Category: Singing CIA Agent George Shrub Speaks

WHITE PAPER
We now have proof that the Red Veetnamese tortured our Freedom Fighters in “their” country. The evidence, for those who wish to study it, can be found in “Missing in Action 2: The Beginning,” a recent scholarly work now available for public perusal.

DEBATES
The Prime Minister of New Zealand, on a recent visit to our hemisphere, accepted a challenge to debate His Honor The Rt., Rt., Rt. Rev. Jerry Fallout. By removing the PM’s debate from the sphere of government, we hope to make clear the value of removing him from government itself„ In the future we hope to arrange a touring debate between Jerry and lightweight contender Danny Ortega. Also in the offing is a bout between Joan Rivers and middleweight heavy Fidel Castro. We would like to arrange a debate between Jesse Helms, Himself, and whoever is Thug-in-Chief of Soviet Russia come debate night, but since Jesse is in the government business it might be seen as a conflict of interest. So we will probably arrange for one of the deposed medical students from Grenada to do the job, if we can persuade Coors to loan us one.

NUCLEAR WASTE
Hanford, Washington will become the nation’s nuclear waste dump. This is good for Hanford, because nuclear waste is not a likely target for Soviet missiles. Anyway, it won’t all be kept there. Some of it will leak into the Columbia River and on out into the Pacific, where it will waste Soviet submarines and stray Soviet spy fish—which you shouldn’t have been eating anyway. It costs jobs. Eat American.

There have been many questions about the environment. I have questioned it myself. The point is that in America you have a choice. Do you prefer Red Death —No. 1, or Red Die—No. 2? To my taste, better Dead than Red, except in the case of China. In general, if you’re too well read you will become Red and then be dead, if I have anything to say about it.

ARMS BUDGET
Don’t criticize it. It’s only one trillion dollars. Anyway, once we’ve spent the money, we won’t have those riches the Soviets are currently coveting against the instructions of the Bible. So they won’t attack. Star Wars is the perfect peace plan. And its essential transitional component is the Peacemaker, formerly known as the MX. Now this re-naming is not a ploy. We don’t engage in ploys; on the contrary, we are primarily interested in de-ploying.

WESTY’S TRIAL
Thankfully CBS’s trials are over. They had, of course, criticized General Westmoreland for his legitimate efforts to get More Land for the West. Granted, he deleted the irregulars— women, children and old people—from the troop estimates. He was only supposed to delete them from the country.

It is my pleasure at this time to declassify some elements of the Washington Code, an official lingo used to avoid lying to the public. It would not have been my pleasure at this time, but the information has already been leaked by Leslie Gelb, and therefore it is my pleasure to state that it would have been my pleasure to divulge this information sooner or later.

“I have no plans to (run for office, rescue Nicaragua, etc.)—means I am not planning to. I have already decided to, so the plans are already made.

“Misstatement”: that which is not a lie.

“Untruth”: a deviation from the facts. (Obsolete)

“My esteemed colleague”: the idiot across the aisle.

“Bargaining chip”:  that which is not negotiable.

“Everything is on the table”: Non-negotiable items will be shown, then cleared from the table.

“Under consideration”:
*Being tested for response from the public
*Not under consideration

“Remove from office”: a mild form of ousting

“American resolve”: the will for Soviet dissolve

“Man of vision”: a leader who is not burdened with facts

“He is on board”: the dissident official has been told to de-dissent.

To be fair, we must cite a few examples of creative language from the press, which is not immune to News Speak itself:

“Trend”: something which is not happening but which somebody would like to be happening.

“Major source”: Someone we have access to.

“Rising star”: someone we plan to quote more often.

It has been ignored by the far liberal press, but I can reveal to you now that the Sandinoid aggressors have been perpetrating terror and rampancy on the peace-loving peoples of Iowa. The Nicaraguites have a clear motive for this: Iowa grows corn, which can be easily converted into a Nicaraguan product called maize. Also, Iowa has the same land area as Nicaragua but a larger population; the Sandinites hope to take advantage of the cheap labor of Iowa’s peasant farmers to bolster their sagging economy and free up other resources to pursue their international outlawism.

