FORD
10-16-2006, 09:33 AM
<blockquote>
<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/264.jpg" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 264</b></font><br /><br />October 16, 2006<br /><i>The Price Of Indifference Edition</i><br /><br />With just over three weeks to go until the mid-term elections, the GOP is in big trouble - and when the GOP is in big trouble, you can be sure that conservative idiocy will be off the charts. George W. Bush (1,10) shows us the price of indifference, John McCain demonstrates his maverick streak by, er, bashing Bill Clinton, and Dennis Hastert (3) is in "grave" condition. Elsewhere, Katherine Harris (4) rigs another election, new revelations could spell disaster for George Allen (7), and Fox News (9) gets it wrong... again. Enjoy, and don't forget the <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/key.html" target="_blank">key</a>!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/01.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>George W. Bush</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/warmongering.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/helping_terrorists.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/flip-flop.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Cast your minds back for a moment to George W. Bush's State of the Union Address in 2002, where he <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html" target="_blank">said this</a> of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.</div><br />Bush was talking about Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. And as we all know, Our Great Leader went on to invade and occupy Iraq, which of those three countries was the only one not in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction. Good job.<br /><br />Now cast your minds back to the 2004 presidential debates. In the first debate, John Kerry was asked <a href="http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html" target="_blank">this simple question</a>: "If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?" Here's Kerry's response:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There's some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing it, it'll take 13 years to get it.<br /><br />I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago - six, seven years ago - called "The New War," which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it. And the black market sale price was about $250 million.<br /><br />Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today.<br /><br />And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11.<br /><br />We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can't cut the money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership.<br /><br />And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.</div><br />Bush's response to the same question?<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the president. Secondly, we've set up what's called the - well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that's why proliferation is one of the centerpieces of a multi-prong strategy to make the country safer.<br /><br />My administration started what's called the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials.<br /><br />And we've been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya.</div><br />Effective? If you consider North Korea's <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-09T065452Z_01_L08141538_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH.xml" target="_blank">recent test-firing of an atomic weapon</a> to be a positive result of Bush's campaign against nuclear proliferation, then I guess you could say that he's been very effective. What was that about "the price of indifference" again?<br /><br />But believe it or not, there are actually people out there who think Kim Jong Il's nuke test <i>was</i> a positive result. Take John Gibson of Fox News for example, who <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/10/korea-nukes-good-news" target="_blank">said last week</a>, "Does the fact that the North Koreans actually tested a nuclear weapon balance out the bad news from this Foley scandal?"<br /><br />Sane people, however, tend to think that a nuclear North Korea is not really that awesome.<br /><br />The good news though is that, as usual, Bush is standing strong and staying the course. <a href="http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/?page=details&id=4834&t=Archive" target="_blank">According to</a> the Associated Press:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">President Bush unapologetically defended his approach to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program Wednesday, pledging he would not change course despite contentions that Pyongyang’s apparent atomic test proved the failure of his nearly six years of effort.<br /><br />Bush rejected the idea of direct U.S.-North Korea talks, saying the Koreans were more likely to listen if confronted with the combined protest of many nations.<br /><br />The president said he was not backing down from his assertion three years ago that "we will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."</div><br />Bush also said that, "I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military." That's nice, since the Pentagon predicts "52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang," <a href="http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20565819-661,00.html" target="_blank">according to</a> the <i>Herald Sun</i>.<br /><br />But hey, the world is safer now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power! Or something.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/02.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>John McCain</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/clinton_hating.