The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 274

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-14-07 10:43 PM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 274

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 274

January 15, 2007
Iraq II: This Time It's Iran Edition

Welcome to the 274th edition of the Top 10 Conservative Idiots. This week George W. Bush (1,2) finds himself out on a limb with nothing to do but rattle his rusty saber, while Dick Cheney (3) dredges up some rhetoric from campaign 2004. Elsewhere, Robert Gates (5) admits his ignorance, Jack Kingston (6) is a hypocrite, Bill Sali (7) is a fool, and in an amazing feat of conservative idiocy, Sean Hannity (8) manages to combine all of these character traits into one giant heap of ignorant, hypocritical, foolishness. Enjoy - and don't forget the key!

George W. Bush

See if you can tell which one of these men will not go down in history as a great leader of their time:

Confidence-inspiring, isn't it? I must say, during dark times I always feel more comfortable when the guy in charge looks like he needs to break wind but is worried that he might, you know, follow through.

George W. Bush

So Our Great Leader gave his Great War Escalation speech last week, and it turns out that we've got more to worry about than we first thought. Sure, sending an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq against the wishes and best advice of almost everyone on the planet may seem like an absolutely terrible idea, but just wait till Dubya gets us into a war with Iran.

Er, war with Iran? Why, yes! Halfway through the speech, George dropped this little bombshell:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Translation: we'll start a border skirmish or some other incident which will escalate into a regional conflict and give us the excuse to conduct air strikes inside Iran - which is why we need the carrier strike group - and we'll defend against Iranian counter-attacks with the Patriot air defense systems.

What, you thought the Patriot missiles were to protect against the Iraqi insurgents' jury-rigged ballistic missile stockpile?

So having glove-slapped Iran and Syria while demanding satisfaction, we now wait with bated breath for George to goad Iran into doing something stupid so he can... wait a moment... this just in...

A raid by US troops on an Iranian office in Iraq was "absolutely unacceptable" and violated international law, Russia's foreign ministry has said.

The raid Thursday in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil was "absolutely unacceptable" and "the crudest possible violation of the Vienna convention on consular relations," ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a statement.

The statement referred to the raid as being directed against "the Iranian consulate general" and described five Iranians arrested as "diplomats."

Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, denied this Friday, saying that the Iranians had been working officially in Iraq but as part of a "liaison office" that was yet to be classified as a consulate with diplomatic protection.

The swoop by US troops triggered a diplomatic row, with Tehran accusing the US force of violating the building's diplomatic status.

Well, there you have it. All we need now is some rock-solid evidence that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with arms and we can get this show on the... wait a minute... stop the presses...

US military intelligence sources tell ABC News that large shipments of weapons have been smuggled to Iraqi militia over the past five weeks, including dozens of Iranian supplied EFP's , or Explosive Form Projectiles, highly effective against armored vehicles.

The weapons were sent to Moqtada al Sadr's Shi'a militia, known as "Mahdi's Army" who control Sadr City, a slum in northern Baghdad with a population of 2 million.

US and Iraqi intelligence units on the ground detected the shipments which are believed to be of Iranian origin. In addition, US military sources tell ABC, Al Sadr has been working on his own "surge," actively recruiting hundreds of residents of Sadr City to supplement the 8 to 10,000 militiamen already believed to make up the "Mahdi Army" in Baghdad.

Bring 'em on, indeed.

Dick Cheney

But don't worry about all that - the Bush administration has things firmly under control. And if you don't agree, well, you must love Osama bin Laden.

Last week Dick Cheney appeared from his undisclosed location to announce on Fox News that "(The terrorists) are convinced that the current debate in the Congress, that the election campaign last fall, all of that is evidence that they're right when they say the United States doesn't have the stomach for the fight in this war against terror. ... If we have a president who sees the polls going south and concludes we have to quit, all it will do is validate the Al-Qaeda view of the world."

Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - just about every time Dick Cheney opens his frickin' yap. I mean, come on Dick. Hasn't that old chestnut gone stale by now? Hasn't the American people's sound rejection of your fascist fearmongering given you a clue yet?