The Sandinites at first attempted to blockade Iowa’s ports and mine her harbors, but the Iowans cleverly hid them. Next the aggressors began stirring up trouble between Iowa and her neighbors, with whom she has coexisted peacefully for decades. Collaborating with a band of dissident Minnesotans, the Sandinites made terror raids into Iowan territory, causing the natives to become ill and annoyed, and forcing many to flee and live in a State of Missouri.

Next the invader stirred up local farmers, setting them against their own government by telling them that Washington would abandon them in their struggle against foreclosure; that the cattle farmers representative in Washington, the Stock Man, had stated that he was for closure. But in fact he never said this. He merely meant to say it, but never got around to it. And so on the basis of these unfound statements, the alleged farmers (we have information that many of them are part-time) rallied and railed, splitting hairs along with rails, and shouting “farms, not arms!” And so, by enlisting the farmers of Iowa in their campaign to disarm the U.S. in the face of Soviet Superiority, the Sandinoids achieved the first part of their goal.

The most blatant violation of law and morality has been the “manual” which the Sandinites distributed to their proxies, the extremist bandits drawn from among disgruntled Iowan farmers. Now this manual technically says nothing about assassination of Iowan government leaders, but it does say to neutralize them, which means to remove them from office. If they are removed from office they may be taken across the border to Minnesota, where they have strongholds due to their ties with the “Socialists” who have been hiding out in that state’s lake redoubts, hoping for a return to power.

These abductions would force Iowa to invade Minnesota, precipitating a regional conflict which could engulf the Great Lakes, eventually drowning Ottawa and, ultimately, Washington. As we know, the moderately evil Canadian Empire is just waiting for an excuse to intervene in the affairs of the Midwest and deny the states there the right to rain in all their acidic splendor. Then the U.S. would be forced to defend its friends and allies in the region, and fix Ottawa’s airport, if not their plumbing.

To the Urbane Society, University of Illinois

I have been asked to make some remarks tonight on the nature and workings of satire, probably because it is thought I must know the subject from the inside out, having been shadowing Mr. Lippman for some time now. And he does engage in this particular form of international intrigue.

Needless to say, I don’t do satire myself. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I don’t make jokes, I just read the newspapers and re-sort the facts. And that’s an easy job since the newspapers generally pre-re-sort them for us. But since satire is topical commentary with a twist, I do maintain an interest in it. I have interests in the topics and try to assure that those areas remain as twisted as possible.

The purpose of satire is to expose vice. (I come from a humanitarian tradition, and since you can die from exposure I couldn’t participate in that.) If you don’t expose vice but merely add to it, that is known as advice. And those who do this are called advisers. Now that I can get behind.

Parody is something else I couldn’t do. It involves making a mockery of something respected, so you can see I don’t do any parodying of the CIA since that would be impossible by definition. And soon, by law.

Satire makes use of irony, which is defined as the use of words to express something other than, and especially the opposite of, the literal meaning; hence, the Presidential I, Ronnie.

Satire also employs incongruity. Obviously most CIA agents wouldn’t come out and talk to the public; that is incongruous and therefore funny. (You may laugh now.) But I know you won’t report what goes on here. I can tell you won’t tell. I can tell you you won’t tell. Because I know you’re an Urbane group. (Another tool of satire is to use a few bad puns so you’ll seem like a regular guy. All right, a lot of bad puns.)

It also would seem to be incongruous for a CIA operative to sing, and after my presentations, many seem to think it odd that I chose to sing.

Another example of incongruity would be the juxtaposition of important things with trivia. For example, I have explained many times that the Honduran peace constabulary crossed into Nicaraguan territory only for the limited objective of retrieving a frisbee. This amuses you, perhaps, because it juxtaposes the trivial, namely Nicaragua, with the truly important: international sports.

