A time for outrage


Now the administration has taken things too far.

According to today's New York Times, acting only on evidence no greater than a single wire-tapped call and an extrapolation of their inadvertent involvement in drug smuggling, the White House has determined that puppies are a viable terror threat and is using such allegations to justify these recently uncovered behaviors:

George W. Bush: Calls puppies disrespectful names and threatens to make them an alternative fuel source.

Donald H. Rumsfeld: Yanks puppy tails. Plays fetch with puppies and WMDs.

Alberto Gonzales: Tries oral arguments out on puppies before appearing before the Supreme Court.

Condoleeza Rice : Bathes in the blood of puppies to maintain her healthful glow.

Former White House guard Steven Millhause is quoted as saying, "Puppies go in but they don't go out."

Now, I've thought long and hard about this, and I've finally come up with three valid uses for puppies (1, 2 and 3) but this stuff's beyond the pale.

Get involved. Write your congressman.


  1. I suspect this entry was an excuse to use link #3.

  2. HAHAHA. Bawb I was thinking the same exact thing before I read your comment.

  3. What's the opposite of an oral argument?

  4. .


    I thought I was supposed to be the inscrugtable one.

  5. I am outraged! Simply outraged! How dare they abuse puppies like that (although Condi does have beautiful skin... hmmm... tempting). I am writing Rob Bishop RIGHT NOW to demand an inquiry. And to demand that he go to PetsMart and get a professional
    grooming, because, HELLO, have you seen that man's hair?

    Also, remind me to never go to a wedding you've catered. Thanks!

  6. I'd never thought I'd see myself writing this, but I'm going to have to agree with Dubya on this one, if for different reasons.

    Not a dog lover. Sorry. I guess this will make your disappointment in me complete.