Obama Administration: Oh. We are so very upset that somebody—definitely not us—leaked to CNN that we were considering a retaliatory strike against Yemen.
I mean, we were very serious about it, which definitely proves that we are not soft on national security (even though we refuse to call terrorists terrorists and we mirandize them and stuff).
And yes, the guy’s father did tell us about him over a month ago and we were like totally watching him, like while he was in Yemen. But nobody told us we should watch him like after he left. Dick Cheney totally bogarted all the manuals when he left so we are just like totally inventing new procedures and stuff.
So like we were saying, we are not soft on national security cause we were really talking about bombing Yemen as soon as we figured out where it actually was. But of course now that someone leaked this highly critical information to CNN—again, definitely not us—we can’t do it anymore.
But we were gonna. Really. Seriously.
All this just goes to show that the system worked.
(reading memo)
Like I was saying, this all goes to show that the system is totally broken. But we are gonna get on fixing this broken system that George Bush broke and fix it right away. Well, as soon as we get back from vacation.
In the meantime, Janet Napolitano has everything under control. Don’t worry.
Well you should worry if you live in Yemen ’cause we are like totally gonna bomb you, before. But you are probably ok now.
But if you don’t live in Yemen, don’t worry cause , cause, um well… cause we don’t think many Yemenis or Nigerians can afford underwear, either the exploding kind or the regular kind. Which is something we should totally do something about since underwear is a human right and you might be a terrorist too if you couldn’t afford underwear. Or something.
December 30, 2009 at 1:12 pm
This so explains like why the guy had a bomb in his underwear….this was probably like his first pair and he didn't know that like you weren't supposed to put like explosives there.
December 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm
There is plenty to mock the Obama administration about, but I don't understand your fixation with what seems to be an aggressive foreign policy (both in earlier post re: Iran and now Yemen). Do you agree with a pre-emptive strategy regarding Iran, for instance?
December 30, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Like, if we totally brought a better fashion sense to Yemen, then they wouldn't even WANT to wear underwear bombs.
OMIGOSH you guys!!! I just thought of the, like, best idea! What if we leaked information that, like, bomb hats were fashionable! Then, like, if we saw a guy wearing? A bomb hat? We would just totally be able to say, "That guy wearing a bomb hat is SO a terrorist." And then, like, it'd be so much simpler! You know?
December 30, 2009 at 11:30 pm
🙂 William, I don't know whether to laugh, or barf, or both, after reading that. That was classic!
December 31, 2009 at 12:05 am
Attempting to follow upon the classic socialist Democratic Party retaliation for acts of international terrorism by bombing Sudanese aspirin factories, and sending $20 million dollar missiles to destroy Afghani tents. If Obama gets any tougher with these terrorists, we'll all be Wahhabists and forbidden to watch Porky Pig cartoons.
December 31, 2009 at 12:46 am
John,
How should we respond to acts of terrorism, like the attempted bombing of the Detroit flight? Pre-Emptive war against Yemen?
December 31, 2009 at 4:52 am
Thanks, Paladin! Coming from you that's a high complement!
John, that's hilarious and so true. I'm going to remember the idea of "banning Porky Pig" cartoons.
Anony, are you trying to bait us on pre-emptive wars? Speaking for Matt and Pat, they have a much more nuanced view of things. Challenging them on a parody post is kind of "lame." But please expect almost all true, blue Catholic blogs to be very pro-Israel.
December 31, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Hi William,
I suppose I am trying to start a discussion on how we should be thinking about our foreign policy as Catholics. I do expect Catholic blogs to be generally in line with the Bush doctrine regarding foreign policy, but I don't honestly know what it means to be pro-Israel in the context of conservative foreign policy or traditional Catholic social teaching.
December 31, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Don't miss the point, guys, PRAY!!
Jeez, how annoying was what I just said?
January 1, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Okay, Anony, I get where you're coming from a bit more now. Sadly, there's a lot of highly intelligent people on this blog that could really get into the nitty gritty with you, but I'm kinda more of the "Make lame jokes" dude. Plus, I'd hate to try to soberly put words in Matthew or Patrick's mouth, cause that'd be silly for obvious reasons.
But for me it boils down to a respect for God's chosen people, as well as a respect for the hard work the nation of Israel has put into their home. I know those are way too general of statements and we'd have to go point by point and all that jazz to really explain things.. but that's not my style. I'm more of a shut up and pray kind of guy.
Still, I hope that helps a bit, and I'm sure if you stick around long enough, someone will explain all this better than me.