And so we can see that there is no more need for satire in society today than there is for social change. That will be all on this topic, won’t it? I thought so.

(those of us who have)

June 28, 1984 

In recent years there have been leaks of vital information from the Bohemian Grove Encampment. It is in the National Interest that the Committee set the record Right on these matters, lest the public be fueled by Potentially Exaggerated “Facts.”

The Bohemian Club is a group of average private citizens that exerts its Constitutional Right, not to say Duty, to decline membership to women and the middle and lowered classes. It vacations annually, as it is entitled to by labor law, in a Redwood Grove just outside Monte Rio, California, in resource-rich Sonoma County. The two-week party is a fun-filled affair, known best to the public as the party at which public figures empty private parts against the Sequoias. Of course, if you’ve peed on one Redwood you’ve peed on them all, but we do pee on them all anyway in order to avoid forming a pee queue. Thus does the Grove become one great WC, standing in mute testimony to the trickle-down theory.

Problems do not arise unless people do.

Each summer the Grove plays host to most of the luminaries of our Republic, and even a few Democrats. But one must not engage in political activity at the camp; the watchword is “weaving spiders come not here.” Any deals which may have been closed during this annual down time have been minor ones, such as the government decision in the early 1940’s to fund Ernest Lawrence and some friends in a humanitarian research effort called the Manhattan Project, and the agreement to run Richard Nixon for the Presidency in 1968.

The vacationers themselves are a varied bunch of guys, with representatives of groups both over and under the $200,000 income line. Liberals are represented by David Rockefeller; the radical standpoint was represented in 1983 by West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who stated that “Europe knows war first hand, unlike the U.S., and wants no more,” implying uncouthly if not unfairly that the U.S. does want more. His speech bore an inflammatory title which revealed its extremist bias: “Europe from a European’s Perspective.”

The powerless and displaced have been spoken for by Gerald Ford, with equal time provided to the heads of the Federal Reserve Board and the World Bank. The Humanitarian view is presented by Edward Teller, who opposes improper uses of non-conventional deterrent hardware at the wrong times, whenever possible.

There are numerous educational activities during the holiday. In the 1982 Lakeside Chat, Caspar Warburglar lectured campers on the need to re-arm America. In a fit of pluralism, Henry Killinger disagreed. He said we must re-arm the world. Mr. Killinger has himself Chatted at the Lakeside, saying that the United States should not consider moral questions when establishing foreign policy but should only consider whether the government in question is friendly to the United States. Actually there are no longer any moral questions since we obtained the answers on the free market; problems do not arise unless people do.

Attendees bunk in one of 122 camps within the Camp. The most civilized of these is Mandalay. On the road to Mandalay you are liable to run into a Bechtel, Schultz, Firestone or Kaiser. A little more rustic is the Hillbilly Camp, which houses the head of the World Bank and other humble citizens. In more primitive times one could amble along the quiet paths and encounter Richard Nixon discoursing with a Hoover—not the Hoover, of course, just Herbert.

I began these remarks by warning of an information effluence, but so far a sense of fair play on the part of the media has prevailed over reporters. Time correspondent Bob Boderi, who penetrated security at the Grove to take a leak of state and class secrets, fortunately was reined in by a Time-honored tradition at the magazine, and the story was not run. And since Time owns the story and associated pictures, it cannot be run anywhere else either—a small but inspiring example of the victory of property rights over random public babbling, for bitter or worse. (A National Public Radio reporter also made tapes, for the public, but management ruled they could not be used because the Grove Encampment is not an affair for the public to be concerned with.)

As to the protestors at the gate, the response of campers has been one of mild bemusement, with one Moderate suggesting politely, “Nuke ‘em till they glow.” Well, to each our own, I always say.

October 7, 1984 

The debate between Mr. Mondale and Mr. President got underway with a discussion of the balanced budget. Mr. President whispered his secret plan to balance the budget to Mrs. Walters, who instructed the studio audience not to ask questions. Mr. President then instructed the public that “we have no thought of throwing the people out into the snow,” leaving open the possibility that he might do it without thinking about it. Beforehand. Or after.

The press then asked Mr. President whether he was born again, or had been. Mr. President replied that he considered himself rather to be recycled. He supported school prayer, saying you mustn’t undermine prayer as if it were a common Nicaraguan harbor. On economic matters, Ron said that we must stand tall against the deficit, as we did against the Russians at the Olympics. In other words, if we’re lucky, the deficit won’t show up for a while.

On big govamint, Ron said that certainly there was a place for it. Govamint should enforce some elements, such as crime. But not the environment. Although perhaps crime against the environment should be considered as a borderline area. As should, perhaps, the environment. If the environment is dirty, we should brush it three times a day, and in some cases eliminate it.

Mr. Mondale pointed out that Mr. Bush has paid less in taxes than his chauffeur or his office janitor. Mr. President responded that govamint is overfed, which is why everyone in America has too much of everything, including underemployment. He said he will flatly not raise taxes, while never saying never, but he might flat the tax.

Mr. Mondale told Mr. President that his facts and figures don’t stand up, much less tall. Mr. President said that well, it did make the point rather well, didn’t it. Mr. Mondale became conciliatory, saying “I like President Reagan” and lauding him for having given us the courage to move backward. Mr. President credited his accomplishments to Divine Grace, saying that the Grace Commission had made 2,478 recommendations for the economy and that 17% of them had been implemented. He said he would disclose after his re-election how much 17% of 2,478 is in real savings.

Mr. Mondale stated in closing that we won the Olympics because we have civil rights laws. This was an obviously political statement designed to appeal to the two largest voting blocs, sports fans and civilians. Mr. President, for his summation, quoted Tom Paine in saying that we have it in our power to begin the world over again, implying that we must first end it. Mrs. Walters ruled that this was not a statement of domestic policy and should be saved for the next debate.

Address to the Civilian-Military Industrialists of America May 23, 1984

Given the reports that a Panamanian ship has been sunk in the Persian Gulf, we must restate that the United States will come to the aid of any gulf nation which requests us to do so. Of course, if we move in, it could ignite World War III. On the other hand, if we stay out, we might have to leave the car in the garage for a week, which would cause us to take public transportation together with other people—other kinds of people. People from other countries and other neighborhoods. Worse still, our industries wouldn’t have enough oil, and then we’d be caught with our plants down and couldn’t manufacture the cars we couldn’t take out of the garage.

Some events bear repeating but not analysis.

Attacks on ships are a dangerous escalation and we may have to go in to help de-escalate. I urge you to recall that the U.S. was forced to enter World War II when a foreign power attacked us. But I would counsel you against dwelling unnecessarily on the events which propelled us into other conflicts, such as the Gulf of Tonkin in Viet Nam, since some events bear repeating but not analysis.

It is now projected that the Soviets could attack Pakistan, with India attacking Kashmir in a pincer move that would cut Pakistan in two. The Soviets would then warm themselves in the Gulf while waiting for Khomeini to die before attacking Iran, which at that time would again be part of the Free World. So is Pakistan, believe me or not. (As evidence I can cite the student riots there to protest the democratic military government of General Zia, which has banned student unions and detained demonstra­tors. A nation which allows equal rights to riot as well as to ban and detain is a pluralist society worthy of our democratic military support.)

Speculation based on intuitive feelings of State Department psychics suggests that the Soviets might make aggressive moves in order to hurt President Ron’s re-election chances. But the President has made it clear that he is prepared to defend his national interests. If the Soviets may plan to intervene in our democratic elections, we may be forced, with a heavy heart, to launch pre-emptive retaliatory strikes of a collective defensive nature to rescue Our World from what we are intuiting they may be contemplating, but only if we are asked in by a nation in distress.

