Unibomber babies

Today’s New York Times argues that we shouldn’t criticize President Bush because it hurts the feelings of his poor old papa. I can’t wait to see them drag out the putrefying corpse of Barbara Bush to try and stem Junior’s bleeding when the transparent gambit to get sympathy through doddering old dad fails to win over the general public.

The Democrats, however, fearing they might lose the Bush extended family vote and be accused of partisanship by David Broder, apologized profusely for criticizing the president, released a public statement saying that George Jr. is a very good boy, and passed legislation allowing the federal government to wiretap anyone who criticizes Republicans who have parents.

Although the Democrats can always be counted on to surrender without a fight, I doubt that the argument will fly with normal people. Being the parent of George W. Bush is like having a son who commits a heinous murder or molests a child. We can sympathize with the parents. We can even understand that they may continue to love their son and support him emotionally. But we would have no sympathy whatsoever for parents who believe that their murdering, child molesting son should be allowed to remain free to continue murdering and child molesting--and without criticism at that--which is pretty much the Bush family position as echoed so obligingly by the New York Times.

The Bush family dynasty is sick and so is everything it represents. Reasonable people agree that a just society would shackle them in the public square and encourage the townsfolk to drop by and throw rotten tomatoes. But since that’s out of the question, we should impeach the corrupt cretin and turn the lot of his administration over to the Hague for war crimes trials.

Not going to happen though, I know. Anonymous sources whisper that the Democrats are secretly considering legislation to extend Bush’s term by another four years, fearing they'll be accused of being weak on terror if they don't.