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/clinton_hating.gif" border="0"><br /><br />With Bush denouncing "the price of indifference" and then ignoring North Korea for four years right up until the moment they tested an atomic bomb, there can only be one person to blame for this mess. That's right! It's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.clinton.ap/" target="_blank">Bill Clinton's fault</a>.<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.<br /><br />"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.<br /><br />"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.</div><br />Hmm. According to that same article, "In U.S.-North Korea relations, the initial breakthrough occurred in October 1994, when U.S. negotiators persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program, with onsite monitoring by U.N. inspectors. In exchange, the United States, with input from South Korea and Japan, promised major steps to ease North Korea's acute energy shortage."<br /><br />So Bill Clinton was responsible for freezing North Korea's nuclear program. I see. And according to a <a href="http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=258410&" target="_blank">study</a> by the National Security Advisory Group, here's the amount of plutonium that North Korea produced under the last three presidents:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">George H. W. Bush: one to two bombs' worth<br /><br />Bill Clinton: none<br /><br />George W. Bush: four to six bombs' worth</div><br /><a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/89305,cst-nws-nknuke09.article" target="_blank">According to</a> the Associated Press:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Some experts estimate that at least 80 percent of the country's stockpile of 44 to 116 pounds of refined plutonium was processed since the end of the freeze in 2002.</div><br />Of course, Our Great Leader had the chance to continue Bill Clinton's successful policy when he came into office, but obviously that would have been unacceptable. After all, Clinton's <i>penis</i> might have been near it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,102313,00.html" target="_blank">Here's what happened instead</a>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Asked to explain his rejection of South Korean president Kim Dae Jung's recommendation that Washington urgently pursue President Clinton's efforts to negotiate an end to North Korea's missile program, Bush told reporters, "We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements."<br /><br />That, of course, was a potentially catastrophic gaffe by a president whose problems in choosing the words that best convey his ideas can prove to be a killer liability in international diplomacy, where a leader's every word is parsed for nuance by friend and foe. For the record, the U.S. has only one agreement with North Korea - the 1994 accord to stop the production of weapons-grade nuclear fuel in exchange for assistance by Japan, South Korea and the U.S. in developing alternative energy sources (including a series of lower-grade nuclear reactors). And as U.S. officials hurried to emphasize immediately after Bush's statement, Washington has no evidence that North Korea is not complying with the terms of that agreement. Given the epic paranoia and unpredictability of the regime in Pyongyang, the last thing you want to do is accuse them of cheating - unless you're consciously setting out to take it to the next level.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />Bush's response to Kim raised eyebrows all over Washington and beyond because Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to be leaning in the opposite direction the previous day. Powell had implied that the Bush administration would continue the Clinton administration's search for agreements with North Korea to curb its missile program and other dangers.<br /><br />Even though the secretary of state dutifully fell in line the following day, the tenor of Bush's comments suggested that more hawkish elements in the administration may have been making their presence felt. After all, Bush could quite simply have done the "we wholeheartedly support South Korea's peace efforts and are studying ways to take it forward" routine - the diplomatic equivalent of "no comment" - instead of pointedly questioning the wisdom of negotiating with Pyongyang, which was a sharp slapdown to President Kim's "sunshine" policy of reconciliation with the North.</div><br />So it seems that John "Straight Talk" McCain is "talking straight" out of his ass.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/03.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Dennis Hastert</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/coveringass.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/lying.gif" border="0"><br /><br />There were big developments in the ongoing Masturgate scandal when Speaker Dennis Hastert gave a <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4250261.html" target="_blank">press conference</a> last week to announce that if any of his staff had engaged in a cover-up, "then they should not continue to have their jobs." This passing of the buck comes after Hastert had previously announced that "Ultimately, the buck stops here" (see Idiots <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/263" target="_blank">263</a>).<br /><br />For some reason, Denny decided to give his press conference in front of a graveyard. Sadly he failed to complete the presumably unintentional yet hilarious irony by whistling.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/264_hastert.jpg" border="0"></center><br />If Hastert is going to fire anyone who covered up the Foley scandal, he really should start by firing himself. