Jul
28

Fun times




Posted at 17:12 by Brad

Oh goody. The Justice Department has issued its final report on Monica Goodling’s illegal hiring practices for career DOJ positions. There’s plenty of fun stuff in here, such as this:

We interviewed Angela Williamson, who was the Department’s Deputy White House Liaison and reported to Goodling during most of Goodling’s tenure as White House Liaison. Williamson attended numerous interviews conducted by Goodling and told us that Goodling asked the same questions “all the time” and tried to ask the same questions of all candidates. [...] After Goodling resigned, Williamson typed from memory the list of questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other questions, the list included the following:

  • Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
  • [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?
  • Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

We found that this last question often took the form of asking the candidate to identify his or her most admired President, Supreme Court Justice, or legislator. Some candidates were asked to identify a person for all three categories. Williamson told us that sometimes Goodling asked candidates: “Why are you a Republican?”

Several candidates interviewed by Goodling told us they believed that her question about identifying their favorite Supreme Court Justice, President, or legislator was an attempt to determine the candidates’ political beliefs. For example, one candidate reported that after he stated he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and commented, “but she’s pro-choice.”

It goes on like this.

Upon becoming president, Hussein Obama X’s very first act — after freeing Mumia, signing a reparations bill and implementing Sharia law, of course — should be to oust every single unqualified hack that Bush hired right out of Regent University and banish them from ever working again in any job. God knows how many more of them are out there.

129 Comments »

  1. Matt T. said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:19

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    Jesus, that is just creepy as hell. The authoritarian worshipping tendencies of some of My Fellow Americans never fails to give me the oogies. I shudder to think of some of the answers she got.

  2. javafascist said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:19

    Leave him some time for a few terrorist fist-bumps too.

    Let’s hope jail is on the table even if impeachment is not for these scumbags.

  3. SamFromUtah said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:19

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    It’s hard to nail down just exactly what is the creepiest about all this, but I think this question is on the short list.

  4. SamFromUtah said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:20

    …like Matt T. said.

  5. Blue Buddha said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:25

    When I was interviewed for security clearances, it wasn’t too unusual to be asked “What makes you want to serve the Office of the President?” However, I was never asked specifically about whoever was in office at the time.

  6. Doofus said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:27

    Goodling’s got more face paint on her mug than Chief Illiniwek.
    I bet she could wash her face, collect the rinse, and make a bomb out of that many chemicals.

  7. Legalize said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:28

    At the pleasure of teh Prezidint!!!111232thirtysix!!1

  8. Arky - Chuthuhlusexual said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:29

    This is an exact replica of the President’s prick. Can you get the whole thing in your mouth without gagging?

    Man.

    I agree with your need to flush all of the turds out of DC. Who wants to help me man major exit routes from the city come Feb 2009? I’ll bring the booze and splintery fence rails. You’ll have to supply your own rotten eggs, tar and feathers.

  9. Legalize said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:29

    At the pleasure of the President!!!!!!11

  10. Arky - Chuthuhlusexual said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:31

    Sorry, “your need” should be “the need.”

    Guess Goodling creeps me out that much. Her, Perino. What is it with vacant eyed blondes in bAdmin?

  11. El Cid said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:32

    And you thought Stephen Colbert was just joshing when he asked us “George W. Bush — great President, or The Greatest President?”

    Turns out — it was an interview questionand it was calling from inside the [White] House!

  12. Bitter Scribe said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:32

    Why don’t they just change the eagle on that seal to an elephant.

  13. Tom65 said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:37

    Wild-eyed God Nazi put in charge of hiring, with predictable results.

  14. Matt T. said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:38

    When I was interviewed for security clearances, it wasn’t too unusual to be asked “What makes you want to serve the Office of the President?”

    Man, that’s still pretty goddamn creepy. Maybe if they asked “What makes you want to serve the American people in conjunction with the Office of the President?” but all this “honor of the office” and “we must respect the president” bullshit is probably a goodly part of the reason our political system is so fucked up.

    But we are a species that really likes being told what to do.

  15. mako rojo said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:39

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    It’s hard to nail down just exactly what is the creepiest about all this, but I think this question is on the short list.

    15 years or so back when I recently went to work for a conservative democrat, on his staff, not a civil servant, I took a picture of the “member” and put it right above my desk, with nothing else. No one failed to find it a joke, though some mentioned it was creepier than funny in a communist bureaucrat way. I cannot imagine what Goodling and hercrew did to the DOJ to make such a joke of their life’s professionalism. In my day, you pretty much had to have an ivy league, top five law school degree to be considered for those jobs. What Bush did was no different that what your average junta does after it siezes power. Classy.

  16. D.N. Nation said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:39

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    Don’t forget, folks! Obama supporters are the ones with authoritarian complexes.

    Just a hint, Monica: These people should have wanted to serve the friggin country.

  17. roac said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:40

    OK, I have to say this for the record: I actually work with several of the people hired under this regime. Some at least are doing their jobs well. Their political views do not necessarily make them unqualified, because the work is not political.

