The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 284

top10 ADMIN

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Mar-25-07 10:13 PM
Original message

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 284

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 284

March 26, 2007
Rough Justice Edition

Welcome to the 284th edition of the Top 10 Conservative Idiots. This week, Alberto Gonzales (1) hangs around, George W. Bush (2,4) gets down and dirty, J. Steven Griles (3) comes clean, and Tony Snow (5) takes a dump on the Constitution. Enjoy, and don't forget the key!

Alberto Gonzales

When Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, he said this:

I would never, ever make a change in a United States Attorney position for political reasons, or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

And at his impromptu press conference two weeks ago, Gonzales said this:

I never saw a document ... We never had a discussion about where things stood. What I knew was there was an ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson ... to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performance throughout the country.

So there you have it. The attorney general would never, ever fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons, and the firings which took place were all the fault of his former chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson, and he was never involved in any discussion regarding the firings.

Now, call me old fashioned, but isn't the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government supposed to, you know, tell the truth? Because according to the New York Times:

...e-mail messages and other documents released by the Justice Department in recent days suggest that Mr. Gonzales was told of the dismissal plan on at least two occasions, in 2005 when the plan was devised and again in late 2006 shortly before the firings were carried out.

The conflicts between the documentary record and Mr. Gonzales's version of events have contributed to an erosion of support for him in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have called for him to step down.

(snip)

In comments on March 13 at a news conference, and then again on March 14 in a television interview, Mr. Gonzales described himself as a chief executive of a large institution who delegated the task to one of his aides, and then never paid much attention to the execution of the plan.

"What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country," Mr. Gonzales said. "But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process, and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who was then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress."

Mr. Gonzales also said, more explicitly: "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."

This directly conflicts with documents released late Friday, which show he headed an hourlong meeting on the ouster plan with key members of his senior staff 10 days before the firings.

Whoops.

But let's not be so hard on Alberto Gonzales. Just because he lied under oath to Congress and lied directly to the American people, it doesn't mean he can't be a great attorney general.

George W. Bush

But of course this isn't about lying. It's about politics. Last week George W. Bush held a special press conference to announce that, "Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business."

Yes folks, apparently "the people's business" now involves the White House collaborating with the Justice Department to cripple investigations against Republican officials by firing prosecutors who don't have their noses sufficiently far up the president's backside.

Let's do a quick recap of some of the rest of the "people's business" that the Bush administration has spent the past six years working on.

Allowing wounded soliders to live in rotting, rodent-infested quarters when they return home from Iraq.

Outing a covert CIA agent and then lying about it.

Making sure that we lose three American soldiers a day for an indefinite period of time.

Throwing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at a war which most of the country thinks we shouldn't be involved in.

Torturing people in secret prisons and refusing them access to any kind of legal representation.

Dramatically increasing the gap between rich and poor Americans.

Making sure that more children go without healthcare.

Ignoring the recent increase in violent crime.

Ignoring the very real threat of global climate change.

Doing nothing to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil.

Tossing off while Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, showing up for a couple of photo-ops, and then forgetting about the whole thing.

Turning Michael Schiavo's terribly difficult and private family decision into a nationwide media circus.

Unconstitutionally spying on American citizens.

Pursuing policies which have massively increased the threat of global terrorism and then pig-headedly refusing to change course.

Letting Osama bin Laden get away.

You know, if that's the definition of "working to do the people's business," maybe Our Great Leader should take another vacation.

J. Steven Griles

Another one bit the dust last week as a former senior Bush administration official pleaded guilty to obstructing a Senate investigation.

According to the Financial Times, Steven Griles, "the former second-ranking official within the Department of the Interior, has admitted to lying to the Senate committee on Indian affairs, which, under the then-chairmanship of Senator John McCain, led a probe into allegations that Mr Abramoff, who is serving a 70-month prison term, had 'undue influence' at the department." Griles now faces up to five years in prison.

But don't blame him. Surely he was just "working to do the people's business."