But now to the crucial point: Will there be oil shortages? Possibly no. Will there be gas price rises? Possibly yes. But it’s a small price rise to pay for keeping our world Our World. Which we will do at any cost—and when there’s a cost, we do pass it on.

Soviet thug-in-chief Konstantin Chernenko has called for a ban on all weapons in space. President Ron responded by explaining to the children, that is, the nation, that this is impractical because we cannot verify Soviet compliance. It will become possible to sign treaties only when we have eliminated the obstacles to verification—that is, the buildings, cities and other installations they use to hide their illegal missiles in. As if to verify their own deceptive nature, the Soviets are now attempting to disguise their upcoming war games by code-naming them “Summer ’84” even though they begin in May.

In other revolting developments, the voters of the Philippines are attacking the free and democratic elections there because they didn’t get their way. The government has not asked the United States to intervene, and so we will continue to refrain from any in­volvement there as we have since we took over in the glorious year of 1898. President Marcos has shown himself a truly moderate leader by urging the army to use discretion in firing into the crowds.

Admonitions to the American Society for Doublespeak

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen (I’m sure there are no brothers or sisters present). My mission today, should I decide to accept you, is to explain away for you certain state­ments alleged or purported to have been made by President Ron which have been de-contexted, malconstrued, or otherwise reported upon by various demagogic individuals and their non-fraternal organizations, Now it is deniable but true that at times The President has mis­spoken slightly, but that is due primarily to his unusually healthy imagination. Some of the quotes he has had occasion to use were not actually ever said point-blank, not precise­ly in those words. They may have, at times, been said in other ways, perhaps meaning other things, relatively, But as Press Secretary Larry Spoke, “perhaps the figures were a little bit off. But it made the point well, didn’t it?”

So let us begin where we left off in the previous picture: in Veetnam. In January of 1978. Ron was said to have said that “French Indochina was freed by the French a few years after World War II.” Now as you may unfortunately be aware, the French did not actually free Veetnam with all their hearts, but were persuaded to do so by the Veetminh when they all met together at Dien Bien Phu a full nine years after World War II ended. What Ron really meant to say was that Veetnam was freed of the French, not by the French.

Ron went on to say in the same broadcast that the Geneva Convention provided for two separate Veetnams, North and South. As we now know, the provision was actually for one Veetnam, with national elections to be held two years later. Of course it doesn’t really matter since the United States didn’t sign the accords and therefore was not obligated to bone up on every detail. But just for the sake of argument, why did Ron say there were to be two countries? Well, although the partition was to last for only two years, Ron felt that during any trial separation both sides should be accorded full recognition of their rights as free and individual half-nations, and therefore he decided to give them both the benefit of his doubt, retroactively.

Ron went on to report that Ho Chi Minh refused to hold the scheduled elections in 1956. In fact it was President Eisenhower, through our friends the South Veetnamese, who refused to hold the elections. Ike noted at the time that due to malnutrition and brain damage, 80% of the people would have voted for Ho. Did President Ron confuse Uncle Ho with Uncle Ike? Folks, you have to remember that if we had not stopped the elections, the enemy would have. So it was our duty to Rescue the defenseless victims of Ho-ism from the northerly nonelections, and help them build a better airport.

Speaking of airports and paving projects generally, let us note the President’s statement that “there is today in the United States as much forest as there was when Washington was at Valley Forge.” Well, statistically, there is only 30% of that. But the figure is not adjusted for inflation, which would show that there are now no forests at all. This is obviously untrue although perhaps something to work towards. The point Ron is making, however, should be well taken. There are as many trees now as then. It’s just that the United States is 500% larger as it is than as it was. Would you begrudge us a little acquisition, as seems to be so fashionable these days? Or would you prefer that the nation’s capitol were still in Philadelphia, all in all?