    Whatever you think of the process by which these people acquired civil service status — and I think the same — they now have it. Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled snark.

  18. Doctor Missus Marita said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:40

    …should be to oust every single unqualified hack that Bush hired right out of Regent University and banish them from ever working again in any job.

    I think they should just be forced to attend a real university for a semester or two. Make them pass a class from one of Horowitz’s 100 Most Dangeral Professors, or something. That would break their spirits.

  19. Tom65 said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:41

    By the way, I certainly hope that at least one person got the creeps and walked out of her “interview”.

  20. Doctor Missus Marita said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:43

    Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    On political grounds, no. But on the grounds that many of these people were hired over much more qualified candidates? I think it merits consideration.

  21. Sinfonian said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:48

    I don’t know — maybe it’s just my notorious weakness for blondes talking here, but I’d still hit it™.

    But I’d feel dirty afterwards.

  22. Travis Disaster said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:48

    Ok, NOW can we have a parliamentary government? Please?

  23. mako rojo said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:50

    roac is too right. A political firing of a competent, albeit wrongly hired, civil servant would be worse than the way they were hired. On the other hand, once B. Hussein X puts them to work measuring beard length all day long, they’ll leave on their own.

  24. Does This Font Make Me Look Fat? » Blog Archive » “serve him” said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:52

    [...] Sadly, No! has an update on the Monica Goodling/Alberto Gonzalez DOJ hirings. [...]

  25. tigrismus said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:52

    Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    Considering the post on which we’re commenting, it looks to me like that train has already left the station.

  26. Lawnguylander said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:59

    Whatever you think of the process by which these people acquired civil service status — and I think the same — they now have it. Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    They don’t have to be fired outright. They can be given tasks they find distasteful like investigating voters’ rights violations, right wing hate groups and fundie churches abusing their tax exempt statuses. If they willingly accept their new responsibilities and proceed to carry them out faithfully, fine they can stay and even prosper. If not they can expect to have their performance scrutinized and documented very carefully and they can haz sleepless nights and dread coming to work in the morning. That kind of thing has always worked for me when I inherited crap employees that I was determined to see resign.

  27. henry lewis said,

    July 28, 2008 at 17:59

    Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    On political grounds, no. But on the grounds that many of these people were hired over much more qualified candidates?

    Okay. How about one-time-only, say from Jan. to Mar. 2009, departmental competency reviews due to “special circumstances”?

    Wingnuts can forever after call it ‘The Great Terror’.

  28. darkell said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:01

    “[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

    I would love to have seen the look on her face if anyone replied:

    “I want to serve despite George W. Bush.”

  29. J— said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:02

    Thanks, Brad. I just downloaded the report and will now get nothing done this morning.

    Colbert’s prescience is uncanny.

  30. jenniebee said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:02

    Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    Considering the post on which we’re commenting, it looks to me like that train has already left the station.

    That’s true – what if we stuck with the W method of just creating a hostile work environment with no opportunities for career advancement and an attractive early retirement program for political “undesirables?” That precedent’s already been set.

  31. woody, tokin librul said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:03

    Atop the stack at one of my blogs, I have undertake a rant on precisely this subject, if anyone is interested: Click here.I do NOT limit myself to Pat Robertson’s “Regents’ U,” though…

  32. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:04

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    I am a bootlicking toady.

  33. Andre said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:04

    “Creepy” is kind of relative, though.

    I mean, you people* make your children stand every morning and vow their tiny little souls out to your national flag.

    That is creepy.

    * – By “you people”, I don’t mean to imply that only black people do this.

  34. roac said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:07

    What mako rojo said. I don’t expect many of these people to be here very long. There have been political hires before, but they leave because the work is not sympathetic.

    There are certain norms here which this administration has utterly disregarded, in more ways than have been made public. (My neck is already stuck out here so I’m not going to be specific.) Having been caught, they have not only acknowledged they were wrong, they have positively groveled in apologizing to the career people as a body. Recent hiring has returned to the former standard. We’re happy to leave it at that. The last thing I want is to have some board looking into whether somebody else should have been hired instead of me X years ago. I don’t want any administration to have that in their toolbox.

  35. Andre said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:09

    Also, this is actually kind of funny (whether or not you read the exclamation marks as operators):

    “This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.”

    The string reads as follows:
    [First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a
    candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or
    charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra
    or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or
    controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or
    layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict!
    or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired
    or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or
    controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or
    firearm!

    I don’t know, it just reads like it should be in a sharply-serrated speech balloon in a Batman comic.

  36. J— said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:14

    Goodling scoured the internets, wouldn’t you know. She followed the example of her predecessor as the DOJ’s White House Liaison, Jan Williams. From page 21:

    When Williams left the Department in April 2006, she sent an e-mail to Goodling containing an Internet search string and explained:

    “This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.” The string reads as follows: [First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

    In addition, Williams provided to Goodling the White House document described above entitled, “The Thorough Process of Investigation.”