George W. Bush

Last week the Democratic House passed a bill which continues to fund military operations in Iraq but sets concrete benchmarks for withdrawal, culminating in U.S troops leaving Iraq by the end of August 2008 at the latest.

Apparently George W. Bush thinks that the 2006 mid-term elections never happened. Just 45 minutes after the bill passed, he threw a mini-tantrum in front of reporters.

Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.

Presumably Bush is talking about the military commanders that he appointed after firing the ones who thought we should pull out of Iraq (see Idiots 273). But never mind that now, focus instead on the wonderful catchphrase, "in an act of political theater."

Now take a look at how George W. Bush chose to make this announcement about the Democrats awful use of "political theater."

In case you were wondering, those are military veterans (and their kids) that Bush is using as a human shield.

But lets be fair. George W. Bush has always despised "political theater," as you can see from these photos which were recently re-discovered by members of DU:

Tony Snow

Big news! Last week White House press secretary Tony Snow announced that the Constitution has been re-written. Here's what he told ABC News last week:

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability.

In case you thought that was a slip-up, here's what he told reporters later that same day:

...the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House.

Oh really? It's just that when I typed "congress" and "oversight" into Google, the first result that came up was this official State Department web page entitled "Oversight Powers of Congress" which says:

Dictionaries define "oversight" as "watchful care," and this approach has proven to be one of the most effective techniques that Congress has adopted to influence the executive branch. Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud; protects civil liberties and individual rights; ensures executive compliance with the law; gathers information for making laws and educating the public; and evaluates executive performance. It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the presidency.

(snip)

Time and again, the oversight power of Congress has proven to be an essential check in monitoring the presidency and controlling public policy.

Why, that appears to be the complete opposite of what Tony Snow just said. I wonder who is right?

Thank goodness that when Republicans were in charge of Congress and we had a Democratic president, they were equally respectful of the idea that Congress has no oversight power over the White House. I mean, take this little tidbit from a 2005 article in the Boston Globe:

Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.

In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

The jarring comparison reflects the way Congress has conducted its oversight role during the GOP's era of one-party rule in Washington.

Look, I know this Constitutional stuff can be confusing, so let me put it in simple terms:

When the Legislative Branch is controlled by Republicans and the Executive Branch is contolled by Republicans, Congress has no oversight over the White House.

When the Legislative Branch is controlled by Democrats and the Executive Branch is controlled by Republicans, Congress has no oversight over the White House.

When the Legislative Branch is controlled by Republicans and the Executive Branch is controlled by Democrats, Congress has an urgent responsibility to investigate the president's Christmas card list, his cat's fan club, and, of course, the contents of his underpants.

I don't know if that's exactly how the Founding Fathers intended Congressional oversight to work, but if Tony Snow says it then I guess it must be true.

Lauren Maggi

Your attention please: a case of someone spitting on the troops has finally been documented.

A Syracuse woman accused of spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at Hancock Airport pleaded guilty today, offering an apology and an explanation.

Lauren Maggi had been verbally abused on the phone by a male acquaintance who is in the military at Fort Drum, and she "displaced her anger" when she encountered the victim as she walked through the airport, defense lawyer Louis Mannara said.

Shocking stuff. And what does this leftist anti-war moonbat have to say for herself?

"I was crushed that people saw this as an anti-uniform, anti-war gesture," Maggi said. Maggi said she is a registered Republican who twice voted for President George W. Bush and supports the administration's war effort and the soldiers who are carrying out that mission.

Hmm.

Neil Cavuto

Last week a comprehensive new study marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq revealed "an increasing pessimism and feeling of insecurity since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." The study, "conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today," shows that "Support for the coalition forces based in Iraq is low - with 82% expressing a lack of confidence in them and 69% thinking they had made the security situation worse." Meanwhile, "The belief that the US-led coalition was wrong to have invaded Iraq in 2003 has steadily increased since 2004."

And while "a majority still believe (coalition forces) should remain in the country until security is restored," the number of people who believe that attacks on coalition forces are acceptable has risen from 17% in 2004 to 51% in 2007.

