The Washington Times, that is. You know, the nutjobs who have appropriated a respected name and font in order to assume the appearance of an actual newspaper? I just love this editorial about why The Decider isn't so bad after all.
Some choice excerpts:
"Love him or hate him, he's been decisive and principled."
This is one of my favorite false virtues, being "decisive" and "principled". Remember the scene in Woody Allen's "Bananas" where the dictators are making their new rules known over the loudspeaker? You know, like "From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside... so we can check."
Now that was decisive. And principled, by gum. Those guys knew that if the people wore their underwear on the inside it would lead to all sorts of government intrusion, like randomly forcing innocent folks to drop trou. Can't have that. No no, the principle is important. Call me crazy, but I don't give a rats petoot about decisiveness if the decisions being made are so horribly wrong. The same goes for the principles. It's just another way of saying hard-headed. But hey, it's my principle that everyone should give me all of their money. And women should be naked. Not all of them, just the ones I like. I'm just principled, love me or hate me.
"And while anti-Bush Web sites incessantly mock him with the moniker "worst president in history," at least more than one historian has noted: History cannot be judged in the midst of it. We are still in the midst of the Bush presidency."
Oh, now that is scary. You mean it can get worse? See my last post. I've had quite enough already, thank you. History may not be able to be judged but current reality certainly can. And current reality is far worse than anything we've already experienced in "history". And that's based only on what we already know about this presidency. Slowly but surely, more and more horrifying things keep coming to light. As "history" moves on, we'll know more and more and more, despite all of the Bush/Cheney junta's efforts to quash information about their crimes. It ain't gettin' any better, people.
Here's my favorite part of the "Times" "editorial":
"The president also has a domestic record that he can be proud of - from literacy and faith-based initiatives to judicial appointments and tax cuts. That record also includes the moral restoration of the presidency after years of the embarrassing Clinton scandals."
Oh, god! That last bit sends me spiraling into fits of uncontrolled hysteria every time I read it. Never mind the judicial appointments and tax cuts. How many motherfucking scandals do these people have to be involved in before the right wing stops and assesses them objectively as flatly and unambiguously IMMORAL? (NOTE: Rhetorical question. I know.)
Announcer: And now, ladies and germs, welcome to "Moral Faceoff" with your host, Wink Martindale! Wink?
Wink: Thanks, Johnny. Contestants, let's begin. For $100, which is more immoral, torture or a blowjob?
Contestant #1: Blowjob!
Wink: That's right! And a followup for another $50. Torture...of innocent people who happen to be muslims...or a blowjob?
Contestant #1: Blowjob!
Wink: That's right! Next question: For $200, which is more immoral, invading another nation, unprovoked and under false pretenses, causing the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and untold suffering for millions more, or a blowjob?
Contestant #2: Blowjob!
Wink: Right again!
And so on.
So thank you, dear Washington Times, for pointing out to us just how the fine folks in the White House have restored morality to the presidency. You are performing an invaluable public service.