    That damned spotted owl. It haunts us to this day.

  37. J— said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:16

    I see Andre has got this one covered. Does this mean someone for the wins?

  38. SamFromUtah said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:16

    …it just reads like it should be in a sharply-serrated speech balloon in a Batman comic.

    Hee hee

    Here I thought K-Lo had posted again.

  39. D.N. Nation said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:19

    Sam- Nah, that’s more Groganese.

  40. jim said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:23

    “[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

    Frankly, ma’am, I just think he’d look peachy-keen with a candied apple shoved in his gob … & he could probably feed a family of six for weeks!

    So, do I get the job now or what?

  41. HTML Mencken said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:23

    Remember, she’s Mrs. Mike Krempasky now. Someone might want to see what they’re saying over at Redstate.

  42. mako rojo said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:25

    Q. What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?
    A. I really like the way he fills out a flight suit [then give wide-eyed nodding head up and down look for agreement.]

    This would be especially effective is candidate is male.

  43. D.N. Nation said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:27

    HTML- They be ballin’, Confederate Wankee-style.

  44. alec said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:30

    I very much agree with the surreal creepiness factor pointed out in Justice Department employees – that is, people outside of the actual penumbra of the office of the President – being asked what it was that made them want to worship our heroic Commander in Chief, George Walker Bush.

    I don’t think it’s actually possible to satirize it. If only there were a Charlie Chaplin around.

    Also: I do think that setting precedent for mass purges when new administrations come in is bad, BUT.

    Bush has made appointments from the highest offices in the land on down on the basis of personal loyalty. When brought under question, by both deliberate pretense and innocent error they’ve betrayed a mixture of ignorance of and apathy for the principles on which this country is built and the basic skillset necessary for the job.

    It is like someone being appointed Solicitor General and earnestly believing that part of the defense’s job is to surreptitiously break the defendant out of jail; or someone being appointed head of Homeland Security who labors under the belief that Canada and Mexico are under US jurisdiction.

    There should be a test put out for each office which has had appointments made by Bush; ideally it should be designed with significant cooperation by both Democrats and non-authoritarian Republicans (there are actually a few who don’t consider it their job to tongue Bush’s divinely-appointed bung), and written primarily by experts in the field.

    There’s still an unfortunate precedent set by holding snap examinations, but our doing the same thing if we had won in 2004 would have saved New Orleans. God only knows what other incompetent toadies Bush has appointed. If they’re Bush toadies with a defensible record and capable skills, fine – but Christ, even Stalin was willing to hire experts from outside of the Party. Lysenko was an embarassment for the USSR; I don’t think he’d even annoy modern Bushlicans.

  45. javafascist said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:30

    Remember, she’s Mrs. Mike Krempasky now. Someone might want to see what they’re saying over at Redstate.

    Prior to actually looking over there, I’m going to guess they are saying:

    *chirp, chirp*

  46. Trilateral Chairman said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:48

    Man, that’s still pretty goddamn creepy. Maybe if they asked “What makes you want to serve the American people in conjunction with the Office of the President?” but all this “honor of the office” and “we must respect the president” bullshit is probably a goodly part of the reason our political system is so fucked up.

    Well…I was asked similar questions when I started working for the VA, and it was always pretty clear that when the interviewers asked “Why do you want to work for the Veterans’ Administration?” they really meant “Why do you want to serve our veterans?” or “Why do you want to serve our country/the American people by working with our veterans?” In fact, throughout the course of the interview, some of them rephrased the question in just that way.

    I agree that one *could* draw a semantic distinction between “serving in the VA” and “serving the American people by working for the VA”; I just think that the interviewers *weren’t* drawing it, and thus I wasn’t freaked out.

    It may still be worth insisting on the distinction just to avoid problems in the future, but to me the key distinction is between serving a person and serving an office (or the American people through an office). If the interviewer had asked me why I was interested in serving George Bush (or whatever shmendrick was running the VA at the time), I’d've been out the door in a flash.

  47. Snorghagen said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:52

    What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to revere him as a living god?

  48. tata said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:53

    Is the no-choice Mrs. Krempasky preggers yet?

  49. Ginger Yellow said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:57

    “W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

    Heh. Reminds me of a famous question asked by a spoof chat show host in the UK: “What first attracted you to short, balding millionaire Paul Daniels?”

  50. Matt T. said,

    July 28, 2008 at 18:57

    Trilateral Chairman,
    Well, that’s the key, isn’t it? You were being asked why you wanted to work for the VA*, not serve anyone or anything. It may be just a semantic difference, but it’s still a pretty damn big one in my opinion. ‘Course, I do have problems with authority and have never been able to come up with a good answer to the “why do you want to work for us” question, now that I think of it. “Well, that weed won’t buy itself” probably wouldn’t fly.

    * Kudos on that, by the way. My old man’s a vet and the VA’s always done right by him. I know it’s a damn tough job.

  51. Edmund Schluessel said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:02

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    He’s Batman. Obviously.

    (Also: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16522 McCain sued by RIAA rumor. Anyone got more on this?)

  52. SowellFan said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:05

    It’s not surprising to me and many many others that the same people who chirp about change and support all sorts of not even true whistleblowing are the same people who don’t want to talk about Obama’s record at his church. What do you and he have to hide, liberals? But back to this issue- just like you’re keenly unaware of economics, you’re also unaware of democratic theory and principles that state that the President, by virtue of being the President, should be able to form the bureaucracy in his image. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this, and I suspect and expect you to ignore Obama, if he is elected, when he appoints his cronies and radical leftists.

  53. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:08

    Prior to actually looking over there, I’m going to guess they are saying:

    *chirp, chirp*

    That is substantially correct, although I would characterize the posts as *burp, burp*.

    AKA: Obama hates the troops, Serge be working, Obama is stupit, serge be working.

  54. alec said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:08

    Trilateral Chairman,
    Well, that’s the key, isn’t it? You were being asked why you wanted to work for the VA*, not serve anyone or anything. It may be just a semantic difference, but it’s still a pretty damn big one in my opinion. ‘Course, I do have problems with authority and have never been able to come up with a good answer to the “why do you want to work for us” question, now that I think of it. “Well, that weed won’t buy itself” probably wouldn’t fly.

    * Kudos on that, by the way. My old man’s a vet and the VA’s always done right by him. I know it’s a damn tough job.

    My dad had to do part of his residency with the VA hospital and it pissed him off. The administrator was one of those by-the-book dicks who made the surgeons wear ties beneath their gowns. Not a pleasant experience.

  55. pedestrian said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:08

    Nothing at RedState about Goodling, but they have this gem.

    Shorter Erick Erickson: As a rational, level-headed conservative, I was skeptical of a certain chain e-mail by a soldier who accused Obama of blowing off the troops; however, when the author himself admitted that he was lying, he not only proved that he was telling the truth, but revealed a massive liberal conspiracy within the military to silence any opposition to Obama.

  56. alec said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:10

    just like you’re keenly unaware of economics, you’re also unaware of democratic theory and principles that state that the President, by virtue of being the President, should be able to form the bureaucracy in his image.

    So Bush is a pig-ignorant party flack? Why, SF, I never took you for a Bush Derangement Syndrome candidate.

  57. Snorghagen said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:11

    What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to descend into the abyss?

    What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to abjectly surrender your puny will to the all-powerful Bush hive?

    What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to fellate goats?

  58. tigrismus said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:14

    the President, by virtue of being the President, should be able to form the bureaucracy in his image

    And on the seventh day he rests.

  59. SamFromUtah said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:15

    Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    I agree, after a fashion. Anyone who’s actually competent can stay, as far as I’m concerned, and as others have said above. It may be that more qualified people were passed over to hire the Jesus W. Bush drones, which is a tragedy akin to several others the Bush admin has perpetrated through stupid / malicious appointments and policies.

    Hopefully, those who joined up merely to grovel at the Gee Dumbya altar will quit on their own once they’re no longer serving him. Especially if it’s President Obama running things and they’re convinced he’s the antichrist.

    D.N. Nation – that’s quite an eyebrow-raising URL you’ve posted for Red State: “barack-obama-blew-troops-according-email-now-retra”

  60. Trilateral Chairman said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:16

    Well, that’s the key, isn’t it? You were being asked why you wanted to work for the VA*, not serve anyone or anything.

    See, but I think I *was* being asked to serve our veterans. Moreover, if one of the interviewers had asked “Why do you want to serve the Veterans’ Administration?” I would’ve understood it in the same way. I’m not much good with authority either, but that didn’t particularly tweak my rebell-o-meter the way the word “serve” usually does. That’s probably because I believe that the question is more or less appropriate. As a group, veterans aren’t quite like any other group. People who don’t make an attempt to understand or care about vets–people who just show up to count the hours and collect a paycheck–tend not to be very good at their jobs. I’m not by any means calling for a hospital full of drooling flag-wavers; I’m just hoping for people who understand where they are and who they’re working with.

    My old man’s a vet and the VA’s always done right by him.

    He’s a lucky guy. The VA does not do right as often as it should, unfortunately. Speaking of which, I need to stop posting here and go figure out how HR/Medical managed to lose half our lab’s paperwork for the THIRD DAMN TIME. (It’s only *half* the lab’s paperwork, but it’s always the same half. I don’t get it. I really don’t.)

  61. Hoosier X said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:23

    I miss Bruce.

  62. rob said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:25

    What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    Mmmm, commander codpiece . . .

  63. Matt T. said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:27

    He’s a lucky guy. The VA does not do right as often as it should, unfortunately.

    Oh, no doubt and he knows it. Plus, my old man’s got the patience of a saint, and when that don’t work, my mother can argue down a charging bull. My brother thinks the successful visits with the VA has less to do with the administration and more to do with them getting Momma out of their hair.

  64. mikey said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:34

    Nah. You don’t have to “Purge” anybody for their politics. You just appoint upper management that return to the old-fashion management style of demanding and rewarding competence rather than loyalty.

    If any of these political hacks are truly competent, they will be rewarded with better assignments and better jobs and roles. If they are truly nothing but political hacks, and there are better candidates for the job, a couple of quarterly performance reviews should pretty much clean it up.

    The problem was the criterion being selected for. Interesting, that is also the solution..

    mikey

  65. Gerald Curl said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:35

    That damned spotted owl. It haunts us to this day.

    That’s the same reaction I had when I saw that search term. I imagine that a wingnut’s diagram of liberal conspiracies would have all the lines emanating from a picture of Dan Rather in a spotted owl costume.

  66. LittlePig said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:36

    I see some poor kid groveling before Monica yelling “I will not turn! I will not turn!” while she blasts him with lightning.

    Darth Monica. “Only now, at the end, do you realize the true power of Republicanism…”

  67. mikey said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:40

    I gotta tellya, when I was able to afford my own therapists and doctors and recovery clinics and the like, I pretty much stopped using the VA for anything. Annoying bureaucracy, wait for everything, and if your caregiver is an idiot or a prick its just tough.

    Private headshrinkers are expensive as all get-out, but it’s some of the best money I’ve ever spent…

    mikey

  68. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:41

    Darth Monica. “Only now, at the end, do you realize the true power of Republicanism…”


    (AP) The next president will inherit a record budget deficit approaching $490 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate.

    Note: Does include about $80 billion in war costs, because as Paul Wolfowitz told us, the war in Iraq will pay for itself.

  69. Edmund Schluessel said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:42

    oh, and also, Robert Novak has a brain tumor.

    Trying to decide how tasteless a joke I’m comfortable with.

  70. Pope Ratzo said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:48

    This is serious as hell. Barack really needs to purge the Justice Department, and as many other gov’t agencies as he can, of all the miserable zombies that these fascistic, religious nuts have put in place. Each and every one of them will spend their entire work day working to undermine the new president’s positions and agenda. They all have to go.

    Like Clinton, he needs to fire every US Attorney and start from scratch. Maybe some of them will get their jobs back, but he needs to get a resignation letter on file for every single stinking one of them.

    And Monica Goodling needs to be shunned by society, ridiculed on the street and scorned by anyone who loves America. Her name needs to become synonymous with “traitor” and “anti-American”. Seriously, she deserves to have the rest of her life ruined by what she tried to do to this country.

  71. Robert Novak said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:50

    I am serious as cancer:
    Reagan was a dancer.

  72. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:50

    Reagan was a dancer.

    Oh, Snap!

  73. Ugly In Pink said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:56

    Trying to decide how tasteless a joke I’m comfortable with.

    Maybe the tumor is in the sector of his brain that has to do with applying the brakes of his automobile.

  74. Malfunctioning Monica Goodling Robot said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:56

    Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal! Tee hee! Giggle! Bush is totes kewliez! No job for you, doo-doo head liberal!

  75. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:57

    Note: Deficit does NOT include 80 billion in war costs. So the real deficit is much higher, and going even higher.

    Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” Dick Cheney told Paul O’Neill during a Cabinet meeting. “We won the (2002) midterms. This is our due.”

  76. Snorghagen said,

    July 28, 2008 at 19:57

    Incidentally, according to Wikipedia it was Monica Goodling who ordered that the partially nude ‘Spirit of Justice’ sculpture at the Justice Department be covered with drapes back in 2002.

  77. GSD said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:01

    It’s 2:00 eastern time. Everyone face your portrait of President George W. Bush and recite your prayers.

    -Monica Badling

  78. Gary Ruppert said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:03

    The fact is, DUmmie FUnnies is a way funnier blog than this one.

  79. The Church Lady said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:08

    Novacula has a brain tumor? Now?

    How conveeeeenient…..

  80. Doctor Missus Marita said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:09

    The fact is, DUmmie FUnnies is a way funnier blog than this one.

    That desperate idiot isn’t still blogging, is he?

    Can someone else look for me? I’m a little frightened.

  81. robert green said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:10

    the USDOJ has instigated a review of the behavior of the employees of the USDOJ so that should those findings be found worthy of criminal or civil liability the USDOJ employees can go after other USDOJ employees or their bosses. The USDOJ feels that the USDOJ is perfectly suited to best weigh the relative illegality of USDOJ employees based on USDOJ rules as interpreted by the USDOJ. USDOJ had the following comment:

    USDOJ is aware of problems with USDOJ and is asking USDOJ to send USDOJ investigators to look into whatever problems USDOJ caused USDOJ. and whatever problems it did to US can be best ascertained by an internal USDOJ white paper, authored by USDOJ inspectors whose knowledge of USDOJ regulations was learned by those whom USDOJ has determined may have committed violations of USDOJ rules.

