No Update for Tuesday, November 9, 2004.

            No update today-- Editor preparing for, and teaching, Continuing Legal Education seminar on expert-opinion evidence and ethical standards regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome in child-custody cases.

Nov. 8, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

No Update for Monday, November 8, 2004.

            No update today-- Editor preparing for, and teaching, Continuing Legal Education seminar on ethics/liabilities issues in the wake of corporate/accounting/legal scandals symbolized by Enron, WorldCom, etc.

Nov. 7, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

Jacques Chirac meets Yasser Arafat but snubs Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Allawi-- Chirac's Traps for the Stance of France against America.

            Jacques Chirac proves yet again his Vichy-French instincts.  On Thursday (Nov. 4, 2004), Chirac was willing to make time to fit into his schedule a visit to Yasser Arafat's bedside [source], yet on Friday (Nov. 5, 2004) he was unwilling to merely remain at a European Union (EU) summit in Brussels for a scheduled luncheon meeting between 25 EU leaders and Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi-- instead, he left the meeting early to travel to the United Arab Emirates to "pay his respects to the new president of the United Arab Emirates, who took over following the death of his father on Tuesday [Nov. 2, 2004]."  [Source A; Source B]   Perhaps he had an urgent need to redeem some oil vouchers before their becoming invalidated whenever (if ever) the United Nations finally gets around to revealing the truth about the pre-Operation-Iraqi-Freedom Oil for Food welfare system for his political confidantes.

            PoliSat.Com's high-tech, remote-sensing equipment has intercepted electronic transmissions containing the audio and video signals for a speech by Jacques Chirac to be broadcast to the world to explain his "Principled Stance" as the 21st Century de Gaulle in opposing American hegemony by rejecting requests from the interim Iraqi government for France to contribute economically, politically and militarily to the efforts of reformers in Iraq efforts to establish a democracy respecting human rights.  PoliSat.Com's highly unreliable sources inside Chirac's inner-circle indicate that he envisions a stance for France in traps against American hegemony.  Here's the transcript of Chirac's soon-to-be-released speech explaining his "Principled Stance Against American Hegemony," a doctrine he expects to become popularly known as "Chirac's Traps":

            It's I, Jacques Chirac, head of France, committed to do all I can on keeping my schedule or changing my schedule to further my principled stance.  On learning that Yasser, my chum, for treatment by doctors had come to Paris, I changed my plans to arrange to meet with, and comfort, my chum.

            The next day at meetings in Brussels I flexed my political muscles by skipping the meeting at which Iraq pleaded for France to contribute some muscle. We're smarter than Dubya, who's itchy for planting democracy's niches so Mid-Eastern hate t'ward Jews can abate-- So-what if, again, we are Vichy?

            When help from the French Iraq seeks, my "no" I've expressed with great pique.  This principled stance saves face for my France-- obscuring the fact we're so weak.  Our stance here in France features traps for Bush called "diplomacy flaps" obscuring the signs of France's decline-- A doctrine I'm naming "Chirac's Traps."

Here's the text reformatted for clarity:

Jacques Chirac's Traps for the Stance of France against American "Hegemony":   

It's I, Jacques Chirac, head of France,
committed to do all I can
on keeping my schedule
or changing my schedule
to further my principled stance.

On learning that Yasser, my chum,
for treatment by doctors had come
to Paris, I changed
my plans to arrange
to meet with, and comfort, my chum.

The next day at meetings in Brussels
I flexed my political muscles
by skipping the meeting
at which Iraq pleaded
for France to contribute some muscle.

We're smarter than Dubya, who's itchy
for planting democracy's niches
so Mid-Eastern hate
t'ward Jews can abate--
So-what if, again, we are Vichy?

When help from the French Iraq seeks,
my "no" I've expressed with great pique.
This principled stance
saves face for my France--
obscuring the fact we're so weak.

Our stance here in France features traps
for Bush called "diplomacy flaps"
obscuring the signs
of France's decline--
A doctrine I'm naming "Chirac's Traps."

However, the transmission intercepted by PoliSat.Com seems to have been surreptitiously modified by additional audio and video content appended as the final segment:

Excuse me, I'm Bush, whom you'll not trap
in what you've described as "Chirac's Trap."
'Cause rather than me,
it's Frenchmen like thee
instead who've been captured in Jacques' Traps.

--Jim Wren, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

Nov. 6, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

No update for Saturday, November 6, 2004.

            Editor off-- Family responsibilities.

Nov. 5, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

No update for Friday, November 5, 2004.

            Editor off-- Family responsibilities.

Nov. 4, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

No update for Thursday, November 4, 2004.

            Editor on special assignment:  Goofing off.

Nov. 3, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

George Bush decisively beats John Kerry, Michael Moore, Osama bin Laden, George Soros, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, BBC, New York Times, Jacques Chirac & Kofi Annan.

