At UN, Bush Forgets to Mention Iraq


In his annual lecture at the delegates of the UN, President Bush proposed tough new sanctions against the repressive military government of Myanmar. Denouncing the recent crackdown on demonstrators with a wistful sigh, he exclaimed, “I can’t get away with that kind of stuff. Yet.”

Mr Bush hasn’t actually said what the tough new sanctions will be but an unnamed, anonymous source claiming to represent the administration said at a cocktail party just across town from 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue that they would most likely include a ban on the sale of medical supplies to Burmese hospitals specializing in the treatment of poor, sick children. “Two birds with one stone,” the anonymous source explained, rattling the ice in his glass and spilling some of its murky contents on his pants. “It would encourage the depletion of the surplus population and at the same time prevent the government from taking any steps toward socialized medicine. That would be evil. Evil.”

At a different cocktail party in a brownstone off K Street, a different anonymous government source claiming to be Karl Rove’s second cousin’s brother’s sister-in-law and close to the Administration (she brought him a cookie once, she said) told the RNS in a stage whisper that she had overheard Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice telling the Burmese Ambassador at a cocktail party in Georgetown that the US intended to disallow the export to Myanmar of toys imported from China by US companies and intended for resale abroad. “That’ll teach ’em,” she said, listing to one side and falling over.

Apprised of the facts that Burma has no Ambassador in the US and that Ms Rice is currently said to be out of the country, she retorted from the floor, “Well, somebody said it. Take it from me.” She then promptly passed out.

In related news, President Bush didn’t mention Iraq in his address, apparently having forgotten it existed. In a spin session on the corner of 47th Street where she claimed to be waiting for a bus, Presidential Press Secretary Dana Perino said, “He meant to mention it. There was a reference in the speech, I’m sure there was, and it was brilliant, too. Something about victory something something freedom something something something 9/11. It would have been stirring and very patriotic. They would have been on their feet. I don’t know what happened.”

According to the NYT, “White House officials previewing the president’s remarks had suggested that he would provide a more nuanced, expansive view of freedom, saying that political freedoms were no less important that freedom from disease, illiteracy or poverty”, but Mr Bush skipped all that. “Some pie-eyed lefty moron thought it would make me sound compassionate,” he explained later, “but, you know, talking about poverty is such a downer. Anyway, who cares about a bunch of lazy parasites. I don’t need to be ‘compassionate’, goddamn it. I’m a war president. I’m tough. I’m mean. I’m John Wayne in…what was that one? King Kong. I’m the monkey that stomps the evildoers, not the wimpy B-girl that whines about helping viktums.”

Reactions to Mr Bush’s speech were mixed. One delegate admitted to being confused during the part of the speech when Mr Bush said, “Basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking and rape are common.”

“I thought at first he was talking about the US,” he said. “I thought he was actually promising to clean up his own house. I should have known better.”

Another delegate, referring to the same section, expressed irritation. “He sounded as if he was jealous.”

But at a cocktail party at Alan Greenspan’s luxurious penthouse, NY Times columnist David Brooks gave the speech an enthusiastic thumbs up. “It just shows brilliantly how a brilliant president in a brilliant show of canny bi-partisanship can bring the world together in a spirit of canny bi-partisan togetherness with a few simple, brilliant phrases encompassing our shared common values of bi-partisanship and togetherness. This speech is going to make it tough for the Democrats to win next year.”

Then, listing severely to one side for a moment, he fell right over.

4 Responses to “At UN, Bush Forgets to Mention Iraq”

  1. Macswain says:

    You must’ve left the Greenspan party early. I showed up late night and found Brooks in the kitchen head down, martini still in hand and sobbing: “I wish I had as many readers as Kos. Why don’t they like me?”

    On a serious note, I heard a replay of a portion of Bush’s speech and it sounded lackluster, like he really couldn’t give a shit about the stuff he was told to read.

  2. Mick Arran says:

    That’s not me. It’s a direct steal off the Rooters news wire. I wasn’t anywhere near Washington and I can prove it. I vouch for nothing it says and denounce any attempt to connect me to it.

    The Rooters correspondent may have left the Greenspan party relatively early, and Brooks may have been revived after s/he left. I understand that’s not an uncommon scenario. Rooters has previously reported that Brooks often needs reviving, 3 or 4 times a day even when he’s sans martini(s). On one occasion, he was discovered in his office typing his column while passed out. On being told of the circumstances, his editor said it read exactly the same as columns Brooks wrote while (theoretically) awake.

    I haven’t seen or heard any part of Bush’s speech, but I certainly wouldn’t argue with your characterization of it. The RNS has been known to dig below the superficial appearance of things to get at a hidden truth. Other times it’s just plain wrong. Other other times, it makes things up. I never know which is which.

    They report, I decide, that’s my motto. (It’s trademarked, btw.)

  3. As a sign of how screwed up this current administration is (and a hectic couple of days where I’ve barely had the time to read up for my own posts), I don’t even know if this is satire or reality.


    Is our entire political process just gross live action real time satire now? Where the hell are the cameras? Where’s the canned laughter, cheesy soundtrack, and “studio audience”?

  4. mick says:

    Yeah, you are behind the times. It’s a reality show – they’re all the rage even tho they’re not real. Everything is staged to look real: the actors are amateurs, the lighting is crude, the dialogue is dumb as toast, and there’s always somebody backstage whose job is to make as much trouble as possible. The audience isn’t in the studio any more, it’s at the end of a tube, canned laughter has been replaced by invisible yes-men egging the principals on with guile and oodles of flattery, applause tracks have been replaced by simulated voting booths and electronic voting machines that have the final tally before the polls open, and actual life has been relegated to trips to the bathroom while the Viagra commercials are on.

    Get with the 21st century, man, This is BushAmerica. You thought we actually had a political process? That’s so cute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook