PAPA BEAR O’REILLY MEETS STEVEN COLBERT IN BOTH OF THEIR DOMAINS – IS O’REILLY AGAIN THE MASTER OF HIS?

      

          This past week marked the unique juxtaposition of the master
of the “no spin zone”; Bill O’Reilly and the man he labels as his imitator,
Steve Colbert.  Mr. Colbert insists he does not imitate but emulates the
man he refers to as “Papa Bear”, and they met for the first time last Thursday
on both men’s shows.  Mr. Colbert who practices more of a zen spin, was
quite “respectful”, in his terms to an a-typically addled Mr. O’Reilly; to wit,
Steve Colbert comfortingly offered that while Bill O’Reilly often gets
criticized for what he says, he seldom gets credit for how loud he says
it.  And Steven did not talk about “that thing” he promised he wouldn’t;
after mentioning, that well, he wouldn’t.  And “that thing” was, of
course, Mr. O’Reilly’s phone “courtship” of a very reluctant lady
employee.  While this event preceded the founding of Faux News Network, we
feel a comment is in order, especially given that one of Mr. O’Reilly’s many
crusades is against wasteful spending, in government anyway.  First some
background, it seems these rather suggestive calls, again according to Mr.
O’Reilly, were not to seduce the young lady but rather stimulate Bill
himself.  The cost for this approach to self enamourment was reportedly
between 3 and 10 million dollars, again this by a man who criticizes mainly
democrats for excessive spending.

          Thus
we have some suggestions for Papa Bear from his fans at FNN.C.  First get
some lubricant to cut down on your personal level of friction, you seemed tense
with Colbert; second, rent (or buy) a stimulating video, say one starring Mary
Carey, (hint: look at her not the phone receivers) and third, you have our
guarantee that based on your previous outlay for your own self spin zone, this
time you will come in under budget.  And on that matter you of
course should emit the last word.

THE SEASON OF THE WHICH

            So
which is it?  President Bush says,
and has always said we have to be fiscally responsible as a nation but what
used to be fuzzy math now seems scuzzy math. 
The National Disaster Relief Fund (things like Katrina actually do happen)
is practically out of funds, and the war in Iraq is costing $300,000,000.00 PER
DAY between salaries, logistics and re-building Iraq and, guess what, we now
“own” the largest budget deficit of any nation in history.  But yet our Stubbornness-in-Chief won’t budge
off this tax cut agenda for the very rich and cronied.

            So which is it?  Mr. Bush insists we need a surge of soldiers
to make an impact in Baghdad
but the additional 20,000 he’s sending is only a 15% increase in our numbers
there to that end.  And while the (John)
McCain doctrine calls for many more troops than that; with no draft or other
inducements to increase in the size of our Armed Forces we’re asking the same
veterans to sacrifice and, obviously and logically, running short of new
recruits.

            So which is it?  We can’t, according to Bush, Rice, et al,
leave Iraq
without winning so there is no “Plan B”, though why then do they call the first
one “Plan A”?  However then  . . . we’re told that if the Iraqi’s don’t
meet certain “benchmarks” we will at
that point withdraw support.  So then we can leave, and face losing this “ultimate ideological struggle”, but it’s up to
the Iraqi’s sense of mission and their competence as to whether we do so.  Feel safer yet? 

            AND SO WHICH WAS IT, when Mr. Bush had his mission
embellished moment?  It wasn’t victory
obviously because virtually all in the know, Republicans and Democrats,
conservative and liberal, agree; that the Bush bunch has been trying to figure
a way out of Iraq
ever since that day.  What it was, and
what it is, is this; it’s what they tell
us it is, and it’s OK if they spin and re-spin, and it’s OK if Mr. Bush has a
whim of iron, because none of this is  flip-flopping, if you’re Republican; the people
for all seasons, all seasons of the “which”.  
  

NOT WELL HUNG

In the words of the learned Evan Thomas of Newsweek
regarding the latest Iraq
rope-a-dope; “How hard can it be to hang someone?”  And now we’re told there will be two separate
“commands” in Iraq – a
divided military, an Iraqi General and a U.S. General who will operate
“independently” but in the same exact area, Baghdad. 
Talk about a friendly fire (an oxymoron if there ever was one) accident
waiting to happen.  Can this troupe of clowns
(who endanger real troops) be right
on anything other than their ideological obsession?

MUCH TO DO ABOUT NO ZINGS

It is not, repeat, not a zinger for Senator Barbara Boxer to
say to Condi Rice that she has no kids or grandkids who will be at risk in the Iraq
war theater, it’s a statement of fact. 
If Ms. Rice feels slighted because she’s actually never had or will have
children that is to the best of our knowledge her personal choice.  And as to the fact that few families of the
population in general and even fewer of the affluent, including Ms. Boxer’s
family, will sacrifice anything at all in the Iraqi war, that’s also a matter
of fact.  But . . .we at the Faux News
Network always seeking the fauxer way, may just have a helpful (in our terms)
solution.  It would be in the form of an
organization to promote patriotism, unity behind our president and maybe most
importantly, honesty, and it would have two chapters, one for those over age
42, the other for those 42 and younger. 
It would work as follows, those joining would do nothing different, nothing, give up not a single privilege, take
not a bit of time from their lives to help any individual or family who has
suffered from serving their country in the Mid-east.  What they would do (in the over 42 group) is
look at the mirror each morning and at least tell themselves the truth and say
as follows, we support the war and troop surge in Iraq and we are “Relying On Other’s
Kids” – or we are ROOKing.  Those age 42
and under (and thus eligible for
enlistment) would say we “Rely On Other Kids” – also a ROOK job.  See, it’s easy and you feel good about
yourself, and still get your rich person’s tax refund.  That’s sacrifice, conservative style; you
sacrifice only the charade.  Now, can we please change the subject back to
a really relevant “zing”, namely John Kerry’s botched joke in November.

WE HOPE AND PRAY THE 3RD TIME’S NOT A HARM

This increase of troops will be the 3^rd such
initiative by our surger-in-chief; and as the others, does not seem likely to
succeed.  Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd was recently in Iraq, had dinner
with more than twenty (20) officers who said to a man according to Senator
Dodd, this is not what will work.

In an
administration which began with Dick Cheney (and where has he been) literally
finding himself in the VP search; could the decider-in-chief ever face the real
problem in Iraq, which is also himself, and achieve the appropriate, ultimate,
patriotic, and logical withdrawal, which we kind of wish his father had done.

YOUNG NEO-CONS TROOP WET DRAWS DEPT.

Also ironically accurate is Don Imus’s assessment that none in
this administration would have faced their fate with the frontal (psychotic)
aggressiveness of Saddam Hussein.  As the “Imam” speculated (and we feel
correctly so) they (the neo-cons) would have to have been shot in the butt
while they were fleeing – like they were from the Vietnam draft.  That was the
one troop withdrawal these guys did believe in, deferring themselves from
possibly being troops.  And forgive the dry humor, but from what we
know of all these chicken hawks, their draws wouldn’t have been.

CUT AND RUM DEPT. UP-DATE

Some things are true even if Donald Rumsfeld
says they are.  For example his claim that a surge in troops would provide
no substantial change or dividend we regretfully conclude is correct.  Of
course what will result, sadly, is more American casualties.  We wonder
did any of this administration ever heft, lift or even touch a full body
bag.  And by the way, as of 1/11/07 a number of folks in the Iraqi
government have announced that they don’t want more troops.

THE BASEBALL HALT OF FAME

It’s a JOKE that Jim Rice and Goose Gossage didn’t get voted
into the Hall; they were dominant players of their era.  Pete Rose agrees and hopes that since next
year is an “off year” for sure fire candidates, the fact that he’s completely
rehabilitated as a gambler should work on his behalf; he’s laying 5 to 3 this
will happen.  Contact Pete at prfakerehab.com.

THE EDWARD JOHN SMITH STAY THE COURSE AWARD

Ok, so why name the “award” after Edward Smith, a man of aristocratic
background, with folksy charm who was liked by people, was noted for making
them feel safe, and a man whose personal biography quoted him as follows: “I
never faced a situation I could not overcome”? Let us explain. His greatest
responsibility was entrusted to him at age 62 but he tended to immaturely
delegate his responsibility to some of the least qualified under his command as
long as it not interfere with his good night’s sleep. His career and life in
fact, are defined by just such a decision and the ensuing aftermath when,
despite warnings of the difficulty accomplishing the mission ahead, he left an
inexperienced man on watch and history has not treated him kindly. Perhaps it
was because he had no Tony Snow to spin on his behalf, or perhaps it’s simply
because staying the course was so very, very unwise, but here it is, Mr. Smith
or should I say Captain Smith’s last job of record was as Captain of the S.S.
Titanic.

Had there been a Mr. Snow around to give well, a snow job (ice
job?), he might have said as follows; did the last hours of the voyage cause
inconvenience to some, yes but, there was absolute smooth sailing until that point and the media is
focusing too much on only the bad news here, remember not every Titanic
passenger involved suffered irreparable harm. That said, the first Stay the Course
award goes to our Courser-in-Chief, George W. Bush, who apparently did not fully
grasp that the captain of our ship of state has as his charge not to always,
always stubbornly stay the course (in Iraq or anywhere else), but to assemble
the best crew possible, listen to quality input and miss the friggin’ icebergs.

 Coming soon we are accepting nominations for the first “Yes Butt”
award. There will be prizes for whomever’s candidate wins; please include his
or her “Yes Butt” resume.

HAPPY THIS YEAR

         

We at
Faux News Network know “Happy New Year” is the typical well wish in
January but that seems well, just so limited. Because at some point the
year isn’t new, its middle, and then it’s advanced and . . . we want our
audience to be happy (with FNN providing perhaps some of the chuckles) the
whole year long. Were we the cautious sorts, of course, we’d be careful because
O’Guiley and friends might well decide to accuse us of waging a war on New
Year’s Day (created instantly at 12:00 a.m. on January 1) versus the
entirety of a twelve month 2007, kind of  a revolutionary, no make that evolutionary
concept, but  . . . we’ll chance it.  So again, “Happy This Year”.