that "more than a quarter -- 27% -- of Republicans would vote for such a pro-life third-party challenger."

To which I say - Rudy Giuliani for president 2008!

Larry Craig

Dateline: Sept. 2, 2007

After a week filled with scandalous headlines and ribald late-night TV humor at the expense of one of their own, Republican leaders got what they wanted Saturday: the resignation of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig.

(snip)

Craig, 62, said he would resign effective Sept. 30, ending a career in Congress spanning a quarter-century.

Dateline: Sept. 10, 2007

When his guilty plea became public, Craig came under intense pressure from Senate Republican leaders and other colleagues in Washington to resign. He first announced he would resign Sept. 30, then said he was reconsidering that decision. A spokesman later said Craig had dropped virtually all notions of trying to finish his third term, unless a court moves quickly to overturn the conviction, unlikely before the end of the month.

Dateline: Oct. 4, 2007

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has changed his mind about resigning and will remain in the Senate through next year. His decision comes on the same day a Minnesota judge ruled Craig could not withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct in a men's restroom at a Minnesota airport.

Tune in next week when Sen. Craig will announce that he's running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, saying, "Why the hell not? Frankly, the way things are going I think I've got as much of a chance as any of them."

Blackwater

Blackwater founder and Bush crony Erik Prince testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week, discussing reports that his company recently took part in the unprovoked massacre of Iraqi civilians. "Based on everything we currently know, the Blackwater team acted appropriately while operating in a very complex war zone on Sept. 16," he said. "There has been a rush to judgment."

Sure there has. After all, if you read the State Department's initial report of the incident, you'll discover that in fact Blackwater "responded properly to an insurgent attack on a convoy." And so what if a Blackwater contractor wrote that report on U.S. embassy letterhead? Clearly there has been a rush to judgement.

A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, mind you, discovered that "Blackwater's contractors fired their weapons 195 times -- or an average of 1.4 times a week -- from the beginning of 2005 through the second week of September," and, "In over 80 percent of the cases, Blackwater reports that its forces fired first." But surely this is just a rush to judgement.

Meanwhile, it was reported last week that a Blackwater plane's cockpit voice recorder, recovered from a mountain canyon in Afghanistan in 2004, captured the joyriding pilot remarking that "I swear to God, they wouldn't pay me if they knew how much fun this was." The pilot then lost control and crashed into the canyon killing himself, two other crew members, and three U.S. troops.

And a former U.S. official who spent two years in Baghdad wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Times last week, noting that:

One particularly infuriating time, I was in the town of Irbil in northern Iraq, being driven to a meeting with a Kurdish political leader. We were on a narrow stretch of highway with no shoulders and foot-high barriers on both sides. The lead Suburban in our convoy loomed up behind an old, puttering sedan driven by an older man with a young woman and three children.

As we approached at typical breakneck speed, the Blackwater driver honked furiously and motioned to the side, as if they should pull over. The kids in the back seat looked back in horror, mouths agape at the sight of the heavily armored Suburbans driven by large, armed men in dark sunglasses. The poor Iraqi driver frantically searched for a means of escape, but there was none. So the lead Blackwater vehicle smashed heedlessly into the car, pushing it into the barrier. We zoomed by too quickly to notice if anyone was hurt.

Also, Rep. Henry Waxman wondered last week why a Blackwater guard who got drunk and shot one of the Iraqi vice president's bodyguards in December 2006 was back working for a Pentagon contractor in February 2007. That is curious.

But pay no attention to the facts - surely all this bad news about Blackwater is just a rush to judgement. And if you don't believe me, then you'd better pay attention to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Obviously) who argued last week that an attack on this company of lawless mercenaries is an attack on - *sniff* - General Petraeus.

Republican National Convention Logo Designers

And finally, the GOP released their new logo for the 2008 National Convention last week. Here it is.

According to the GOP Convention site:

The circular design features the silhouette of a triumphant elephant, a Party symbol dating back to 1874, along with the names of the host cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

"Choosing our logo is another important milestone in planning the 2008 Republican National Convention," said convention President and Chief Executive Officer Maria Cino. "This design highlights the spirit of the Republican Party and it will adorn everything from the Xcel Energy Center to t-shirts and other souvenirs."

I'm not why they wanted "scary, out-of-control elephant about to crush 2008 beneath its rampaging feet" to highlight the spirit of the Republican Party, but there you go. I guess it was better than these rejected ideas...

"The Vitter"

"The Giuliani"

"The Craig"

For many, many more comments on the GOP's fabulous new logo, enjoy this Daily Kos thread.

See you next week!

-- EarlG