            November 3, 2004:  Yesterday, George W. Bush decisively defeated Osama bin Laden, Michael Moore, Yassir Arafat, George Soros, the Hollywood Left, MTV, MoveOn, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Mark Halperin, CBS News, 60 Minutes, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Time, Exit Polls, The Professoriate, Conventional Wisdom, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Terry McAuliffe, Tom Daschle, Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, Russell Simmons, Rock the Vote, Rap the Vote, Eminem, Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner, MeatHead, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Robert Redford, Barbra Streisand, Cher, Rosie O'Donnell, Larry O'Donnell, Cameron Diaz, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Franken, Air America, Chris Matthews, George Step-In-A-Lot-Of-It, Jacques Chirac, Kofi Annan, Gerhardt Schroeder, John Edwards, Nuance and John Kerry.  

            What does this do for the Democratic Party?  The dwarfing of its Left Wing reveals the party's real giants:  Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Joe Biden.  It leaves Hillary in limbo and destroys the myth of Bill Clinton's political clout.  If the Democratic Party were to embrace Hillary in 2008, it would be again jumping from the same frying pan back into the same fire.  

            What does this do for Bush?  It confirms his steadfast belief that a majority of Americans see, as does he, through the fog of war to the beauty and certainty of the ultimate victory over barbarism, tyranny and terror.

Dubya's Historic 2004 Victory.

I'm Dubya, too gracious to gloat
that Kerry has sunk his own boat,
because it's not he
who lost but 'twas "me"
who won with historical votes.

And now that John Kerry has said
he'll not send the lawyers we dread
to challenge the votes
with claims that won't float,
to him I'll say "thank you" instead.

However, my lollapalooza
in trouncing my Leftist accusers
affords me the right
to show them the sight
of hand-sign "salutes" to the "Losers."

            Here are some examples of PoliSat.Com's pre-election prescience (in reverse chronological order):  Nov. 2, 2004-- 3 Visions-- bin Laden, Kerry & Bush; Nov. 1, 2004-- 3 Final Ads by Bin Laden, Kerry & Bush; Oct. 28, 2004-- QaQaa From the Johns; Oct. 26, 2004-- Kerry Lip-Synchs NYT/UN Hoax; Oct. 24, 2004-- John Bubba Kerry; Oct. 22, 2004-- Kerryyrrek; Oct. 20, 2004-- Dominant Media Pot Calls Sinclair Kettle Black; Oct. 19, 2004-- Dubya Admits Mistake; Oct. 18, 2004-- Old Stolen Honor in New Stolen Bottle; Oct. 15, 2004-- O'Neill's Words, Teds Ears and Dan's Eyes; Oct. 13, 2004-- Goldilocks, Kerry & Bush; Oct. 10, 2004-- Thanks from the Yanks; Oct. 9, 2004-- Kerry's Clintonesque Mantra; Oct. 8, 2004-- Old Kerry Wine in New Kerry Bottle; Oct. 7, 2004-- Kerry's Hindsight Replays of History; Oct. 5, 2004-- Sauteing Kerry's Cheekins Coming Home to Roost; Oct. 3, 2004-- Bush-Kerry Debate:  DTC v CIC; Oct. 1, 2004-- Common Sense Trumps NuanSense;  Sept. 30, 2004-- SeeBS Spin; Sept. 28, 2004-- Simultaneous Flip-Flop; Sept. 22, 2004-- I'm Dan Rather Sorry; Sept. 20, 2004-- "I Am Not a Partisan Hack," says Rather; Sept. 18, 2004-- Kerry's Quagmire; Sept. 17, 2004-- Hi, I'm Dan Rather and I Approved this Ad; Sept. 12, 2004-- Back to the Future in 60 Minutes; Sept. 10, 2004-- Dan Rather's Secret Identity; Aug. 12, 2004-- Political Stem-Cell Cloning-- Dovish-Hawk/Hawkish-Dove; Aug. 6, 2004-- SwiftBoat Journalism; and Aug. 4, 2004-- Damsel in Distress.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

Nov. 2, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

Osama bin Laden, John Kerry and George Bush offer 3 different visions of the future and 3 different strategies-- Hate, Haute and Heart; Campaign 2004; Election 2004; Usama bin Laden.

            Osama bin Laden's vision of the future is one in which first the Middle East and then the rest of the Muslim world embraces his medieval, barbaric, totalitarian, fanatical interpretation of Islam.  Bin Laden views the world through his "Hate Scope."  John Kerry, who, in his own intellectually "nuanced," misguided way, loves America no less than George Bush, envisions a future in which America tactically views the power of liberty through the "internationalist" lens of the "United Nations Hope Scope."  George Bush, who loves America no less than John Kerry, envisions a future in which America strategically trusts the ultimate power of liberty and employs a common-sense understanding of how to view threats to liberty through the "National Security Threat Scope."

            I refuse to believe that today a majority of American voters will cast votes "against Bush" that would demoralize our troops, thrill al Qaeda and the French and insult our real allies (the British government, British troops, a courageous minority of British citizens, the Australians, the Poles, the Italians, the Czechs, the Japanese, the Jordanians, the Afghans, and, most of all, the Iraqis enduring the final stages of a three-decade national nightmare).  To vote Bush out of office would re-teach our enemies the lessons of Mogadishu we've spent three years reversing.

