Monday, July 23, 2007

This is what a hilariously dumb 25 percenter looks like



Today's nugget of comedy gold is brought to you by Stephen Sabludowsky of the Bayou Buzz in Louisiana. Somewhere, in their cozy home offices, the superstars of the wingnutosphere must be quaking, as they contemplate this upstart from the Deep South (home of Bubba, damn it!) and imagine how their rhetorical skills and laundry lists of talking points can possibly can possibly top an article titled...drum roll please...Feingold's Iraq Censorship Resolution Is Bad Policy.

Iraq WHAT is bad policy?!?!?

Yo. Jonah Goldberg? You there? We don't need you anymore. We've found a new right-wing stupid who makes you look like Keith Olbermann. Maybe, after you're done crying into your beer, you can get back to work on that silly book of yours. What's it called again? Liberal Fascism from Hegel to Whole Foods? On second thought, maybe you should ask your mommy for more money.

Ahem. If you think the title is great, wait till you read the article.

U.S. Senator Russell Feingold wants to censure President Bush and possibly others in the Administration over events leading up to Iraq and for the handling of the Iraq War.

That would be a terrible idea and a step backwards for the United States.

As Feingold prepares the resolution which already appears to have support from some Democratic leaders, the question that should be asked is--whether it will do more good than harm at a time when we are trying to deal with a crises in the Middle East and Iraq, when terrorists have only grown in numbers and when America requires major infrastructure improvements such as focusing upon the rebuild of New Orleans.

YIPPEE! He's managed to use the word "censure" instead of "censor"! And he's says "Democratic" leaders instead of "Democrat" leaders! For bonus points, he's a right winger who actually remembers that we have "a crises in the Middle East" and should focus on "the rebuild of New Orleans."

The censure would be “impeachment lite”. Although Feingold mentioned on Sunday news program words such as “criminal”, there will be a time and place for making that judgment.

Ooooooooh! Ooooooooooh! Feingold said the word "criminal"! That's a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD word! It's like the "n" word to Republicans! Bad Russell! Bad, bad, BAAAAAAAAAD Russell!

President Bush’s legacy is surely on the line and it will be judged upon whether he can achieve peace and stability in a country and in an area which has become a tinderbox ready to explode.

Yo. Dude. I think we can all forget about Bush trying to salvage his legacy.

There is a good argument that Congress should make a “historical record” to prevent future military incursions until and unless the country has all of the facts and war is deemed absolutely necessary. But, the censure resolution is bad for a number of reasons.

What do you mean, "good argument"? It's a necessity. Congress should be doing stuff like this. And you think it's a bad idea.

Say, before going forward, let's have fun with a dictionary. Specifically, the online edition of Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a place where you look up words and find out what they mean. It is very helpful for people like Mr. Sabludowsky.

The definition of censure:

1 : a judgment involving condemnation
2 archaic : OPINION, JUDGMENT
3 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly
4 : an official reprimand

The definition of censorship:

1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

Ahem. Back to the article.

For America to solve this Iraq nightmare, it will take a bi-partisan effort to override any possible Presidential veto. By embarrassing the President, it would be a certainty that Republicans would rally around the flag and make it much more difficult to work for Democrats and Republicans to work together.

"Bipartisan effort"? Dude, did you have a straight face when you wrote this? Bipartisan efforts are what Bush wants when the mean Democrats are hurting his widdle fee-wings. You know this, right?

And what's this about "embarrassing the president"? Bush doesn't need Feingold or anyone else in Congress to do that.

Censuring the President would just be a waste of time, inflame the nation’s emotions when we have serious business at hand.

Quick, someone give this guy a calendar. "Inflame the nation's emotions"? Has he been overseas, on some South Pacific Island--say, Tonga--making an effort to tune out the regular American news? I'm serious. He's clearly living in a time warp where it's 2002 and wingnuts can get away with saying all kinds of dumb shit and no one will call on them on it. Particularly dumb shit like this:

Censuring President Bush would instill confidence in the terrorists who would love nothing more than to repudiate President Bush and to embarrass him as a symbol of the “evil empire”.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Okay, I've stopped laughing. Seriously, dude, not only will that dog not hunt anymore, but said dog was in fact put down quite some time ago.

We should wait for the full report from General Petraeus and from Ambassador Ryan Crocker for military ground level and for foreign relations assessments. Precipitous action, now that the Surge is in operation, would be unfortunate with events moving very quickly.

Okay, why is this a Surge as opposed to a plain ol' surge? We'll never know if Feingold's Iraq censorship goes ahead.

The way out of Iraq is to force the Iraqis to be responsible, to provide them the support that is absolutely needed and to make certain that removal of troops is the wise course of action. Partisanship for political gain will not work. It hurt the Clinton Administration during impeachment and it will further damage the Bush administration during the time of need.

"Force the Iraqis to be responsible"? What the fuck does he think this is, junior high school? Note the right wing projection. Of course, the Republicans were engaging in partisanship, whining about Clinton wagging the dog in Kosovo. But our brave Mr. Sabludowsky has a point. Impeachment hurt Clinton so badly that he left office with approval ratings that Bush can only dream of.

Say, Mr. Sabludowsky, perhaps this Iraq, erm, censorship would be good for Bush.

No doubt, President Bush has made some serious miscalculations during this horrifying experience which has caused over 3500 American deaths fighting a war that probably need not to have been fought.

I'm confused about "this horrifying experience which has caused over 3500 American deaths fighting a war." You can actually fight a war when you're dead? Is that what he's saying?

Bush has made other mistakes and it has cost and will cost his party dearly.

Hooray! Whoot whoot! Finally Mr. Sabludowsky says something that makes sense!

But, a censureship vote only opens up a wound for no really good reason and does not salve our sores.

Of course, it doesn't. There's no such thing as a "censureship" vote because there's no such thing as "censureship." Again, maybe some nice person should buy Mr. Sabludowsky a dictionary so he will learn and understand that just because two words have similar spelling and pronunciation, that doesn't mean they mean the same thing. Otherwise, I suspect that he'll be carrying Lipton tea bags to the golf course.

Back to the mealy-mouthed "you're being MEAN to Bush--WAAAAAAAAAH!" doublespeak typical of the Sabludowskys of the world.

We need healing. We need closure. We need to work together in a bi-partisan way with the support of the Administration as was promised when the Democrats took over.

Promised by WHOM?

Yes, President Bush defied all odds after the election and went on his own course. History will prove whether he has been right or wrong. Leadership will fix Iraq and return America to a just cause in the Middle East and throughout the world.

You mean "leadership" as in "someone other than the current president and his cabinet," right?

Tearing down the man who happens to be occupying the Oval Office is a waste of time, will result in the opposite of what the resolution drafters desire and will hurt America in the short and in the long haul.

Tell that to the Watergate Committee.

Let’s send the censureship packing.

Let's write to the Bayou Buzz and suggest that their copy editors do a better job. If you're going to publish this stuff, you can at least run the spell check before the articles are published.

On the plus side, at least Sabludowsky didn't imagine what the Martians might say about this. Probably because if there really are Martians, they've decided people like him are proof positive that Earth has no intelligent life.

0 comments: