Dubya v. The Onion

[Ksyrup]

This reminds me of the Ihatemikebrown.com cease-and-desist letter about the "'Fraidycat" insignia...



October 24, 2005

Protecting the Presidential Seal. No Joke.

KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion, the satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal.

The newspaper regularly produces a parody of President Bush's weekly radio address on its Web site (www.theonion.com/content/node/40121), where it has a picture of President Bush and the official insignia.

"It has come to my attention that The Onion is using the presidential seal on its Web site," Grant M. Dixton, associate counsel to the president, wrote to The Onion on Sept. 28. (At the time, Mr. Dixton's office was also helping Mr. Bush find a Supreme Court nominee; days later his boss, Harriet E. Miers, was nominated.)

Citing the United States Code, Mr. Dixton wrote that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement." Exceptions may be made, he noted, but The Onion had never applied for such an exception.

The Onion was amused. "I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion," Scott Dikkers, editor in chief, wrote to Mr. Dixton. He suggested the money be used instead for tax breaks for satirists.

More formally, The Onion's lawyers responded that the paper's readers - it prints about 500,000 copies weekly, and three million people read it online - are well aware that The Onion is a joke.

"It is inconceivable that anyone would think that, by using the seal, The Onion intends to 'convey... sponsorship or approval' by the president," wrote Rochelle H. Klaskin, the paper's lawyer, who went on to note that a headline in the current issue made the point: "Bush to Appoint Someone to Be in Charge of Country."

Moreover, she wrote, The Onion and its Web site are free, so the seal is not being used for commercial purposes. That said, The Onion asked that its letter be considered a formal application to use the seal.

No answer yet. But Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said that "you can't pick and choose where you want to enforce the rules surrounding the use of official government insignia, whether it's for humor or fraud."

O.K. But just between us, Mr. Duffy, how did they find out about it?

"Despite the seriousness of the Bush White House, more than one Bush staffer reads The Onion and enjoys it thoroughly," he said. "We do have a sense of humor, believe it or not."

KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This reminds me of the Ihatemikebrown.com cease-and-desist letter about the "'Fraidycat" insignia...



October 24, 2005

Protecting the Presidential Seal. No Joke.

KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Moreover, she wrote, The Onion and its Web site are free, so the seal is not being used for commercial purposes.

They can't possibly expect anybody to take that seriously, can they?

[sabotai]

Your tax dollars at work!

[Fonzie]

Does the White House really want to restrict the Onion's use of the seal? If the Onion is forced to abandon using it I can see them getting very creative in constructing a substitute.

[Young Drachma]

Now the White House is providing fodder to the Onion. Just wait.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Does the White House really want to restrict the Onion's use of the seal? If the Onion is forced to abandon using it I can see them getting very creative in constructing a substitute.

I was going to post the same thing. Can't they just change one thing about the seal, and it won't count? If the wording is something like "can't use the seal or it's likeness," then there's another court thing there to decide what is acceptable as far away from "likeness."

[Greyroofoo]

I guess by finding people to sue, Bush plans on reversing the deficit

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Now the White House is providing fodder to the Onion. Just wait.

Now? What were they doing before?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Now? What were they doing before?

winning the war on terrorism?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

winning the war on terrorism?

Now this guy needs to be writing for the onion.

But seriously, Bush is just making sure Harriet Meyers has a job in a couple of weeks.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But seriously, Bush is just making sure Harriet Meyers has a job in a couple of weeks.

Zing!

SI

[kcchief19]

Was Grant M. Dixton sick they day they taught law at law school? I was a freakin' journalism major and my communications law course covered the precedents of fair use and the protections for comedy and satire in cases similar to this. Somebody has a burr up their ass.

On the PR front, there is nothing that gets your critics to mock you more by playing a card like this. Not real bright.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Was Grant M. Dixton sick they day they taught law at law school? I was a freakin' journalism major and my communications law course covered the precedents of fair use and the protections for comedy and satire in cases similar to this. Somebody has a burr up their ass.

And this use would very likely fail "fair use", but that's probably irrelevant in this instance ... since control of the use of the seal is not covered by copyright law, but rather by it's own subsection of the US Code.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...3----000-.html

§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress

(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Can't be a much clearer violation of the Code than what Onion attempts to do.

(BTW, my expectation that this would fail short of fair use as applied to trademark is based on the notion that "exceptions require that the mark not be used by the nonowner in a way that would be likely to confuse consumers about the source of their (or the trademark owner's) product.")

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And this use would very likely fail "fair use", but that's probably irrelevant in this instance ... since control of the use of the seal is not covered by copyright law, but rather by it's own subsection of the US Code.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...3----000-.html

§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress

(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Can't be a much clearer violation of the Code than what Onion attempts to do.

(BTW, my expectation that this would fail short of fair use as applied to trademark is based on the notion that "exceptions require that the mark not be used by the nonowner in a way that would be likely to confuse consumers about the source of their (or the trademark owner's) product.")

Feel free to point out the brewhaha over SNL. Oh there isn't one?

[jeff061]

in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval

I'm sorry. I really don't think that's the case.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Can't be a much clearer violation of the Code than what Onion attempts to do.

The Onion attempts to convey that the stuff they write and post on their website is sponsored and approved by the US government?

Are you high?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

The Onion attempts to convey that the stuff they write and post on their website is sponsored and approved by the US government?

Are you high?

No Sab, I just know how this law should be reasonably applied -- the purpose of the use of the seal is to attempt to create a perception that the image (accompanying account) including it is/might be real. What other possible purpose would there be to using it?

IIRC, there have been examples here on FOFC of situations where there was at least some initial doubt about whether something was "real or Onion".

As it stands, they've gotten a letter ... big whoop. That's a pretty standard way of letting someone know they're getting in the territory of some legal issues without actually creating work for the courts. If they persist however, then the law is pretty clear on the penalty, which they would indeed deserve.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No Sab, I just know how this law should be reasonably applied -- the purpose of the use of the seal is to attempt to create a perception that the image (accompanying account) including it is/might be real. What other possible purpose would there be to using it?

IIRC, there have been examples here on FOFC of situations where there was at least some initial doubt about whether something was "real or Onion".

As it stands, they've gotten a letter ... big whoop. That's a pretty standard way of letting someone know they're getting in the territory of some legal issues without actually creating work for the courts. If they persist however, then the law is pretty clear on the penalty, which they would indeed deserve.

yeah, look at the huge lawsuits SNL has gotten over the years...

[Dutch]

How dare the White House disagree with the New York Times and The Onion.

[Buccaneer]

Good thing the Onion did not try to use a Disney trademark.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No Sab, I just know how this law should be reasonably applied -- the purpose of the use of the seal is to attempt to create a perception that the image (accompanying account) including it is/might be real. What other possible purpose would there be to using it?

You can't possibly be suggesting that the Onion uses the seal to give off the impression that it's real. Anyone who goes to the Onion's website or reads the Onion's printed edition and wonders if it is real or not should be forced to wear a tin foil hat at all times....chances are 9 out of 10 of them already are.

IIRC, there have been examples here on FOFC of situations where there was at least some initial doubt about whether something was "real or Onion".

I don't think anyone has actually gone to the Onion's website and wondered if the content there was from the Onion or not. Besides, the code states "for the purpose". It's talking about intent. If some people read an Onion article second hand not knowing the source and thinks it is real, that's irrelevant. The Onion would have to use it "for the purpose" and trying to get people to think it's real. It's just absurd to think they are doing that.

SNL has used it. The Daily Show has used it. I'm sure many other comedy websites/newspapers & magazines/TV shows have used it. The purpose is to give a visual cue to what's being spoofed. The President. When people see the seal, they know it's refering to the President. When people see it on SNL, The Daily Show, The Onion, etc., they know the President is about to get it, not that what they are about to see/hear/read is real.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Can't be a much clearer violation of the Code than what Onion attempts to do.

I can't agree with that. Here is the key line, and you even bolded it:

in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval

Is it reasonable to believe that the use of the presidential logo conveys sponsorship or approval? I would argue no -- the context of The Onion is quite clear that it is satire and a reasonable person would not assume that it is true. You need look no further than Flynt v. Falwell to see the court's opinion on what a reasonable person should or should not believe.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

(BTW, my expectation that this would fail short of fair use as applied to trademark is based on the notion that "exceptions require that the mark not be used by the nonowner in a way that would be likely to confuse consumers about the source of their (or the trademark owner's) product.")