            The haute tactics Kerry would substitute for Bush's long-term strategic vision would, of course, thrill the Hollywood Bush-Haters almost as much as it would encourage terrorists to expect to be able to influence American foreign policy by intimidation and terror.  It will make Israel's enemies expect more diplomatic deference to Palestinian terrorists in the guise of being more "even handed" toward Israel.

            Those who would rationalize voting for Kerry on the theory that the terrorists "want Bush to win" to improve their recruitment abilities should ask themselves:  "Who served to provide recruitment incentives for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and the 9-11 attack?"  In the wake of the al Qaeda success in using terror on March 11, 2004, to reverse the policy of Spain, who can seriously doubt that if bin Laden were to have been able to do so, he would have ordered an attack on the U.S. before this election.  Instead, his videotape offers a "truce" to states voting against Bush and threatens terror against the states that vote for Bush.  This form of propagandistic terrorism is exactly what is invited by the hate-Bush propaganda of Michael Moore, whom the Democrats gave an honored seat beside Jimmy Carter at their convention in Boston.

            I still expect a decisive victory for Bush.  I have too much confidence in the new common sense of Americans forged in the wake of the 9-11 barbarity.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com

Nov. 1, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

Osama bin Laden thinks he's scared us into doing what he can't: Defeat Bush, but voters will prove him wrong and reject John Kerry's "nuanced" claim that Osama "wants" Bush to win.

            Osama bin Laden a.k.a. Usama bin Laden thinks he's intimidated Americans into doing what he can't do:  Defeat Bush.  Tomorrow, American voters will decisively prove him wrong.  As American voters prepare for tomorrow's election, there are three campaign "commercials" most likely to be occupying their minds.  One is a video-taped commercial from bin Laden as "the Sheik" (pronounced "shake") of Islamic Totalitarian Terror.  The second is an ad from John Kerry expressing a "nuanced" theory that bin Laden made the tape for the purpose of trying to promote the reelection of Bush (to help bin Laden improve recruitment of fanatics to his "cause") by pretending to oppose him while secretly fearing a victory by Kerry.  The third is an ad from Bush expressing the common-sense basis upon which American voters will decisively prove bin Laden wrong and likewise decisively reject John Kerry's "nuanced" theory that bin Laden really wants Bush to win.  Here are the transcripts of those three commercials:

            My name is bin Laden, "the Sheik" who's hoping to claim that my tape defeated George Bush with buttons I pushed recording my threats to the States.  I'm John, hoping voters will view the tape of bin Laden as proof that Dubya has failed in missions to nail bin Laden by out-sourced pursuit... Like me, with great nuance they'll view his trashing of Bush as a ruse in hopes they'll retain the one he most blames but views as a tool for recruits.  I'm Bush saying voters will view the tape by bin Laden as proof he harbors the hope like Spaniards they'll vote for change, but bin Laden will lose.

Three Final Ads by bin Laden, Kerry and Bush in Campaign 2004.

My name is bin Laden, "the Sheik"
who's hoping to claim that my tape
defeated George Bush
with buttons I pushed
recording my threats to the States.

I'm John, hoping voters will view
the tape of bin Laden as proof
that Dubya has failed
in missions to nail
bin Laden by out-sourced pursuit.

Like me, with great nuance they'll view
his trashing of Bush as a ruse
in hopes they'll retain
the one he most blames
but views as a tool for recruits.

I'm Bush saying voters will view
the tape by bin Laden as proof
he harbors the hope
like Spaniards they'll vote
for change, but bin Laden will lose.

            Polls released early today (November 1, 2004) describe the race as a dead heat.  The pro-Kerry pundits claim the polls understate the magnitude of Kerry's support because they don't include all the young voters with cell phones but no land-lines who've drunk the MTV Rock-the-Vote Kool Aid.  Perhaps, but not likely.  Most voters are more likely to embrace the common-sense understanding that bin Laden wants Bush to lose and that terrorists throughout the world would view such loss as a bugle of retreat by the United States in the war against Islamic Totalitarianists than to embrace the "nuanced" theory being advanced by the Kerry campaign that bin Laden secretly wants Bush to "win" to help bin Laden recruit more fanatics to his cause.  Most voters remember 9-11 as proof of the speciousness of such "nuanced" theory.

            Voters thinking about their children and grandchildren in weighing Bush's long-term vision for the future against the narrow self-interests to which Kerry has appealed and the self-contradictory arguments he makes in hindsight will vote for Bush.  Voters unable to see past temporary, tactical setbacks in a long-term strategy will vote against Bush (by voting "for" Kerry) just as like-minded, short-sighted voters would have voted against Franklin Roosevelt in the 1944 election if his opponent were to have characterized the carnage on D-Day (and the Battle of the Bulge if it were to have occurred three months earlier) as proof that Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Churchill were "stupid" for having rejected the strategy proposed by our "best General," George Patton, for invading Europe at  Pas-de-Calais.  I predict the voters will decisively reelect Bush.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

Daily Update immediately preceding the one above:  go here or find it in the chronological Index of Archives here.

Other sites that feature PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here to view our Affiliates page.

·