Top 10 Conservative Idiots #273 [Archive] - The Diamond David Lee Roth Army

View Full Version : Top 10 Conservative Idiots #273

FORD

01-08-2007, 01:54 PM

<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273.jpg" border="0"> The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 273 January 8, 2007 Delusions Of Grandeur Edition Happy New Congress! The Democrats took control of the House and Senate last week, while conservatives continued to act like idiots. Enjoy - and don't forget the <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/key.html" target="_blank">key</a>! <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/01.gif" border="0"> George W. Bush <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/flip-flop.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/flip-flop.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/warmongering.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/warmongering.gif" border="0"> For the past four years, George W. Bush has insisted that when it comes to troop levels in Iraq, he listens to his generals. Of course, if the generals ever made suggestions that Bush didn't like, then obviously they were more than welcome to find employment elsewhere. Take Gen. Shinseki for example, who was <a href="http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/08/bush_white_hous_1.php" target="_blank">given the boot</a> after making the ridiculous suggestion in 2003 that it would take several hundred thousand troops to succeed in Iraq. But now that the generals - and, in fact, everybody else in the world - think that it's time to start pulling troops out of Iraq, George W. Bush has a better idea. He's going to send more troops! Huzzah! That should solve the problem. If you're looking for proof that Bush always listens to his generals, check out this snippet from a December <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2513538,00.html" target="_blank">article</a> in the London Times. <div class="excerpt">General George Casey, the senior commander in Iraq, and General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, fear that a troop increase will only delay the time when Iraqis take responsibility for security and could provoke further violence.</div> Now check out this snippet from a CBS <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/05/politics/main2332894.shtml" target="_blank">news story</a> last week: <div class="excerpt">Meanwhile, Mr. Bush is shaking up his top military and diplomatic teams in Iraq, as he prepares to unveil his new war strategy in a speech to the nation next week. Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, both are expected to leave their jobs in coming weeks.</div> See? Bush always listens to his generals. And if he doesn't like what they're saying, he can easily get new ones. <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/bush-ask-billions-20000-more/story.aspx?guid=%7B50DD932F-6A6A-45CE-9A6B-2F88B1649F72%7D" target="_blank">According to</a> MarketWatch, Bush will next week "call for the deployment of as many as 20,000 additional American combat troops to Iraq," only a few years too late for it to make any difference. If you're starting to get the sneaking suspicion that Our Great Leader is trying to drag this whole mess out for another two years and then simply hand it over to his successor, don't be silly. George W. Bush clearly has far too much respect for the troops to pull a cynical political stunt like that. After all, he said he was going to make an announcement about this in the middle of December, and then <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/170157,CST-NWS-iraq13.article" target="_blank">decided to wait</a> until after the New Year so that the troops in Iraq could have a <a href="http://icasualties.org/oif/" target="_blank">nice relaxing Christmas</a>. See how he cares? And besides, Bush has never in his life run away from a problem and passed the buck to someone else, unless you count every single business venture he was ever involved in before getting into politics. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/02.gif" border="0"> Fox News <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"> I'm sure you've all heard by now of the Democrats' "100 hour plan" in which they intend to "break the bonds between lobbyist and lawmaker, boost homeland security, raise the minimum wage, fund stem cell research, lower prescription drug prices, slash student loan interest rates and free the country from its dependence on international oil," <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301543.html" target="_blank">according to</a> the Washington Post. It's a solid, non-controversial way to kick off the 110th Congress - those are certainly all strong issues for middle-class and working families. So here's how Fox News <a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/05/fox_news_banner_on_nancy_pelosi_100_hours_to_turn_ america_into_san_francisco.php" target="_blank">reported</a> on the Democratic takeover last week: <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_fox.jpg" border="0"></center> Got that, Fox News viewers? Now that the Democrats are in charge, they're going to turn America into San Francisco. And we all know what that means, right? Right? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink? For those of you not familiar with the right-wing media's little code-words, let me spell out what Fox News is trying to imply. Within 100 hours of taking charge of Congress, the Democrats are going to make everybody in America G-A-Y. So clench those buttcheeks, red-staters! Enforced sodomy is coming soon to a neighborhood near you! You think that's a gavel Nancy Pelosi is holding? <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/03.gif" border="0"> George W. Bush <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/snooping.gif" border="0"> Late last year George W. Bush signed a postal reform bill into law. <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html" target="_blank">According to</a> the New York Daily News, "Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval." Therefore you won't be surprised to learn that Our Great Leader added a "signing statement" to the bill during the congressional recess which says that actually he can open and read anybody's mail without court approval. Which is the complete opposite of the law that he signed. Why would Bush want to read your mail? Well, mainly because he's The Decider, and he can do anything he damn well chooses, including opening and reading your mail without a warrant, even if the law specifically says that he can't. So it's not so much that he actually wants to read your mail, but hey, he's already decided that he can read your e-mail and listen to your telephone calls, so it seems a bit silly for him not to be able to read your snail mail as well, right? And anyway, if George W. Bush doesn't have the power to open and read everybody's mail, how will he ever be able to intercept stuff like this? <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_letter.gif" border="0"></center> * See Idiots <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/246" target="_blank">246</a>. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/04.gif" border="0"> Fran Townsend <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/spin.gif" border="0"> If you're still wondering why Our Great Leader hasn't been able to smoke bin Laden out of his cave yet - despite being able to open and read everybody's mail - you really need an attitude adjustment. Just listen to what homeland security adviser Fran Townsend <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/28/sitroom.03.html" target="_blank">had to say</a> on CNN last week: <div class="excerpt">ED HENRY: But now as 2006 ends, Osama bin Laden is still at large. Heading into 2007, how confident are you that he can be brought to justice this coming year? FRAN TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question in my mind that he'll be brought to justice. The real question is whether or not it's going to be this year. I will tell you that I feel increasingly confident, you know, it was interesting. There's a recent poll and the American people said 71 percent of them were optimistic that we can protect the country. And I think they've got reason to be optimistic. We've made a lot of progress. They see the progress we've made. We've disrupted plots. We've made reforms in our system, in our security system. So on bin Laden, do I think we are going to get him? I absolutely know we're going to get him. The question is will it be this year. And I will tell you I think there's increased activity both the part of the CIA, JSOC and our partners, the Pakistanis. HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure. TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.</div> See? By simply redefining the word "failure," Fran Townsend has proved that the Bush administration has not failed to capture Osama bin Laden. All you have to do is picture him sitting in a prison cell in U.S. custody at some undetermined point in the future, et voila, mission accomplished. In fact, if you think about it, it's extremely unfair that George W. Bush has so far received absolutely no credit whatsoever for this hypothetical victory in the War On Terror. But that's the liberal media for you.

