I have video of them eating dead babies

(10 am – promoted by ek hornbeck)

On the White House lawn, actually.

But, hey – don’t worry; I’m not gonna get all up in a lather about it.

I mean, I don’t want to hurt our chances in November. We don’t want to give the right wing any ammunition that they might use against us, like that we’re “vengeful,” or that our releasing a video of dead-baby eating is “politically motivated,” or that congressional investigations into dead-baby eating are just more “political theater.”

Sure – “Ooooh, dead-baby eating! Oooh, the boogeyman!” I know you’re all, “Oooh, that’s un-American! How can they do that?” Well, I’d love to tell you, but if I did, I’d be revealing sources and methods that could compromise our ability to fight the terrorists. But let’s just say it involves a casserole dish, a little basil, and a 375-degree oven, and leave it at that, m’kay?

And anyway, who says dead-baby eating is a crime?  I mean, I wouldn’t want to have it done to my baby, but the Attorney General tells me he has a written opinion from the White House counsel that says that, short of being slowly roasted on a spit with an apple in their mouth, dead-baby eating does not constitute criminal behavior, and violates no international treaties that we observe.  So I’m good with that.

And like I said, it’s not like they were eating my baby. In fact, I’ve been given assurances by those in the administration that only babies with links to known terrorists were consumed.    

Besides, I am sure there are times when dead-baby eating is the only way to extract vital nutrition that could spell the difference between life and death when you’re faced with an imminent starvation attack.  I wouldn’t presume to second-guess the administration when it comes to their judgment about the necessity of performing such an unpleasant task.

And even though the possibility exists that some innocent babies might get caught in this process, the nutrition that is obtained is of vital importance to the country.  We all have to keep in mind that these are times unlike any other in our nation’s history: in order to obtain nutrition, unprecedented methods must sometimes be used, however abhorrent we might at first, in our naivete, believe them to be.

Besides, even if eating dead babies on the White House lawn were a crime, there’s just  not enough time to do anything about it. Anyone knows it would take at least a year or two to gather evidence and hold hearings, just to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to begin, say, an impeachment process.

And, you know, after the Clinton debacle, Americans don’t want to see another frivolous impeachment process;  never mind what some poll might say.

And the bottom line? We don’t have the votes in the Senate to convict.

Impeachment would be a waste of time, too: they’ll be out of office in less than a year, anyway, after which time, I’m sure we’ll never hear from them again.

Look – I know you’re all gung-ho about this impeachment thing, but until the administration does something really horrendous, it’s simply off the table.

So give it a rest, will ya?

Third in a series on impeachment

Also available in Orange

38 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. What exactly will it take?

  2. Having and old friend over for dinner, and a fine Chianti.

    • Temmoku on February 8, 2008 at 12:36 am

    and should have. If he doesn’t get Impeached for the crimes he has committed, will that be a green light for subsequent trai—ooops, Presidents to do the same as he had? Are we to be subjected to signing statements from now on? To wiretapping? To torture? To ballooning deficits so we can privatize sovereign nations? He should have been stopped! Get rid of the signing statements NOW!

    • nocatz on February 8, 2008 at 1:59 am

    http://library.thinkquest.org/

  3. …your impeachment series.  All great, but especially appreciated your reprint of Conyers’ 1974 testimony on Nixon impeachment.

    Thanks for your humor and prescient presentation.

Comments have been disabled.