The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
February 27, 2006
Port Probe Edition
apparently George W. Bush (1) isn't that serious about this whole
"national security" thing after all. Last week we learned
that he wants to hand over our ports to a country with a (shall
we say) less-than-perfect record in the war on terror. But that
wasn't the worst that happened last week. It looks like Iraq is
teetering on the brink of civil war. But not to worry! Fox News
(5) says it's a good thing. Meanwhile, Rita Cosby (6) has some interesting
spin about the Democrats, Conservative Crackpots (7) are pushing
their hate agenda, and Bill O'Reilly (10) may have finally lost
it. Enjoy, and don't forget the key...
It's hard to believe that just one week after the vice president
of the United States shot a man in the face, an even bigger story
would come along. But here it is: last week the Bush administration
approved the sale of the operations of twenty-one
major American ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by
the government of the United Arab Emirates.
Let's see how well that went down with the president's opponents:
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country
with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and
commerce accident waiting to happen." - Charles
"It is clear that the Bush administration has failed to
adequately address valid national security concerns. We will do
everything possible to make sure the administration conducts the
mandatory investigation required under the law and does not compromise
security at our ports." - Hillary
"...the decision to sell our ports, as well as his administration's
other national security policies, have made America less secure.
Democrats understand that it takes more than tough talk to protect
the American people in a post-9/11 world. It takes smart policies,
strong U.S. leadership, and real resources as well." - Harry
Of course, that's the Democrats talking. You'd expect them to be
opposed. So in the interests of fairness and balance, let's find
out what top Republicans are saying:
"I believe there should be an immediate moratorium placed
on this seaport deal in order to further examine its effects on
our port security." - Dennis
"When it's a matter of national security, the president
will be overturned. We will overturn it within the next few weeks."
"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold
until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this
matter. If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan
on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on
hold until this decision gets a more thorough review." -
Hmm. I guess they're not too keen either. Tell you what, why don't
we leave the politics of this deal behind and find out what one
of America's top terrorism experts thinks of the deal:
"It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened.
There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there
and money was laundered through there." - Thomas
Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey and former
head of the 9/11 Commission
Cripes. Well, okay then... forget all that - let's go straight
to the people. Bush's base. The true believers. His loyal followers:
"I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the President's gone
insane." - Peter
Gadiel, head of 9/11 Families for a Secure America.
It's something of a mystery why the Bush administration is
so cavalier about this sale - yes, the Bush family has plenty of
financial connections to Arab sheikdoms. And yes, members of
the Bush administration have direct
financial ties to Dubai Ports World. But surely they'd never
put their own personal financial gain ahead of national security.
Perish the thought.
Yet George remains remarkably steadfast in his desire to outsource
American port operations to the United Arab Emirates. First he threatened
to veto any attempt by Congress to block the deal - which would
be the first veto of his entire presidency, by the way - and then
the White House announced that they wouldn't even reconsider approval.
"There are questions raised in the Congress, and what this
delay allows is for those questions to be addressed on the Hill,"
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. "There's nothing
This despite the fact that by law the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States (CFIUS) is supposed to conduct a mandatory
45-day review of the transaction in cases where "the acquirer
is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government,"
and, "the acquisition could result in control of a person engaged
in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national
security of the U.S." But for some reason, that review did
not occur - and nobody knows why.
Not only that but it was revealed late last week that the Department
of Homeland Security initially raised
concerns about the deal during the review that the administration
did conduct. (In case you were wondering, that review was conducted
It seems that the Bushies' main
argument thus far has been to claim that if the operation of
American ports is not sold to the UAE, we will risk offending
Arab nations. Funny, they didn't seem to be quite as concerned when
we were, say, shocking & aweing them into submission, or, you
Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Israeli flag and forcing them to
watch gay porn.
The most bizarre excuse to come from Bush & Co. over the
past week was that - hey, they didn't even know about the
ports deal until it was done! As if that should make everyone feel
Not only was Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff unaware of
the deal, he wasn't even aware "that his agency was leading
the review until after the deal's approval," according
to the Washington Times.
Treasury Secretary John Snow said he didn't know about the deal
either, despite the fact that he was supposedly head
of the panel that cleared it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
"I wasn't aware of this until this weekend."
And the White House claimed
that Bush didn't know about the deal until he read about it in the
newspapers. Unfortunately that claim was debunked by Scott McClellan,
who announced last week that Bush has known about the deal since
February 16. (Video courtesy of CanOFun.com.)
But hey, it's nothing to worry about. After terrorizing us for
years with color-coded threat levels, dire tales of WMDs, and suggestions
that people stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting, George W.
says that "people don't need to worry about security."
See? All we have to do is trust him, and everything will
be fine. After all, the Bush administration has shown itself to
Speaking of trusting the Bush administration, how's that liberation
of Iraq going? Back in September of 2004, we noted that a National
Intelligence Estimate "spell[ed] out a dark assessment
of prospects for Iraq." (See Idiots 171.)
The NIE said that the best case scenario for Iraq was that "political,
economic and security stability would remain tenuous," and
the worst case scenario was all-out civil war.
Why am I not surprised to see the worst case scenario unfolding?
last week that:
A car bomb killed eight people and wounded 31 at a market in
the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala, south of Baghdad.
Near Baquba, police said gunmen killed 12 members of one family
in what they said was a sectarian attack on Shi'ites.
Mortars fell on Shi'ite Sadr City in Baghdad, killing three people
in one house, a Sadr aide said. Three others were killed in north
Baghdad by a mortar apparently aimed at a Sunni mosque.
Three security men were killed in separate gun and bomb attacks
on the funeral cortege in western Baghdad of an Iraqi journalist
killed as she reported in Samarra on Wednesday.
Don't worry though, because according to the U.S. military, none
of this is actually happening. Said
coalition spokesman Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch last week, "Some drive-by
shootings against mosques have been reported ... that's where we
are. So we are not seeing civil war igniting in Iraq. We are not
seeing 77, 80, 100 mosques damaged in Iraq. We are not seeing death
on the streets."
Really? Reuters also reported
last week that, "The largely untested Iraqi police and army
will be in the front line of Shi'ite-led government attempts to
stop previously expected protest marches on Friday over the bloodless
but symbolic bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque and revenge attacks
that officials reckon have killed more than 130 people. Seven U.S.
soldiers were killed in two attacks on Wednesday."
If that's "not seeing death on the streets," I'd hate
to see what death on the streets looks like. Although I have a very
bad feeling that we'll be finding out in the not too distant future.
Last week George Will penned a column
explaining why conservatives are happier than liberals. He wrote:
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three
ways. First, they are rarely surprised - they are right more often
than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong
they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives
put not their faith in princes - government - they accept that
happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that
happiness is an activity - it is inseparable from the pursuit
See, I have a different theory. I think that conservatives are
happier than liberals because they tune in to shit like this
all day long:
So there's your answer, liberals - if you want to be as cheerful
as conservatives, just toke the Fox News crack pipe 24/7.
Or, if you can't bring yourself to tune into Fox News, you
could try MSNBC's new Friday night "Hardball Hotshots"
in which Chris Matthews sits down for a nice fair and balanced chat
with right-winger Joe Scarborough, right-winger Tucker Carlson,
and right-winger Rita Cosby.
If you've ever seen Rita Cosby's Bordello of News (weeknights at
9pm on MSNBC) you may have missed the delightfully throaty host's
political leanings. She usually focuses on more weighty issues -
her nightly coverage of Natalee Holloway's continued disappearance
is not to be missed.
But last week Ms. Cosby threw caution to the wind and decided to
explain to Chris Matthews why Democrats are evil. Apparently it's
because while Republicans go after the votes of churchgoers, Democrats
go after the "hoodlum vote." By "hoodlums" she
apparently meant felons who have been purged from voter rolls, and
the reason the Democrats are allegedly doing this, according to
Ms. Cosby, is because "Clearly they're going after the African-American
I'm not kidding. Thanks to Crooks And Liars, you can see the video
In an effort to kick-start the Republican 2006 election campaign,
the religious right is ramping up efforts to bring so-called "family
values" issues back to the table. The South Dakota Senate voted
last week to outlaw
abortion in a move intended to bring about a Supreme Court decision
which they hope will overturn Roe vs. Wade, and conservative activists
intend to make gay
adoption a big issue this year.
Apparently they think that 2006 will be a re-run of 2004, when
Republicans successfully used these issues as red meat to get out
their base. But with New Orleans in pieces, Iraq in flames, scandals
from Plame to Abramoff to warrantless wiretapping blowing up in
the faces of the GOP, and the Bush administration outsourcing national
security to the United Arab Emirates, perhaps voters will be less
inclined to decide that the most dangerous threat to America in
2006 is Billy having two mommies.
Of course, I could be wrong. Bear in mind that these are not normal
people we're dealing with here. Just watch
this video and you'll see what I mean.
