imprisonbush.com

It’s summertime, and during this season, America’s mood turns to light hearted things. We want to be entertained, mostly, during these dog days, not educated. I understand.

With this in mind, I thought I’d pass along an entertaining little video of political satire I found at another blog this morning.

Irregular Times now has a little video of a cartoon of George W. Bush, singing Do You Really Want to Impeach Me?, to the tune of Culture Club’s song Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?

They call him Boy George Bush.

Yes, President Bush, we really want to impeach you.

Do you really think that we shouldn’t?

This announcement came from the White House Office of Fudging The Truth today, after the news broke that the Bush White House has been tracking the private telephone calls of law-abiding average American citizens using a gigantic computer database:

“We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.”

Well, that’s true. George W. Bush and his Republican goods have not been mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. They’ve been mining and trolling through the private lives of hundreds of millions of innocent Americans.

George W. Bush would never, ever, ever lie to us, you see.

This morning, I have a modest proposal for what to do with George W. Bush. He’s committed many crimes, and even the Democrats in Congress are still afraid of him. American democracy itself is at risk.

So, I say, let’s look to the past to see what others have done in similar dark times. France, for example. When Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew French democracy and proclaimed himself emperor, the French rose up and sent him to the island of Elba to live in exile.

I say we do the same for American Emperor George W. Bush. Impeach Bush first. Then, send him to Elba, to sit and ponder his crimes.

Send Bush to Elba Bumper Sticker

And here comes Porter Goss, head of the CIA, sporting an eye-catching number from our new winter line of bold new euphemisms for the word “torture.”

“We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information, and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways.” (Source: USA Today, 11/21/05)

Wow, “unique and innovative!” We all know what that means in the corporate world, wink wink. I’m thinking Enron here, with their unique and innovative business model. But doesn’t it look smashing on the CIA? And that “legal” business–a daring statement for an agency “detaining” people in a top-secret system of black site prisons out of the reach of the courts. But Goss pulls it all off, don’t you think?

“We don’t torture,” said George W. Bush today.

Well, there you have it. This from the man who told us all about Saddam’s tons of chemical and biological weapons, and how Iraq was on the brink of building a nuclear weapon. So see, it must be true.

Bush doesn’t listen to the news. He only knows what his staff tells him–the same White House staff that betrayed a CIA agent. So you know they’re trustworthy. And they’re not the least bit incompetent–they’re “doing a heck of a job.”

Almost five years into his presidency, George W. Bush is in the position of having to say “we don’t torture,” and asking America to take him at his word. But he’s broken his word so many times, he’s got no credibility left. Everybody knows he’s a liar.

At least he’s come up with a fine slogan for the Republican party in ‘06 and ‘08:
“Vote Republican, we don’t torture.”

Before you hire someone for a job, it’s generally expected that they tell you some things. Have they done this kind of job before? What did they do on the job? What’s their overall understanding of what they do, and how do they go about their work? What do they plan to do when you hire them?

Apparently not if you hire them for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in America, as we have seen with Justice Roberts.

Now, I’ve just got to ask: Would you hire someone who interviewed like Roberts, even for a more or less trivial job like interior decorator? What would that question-and-answer session look like:

Norman: So you do interior decorating?

Decorator: Sure, I have over twenty years experience.

Norman: Wow, sounds impressive. Who have you worked for?

Decorator: Well, there’s the President of the United States.

Norman: Huh. What did you do for him?

Decorator: Afraid I can’t tell you. Executive privilege and all.

Norman: Oh, right, of course. Any before and after pictures?

Decorator: Nope, it’s a secret.

Norman: OK, sure. Now, I happen to know you were involved in a certain lime-green painting episode that didn’t turn out so well over at the Joneses. Do you think that was a mistake?

Decorator: My advice to paint lime green in that case was determined by my obligation to serve my client’s interest.

Norman: So you wouldn’t have done it if the Joneses didn’t specifically demand it?

Decorator: Well, I was representing the Joneses in that case.

Norman: What if a client asked you to smash out all their windows and spray-paint graffiti on their home, would you do it?

Decorator: I think we’re getting into hypotheticals here.

Norman: Right. Well, since all the interior decorating you’ve done in the past is a big secret, and you’re not going to tell me what you would do in any hypothetical case, let me ask you some questions about your general decorating philosophy. Do you believe in creating big, open spaces? Or do you prefer to create a cozy, intimate feel?

Decorator: I never commit to any decorating strategy before I see the house. I’m open minded.

Norman: So, chiffon. Do you like chiffon?

Decorator: I believe chiffon is entitled to respect as a time-honored staple of the interior decorating industry.

Norman: Would you use it?

Decorator: I’m not going to tell you specifically or generally how I have decorated houses in the past or how I would or wouldn’t decorate any house I might see in the future.

Norman: And in the present?

Decorator: In the present I’m standing here talking to you.

Norman: Oh yeah, good point. Hey, say no more. You’re hired.

C’est formidable! Just when you thought those Bushes couldn’t get any Frencher. It’s been clear for some time that Georges W. Bush’s approach to le privilege executif comes right out of Louis XIV’s playbook. Lest there were any doubt, he decided to take a five week vacation at his estate in the country. Ah, la vie on rose. So very unlike those Americans, but so…French!

Today, finally, we see where Georges got his Frenchness. His mother. She harked back to the good old France that makes all true French hearts swell with pride. No, not all that liberty, equality, fraternity drivel. Pas du tout! We’re talking about the real France. La France Imperiale. La France Royale. Back when the French kicked ass and took names.

I must confess, I never saw Barbara Bush as the Marie Antoinette type. Comme j’avais tort! Commenting on the Houston Astrodome–where thousands of families who had lost their homes to floodwaters and waded miles past dead bodies to escape, only to endure days of dangerous, crowded conditions without food or water, lay with no privacy on cots spread over the floor–she said, “So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them.”

Vive Barbara “Marie Antoinette” Bush!

When it comes to teaching young people how to manage risk in their lives, only one thing is 100% effective: abstain from the risky behavior. This is the morally sound theory behind the sex education website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (AP, 4/1/05). The federal government has recently begun to apply this approach to driver safety as well.

“Parents have a tremendous amount of influence on their children,” said Health and Human Services secretary Michael Leavitt, “and we want them to talk with their teens about abstaining from driving so they can stay safe and healthy.” The department’s new web site emphasizes the unreliability of safety practices such as wearing seatbelts, reducing speed in hazardous conditions, and obeying traffic laws. According to Leavitt, “The only 100% reliable way of keeping your child safe is making sure he doesn’t get into that car in the first place.”

According to critics, promoting abstinence does not go far enough, and the government should also promote traffic safety for teenagers who do drive. “Telling teenagers that road safety measures are ineffective is going to backfire,” say snarky liberal perverts, “it just encourages them to drive recklessly.”

“They’ve always opposed us on the issue of abstinence. That’s fine,” said Health and Human Services official Bill Pierce. “One thing we do know about abstinence is that if you practice it, you will not have a traffic accident and risk death or serious injury.”