    John Conyers and Henry Waxman could not be reached for comment, as both of them were totally fucking useless.

  82. SamFromUtah said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:14

    That desperate idiot isn’t still blogging, is he?

    Looks like he is.

    In similar news, I can’t get the “Fred Thompson Facts” archive page to load, but that might not mean anything.

  83. D.N. Nation said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:15

    Doctor Missus- Yep, he still is:

    Barack Obama’s speech at the Victory Column in Berlin has caused a collective Obasmic thrill to go up the legs of the KOmmies. As you will see they are now acting like a bunch of enthralled schoolgirls…or like Chris Matthews on Hardball. Although the Germans, who can’t vote in our elections, were enthralled by Obama’s appearance, the big news for Americans is that Obama thought it was “inappropriate” for him to visit with wounded American military personnel in Germany. That is what will be remembered here.

    Um…….ha?

  84. Trilateral Chairman said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:18

    Oh, no doubt and he knows it. Plus, my old man’s got the patience of a saint, and when that don’t work, my mother can argue down a charging bull. My brother thinks the successful visits with the VA has less to do with the administration and more to do with them getting Momma out of their hair.

    I would have to agree with your brother. I think that in general, vets tend to complain a lot less than other folk. It’s generally an admirable quality (I’m still in awe of my grandfather for his apparently inexhaustible patience) but it can become a liability in places like the VA. Squeaky wheels get the grease, and all those wheels that are doing their damnedest *not* to squeak get ignored until they actually break.

    I gotta tellya, when I was able to afford my own therapists and doctors and recovery clinics and the like, I pretty much stopped using the VA for anything. Annoying bureaucracy, wait for everything, and if your caregiver is an idiot or a prick its just tough.

    That seems pretty common (it’s what my family did for my grandfather when they got enough money together). In the end, the VA seems to be there for people who can’t or won’t go anywhere else.

  85. ahem said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:21

    Trust me, you do not want to see a precedent set of purging the career civil service on political grounds every time a new administration takes over.

    Yeah, it’s not as if having a sleeper cell of Regent U wingnuts in the career DoJ isn’t going to cause any Democratic president problems in the future.

  86. stryx said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:34

    Goodling: If we let you toss the President’s salad, would you do it without grape jelly?

  87. Tim (The Other One) said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:36

    Does anyone know who Regent U plays in their first game this Fall ?

  88. Lesly said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:47

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    That sums up the problem nicely.

  89. TR said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:54

    Does anyone know who Regent U plays in their first game this Fall ?

    I think they’re taking it to the Sumerians.

  90. javafascist said,

    July 28, 2008 at 20:54

    Novacula has a brain tumor? Now?

    How conveeeeenient…..

    I hear he has been critical of Barack Obama. Let’s hope he recovers so he’s not just another name to add to the list.

  91. commie atheist said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:29

    AKA: Obama hates the troops, Serge be working, Obama is stupit, serge be working.

    About time that lazy asshole Serge got a job.

  92. FlipYrWhig said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:38

    Q: What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    A: There’s something about him you can perceive… It’s a technical term. I believe it’s “miasma.” No, wait, I mean “aura”! “Aura”!

    I assume you’d like me to leave.

  93. commie atheist said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:38

    It may be that more qualified people were passed over to hire the Jesus W. Bush drones, which is a tragedy akin to several others the Bush admin has perpetrated through stupid / malicious appointments and policies.

    Oh, you betcha…

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/28/goodling-passed-over-experienced-counterterrorism-prosecutor-because-wife-was-a-democrat/

    In today’s Justice Department report on Monica Goodling’s and other DOJ officials’ politicization of the department, the investigators reveal that Goodling’s political considerations were “particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates.”

    In one disgraceful example, Goodling refused to hire “one of the leading terrorism prosecutors in the country” because his wife was a Democrat:

    He was an experienced terrorism prosecutor and had successfully prosecuted a high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service. … The candidate’s wife was a prominent local Democrat elected official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. […]

    [Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Michael] Battle, [EOUSA Deputy Director and Cheif of Staff] Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely on the basis of his wife’s political party affiliation. Battle said he was very upset that Goodling opposed the detail because of political reasons.

    Goodling’s “damaging” refusal, the report notes, forced the EOUSA to “select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues” and was grossly unqualified for the position:

    Because EOUSA had been unable to fill the counterterrorism detail after Goodling vetoed this candidate, a current EOUSA detailee was asked to assume EOUSA’s counterterrorism portfolio. … He had no counterterrorism experience and had less than the minimum of 5 years of federal criminal prosecution experience required by the EOUSA job announcement. Battle, Nowacki, Kelly, and Voris all said they thought that he was not qualified for the position, since he had no counterterrorism experience.

  94. smiling dog said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:38

    Ha ha, someone tries to suck up by saying Condoleeza Rice and gets shot down anyway. He didn’t deserve the job. He would have been better off saying Mussolini.