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/washington/13foley.html?ref=us" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>New York Times</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">A longtime aide to former Representative Mark Foley testified before the House ethics committee for nearly five hours on Thursday, repeating under oath his account of having explicitly warned Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office at least three years ago that Mr. Foley should be told to keep his distance from Congressional pages.<br /><br />The aide, Kirk Fordham, was the first sworn witness to appear before the bipartisan ethics panel, which is investigating whether any Republican leaders knew about Mr. Foley's conduct, which was ultimately exposed in a series of sexually explicit exchanges with former pages, and whether anything was done about it.</div><br />So let me get this straight: Kirk Fordham "explicitly warned" Hastert's office that Mark Foley was going after congressional pages, and <i>none</i> of Hastert's staff bothered to mention it to him? If you believe that, I've got a truckload of <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10054116/" target="_blank">Celestial Drops</a> to sell you.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/04.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Katherine Harris</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/batshit_crazy.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Like that segue? Yes, Katherine Harris was back in the news last week after new polls showed her ahead of Democratic candidate Bill Nelson in their senate race. It's true - she sent out press releases to the media last week <a href="http://lledit.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061009/COLUMNISTS0502/610090374/1106/NEWS" target="_blank">announcing the results</a>.<br /><br />Don't panic just yet though - the poll in question was actually a straw vote held at the Lakeland Chamber's Politics in the Park event. Did I mention that you had to pay $25 to take part? Oh, and did I mention that 6-year-olds could vote?<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/264_harris.jpg" border="0"></center><br />In reality, Nelson is beating Harris by <a href="http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15743270.htm" target="_blank">61-33 percent</a> among likely voters according to the most recent Quinnipiac poll. But hey, when has our Katherine ever let reality get in the way of anything? Stupid reality!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/05.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Craig Schelske</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/sex.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/hypocrisy.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Did you know that disgraced congressman Tom DeLay's favorite television program is "Dancing With The Stars"? The Former Hammer is a big fan of the show, and up until very recently was championing country singer Sara Evans to win it all. In early September, Tom sent a mass email urging his remaining supporters to vote for Sara in the contest. He <a href="http://www.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/delayletterbig.gif?CLICK" target="_blank">wrote</a>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Sara Evans has been a strong supporter of the Republican Party and represents good American values in the media. From singing at the 2004 Republican Convention to appearing with candidates in the last several election cycles, we have always been able to count on Sara for her support of the things we all believe in. ... One of her opponents on the show is ultra liberal talk show host Jerry Springer. We need to send a message to Hollywood and the media that smut has no place on television by supporting good people like Sara Evans.</div><br />Sara isn't the only strong supporter of the Republican party in her family - husband Craig Schelske is also a big fan of the GOP, running <a href="http://www.craigpac.com/index.shtml" target="_blank">CRAIGPAC</a> ("Help us elect conservatives and support the Republican movement!") and <a href="http://www.americandestiny.com/our_team.htm" target="_blank">American Destiny</a> ("Restoring the heart and soul of America").<br /><br />But sadly Sara was forced to pull out of "Dancing With The Stars" last week. <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061013/ENTERTAINMENT06/61013002" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>Tennessean</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Sara Evans filed for divorce Thursday from her husband of 13 years, Craig Schelske, in Williamson County, alleging that he had committed adultery, verbally abused her and frequently watched pornography at home. On Thursday, Evans announced that she has dropped out of the ABC show "Dancing with the Stars" to give her family her full attention.<br /><br />According to the document filed in chancery court, Schelske allegedly has on his computer at least 100 photographs of himself posing in an aroused state. There are several photographs of him having sex with other women, the filings stated.<br /><br />"On his computers, husband maintains 'Craigs Lists.' Many of them involve requests for three party sex and anal sex. Husband's 'Craigs Lists' are composed of personal ads on his personal sex engine involving him and prospective sex partners," the documents stated.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />On Sept. 28, one of the children confronted Schelske, 43, at the couple's Franklin home when he was watching pornography on TV, the filing stated. The couple's children are 2, 3 and 7 years old.</div><br />Wow. With all that going on it's amazing that he has time to elect conservatives and support the Republican movement, let alone restore the heart and soul of America
