<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273.jpg" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 273</b></font><br /><br />January 8, 2007<br /><i>Delusions Of Grandeur Edition</i><br /><br />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>!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/01.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>George W. Bush</b></font> <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"><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>more</i> troops! Huzzah! That should solve the problem.<br /><br />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 <i>London Times</i>.<br /><br /><div class="excerpt"><i>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.</i></div><br />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:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt"><i>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.</i></div><br />See? Bush always listens to his generals. And if he doesn't like what they're saying, he can easily get new ones.<br /><br /><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?<br /><br />And besides, Bush has <i>never in his life</i> 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.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/02.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Fox News</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/partisanship.gif" border="0"><br /><br />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 <i>Washington Post</i>. 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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_fox.jpg" border="0"></center><br />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 <i>that </i>means, right? Right? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/03.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>George W. Bush</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/snooping.gif" border="0"><br /><br />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 <i>New York Daily News</i>, "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."<br /><br />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 <i>actually</i> he can open and read anybody's mail <i>without</i> court approval. Which is the complete opposite of the law that he signed.<br /><br />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 <i>wants</i> 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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/07/273_letter.gif" border="0"></center><br />* See Idiots <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/246" target="_blank">246</a>.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/04.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Fran Townsend</b></font> <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"><br /><br />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:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt"><b>ED HENRY:</b> 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?<br /><br /><b>FRAN TOWNSEND:</b> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>HENRY:</b> 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.<br /><br /><b>TOWNSEND:</b> 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><br />See? By simply redefining the word "failure," Fran Townsend has proved that the Bush administration has<i> not</i> 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, <i>et voila</i>, mission accomplished.<br /><br />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.<br />