But since the court has already determined that fair use for satire or parody is indeed fair use, then either The Onion has an exception to U.S. Code or that section of U.S. Code is unconstitutional and would be struck down. Either way, The Onion would and should prevail. I completely disagree with your final expectation -- I do not believe that anyone is confused that material in The Onion is the president's product.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

IIRC, there have been examples here on FOFC of situations where there was at least some initial doubt about whether something was "real or Onion".

If you're referring to a real story that is questioned as to whether or not it was from The Onion, then this actual supports the contention that The Onion is widely known and recognized as satire and a reasonable person should know that anything on The Onion is false and therefore something bearing the presidential seal would not be taken as sanctioned by the president. If you're referring to stories taken from The Onion and posted here without attribution to The Onion, then you're talking apples and oranges. Context is the key. That comparison is irrelevant.

[clintl]

The only The Onion is using the Presidential Seal to convey is satire, which is hardly synonymous with endorsement.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, the White House is just yapping here. If anything its free publicity for the Onion. They'd win in any case (under the "reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval" section).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Is it reasonable to believe that the use of the presidential logo conveys sponsorship or approval? I would argue no

And I believe you're 100% wrong. It may not always be successful but the attempt is clearly their intent. Otherwise, why not simply run the same shot without the use of the logo? If the parody is so obvious, then surely it would be equally obvious without the unauthorized use of the logo. I mean, "everybody knows it's not real", so therefore the absence of the logo on a podium (which would be a tell-tale in some situations) would be easily recognized for simply obeying the law & wouldn't detract from the parody.

But since the court has already determined that fair use for satire or parody is indeed fair use, then either The Onion has an exception to U.S. Code or that section of U.S. Code is unconstitutional and would be struck down.

Wrong yet again KC -- you're arguing fair use as it applies to copyright, trademark, etc ... which is not what prohibits the use of the seal (and other symbols) in this fashion.

The Onion would and should prevail.

Well, you hit the trifecta, wrong three times in one fairly short thread.
Nice job.

[ISiddiqui]

It may not always be successful but the attempt is clearly their intent.

LOL! You are on crack.

Otherwise, why not simply run the same shot without the use of the logo?

Because it makes the parody more realistic... has nothing to do with pretending the President has sponsored or approved the parody!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL! You are on crack.

I hope they think the same thing, I absolutely do ... I can't think of much I'd like little better for them than to see the seditious SOB's do the six months time as spelled out in the law. It'd tickle me to no end (well, I'd probably eventually stop laughing, but you get the idea).

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Otherwise, why not simply run the same shot without the use of the logo? If the parody is so obvious, then surely it would be equally obvious without the unauthorized use of the logo.

Because it enhances the parody. The Onion's use of the seal is by no means unique. Why isn't the White House going after everyone else who does it?

There is no way the White House wins this case in court, and it is going to be a silly PR disaster for them. Which will be real justice.

[ISiddiqui]

I hope they think the same thing, I absolutely do ... I can't think of much I'd like little better for them than to see the seditious SOB's do the six months time as spelled out in the law. It'd tickle me to no end (well, I'd probably eventually stop laughing, but you get the idea).

It'll never happen... though I'd love to see your face when the courts let them off scot free. I can imagine you'll start yelling about liberals no matter what political persuasion the judge is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It'll never happen... though I'd love to see your face when the courts let them off scot free. I can imagine you'll start yelling about liberals no matter what political persuasion the judge is.

No matter how low my opinion of a lot of courts might be, I honestly can't read that code section, written in fairly plain English& believe that any panel would or could do anything except slam the door on them for such an obvious violation of the applicable law.

But who knows, it wouldn't be the first time I've found the courts to be sadly lacking in their judgemental ability, highly doubtful it'd be the last either.

Maybe we'll both get lucky -- the site will feel froggy, the administration will regrow some balls, and we'll actually see how the courts handle it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JIMG

I honestly can't read that code section, written in fairly plain English& believe that any panel would or could do anything except slam the door on them for such an obvious violation of the applicable law.