<img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/264.jpg" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 264</b></font><br /><br />October 16, 2006<br /><i>The Price Of Indifference Edition</i><br /><br />With just over three weeks to go until the mid-term elections, the GOP is in big trouble - and when the GOP is in big trouble, you can be sure that conservative idiocy will be off the charts. George W. Bush (1,10) shows us the price of indifference, John McCain demonstrates his maverick streak by, er, bashing Bill Clinton, and Dennis Hastert (3) is in "grave" condition. Elsewhere, Katherine Harris (4) rigs another election, new revelations could spell disaster for George Allen (7), and Fox News (9) gets it wrong... again. Enjoy, and don't forget the <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/key.html" target="_blank">key</a>!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/01.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>George W. Bush</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/warmongering.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/helping_terrorists.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/flip-flop.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Cast your minds back for a moment to George W. Bush's State of the Union Address in 2002, where he <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html" target="_blank">said this</a> of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.</div><br />Bush was talking about Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. And as we all know, Our Great Leader went on to invade and occupy Iraq, which of those three countries was the only one not in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction. Good job.<br /><br />Now cast your minds back to the 2004 presidential debates. In the first debate, John Kerry was asked <a href="http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html" target="_blank">this simple question</a>: "If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?" Here's Kerry's response:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There's some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing it, it'll take 13 years to get it.<br /><br />I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago - six, seven years ago - called "The New War," which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it. And the black market sale price was about $250 million.<br /><br />Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today.<br /><br />And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11.<br /><br />We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can't cut the money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership.<br /><br />And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.</div><br />Bush's response to the same question?<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the president. Secondly, we've set up what's called the - well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that's why proliferation is one of the centerpieces of a multi-prong strategy to make the country safer.<br /><br />My administration started what's called the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials.<br /><br />And we've been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya.</div><br />Effective? If you consider North Korea's <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-09T065452Z_01_L08141538_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH.xml" target="_blank">recent test-firing of an atomic weapon</a> to be a positive result of Bush's campaign against nuclear proliferation, then I guess you could say that he's been very effective. What was that about "the price of indifference" again?<br /><br />But believe it or not, there are actually people out there who think Kim Jong Il's nuke test <i>was</i> a positive result. Take John Gibson of Fox News for example, who <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/10/korea-nukes-good-news" target="_blank">said last week</a>, "Does the fact that the North Koreans actually tested a nuclear weapon balance out the bad news from this Foley scandal?"<br /><br />Sane people, however, tend to think that a nuclear North Korea is not really that awesome.<br /><br />The good news though is that, as usual, Bush is standing strong and staying the course. <a href="http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/?page=details&id=4834&t=Archive" target="_blank">According to</a> the Associated Press:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">President Bush unapologetically defended his approach to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program Wednesday, pledging he would not change course despite contentions that Pyongyang’s apparent atomic test proved the failure of his nearly six years of effort.<br /><br />Bush rejected the idea of direct U.S.-North Korea talks, saying the Koreans were more likely to listen if confronted with the combined protest of many nations.<br /><br />The president said he was not backing down from his assertion three years ago that "we will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."</div><br />Bush also said that, "I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military." That's nice, since the Pentagon predicts "52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang," <a href="http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20565819-661,00.html" target="_blank">according to</a> the <i>Herald Sun</i>.<br /><br />But hey, the world is safer now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power! Or something.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/02.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>John McCain</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/clinton_hating.