Tony Blows

Click for Larger Image

Read Tony's Position
on Medicare Reform

Should the US be a Police State?

Should we meddle in the affairs of nations that
pose no threat to us?

Ask Tony Blows today what he thinks, and then ask him
in five years! It's a hoot!

Tony can be heard occasionally substituting for other
FAUX personalities on
WNUTS 450 AM Talk Radio.

ooo

Fun With Mad Libs!
"Moronic Meddling"
                                                            Tony Blows

My friend's youngest daughter just introduced me to a great game called Mad Libs. Darned tootin' clever, ya know, and
she showed me how very fun it can be to play, mainly because it takes otherwise normal storylines or someone's
thoughts on a subject, and changes the meaning altogether! Check out my original article, which I titled
Moronic
Meddling
:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY a reason for our newborn war against Serbia,
unless it be the right of global elites to impose their tastes on lessers
through the force of arms.

"Never in our history has a call to combat seemed as perplexing and hollow as
this one. President Clinton and his aides have tried repeatedly to persuade
themselves and Congress of the need to enter a far-off civil conflict in
Kosovo, but no single reason seems satisfactory. The White House thus has
offered a shifting menu of justifications:

"Reason: We must act to stop the slaughter of innocents. This is an admirable
goal. Yet, we could achieve the same aim far more grandly, with much less risk
to American blood and treasure, if we decided to invade Rwanda or the Congo.
Kosovo and Serbia don't rank among the top dozen bloody civil crises raging on
our planet today.

"Reason: Administration officials warn that the fight could widen into a global
conflict unless we act quickly to put out the fire. They point to the first
world war.

"But the present situation differs from the first world war in critical
respects, the chief of which is that no major power has a defensive alliance
with the feuding parties. If anything, we could ignite a wider conflict. The
best way to duplicate the casus belli of the first world war would be to plunk
an international force into Kosovo and stir up resentment among Turks,
Albanians/Muslims, Macedonians, Greeks, - and heaven knows who else.

"Reason: We feel an obligation to get NATO out of a mess. This is the honest
explanation. This is not a war to save children, snuff out genocide or starve
warlike appetites. It is a fight to save face.

"This enterprise seems breathtakingly high-handed. A bunch of outsiders,
lounging in well-appointed conference rooms, have studied a far-off civil
crisis and forced their way into the conflict without a clear invitation from
either side. If that isn't imperialism, nothing is - and the ultimate result of
this fight could be a fatal weakening of the notion of national sovereignty.

"We do not have enough available troops to win a ground war (or to handle
predictable flare-ups in such places as Bosnia and Macedonia, and one doubts
European powers have the will to send hundreds of thousands of their finest
into harm's way. After all, we're not fighting a territorially ambitious
ideology, such as Nazism or Communism.

"If this is a war to save face, we ought to get in and out quickly. This is not a
satisfactory way to resolve the ongoing horror of Kosovo, but it's a much better option
than throwing our young men and women into a battle we don't know how to fight or intend
to win."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let's turn it into a Mad-Lib:

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY a reason for our newborn war against (nation)
_______, unless it be the right of global elites to impose their tastes on
lessers through the force of arms.

"Never in our history has a call to combat seemed as perplexing and hollow as
this one. President (name) _______ and his aides have tried repeatedly to
persuade themselves and Congress of the need to enter a far-off civil conflict
in (troubled region) _____________, but no single reason seems satisfactory.
The White House thus has offered a shifting menu of justifications:

"Reason: We must act to stop the slaughter of innocents. This is an admirable
goal. Yet, we could achieve the same aim far more grandly, with much less risk
to American blood and treasure, if we decided to invade Rwanda or the Congo.
(Two troubled regions) ________ and ________ don't rank among the top dozen
bloody civil crises raging on our planet today.

"Reason: Administration officials warn that the fight could widen into a (cause
for concern) __________ unless we act quickly to put out the fire. They point
to (combative aggression) __________________.

"But the present situation differs from (combative aggression)
__________________ in critical respects, the chief of which is that no major
power has a defensive alliance with (combatants) ___________. If anything, we
could ignite a (cause for concern) __________ . The best way to duplicate the
casus belli of (combative aggression) __________________ would be to plunk an
international force into (troubled region) _____________ and stir up resentment
among (occupants of troubled region) ________, ________, ________, ________, -
and heaven knows who else.

"Reason: We feel an obligation to get (presidential embarrassment)
_________________________ out of a mess. This is the honest explanation. This
is not a war to save children, snuff out genocide or starve warlike appetites.
It is a fight to save face.

