Bill KristLOL Is At It Again!!

Conservative pundit and editor of The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, has recently published an article that is well...hilarious. He portends that not only has the Bush administration made the world a much safer place and that the 'war on terror' has been handled well, but anyone who has any hand in doing so should be given the Medal of Freedom. (More on the Bush Administration's failed policy in Kevin's latest post before this one.)

Bill Kristol: "Before He Goes"

A few key excerpts:

"Bush should consider pardoning--and should at least be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points."

"The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it."

For his intelligence and amazing patriotism, Bill Kristol receives his own personal rank on the poLOLitics LOLscale:

Bill KristLOL

Known for his douchebaggery and inane commentary on FoXx N3wz, The Weekly Standard, and the New York Times, Bill KristLOL has been making bold and idiotic statements since he entered this life, 55 long years ago. Most famously, Bill KristLOL, an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, predicted in 2003 that the Iraq war would cost 'no more than $200 billion' (It costs nearly $1 trillion so far.) And in March 2005, two years after the U.S began the Iraq war: 'We'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction.' John Stewart of the Daily Show, hit the nail on the head when, in January 2008, he asked: "Oh Bill Kristol, are you ever right?" So far, not once.

Congratulations to Bill KristLOL on earning his first poLOLitics award! You'll notice that I haven't really provided any detailed commentary on the article. There is a reason for that. I'd like to write less initially, and see what you guys think. That way we can foster more of a friendly back and forth. Think that Billy didn't deserve the award? Am I being unfair? Share your thoughts in a comment below!

Post-Bush...or Not?

Going in to this long awaited post-Bush era, I, like many others, were most of all relieved to realize that, beginning January 2009, America would have an intelligent, competent, and invigorating figure in the White House and NOT George W. Bush (or one of his acolytes). Imagine how surprised I was to learn from Jules Crittenden of the Weekly Standard that Obama, in fact, would be much obliged to continue Bush's policies with regards to - of all policy areas - the Middle East. According to Jules, Obama should not only count the fruits of Bush's labours among his blessings, he should adopt many of what Crittenden considers to be his best works: among these are the cheerful affair in Iraq, the deplorable tolerance of torture, the blind trust of Gen. Petraeus, etc, ad nauseum.

As the transition progresses and Barack Obama's inauguration draws closer, it's a good moment to mull the gifts George W. Bush has left for the incoming president. Bush has made the world a better place, and if Obama wants to do the same, he will take the good things Bush has done and move forward with them.
-Jules Crittenden, Weekly Standard

A Time for Thanksgiving In my humble opinion, this is an act of self-conscious desperation on the part of a dispirited neoconservative. The optimism and clarity that laces the article's tone is rendered meaningless by the mere degree of impossibility. Sure, Obama is going to have to toe a more moderate road than he, perhaps, would like. But his administration will enter with an (almost) overwhelming majority in the Congress and a public that is willing to accept less than 100% success, as long as there is perceived progress and improvement from Bush's golden years. Clearly, the last thing the President-elect will want to do, from a political standpoint, is emulate the most consistently unpopular president, whether domestically or internationally, in the history of the States. And, from a pragmatic point of view, it's a good thing because, quite frankly, it would be a horrible path for this country's leadership to follow. Not only have the Bush policies directly aided and abetted the current market crisis, they have destabilized the Middle East and played a part in legitimizing the allure of fundamentalism (from a cultural standpoint) to the hearts in minds of countless Muslims (from a psychological standpoint)in a vital strategic pressure point (from a geopolitical standpoint). A short tally will conclude that economically, culturally, psychologically, and geopolitically, George W. Bush has diminished the American state in hard power, soft economic clout, diplomatic influence, not to mention basic respect. Would anyone like to claim that the world, or any part of it, views as a more positive influence than we were eight years ago (besides the terrorist organizations that have made it clear that Bush-style policies benefit them driectly)? And further, would anyone like to stand up, in front of these facts, these proven and accepted observations, and boldly claim that no, clearly not: Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and co. have left Obama with a good hand, "the world a better place"? Whosoever would take that challenge on is either a master of manipulation or dangerously ill-informed, in my humble opinion, if not both.

*Note: I do apologise for the lack of "LOL" in recent posts, but there have been so many important opinions we've needed to comment on that time for "LMAO" has been tight. I assure you, either Louis or I will address this dreadful drought of "ROFL" in the coming days. Thanks for reading!

Oh..Hi...George

While traveling through the tubes of the internet I stumbled across this video and decided it was worth sharing. Its actually pretty unbelievable. I watched it twice, just to make sure it was real, and sadly, it is. Its only a minute long, so I wont bother wasting any more time with a description.

The first winner of the entry-level poLOLitics lol-rating, president George W. Bush:

Oh...Hi...George

This video is awarded a:

Bill O'Rofl

A self described 'political traditionalist,' Bill O'Rofl was born in 1949, hosting one of his first shows on WNEP-TV in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He has been an asshole ever since. Bill O'Rofl's popular cable news show, the O'Reilly Factor, airs daily on FoXx N3wz and is full of the usual xenophobia, overt racism and sexism that is expected of any 'traditionalist' pundit. He is however, considered our lowest rating on the lol-scale because lets face it...the guy is a joke.


After watching this video, I wasn't sure at first if I should laugh or cry. But after some serious thought, I decided it was time to laugh. He really does look like 'the most unpopular kid in highschool.' All he needed was a piece of toilet paper stuck to his shoe and it would've been perfect. Also, notice how he has perfected the stare-down-at-my-shoes awkward conversation tactic.

P.S - Wtf Rick Sanchez two days in a row. Seriously, a complete coincidence.