Because you aren't reading the code section correctly in the slightest. The plain language of the code statute says the White House is off their rocker. There is no attempt to say the President is sanctioning this. It's absurd to even believe that (as you'd be absurd to believe Hustler Magazine was seriously saying Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in that landmark case).

You don't even need a law degree to reach that conclusion.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If anything its free publicity for the Onion.

Partly right. It looks more like the NYT and the Onion have joined forces to give each other press! I can't find a White House press blurb on this anywhere.

[sabotai]

Wouldn't it be the ultimate prank if this story was actually started by The Onion?

[st.cronin]

While I have no opinion on the legal merits of the case, it seems fairly clear from the article that the White House is just saying "Hey, the presidential seal ... you're supposed to ask us permission to use that. Please don't use it without asking nicely."

It's really hardly a malicious act.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's really hardly a malicious act.

To late, the Onion and the NY Times have already burst the story wide-open. Scandal in DC!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I can't think of much I'd like little better for them than to see the seditious SOB's do the six months time as spelled out in the law.

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines sedition as:

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't see anything, either in that article, or in the Onion as a whole, that fits that definition.

Wanna take another whack at it?

[SirFozzie]

Missing:

JonInMiddleGA's sense of humor and satire. Reward for it's safe return

Description:

Well, we're not sure it exists... to be quite honest, it's been missing for a while, and it is quite likely undernourished and poorly fed. If found, notify the nearest FOFC Member. We'll probably have to provide it a good home at this point...

Reward: 500 Quatloos.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I believe you're 100% wrong. It may not always be successful but the attempt is clearly their intent. Otherwise, why not simply run the same shot without the use of the logo? If the parody is so obvious, then surely it would be equally obvious without the unauthorized use of the logo. I mean, "everybody knows it's not real", so therefore the absence of the logo on a podium (which would be a tell-tale in some situations) would be easily recognized for simply obeying the law & wouldn't detract from the parody.

I think you're missing the point and definition of parody.

Originally Posted by The Dictionary

A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

Imitating the style of work is essential part of parody and satire. The use of the logo is an essential part of the parody. Intent and context is what this is about. The intent of The Onion is not to suggest that the the commentaries are endorsed by the president. The intent is parody.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wrong yet again KC -- you're arguing fair use as it applies to copyright, trademark, etc ... which is not what prohibits the use of the seal (and other symbols) in this fashion.

Wrong again, Jon -- I'm using the fair use precedent established by previous Supreme Court decisions in comparable cases. U.S. Code is not above the Constitution. The court has ruled consistently for 200 years that parody is free speech. If parody is protected speech, then U.S. Code cannot infringe upon that protection.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I hope they think the same thing, I absolutely do ... I can't think of much I'd like little better for them than to see the seditious SOB's do the six months time as spelled out in the law. It'd tickle me to no end (well, I'd probably eventually stop laughing, but you get the idea).

This explains the entire problem. You've missed the word reasonable in U.S. Code. It does not say that use of the presidential code is prohibited in all cases. Instead, it quite rightly use the "reasonable man" standard upon which much of our law is based, particularly when it comes to speech. Is it reasonable to assume that The Onion is implying endorsement of their material by the president. The answer is clearly no.

The good thing is that if this case went to court, you wouldn't be on the jury because you clearly don't meet the reasonable man standard. You've got an agenda.

And if you want to start charging people with sedition, I'm sure it would take a special prosecutor to go over the thousands of posts you've made here about President Clinton and anyone in government who disagrees with you.

[cartman]

I think a lot of people now-a-days would not find this article about bush too satirical. Maybe this is the use that the WH is complaining about...

Note that the date on this one is Jan. 17, 2001...

hxxp://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784


Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

President-elect Bush vows that "together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.

Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: "That's hardly my area of expertise."

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."

"Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."

Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."

The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.

"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."

"For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."

An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.

"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."

"You have no idea what it's like to be black and enfranchised," said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. "George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again."

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."

[timmae]

anyone find themselves wishing that the Onion was truth and that the Bush years were satire?


No. Just me.... arghhh.