FORD

01-08-2007, 01:55 PM

<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/05.gif" border="0"> Pat Robertson <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/religious_nut.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/fearmongering.gif" border="0"> Perhaps Fran Townsend shouldn't get too excited about the successful capture of bin Laden that hasn't happened yet - last week Pat Robertson announced that "God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a 'mass killing' late in 2007," <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/robertson.predictions.ap/index.html" target="_blank">according to</a> the Associated Press. "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," Pat said on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that." Gee, thanks, Lord. Couldn't you be a bit more specific? I mean, if you're going to to give Pat the lowdown on this year's upcoming mass killings for him to share with the nation on his television show, couldn't we at least get some dates or something? Mind you, one has to wonder whether the Lord is just dicking Pat around for the fun of it. For example, in May of 2006 Pat <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/18/national/main1628215.shtml" target="_blank">revealed</a> that, "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms. There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." And on January 3, 2005, he <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200501040010" target="_blank">announced</a> that, "the Lord has some very encouraging news for George Bush ... What I heard is that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff. ... He'll have Social Security reform passed. He'll have tax reform passed. He'll have conservative judges on the courts. And that basically he is positioned for a series of dramatic victories which I hope will hearten him and his advisers. They don't have to be timid in this matter because the wind is blowing at his back, and he can move forward boldly and get results." Can't you just picture the Lord chortling and nudging Jesus in the ribs after hanging up on Pat? Now, I'm sure it's crossed your mind that there's an extremely remote possibility that the Rev. Robertson is just making this stuff up. But consider this: if there is a massive terrorist attack on the United States in 2007, then that will prove without doubt that God really exists and Pat is his one true prophet. Either way, the Lord is still <a href="http://www.cbn.com/giving/700club/option.asp?o=1&m=outreachblock" target="_blank">accepting donations</a> via the CBN website. Better pony up now just in case Pat gets it right this time. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/06.gif" border="0"> Virgil Goode, Dennis Prager, Glenn Beck, et al <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/racism.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/racism.gif" border="0"> Last week the first ever Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison (D-MN) was sworn in, and to hear the right-wingnuts freaking out about it you'd think that America was now being run under Sharia law, especially after Ellison declared that he would perform his ceremonial oath-of-office photo-op with a Koran. Over the past few months: CNN's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200611150004" target="_blank">Glenn Beck</a> opened his interview with Ellison by asking, "No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" Rep. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/19/goode-islam/" target="_blank">Virgil Goode</a> (R-VA) wrote a letter to his constituents which read, "I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran." (Never mind the fact that Keith Ellison is not an immigrant.) And radio host <a href="http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_co ngressman_takes_his_oath_on" target="_blank">Dennis Prager</a> insisted that "America, not Virgil Goode, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," writing that Ellison's decision to use a Koran during his swearing-in photo-op "undermines American civilization." (Prager also wrote that, "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11." In fact, the U.S. Constitution <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank">clearly states</a> that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.") But Ellison got the last laugh after he performed his photo-op using a Koran which once belonged to... Thomas Jefferson. Yes, the Thomas Jefferson. Ellison borrowed the book from the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300075.html" target="_blank">According to</a> the Washington Post, " This isn't the first historic book used for swearing-in ceremonies -- the Library has allowed VIPs to use rare Bibles for inaugurations and other special occasions." So just out of curiosity, Messrs. Beck, Goode and Prager: do you also think that Thomas Jefferson was working with our enemies and undermining American civilization? <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/07.gif" border="0"> Basically, Just Racists And Morons <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/racism.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/racism.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/dumb.gif" border="0"> Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) may or may not be running for president in 2008, but if he does run, can he win? Don't be silly - he's got the wrong name! And he dresses like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! And he's probably a Muslim! Last December, conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel was shocked to discover that Obama's middle name is - gasp - Hussein. Which, according to the U.S. Constitution, disqualifies him from ever becoming president of the United States. Don't believe me? Check out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_5:_Qualifications_for_office" target="_blank">Article 2, Clause 5</a>: <div class="excerpt">No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. And no citizen shall be eligible to the Office, if their middle name is neither White, nor Anglo, nor Saxon, nor Protestant. Or if it sound like that of a Brown person, in general.</div> Schlussel also points out that even though Obama calls himself a Christian and attends church, "In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim." And since we're "fighting the war of our lives against Islam" then there's the strong possibility that his "loyalties" are going to lie elsewhere. Which, with all due respect to Godwin's Law, makes Debbie Schlussel sound like Adolf Hitler. I mean, seriously. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22It+is+always+the+same+Jew%22" target="_blank">Here's</a> what Adolf wrote in Mein Kampf: <div class="excerpt">A man can change his language without any trouble - that is, he can use another language; but in his new language he will express the old ideas; his inner nature is not changed. This is best shown by the Jew who can speak a thousand languages and nevertheless remains a Jew. His traits of character have remained the same, whether two thousand years ago as a grain dealer in Ostia, speaking Roman, or whether as a flour profiteer of today, jabbering German with a Jewish accent. It is always the same Jew.</div> Sound familiar? And hey, wait a minute - Schlussel does have a suspiciously Austrian-sounding name, which by her own logic probably makes her a genocidal maniac, or something. Fortunately even right-wing commentators were <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/19/174746/64" target="_blank">turned off</a> by Schlussel's racism, but that hasn't stopped the rest of the media from making some "accidental" - and not-so-accidental - blunders when it comes to Barack Obama. In mid-December CNN ran a <a href="http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/12/cnn_puts_obama_in_split_screen_with_bin_laden_and_ hussein" target="_blank">story</a> on Obama's name, complete with flattering pictures like this: <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_obama2.jpg" border="0"></center> ...and this: <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_obama3.jpg" border="0"></center> Around the same time, CNN's senior political analyst Jeff Greenfield compared Obama to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. From the <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011510.ph" target="_blank"> transcript</a>: <div class="excerpt">GREENFIELD: ...in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable. (snip) Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread.</div> Then, just last week, CNN dropped this one (which, to be fair, they subsequently apologized for): <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_obama4.jpg" border="0"></center> ...and Yahoo News jumped in with <a href="http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/03/yahoo_news_captions_obama_photo_with_name_osama" target="_blank">this</a>: <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_obama.jpg" border="0"></center> So there you have it: Barack Hussein Osama bin Laden dresses like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and worships Allah. Tune in next week when we find out that in his spare time he enjoys burning bibles, golfing with Kim Jong-Il, and clubbing baby seals to death with his huge black penis.

FORD

01-08-2007, 01:56 PM

<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/08.gif" border="0"> Dan Burton <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/dumb.gif" border="0"> The new Democratic majority in the House pushed through a package of much-needed ethics reforms last week. The reforms, <a href="http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5896122&nav=0Ra7" target="_blank">according to</a> the Associated Press, "expand restrictions on privately financed trips enjoyed by lawmakers, and require greater disclosure of earmarks, the pet projects inserted into legislation at the behest of individual lawmakers." 431 representatives voted on the package, and it passed by a resounding majority. How resounding? Well, 430 of the 431 representatives voted for it. One did not. The lone gunman was our old friend Dan "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-37%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=%22dan%2Bburton%22%2Bwatermelon&btnG=Search" target="_blank">Watermelon</a>" Burton, who presumably thinks that lawmakers simply don't get to go on enough junkets with lobbyists. Personally I think Dan is way ahead of the game on this one, and should run for president in 2008. His campaign platform would be simple: <ul> <li>More perks for Congressmen </li> <li>More government waste</li> <li>More free trips paid for by lobbyists</li> <li>That's about it</li> </ul>He can't lose! <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/09.gif" border="0"> George W. Bush <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/hypocrisy.gif" border="0"> Last week, to the surprise of many, Our Great Leader wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Well, I say he wrote it, obviously he didn't actually write it. He probably didn't even know about it. But anyway, an op-ed bearing the name of George W. Bush appeared in the pages of the Wall Street Journal last week, so for the sake of argument, let's say he actually did write it. Now that Dubya is out on a limb without his Congressional safety net, he's suddenly become very concerned about bi-partisanship - although as Editor & Publisher <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003527008" target="_blank">pointed out</a>, "Oddly, he chose the venue of the major newspaper with the most conservative editorial page in the country to make this call to put partisanship aside." Bush has also apparently discovered a new-found respect for fiscal responsibility, which, again, is slightly odd. Even the right-wing Washington Times <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070104-120946-6098r.htm" target="_blank">acknowledges</a> that "Mr. Bush has increased the annual federal budget by $800 billion, from $1.86 trillion in 2001 to $2.65 trillion in 2006, and has rung up deficits every year from 2002 to 2006." Finally, Dubya sent a warning shot across the bow of the new Democratic majority: "If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate." Funny... I don't remember Bush similarly admonishing the Republican-controlled 109th Congress, which spent most of its time <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html" target="_blank">passing bills for Terri Schiavo</a>, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/109th-congress-success-at-naming.html" target="_blank">naming post offices</a>, and <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/109th.html" target="_blank">pretty much fucking everything else up</a>. I guess he was too busy signing all of their awesome bills into law. <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/10.gif" border="0"> The Republican Minority <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/loser.gif" border="0"> And finally, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll leave you with this delightful shot of the new Republican minority enthusiastically welcoming the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi: <center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_minority.jpg" border="0"></center> Oh, how sweet it is. See you next week! -- EarlG