  95. commie atheist said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:39

    I shot some comments into the air, where they landed I know not where.

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  96. stryx said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:46

    Q: What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    You might be a rock ‘n’ roll addict prancing on the stage,
    You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage,
    You may be a business man or some high degree thief,
    They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief

    But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
    You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
    Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
    But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

  97. Jennifer said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:48

    Novakula? I’ll go there.

    First reaction: All of that seething evil is bound to eat a hole in whatever it touches. In this case, resulting in a brain lesion.

    Then again, maybe it’s just a legal ploy to excuse driving away from a hit and run and then claiming “I never saw the guy” who was sprawled all over the hood.

  98. Gary Ruppert said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:55

    The fact is, not only is DUmmie FUnnies a way funnier blog than this one, it’s way more witty too.

    Ooohh, I said it. Damn.

  99. Some Guy said,

    July 28, 2008 at 21:59

    You know that scene in Standing Tall (hey, it’s not that terrible a film, just go with it.) when The Rock become sheriff of the corrupt little town, and the first thing he does is fire all his deputies and staff?

    Someone needs to rip that clip form the film and send it to Obama.

  100. Adam said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:02

    This makes me absolutely livid.

    Can I get my taxpayer money back from her? Can she give back her salary, please?

  101. skippy said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:03

    actually, the question was misunderstood by goodling’s assistant. what monica actually asked interviewees was, “what is it about george w. bush that makes you want to service him?”

  102. eidos said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:03

    This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.” The string reads as follows: [First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

    My god, that search string summarizes all the partisan political issues (form the grand to the oh so petty) of the last twenty years. You can’t make this shit up!

  103. stryx said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:10

    [First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

    Haven’t I read that here before? Is that you Gary?

  104. Lawnguylander said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:18

    My god, that search string summarizes all the partisan political issues (form the grand to the oh so petty) of the last twenty years. You can’t make this shit up!

    Not quite. It’s missing Tinky Winky and the Vagina Monologues.

  105. Iris said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:21

    This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.” The string reads as follows: [First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

  106. Doctorb said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:28

    or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam!

    I think “blam!” is a pretty worthwhile search term actually.

    Holden: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about… your mother.
    Leon: My mother?
    Holden: Yeah.
    Leon: Let me tell you about my mother.

    BLAM!
    BLAM!

    You generally want to avoid job interviews like that.

  107. tigrismus said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:38

    Along with economic laws and all internet traditions, I am apparently not fully aware of lexis-nexis search string rules: why are sex! and racis! listed twice even though she’d used or?

  108. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:40

    why are sex! and racis! listed twice even though she’d used or?

    It’s sexier and racier.

  109. Ugly In Pink said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:40

    ’cause she’s stupid. As far as I know, there’s no reason to list ‘em twice.

  110. J— said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:45

    Something to look forward to in the coming month or so: the wingnut xenophobe spasm over The Perfect Game.

  111. GSD said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:46

    Seeing that the GOP and the Bush Admin. used old Chinese Communist torture manuals for their application of interrogation, would it be OK for President Obama to use some of Stalin’s old manuals on how to purge the government of undesireable political agents?

    Just asking.

    -G

  112. stryx said,

    July 28, 2008 at 22:56

    Anyone want to bet that Monica Goodling never went to Burning Man as a pre-teen?

    Or, like, ever? Could that be our new soviet reducation camp? “Comrade, you have disappointed the collective. You will report to Nevada not to return until you have been purged of your bourgeois afflictions.”

    Imagine MG, tweaked out on shrooms, dancing naked under the full moon to the sound of the drums. The thought give me hope for the future.

  113. pedestrian said,

    July 28, 2008 at 23:13

    Imagine MG, tweaked out on shrooms, dancing naked under the full moon to the sound of the drums…

    tearing out her hair, grabbing flaming brands from the fire and chasing after hippies, throwing herself onto the flames with an unearthly metalic shriek…

    Believe me, it isn’t as easy to exorcise the demons as you might think.

  114. Gerald Curl said,

    July 28, 2008 at 23:16

    Speaking of hatred of liberals and their policies, it appears that dickhead in Tennessee that killed the two people at the UU church was angry at liberals. The article states this:

    [T]he state recently sent a letter to Adkisson telling him food stamps he had been receiving would be reduced or eliminated.

    Typical. Big time hater of gays too. Quelle surprise. Can’t wait for the commentary from the right.

  115. SamFromUtah said,

    July 28, 2008 at 23:27

    [T]he state recently sent a letter to Adkisson telling him food stamps he had been receiving would be reduced or eliminated.

    Those damn liberals, slashing assistance programs!

    Can’t wait for the commentary from the right.

    You’ll hear it as soon as all those crickets stop chirping, I bet.

  116. stringonastick said,

    July 28, 2008 at 23:36

    [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    Serve him as what? Drunken Chicken? It seems like he’s been marinating for a long, long time.

