Gingrich has seen enough from his GOP

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of parodies on YouTube featuring a scene from "Downfall," a movie about Hitler's last 10 days. The clip lends itself to very humorous twisting; the monologue is in German, and folks have written subtitles that tell, among many things, the Fuehrer's anger with Vista, having his car stolen, and the Buffalo Bills signing Terrell Owens.

The Forth Estate has joined the fray with its take on how New Gingrich must be feeling about his party these days. The content, while R-rated, is current; hopefully the subtle ironies come across as well as "Newt's" bombastic pronouncements.

Be sure to click HQ in the lower right corner for cleaner subtitles.

Enjoy.

Bulldog Fleischer still peddling Iraq-9/11 connection

Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, was a guest on MSNBC's Harball with Chris Matthews Wednesday, and it was cable news gold.

Clearly, Fleischer is a dyed-in-the-wool Bush apologist, his every appearance on television a verbatim rehashing of the tired lines sold to the American public nearly six years ago.

Beyond the obligatory repulsiveness of Fleischer's arrogant and dismissive nature, he made a couple of outrageous, though unoriginal, comments during the shout fest, at least one of which struck a chord with Matthews' well-informed viewership.

In all fairness, though he is very charismatic and isn't the kind of host to allow guests to skirt questions, Matthews will push a point when he feels it's popular with Americans, and his willingness to talk over guests in search of the answer he wants can grate even his most faithful. 

In contrast with the nastiness of rubes like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, however, Matthews is a kitten. 

Besides, Fleischer deserved the roasting he received.

YES, THEY STILL DO THIS

His first comment was to conflate the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 with the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Said Fleischer: "After September 11th, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again? And that's the threat that's been removed …"

Fleischer spoke with Matthews today to "clarify" his comments, saying he didn't intend to suggest Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but that he had struck his neighbors before and might turn his sites on the U.S.

Of course, there is no mistaking what he actually said. Not only was his first statement a direct implication of Saddam in the attack on America, but his follow-up, "… that's the threat that's been removed …," is a clear indication of how former Bushies want to keep spinning his legacy: It was Saddam, not al Qaeda terrorists, that posed the greatest danger to this country, and now he is gone because of Bush.

Frank Gaffney, Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, took to the air Thursday to defend Fleischer, apparently right after discussing the game plan with him so as to utilize the same Clintonesque syntax semantics.

Gaffney's performance was more of the same kabuki theater Americans have come to expect from Neo-Con automatons who, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, will go to their graves insisting not only that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but the reasons given have stood the test of time. 

They are not saying Saddam was behind 9/11 … even though he was, but they're not saying that … but he was.

SO, WHEN DOES A PRESIDENT BECOME THE PRESIDENT?

The most outrageous statement from Fleischer was during a heated exchange where he used common phrases of Republican indignation like, "How dare you," and, "What you just did is shameful." Of course, what else can he say when he's dead wrong?

His comments were, though, of the most maddening spin that has ever come from the GOP.

Fleischer, as do all Bush's former aides, touted the one factual claim of "success" they have: The country has not been attacked since 9/11.

When Matthews took him to task on this standard of success, pointing out Bush was in office when the country was attacked on 9/11 and, by Fleischer's own measure, Bush's administration was an epic failure, Fleischer feigned moral outrage that someone would ever put that off on a president.

Yes, really.

THE PARTY OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

There was a lustful eagerness within the GOP following 9/11 to blame President Clinton for the attack. Of course, there was never a Republican acceptance of responsibility for the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, just more than a month into Clinton's presidency; that, too, was his fault.

And, despite an economy that has been reeling and hemorrhaging job for nearly two years, there are fringe folks within the GOP — no, that doesn't completely encapsulate the party … yet — who blame President Obama for the current financial crisis.

Of course, that didn't stop Fleischer from asking Matthews, were the country to be attacked soon, if Obama would be blamed.

It truly becomes impossible to wrap one's head around the arguments/justifications/rationalizations of Bush's legion of hacks, and it's never advisable to try to get into the mind of sociopaths. But, we can still have some fun with it.

So … when the WTC was bombed 37 days into his presidency, killing six, it was Clinton's fault. Then the country was attacked in four separate incidences on 9/11 — eight months into Bush's presidency — killing nearly 3,000. But this was not Bush's fault.

Then, in the 2004 campaign against John Kerry, Dick Cheney said America had better vote for Bush, or "the danger is, we'll get hit again."

Republicans tried the same ploy against Obama last year, only to realize most of America had tuned out their ridiculous rhetoric and were not about to be scared into voting for the wrong guy again.

In the waning days of Bush's time in office, the legacy spin machine was in full effect, with Dick et al telling everyone who would listen what a great job the administration had done to prevent further attacks.