Cheney went on to say that withdrawing troops from Iraq would be "the most dangerous blunder." But then, Cheney also said almost two years ago that, "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

So please do feel free to ignore the miserable old asshat.

The Bush Administration

Why is Our Great Leader moving on to Iran when Iraq is still a bloody mess? Simple: the mission has been accomplished in Iraq.

If you're scoffing at that remark then you need to remember why the Bush administration got us into Iraq in the first place. To find WMDs? Nope. To depose a brutal tyrant? Not really. To bring freedom and democracy to the Iraq people? Okay, now you're just being silly.

Perhaps this recent news story will refresh your memory:

The Iraqi government plans to introduce a law that will give Western oil companies rights to the country's huge oil reserves, a British newspaper says.

The government is drafting a law based on "production sharing agreements (PSAs)," which will allow major oil companies to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil, the Independent on Sunday reported.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, the U.S. government says.

It said it had been given a copy of the draft law from last July, and the draft has not been changed significantly since then.

Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said.

Critics say the agreements will be bad news for Iraq because they guarantee profits to the companies while giving little to the country. With 112 billion barrels, Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world, the U.S. government says.

Oh how times change. Was it really just four years ago that Colin Powell said this?

The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Whatever form of custodianship there is ... it will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose.

By the way, whatever happened to Colin Powell? I seem to recall that guy being vaguely important at some point.

Robert Gates

Let's get back to the president's half-assed escalation plan for a moment; it was, after all, supposed to be the main thrust of his speech last week. To cut a long story short, we're fighting Al Qaeda, helping to train the Iraqi military, and when they stand up we can stand down. But since that's the same thing we've been doing all along and it hasn't been working in the slightest, we're going to try it with 20,000 more troops. That should do the trick.

However, you'll be pleased to know that the man in charge of making this all happen is the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. During congressional hearings last week, Gates told the assembled panel that, "I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq."

Hey, that's okay. It's not like the administration's Iraq experts have done such a great job anyway. The good thing is that while Robert Gates may be no expert on Iraq, he is at least an expert on military matters. According to Think Progress:

"Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was 'no expert on military matters.'"

Oh... right.

Jack Kingston

A month or so ago, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) got all bent out of shape about the Democrats' plan to make Congress work five days a week instead of three. "Keeping us up here eats away at families," he whined. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families - that's what this says." (See Idiots 271.)

Oh, boo hoo. Perhaps Kingston should listen to the wise words of a Republican congressman who spoke up on the House floor last week. According to Think Progress, that congressman said "raising the minimum wage would do nothing for poor Americans. Instead, if people marry and work longer hours, 'they would be out of poverty ... It's an economic fact.'"

See? All you have to do is work longer hours. Stop lazing around. Never mind the fact that this might "eat away at your family." Oh, and by the way, if you guessed that the congressman who made the remarks about working longer hours is Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), then give yourself a pat on the back.

(Think Progress also pointed out that not only is Kingston a huge hypocrite, he's also wrong about the minimum wage: "The annual salary for full-time workers earning the federal minimum wage 'still leaves a family of three about $6,000 short of the poverty threshold.'")

Bill Sali

One Idaho congressman has come up with a unique way to criticize the Democrats' legislation to raise the minimum wage - Rep. Bill Sali took to the House floor last week and proposed that we reduce obesity in America by abolishing the laws of gravity.

Mr. Sali's analogy was intended to "make a point that laws to dictate wages and reduce gravity would both defy 'natural laws,'" according to the Idaho Statesman.

Unfortunately it also had the unintended side effect of making him look like a complete douchebag.

Sean Hannity

Before Our Great Leader's speech last week, several news channels put up a clock counting down to the big event - but Sean Hannity had other ideas. After Bush had given his terrible speech, Hannity announced that "We're gonna count the time since the president's speech and we'll wait for a Democratic alternative... Our clock is officially ticking on the new Democratic leadership and their rhetoric. It's time to put up." Then, according to NewsHounds, "He grinned smugly as a 'ticking' clock appeared in a box with the words 'Where's their plan?'"

So where is the Democrats' plan? Well if Hannity would just stop sniffing glue for more than five seconds, he could always pick one of the following:

John Murtha's Plan

John Kerry's Plan

Joe Biden's Plan

Dennis Kucinich's Plan

Democratic House and Senate Plan (pdf)

The first four were found courtesy of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3117796">bigtree, the last one was found after ten seconds on Google. I guess Hannity has more important things to do than, you know, research. It's much more fun for him to keep that ticking clock on the screen while he spews bald-faced lies to his chronically misinformed viewers. It just wouldn't be Fox News otherwise.

Tucker Carlson

The bow-tied man-child we all love to hate, Tucker Carlson, was seeing red recently after a DC video store clerk wrote a blog entry about him. Charles Williamson told the Washington Post, "I'm just a guy with a blog. I live over MacArthur Boulevard and I go to work and sometimes I see famous people. ... I blogged about seeing Karl Rove, and the Secret Service didn't knock down my door."

So apparently Karl Rove can take it as well as dish it out. Tucker Carlson, however, is a different story.

Just before Christmas, Williamson noted on his formerly low-traffic blog that Carlson had opened an account at Potomac Video and rented a movie. "I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know. I won't tell you where he lives, though. That would be wrong and stupid."

End of story? Not quite. A week later, after Williamson had already forgotten about the post, Carlson stormed into Potomac Video and apparently "got pretty aggressive." According to Williamson, he said, "If you keep this (expletive) up, I will (expletive) destroy you."

The Post reports:

Williamson said he agreed to remove the blog post and did so later that night: "All I remember thinking was I was worried about what this guy was going to do." He consulted a lawyer friend and was told he had probably not broken any laws. "What I said was pretty juvenile, I'll admit," he said.

End of story? I'm afraid not. Again, according to the Post:

In a phone interview Thursday, Carlson acknowledged that he approached Williamson in the store and said he was "very aggressive" because he wanted the post removed: "I don't like to call the police or call his boss. ... I'm a libertarian. I'm not into that."

Which is odd, because:

On Monday, Williamson said, his Potomac Video manager called and fired him. Williamson said he was told the company was threatened with legal action "and the owner doesn't like that."

But... but... I thought Tucker was a libertarian who was "not into that?!?" Surely our Tucker wouldn't tell fibs to the Washington Post, would he?

Condoleezza Rice (And Friends)

And finally, during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq last week, Sen. Barbara Boxer spoke these shocking words to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

BOXER: Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact.

Disgusting, isn't it?

Now, I understand that some of you out there might be thinking,"...is it?" But you obviously can't see the whole picture. What Barbara Boxer said is horrible, tasteless, and downright ugly... if you're a mentally unstable right-wingnut.

According to the right-wing blogosphere, Fox News, Tony Snow, and Condoleezza Rice herself, Barbara Boxer was actually insulting the Secretary of State by noting that she doesn't have any children. Let's read what Boxer actually said one more time, and then look at the lame-assed way the wingnuts tried to spin it.

TONY SNOW: I don't know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it's outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism.

THE NEW YORK POST EDITORIAL PAGE: Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

B.T. (BLOGGER): This from people who consider themselves cultured and intellectual. What an embarrassment to liberals everywhere. Question is, does that ridiculously brutal slur even register with liberals, or is it just par for the course and Senator Boxer will easily get a pass for it? (Editor's note: B.T.'s post was titled "Barbara Boxer: Arrogant *itch.")

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is, 'Are you making good decisions because you have kids?'

Read Sen. Boxer's comments one more time and see if you can spot the "great leap backward for feminism" and the "ridiculously brutal slur."

But speaking of getting a pass, I don't remember Condi and friends getting this bent out of shape when Laura and George Bush were interviewed by People magazine last month, and this little exchange took place:

PEOPLE MAGAZINE: Nancy Pelosi shattered Congress's glass ceiling by becoming the first female Speaker of the House. Do you think there's anything a woman would do differently with the Presidency?

DUBYA: I think it depends on the individual, but there's no doubt in my mind a woman could do the job.

PICKLES: I agree. But it isn't easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.

Ouch. See you next week!

-- EarlG