  117. Lesley said,

    July 28, 2008 at 23:49

    CBS: Time To Prosecute Goodling And Company

    Awards for gall need to be handed out, preferably in 16-ton single block chunks dropped on the winners while they stand smiling on the podium of shame.

  118. J— said,

    July 28, 2008 at 23:53

    More search string fun. This is a little long, so please skip over it if you’re not interested in the gory details of quotidian bureaucratic hackery.

    In her interview with us, Williams claimed: “[I] never used the search [string] while I was at the Department.” However, as described earlier, when she left the Department in April 2006, Williams sent an e-mail to incoming White House Liaison Goodling that contained a search string, and stated: “This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.” The string reads as follows:

    [J—: this is the same search quoted above.]

    When we showed Williams this e-mail and the attached search string, she said she did not recall sending it to Goodling. She also said she did not recognize the search string, and that she did not know where the list of search terms came from. At the end of her interview, we raised the issue again and Williams repeated her assertion that she did not remember using the search string.

    The day after her interview, Williams sent us an e-mail stating that she “thought about the research string and have some information that I want to share with you.” She wrote that there had been a political vacancy in the Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division in December 2005, that a law professor was a candidate, and that Sampson asked her to research the law professor’s writings. Williams stated that she “called the researcher in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel to get some research tips.” Williams said the researcher sent her a “Lexis Nexis research string,” and that she edited the string to remove “words like homosexual” and then used it. Williams claimed that she only used the search string that one time, “never ever used it to reach Immigration Judges,” and that the string she sent to Goodling did not contain “words like ‘homosexual.’”

    However, we concluded that Williams’s assertions regarding the search string and her use of the tool were not accurate. The string she sent to Goodling via e-mail in April 2006 did contain the terms “homosexual!” and “gay!” Furthermore, the evidence showed she used the search string more than once, and the terms were also included in those searches.

    We searched both Williams’s e-mails and electronic files saved on her computer, and did not find evidence on her computer that Williams conducted other Internet searches using this search string. However, we obtained information from LexisNexis that Williams used this search string multiple times on 3 days in November and December 2005 and January 2006. Williams used the search string to research 25 people, of whom 23 were candidates for the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. One of the other two candidates was the person Williams referred to in her e-mail to us after we interviewed Williams. We could not determine the identity of the remaining person Williams researched using the search string. None of these people were candidates for IJ or BIA positions. All of the searches Williams conducted contained search terms such as “gay!” and “homosexual!” When we asked Williams about the LexisNexis searches, she stated that she did not recall researching the candidates for the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women or using the string search other than the one time discussed above.

    From pages 100-101 of the report.

  119. Lesley said,

    July 29, 2008 at 0:17

    OT but somehow gratifying
    Robert Novak Has Brain Tumor. The same one that’s inflicted the Bush admin from day one?

  120. stryx said,

    July 29, 2008 at 1:15

    Oh, right….that search string. I didn’t know you meant that string.

  121. The Monica Goodling Report: Selected Extracts (with Illustrative Video) said,

    July 29, 2008 at 1:21

    [...] spent a couple of hours this afternoon browsing the report (h/t to Sadly No! where I found the link to the report (actually entitled ‘Investigation of Allegations of [...]

  122. Anne Laurie said,

    July 29, 2008 at 1:43

    “[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

    Frankly, ma’am, I just think he’d look peachy-keen with a candied apple shoved in his gob … & he could probably feed a family of six for weeks!

    Yeah, the little bustard *looks* kinda tough & stringy, but if the Enquirer is correct he’s been marinating himself nicely.

    Nobody wants to serve Darth Cheney, though. Even before they started bathing his bionic heart in radioactive isotopes, his carcasse had a vile smell & no doubt an even worse aftertaste.

  123. mikey said,

    July 29, 2008 at 1:54

    the gory details of quotidian bureaucratic hackery.

    Huh. Is that what the kids are calling it today?

    Just looks a lot like lying to cover your ass to me.

    mikey

  124. stryx said,

    July 29, 2008 at 3:19

    What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

    Well, I know he’s cut off, but the way he likes to make out with Gannon is just a hoot! And plus it’s funny when he does a face plant and has to make up stories!
    He is just the best story teller! I mean he’s got everyone thinking he’s sleeping with Condi but really he’s just her beard! Plus he’s free with the money when he’s had a few.

    Lordy, that man loves him some whiskey.

  125. Dan said,

    July 29, 2008 at 3:46

    Here’s a quick summary for the word-averse.

  126. Jrod said,

    July 29, 2008 at 4:04

    I’m all about serving Bush…

    WITH A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST!!

    (bah-dum tish)

  127. Doctorb said,

    July 30, 2008 at 20:45

    Indictment! indictment! indictment!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=MzQ8jNVpCXY

  128. Kip W said,

    August 5, 2008 at 4:45

    “To Serve Bush”…?
    Oh my God! It’s not a cook book!

  129. Javier Ollie said,

    February 28, 2012 at 6:05

    I really like and thank you for blog post.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()