In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, the GOP announced
that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Fecal Matter) would be their point man
on ethics. Great plan! Perhaps Santorum can now explain why, according
to the Huffington Post, he "received a $500,000, five-year
mortgage for their Leesburg, Va., home from a small, private Philadelphia
bank run by a major campaign donor - even though its stated policy
is to make loans only to its 'affluent' investors, which the senator
Santorum owns a $757,000 "estate" in northern Virginia,
despite the fact that, according
to the American Prospect, "his financial disclosure
forms since 2001 have shown little family income beyond his Senate
salary, now $162,100." From the Prospect:
The Prospect decided to heed Santorum's advice by taking "an
honest look at the family budget" - his family budget. What
we found is that Santorum's exurban lifestyle is financed in ways
that aren't available to the average voter back home in Pennsylvania
- namely a political action committee that lists payments for
such unorthodox items as dozens of trips to the Starbucks in Leesburg,
a number of stops at fast-food joints, and purchases at Target,
Wal-Mart, and a Giant supermarket in northern Virginia. Although
a Santorum aide defends those charges as legitimate political
costs, good-government experts say the expenditures are at best
unconventional, and at worst a possible violation of Senate rules,
and the purchases appear to be unorthodox when compared with other
senators' filings. Santorum's PAC - a "leadership PAC,"
whose purpose is to dispense money to other Republican candidates
- used just 18.1 percent of its money to that end over a recent
five-year period, a lower number than other leadership PACs of
top senators from both parties.
Ethics watchers may also be interested to learn that Santorum's
charity Operation Good Neighbor "donated about 40 percent of
the $1.25 million it spent during a four-year period, well below
Better Business Bureau standards - paying out the rest for overhead,
including several hundred thousand dollars to campaign aides on
the charity payroll," according
to the Associated Press. "The Better Business Bureau's
Wise Giving Alliance says charitable organizations should spend
at least 65 percent of their total expenses on program activities."
Looks like the GOP have picked just the right fox to keep watch
over their hen house.
If you ever needed a reason to keep George W. Bush away from
any of America's germ warfare labs, try this:
"President Bush, center, knocks over some lab samples as he
a tour of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory" - Associated
Incidentally, that's the same National Renewable Energy Laboratory
that recently laid off a bunch of researchers - right after George
promised to break America's "addiction to oil" in his
State of the Union address (see Idiots 231).
Here's the strange part - those lab workers were mysteriously
rehired just days before Bush's tour of the lab.
Place your bets on how long it will be before they're laid off
And finally, Bill O'Reilly's long, slow slide towards insanity
shows no sign of stopping - last week the Falafel Master started
an online petition asking the chairman of NBC to replace Keith Olbermann
with Phil Donahue in order to "rescue MSNBC from the ratings
It's really very kind of Mr. O'Reilly to give Keith Olbermann this
free publicity - no doubt plenty of viewers will now tune in to
"Countdown" in order to find out why Thin-Skinned Bill
has got a stick up his ass this time. And Keith really does seem
to be enjoying this just
a little too much!
It's funny though - Bill doesn't seem so concerned about the ratings
of MSNBC's conservative shows. According
to Media Matters, both "Scarborough Country" and "The
Situation With Tucker Carlson" garner lower ratings than "Countdown."
Perhaps MSNBC should consider replacing either of those shows
with Phil Donahue.
Better still - the Huffington Post is now running a counter-petition
to Fox News head honcho Roger Ailes which states:
We, the undersigned, are becoming increasingly concerned about
the mental health of the host of your 8:00 PM EST show on Fox
News Channel. This host has claimed:
1) San Francisco should be attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists ("homicide
2) There's a conspiracy to cancel the extremely popular Christmas
holiday, even though the culture of Christmas is prevalent in
America for nearly three months of every year.
3) That opponents of his show favor personal attacks and smearing,
while he routinely employs the pejorative "pinheads"
to describe anyone who disagrees with him.
4) That he never used the phrase "shut up" even though
he's on-record saying that phrase dozens of times.
5) He has yet to publicly address his sexual penchant for soapy
falafel sandwiches and female underlings.
6) He routinely misrepresents factual information (often called
"lying"), then claims he told the truth, but will occasionally
recant and admit to flagrantly misleading his viewers.
As a result, we recommend that you uphold your "fair and
balanced" reputation and replace your 8:00 PM EST host with
popular talk show host Phil Donahue.
Compelling arguments! See you next week...
Nominate a Conservative
for Next Week's List