"This enterprise seems breathtakingly high-handed. A bunch of outsiders,
lounging in well-appointed conference rooms, have studied a far-off civil
crisis and forced their way into the conflict without a clear invitation from
either side. If that isn't imperialism, nothing is - and the ultimate result of
this fight could be a fatal weakening of the notion of national sovereignty.

"We do not have enough available troops to win a ground war (or to handle
predictable flare-ups in such places as (troubled region) ________ and
(troubled region) ________, and one doubts European powers have the will to
send hundreds of thousands of their finest into harm's way. After all, we're
not fighting a territorially ambitious ideology, such as Nazism or Communism.

"If this is a war to save face, we ought to get in and out quickly. This is not
a satisfactory way to resolve the ongoing horror of (threat to peace)
___________________, but it's a much better option than throwing our young men
and women into a battle we don't know how to fight or intend to win."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far so good, right? Wrong! Check out what happens when you fill in the blanks with ridiculous
answers:

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY a reason for our newborn war against Iraq, unless
it be the right of global elites to impose their tastes on lessers through the
force of arms.

"Never in our history has a call to combat seemed as perplexing and hollow as
this one. President
Bush and his aides have tried repeatedly to persuade
themselves and Congress of the need to enter a far-off civil conflict in the
Middle East, but no single reason seems satisfactory. The White House thus has
offered a shifting menu of justifications:

"Reason: We must act to stop the slaughter of innocents. This is an admirable
goal. Yet, we could achieve the same aim far more grandly, with much less risk
to American blood and treasure, if we decided to invade Rwanda or the Congo.
Iraq and Israel don't rank among the top dozen bloody civil crises raging on
our planet today.

"Reason: Administration officials warn that the fight could widen into an
increase in anti-American terrorism unless we act quickly to put out the fire.
They point to
the attacks of 9-11.

"But the present situation differs from
the attacks of 9-11 in critical
respects, the chief of which is that no major power has a defensive alliance
with
the terrorists. If anything, we could ignite an increase in anti-American
terrorism
. The best way to duplicate the casus belli of the attacks of 9-11
would be to plunk an international force into Iraq and stir up resentment among
Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, - and heaven knows who else.

"Reason: We feel an obligation to get
an incompetent administration’s failed
domestic policies
out of a mess. This is the honest explanation. This is not a
war to save children, snuff out genocide or starve warlike appetites. It is a
fight to save face.

"This enterprise seems breathtakingly high-handed. A bunch of outsiders,
lounging in well-appointed conference rooms, have studied a far-off civil
crisis and forced their way into the conflict without a clear invitation from
either side. If that isn't imperialism, nothing is - and the ultimate result of
this fight could be a fatal weakening of the notion of national sovereignty.

"We do not have enough available troops to win a ground war (or to handle
predictable flare-ups in such places as
Baghdad and Fallujah, and one doubts
European powers have the will to send hundreds of thousands of their finest
into harm's way. After all, we're not fighting a territorially ambitious
ideology, such as Nazism or Communism.

"If this is a war to save face, we ought to get in and out quickly. This is not
a satisfactory way to resolve the ongoing horror of
anti-American terrorism,
but it's a much better option than throwing our young men and women into a
battle we don't know how to fight or intend to win."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that nutty? Wow!  Who would've thought you could so horribly twist my logic into
something so completely illogical? Not I!

Connoisseur
of many of his
own shoes!

Original Faux News Logo © 2001

All material herein © 2001-2004

'Spinner' Logo © 2003


This site is in no way associated with the Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation or the Fox News Channel.  All material herein is intended as parody. Any
similarities in format or "personnel" are purely satirical.  If you're looking for a good case of the
Red-Ass, then sue away.  I can always use new material.

We put the BS in BIAS

The Most Powerful Smell in News

Home
Faux News Archives
eMail Me
A History of Fair and Balanced Glurge
FOX News Bios
ASSman
Roger Ailes Biography
Beltway Boys Biography
Carl Cameron Biography
Neil Cavuto Biography
Steve Doocy Bio
Drug Addict
Mark Fuhrman Biography
John Gibson Biography
Duuuh... Sean Hannity Biography... Duhhh
E D Hill
Brit Hume Biography
Brian Kilmeade Bio
Mark Levin Biography
Dennis Miller Biography
Rupert Murdoch Biography
Oliver North - FOX News' Senior Traitor
Bill O'Reilly Biography... mmkay?
Newt Gingrich Biography
Geraldo Betrayo Biography
Shep Smith Biography
Tony Snow Biography
Cal Thomas Biography
Greta Von Susteren Biography

Tony Blows