DON'T BLAME ME, I WAS AT THE RANCH

Which brings us back to 9/11. Most folks forget Bush not only had been in office for nearly eight months prior to the attack, but he also took a month-long vacation from early August to early September. 

Former CIA Director George Tenet said he did not have a single briefing with Bush during August, despite CIA fears there was an imminent attack in the works.

And there was the Aug. 6 Presidential daily briefing, entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

All of this begs questions even a child would ask, many of which have already been posed. But there's no point in submitting the most crucial: How can Republicans constantly preach personal responsibility when they never accept any for their failures? No one will ever answer. 

But there is this one worth mentioning, even rhetorically: When will you pink old fools shut up and go away?

One View for Four Faces

Lost in the great debate of Rush Limbaugh's place in the hierarchy of Republican leadership was an almost unnoticed remark the entertainer made a few days ago regarding open primaries. 

For those unfamiliar with the process, many states allow voters of any political affiliation to cast their ballot for anyone during the presidential primary season. Thus, an Indiana Democrat can vote for a Republican candidate in May, and vice versa.

Limbaugh, in yet another flurry of mostly unintelligent and brazenly ironic arguments, sounded off against the open primary system and charged RNC Chair Michael Steele with ridding the GOP of the possible onslaught of Democrats seeking to subvert Republican elections.

What is the term psychologists use?

No one can forget Operation Chaos, Limbaugh's infamous attempt to derail then-candidate Barack Obama's building momentum by encouraging Republicans to cross over and help nominate Hillary Clinton last Spring. 

At the time, almost exactly a year ago, Obama was cruising through 11 straight primary victories; John McCain was already the presumptive GOP nominee, so the party could afford to shed some votes "for the cause." Many pundits believed Clinton a weaker foe.

There is some evidence to suggest the ploy worked, namely in Texas and Indiana. Texas voting statistics showed Clinton won the lion's share of cross-over vote, and she also faired very well in Indiana's rural, thus red, counties. Clinton edged Obama in both states.

Apparently, Limbaugh is now terrified that his cute little game, which might have won a few battles but ultimately lost the war, could now be used against the GOP in 2012. 

While there was much gnashing of teeth at Limbaugh's hijinx, many Democrats will likely employ the tactics next time around. Obama won't have a primary fight, so Dems could wage a little chaos of their own and have a big hand in determining the president's general election opponent.

HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO HOME

Unfortunately, the "my rules apply to everyone but me" doctrine is owned by those on the left, as well. There is no greater example of this truth than liberals who insist on freedom of speech but are the very first to slap someone down when their sensitivities have been offended.

There is little more maddening to thoughtful, centrist Dems or liberal-leaning Independents than the senseless whining from weak-principled leftists who demand their voices be heard on any agenda they've set, yet will let loose the dogs of war when some crackpot calls basketball players "nappy-headed hoes."

Limbaugh again recently provided the chum by enthusiasticallly cheering for President Obama to fail. His statements, liberals complain, are tantamount to treason — Limbaugh hates America and wants the country to fail.

While Limbaugh may very well be the woman willing to let King Solomon cut the baby in half lest it not be her's alone, are his views really treasonous? Really?

During President Bush's 8 years in office, many books were written on the subject of "unpatriotic liberals" who wanted to destroy America. Psychotics such as Ann Coulter have penned their nonsense on the topic.

But now Democrats are in power, so it is they who decide who hates America.

"PATRIOTISM IS THE VIRTUE OF THE VICIOUS"

All of this makes for great theater and coffee house debate, but none of it remotely promotes the civil discourse and progression of this country. 

You'll find no argument on this blog against the notion Limbaugh and his "ditto heads" — and seriously, only fools would proudly proclaim themselves so devoid of intellectual reasoning and thought as to blindly mirror a radio clown — have only their interests in mind. They are the Joker, happy to set fire to that which they cannot control and gleefully watch it all burn.

But how does becoming that with which you disagree elevate the discussion? How does the devotion of so much energy to proving the radical right looneys of the world aren't "real Americans" help the American cause?

Pointing out and discussing "unpatriotic" comments is, of course, necessary; evil ignored and left to its own devices is the scariest of subversives. The harm is not the acknowledgment of the lesser ideals of man, but the way in which those ideals are rejected.

If Dad witnesses a fool being a fool and uses a four-letter word to describe him, his daughter has learned less about that which she shouldn't do and more about nastiness and contempt of her fellow man. 

But if Dad points out the foolish behavior and explains to his little one "why we don't do that," she has learned something that will help her grow and be an example to others.

Oscar Wilde's famous quote is well-taken: When will those who claim to love America use their patriotism as a constructive means for all and not the tip of a spear aimed at those with whom they disagree? When will adults stop speaking and thinking and reasoning as children? When will those who espouse a belief apply it to themselves?

With the greatest sense of hope, and likely naiveté, that time might spring from Obama's leadership.