So how did Neil Cavuto mark the fourth anniversary of the invasion on Fox News?

College Republicans

For the past month, College Republicans have been engaging in a series of "games" intended to draw attention to the issue of illegal immigration. Unsurprisingly, these "games" are all intended to fuel racial division and xenophobia.

The latest offering came from Idaho College Republicans who, according to the Idaho Statesman, recently "advertised a speech about illegal immigration with a dinner for two at a local Mexican restaurant for the winner of a 'food stamp drawing' that required climbing through a hole in a chain link fence and offering fake identification."

Another popular form of entertainment among College Republicans is the "Catch the Illegal Immigrant" game, which involves participants running around campus trying to track down a student wearing an "illegal immigrant" tag.

Just one question: is there a reason that these College Republicans are dicking around on campus instead of signing up for the military and shipping off to Iraq? I mean, other than abject cowardice, obviously.

Dan Patrick

Conservative talk radio host and state senator Dan Patrick has come up with a fascinating way to reduce the number of abortions in Texas. Last week, according to the Houston Chronicle, he announced that he "wants the state to pay $500 to women who give their babies up for adoption instead of aborting them, an idea some say borders on baby selling."

Er, borders on?

But perhaps Patrick is on to something here. I mean - why stop at babies? If Texas is willing to pay $500 for a newborn, surely they can afford $1000 for a toddler. And what about your teenage son? There will always be work out there for a healthy young lad of 14 or 15 - in a factory, perhaps, or down a mine shaft. That ought to be worth at least ten grand to the state.

Tom DeLay

And finally: he's back! Last week Tom DeLay appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball" (and various other cable news political yakfests) in order to promote his new book, No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight. The book is apparently a crushing indictment of DeLay's Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives, most notably Dick Armey. That's nice.

Anyway, during his appearance on "Hardball," DeLay seemed a little confused about what's actually in his book.

MATTHEWS: You know, one of the fellows we've had on this show on occasion is Dick Armey, we've had him on quite a bit, and I don't know him that well, I didn't have any problems with him, I didn't have to work with him, I thought he was an okay guy, he seems to be a Knights of Columbus type, a regular guy. (laughter) I don't think he was Knights of Columbus but he seemed like a regular guy. You say he was drunk with ambition.

DELAY: Actually that's not what I said, what I said was he was blinded by ambition. Er, drunk with ambition is a quote of a cliche. I said...

MATTHEWS: Oh, well why would I underline it in the book. Go ahead, continue on your thought, he was blinded by ambition. I'll look for drunk.

DELAY: What I did in the book, Chris, is I talked about all of our strengths and weaknesses, and telling the story of what went on in the Republican majority over the last twelve years in this book, of course I'm going to talk about my strengths and my weaknesses, and the players' strengths and weaknesses. I compliment Armey on the fact that he put together the Contract With America and did a fabulous job in writing the bills of our agenda, of, of the...

MATTHEWS: (quoting from the book) "He resented me for being the other Texan on the leadership team and he resented anyone who he thought might get in the way of his becoming Speaker of the House. Beware the man drunk with ambition."

DELAY: Er, read the sentence before that.

MATTHEWS: That's what I just did.

DELAY: It says "blinded by ambition."

MATTHEWS: No, I'll read the sentence again. (quoting) "He resented me..." (pauses, laughing) It's right here in your book, you gotta read it! (hands book to DeLay) I'm sorry Tom, it's there. You say he was drunk with ambition.

DELAY: That is the cliche, but right up here...

MATTHEWS: Well you didn't put it in italics.

DELAY: I don't have my glasses on.

Impressive, no? Tom DeLay writes a book and then denies the words he uses, even as someone sitting three feet away is holding the book and directly quoting it to him. And when he is handed the book and asked to read it himself, he says he doesn't have his glasses on.

Good effort, Tom. If you can't see the words that you wrote, then obviously they must not exist.

See you next week!

-- EarlG