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/clinton_hating.gif" border="0"><br /><br />With Bush denouncing "the price of indifference" and then ignoring North Korea for four years right up until the moment they tested an atomic bomb, there can only be one person to blame for this mess. That's right! It's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.clinton.ap/" target="_blank">Bill Clinton's fault</a>.<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.<br /><br />"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.<br /><br />"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.</div><br />Hmm. According to that same article, "In U.S.-North Korea relations, the initial breakthrough occurred in October 1994, when U.S. negotiators persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program, with onsite monitoring by U.N. inspectors. In exchange, the United States, with input from South Korea and Japan, promised major steps to ease North Korea's acute energy shortage."<br /><br />So Bill Clinton was responsible for freezing North Korea's nuclear program. I see. And according to a <a href="http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=258410&" target="_blank">study</a> by the National Security Advisory Group, here's the amount of plutonium that North Korea produced under the last three presidents:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">George H. W. Bush: one to two bombs' worth<br /><br />Bill Clinton: none<br /><br />George W. Bush: four to six bombs' worth</div><br /><a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/89305,cst-nws-nknuke09.article" target="_blank">According to</a> the Associated Press:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Some experts estimate that at least 80 percent of the country's stockpile of 44 to 116 pounds of refined plutonium was processed since the end of the freeze in 2002.</div><br />Of course, Our Great Leader had the chance to continue Bill Clinton's successful policy when he came into office, but obviously that would have been unacceptable. After all, Clinton's <i>penis</i> might have been near it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,102313,00.html" target="_blank">Here's what happened instead</a>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Asked to explain his rejection of South Korean president Kim Dae Jung's recommendation that Washington urgently pursue President Clinton's efforts to negotiate an end to North Korea's missile program, Bush told reporters, "We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements."<br /><br />That, of course, was a potentially catastrophic gaffe by a president whose problems in choosing the words that best convey his ideas can prove to be a killer liability in international diplomacy, where a leader's every word is parsed for nuance by friend and foe. For the record, the U.S. has only one agreement with North Korea - the 1994 accord to stop the production of weapons-grade nuclear fuel in exchange for assistance by Japan, South Korea and the U.S. in developing alternative energy sources (including a series of lower-grade nuclear reactors). And as U.S. officials hurried to emphasize immediately after Bush's statement, Washington has no evidence that North Korea is not complying with the terms of that agreement. Given the epic paranoia and unpredictability of the regime in Pyongyang, the last thing you want to do is accuse them of cheating - unless you're consciously setting out to take it to the next level.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />Bush's response to Kim raised eyebrows all over Washington and beyond because Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to be leaning in the opposite direction the previous day. Powell had implied that the Bush administration would continue the Clinton administration's search for agreements with North Korea to curb its missile program and other dangers.<br /><br />Even though the secretary of state dutifully fell in line the following day, the tenor of Bush's comments suggested that more hawkish elements in the administration may have been making their presence felt. After all, Bush could quite simply have done the "we wholeheartedly support South Korea's peace efforts and are studying ways to take it forward" routine - the diplomatic equivalent of "no comment" - instead of pointedly questioning the wisdom of negotiating with Pyongyang, which was a sharp slapdown to President Kim's "sunshine" policy of reconciliation with the North.</div><br />So it seems that John "Straight Talk" McCain is "talking straight" out of his ass.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/03.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Dennis Hastert</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/coveringass.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/lying.gif" border="0"><br /><br />There were big developments in the ongoing Masturgate scandal when Speaker Dennis Hastert gave a <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4250261.html" target="_blank">press conference</a> last week to announce that if any of his staff had engaged in a cover-up, "then they should not continue to have their jobs." This passing of the buck comes after Hastert had previously announced that "Ultimately, the buck stops here" (see Idiots <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/263" target="_blank">263</a>).<br /><br />For some reason, Denny decided to give his press conference in front of a graveyard. Sadly he failed to complete the presumably unintentional yet hilarious irony by whistling.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/264_hastert.jpg" border="0"></center><br />If Hastert is going to fire anyone who covered up the Foley scandal, he really should start by firing himself. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/washington/13foley.html?ref=us" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>New York Times</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">A longtime aide to former Representative Mark Foley testified before the House ethics committee for nearly five hours on Thursday, repeating under oath his account of having explicitly warned Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office at least three years ago that Mr. Foley should be told to keep his distance from Congressional pages.<br /><br />The aide, Kirk Fordham, was the first sworn witness to appear before the bipartisan ethics panel, which is investigating whether any Republican leaders knew about Mr. Foley's conduct, which was ultimately exposed in a series of sexually explicit exchanges with former pages, and whether anything was done about it.</div><br />So let me get this straight: Kirk Fordham "explicitly warned" Hastert's office that Mark Foley was going after congressional pages, and <i>none</i> of Hastert's staff bothered to mention it to him? If you believe that, I've got a truckload of <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10054116/" target="_blank">Celestial Drops</a> to sell you.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/04.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Katherine Harris</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/batshit_crazy.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Like that segue? Yes, Katherine Harris was back in the news last week after new polls showed her ahead of Democratic candidate Bill Nelson in their senate race. It's true - she sent out press releases to the media last week <a href="http://lledit.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061009/COLUMNISTS0502/610090374/1106/NEWS" target="_blank">announcing the results</a>.<br /><br />Don't panic just yet though - the poll in question was actually a straw vote held at the Lakeland Chamber's Politics in the Park event. Did I mention that you had to pay $25 to take part? Oh, and did I mention that 6-year-olds could vote?<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/264_harris.jpg" border="0"></center><br />In reality, Nelson is beating Harris by <a href="http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/15743270.htm" target="_blank">61-33 percent</a> among likely voters according to the most recent Quinnipiac poll. But hey, when has our Katherine ever let reality get in the way of anything? Stupid reality!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/number/05.gif" border="0"><br /><br /><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Craig Schelske</b></font> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/sex.gif" border="0"> <img src="http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/icons/hypocrisy.gif" border="0"><br /><br />Did you know that disgraced congressman Tom DeLay's favorite television program is "Dancing With The Stars"? The Former Hammer is a big fan of the show, and up until very recently was championing country singer Sara Evans to win it all. In early September, Tom sent a mass email urging his remaining supporters to vote for Sara in the contest. He <a href="http://www.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/delayletterbig.gif?CLICK" target="_blank">wrote</a>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Sara Evans has been a strong supporter of the Republican Party and represents good American values in the media. From singing at the 2004 Republican Convention to appearing with candidates in the last several election cycles, we have always been able to count on Sara for her support of the things we all believe in. ... One of her opponents on the show is ultra liberal talk show host Jerry Springer. We need to send a message to Hollywood and the media that smut has no place on television by supporting good people like Sara Evans.</div><br />Sara isn't the only strong supporter of the Republican party in her family - husband Craig Schelske is also a big fan of the GOP, running <a href="http://www.craigpac.com/index.shtml" target="_blank">CRAIGPAC</a> ("Help us elect conservatives and support the Republican movement!") and <a href="http://www.americandestiny.com/our_team.htm" target="_blank">American Destiny</a> ("Restoring the heart and soul of America").<br /><br />But sadly Sara was forced to pull out of "Dancing With The Stars" last week. <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061013/ENTERTAINMENT06/61013002" target="_blank">According to</a> the <i>Tennessean</i>:<br /><br /><div class="excerpt">Sara Evans filed for divorce Thursday from her husband of 13 years, Craig Schelske, in Williamson County, alleging that he had committed adultery, verbally abused her and frequently watched pornography at home. On Thursday, Evans announced that she has dropped out of the ABC show "Dancing with the Stars" to give her family her full attention.<br /><br />According to the document filed in chancery court, Schelske allegedly has on his computer at least 100 photographs of himself posing in an aroused state. There are several photographs of him having sex with other women, the filings stated.<br /><br />"On his computers, husband maintains 'Craigs Lists.' Many of them involve requests for three party sex and anal sex. Husband's 'Craigs Lists' are composed of personal ads on his personal sex engine involving him and prospective sex partners," the documents stated.<br /><br />(snip)<br /><br />On Sept. 28, one of the children confronted Schelske, 43, at the couple's Franklin home when he was watching pornography on TV, the filing stated. The couple's children are 2, 3 and 7 years old.</div><br />Wow. With all that going on it's amazing that he has time to elect conservatives and support the Republican movement, let alone restore the heart and soul of America