Now getting back to Veetnam—and we’d like to—why did Ron say, in 1965, that we should pave over the whole of Veetnam and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas? Well, he was simply expressing his concern for the development of Veetnam’s economy; it was felt at the time that with our donation of a large parking lot they would be provided with the incentive to build the associated shopping center before the Christmas rush. However, the plan was not accepted by the ultraliberals then running the war. And pragmatically, much of the paving that was in fact done in South Veetnam was needed for our military bases, and unavailable for other commercial enterprises.

Why did Ron say that we have no deterrent whatsoever to the 945 Soviet warheads aimed at Europe, when in fact we have some 5000 warheads on submarines and another thousand in bombers? Well, Ron has a firm belief in the value of land and doesn’t think you can stand tall in the water or on thin air, which is really only good for the production of facts and figures.

Ron went on to state that the Soviets invest 13% of their GNP in military spending—two to three times the level that we invest. However, our GNP is twice the size of theirs, so we are investing approximately the same actual amount. And in fact, the Pentagon estimates that the U.S. and NATO outspent the Warsaw Pact by $300 billion in the past decade. Well, what Ron meant to convey was that the Soviets have increased their defense spending as against the previous decade by a higher percentage than has the U.S. Though we have no figures on this, it has not been proven to be untrue.Why did Ron state that the Soviet Union enjoys a decided edge in military power over the United States, and then reply in the negative when, a month later, he was asked whether he would trade American forces for Soviet forces? The answer is simple enough: the enormous expense to the taxpayer of teaching English to the new army acquired in such a deal.

Why did Ron, in January 1983, quote Vladimir Lenin as having said that promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken, when in fact Lenin was, in that statement, describing the attitude of his enemies? Well, obviously Ron was not in the strictest sense of the word Quoting Lenin. He doesn’t believe it is the place of an American President to quote Lenin, although some pundits have suggested his image might be improved if he began to quote Marx—Harpo, of course.

Why did Ron say, in May 1982, that submarine-launched nuclear weapons can be recalled after launch, when in fact they cannot? He referred to the fact that the President who authorizes their launching can be recalled. Thus we can use our democratic freedoms to cancel the effects of the launchings—at least in spirit.

Why did Ron say, in January 1983, that we don’t have the military-industrial complex that we had when President Eisenhower spoke about it? He said it, interestingly enough, because it is true, and true on two counts. The military industrial establishment is different now, in that it is bigger, and so it is essentially not the same one. And secondly, Americans no longer have a complex about it.

Why did Ron say, in March 1983, that when the United States was the only country in the world possessed of nuclear weapons we did not blackmail others with threats to use them, when in fact we did warn others of their possible use, to wit: USSR 1946, China 1950 and 1953, Veetnam 1954 and the 1960’s, Cuba 1962. Simply put, these were not blackmails. These were sincere warnings, as proven by the earlier Japanese examples. And if you look at the record, these warnings helped to secure peace through strength: China is today our ally, and the loss of Veetnam and Cuba from our stable of stable nations simply reveals the need for More Peace through More Strength.

Address to the Fortunate 500 April 19, 1984

It has been reported that U.S. troops are now involved in actual bombing missions in Slaveador, rather than just training flights. You must understand that the Slaveadorans tend to consider every mission as a combat mission, whereas in American eyes some of these are training missions. As is normal, we are using American eyes, and there the matter rests. Along these same lies, some church officials monitoring alleged civilian casualties have stated that the increased bombing sorties have increased said alleged casualties, but in American eyes the surgical strikes have reduced the casualties. When American eyes are smiling, why look any further?

Jeane Killpatriot has observed that the portrayal of Nicaragua as a victim in the current situation is a “complete Orwellian Inversion” of what is actually happening. What Jeane means is that in fact Nicaragua was a victim, during the Somoza administration, of repeated attacks upon their approved government by the Nicaraguan Communists, who, properly speaking, are not actually Nicaraguans but rather Sandinoids. Now that Nicaraguan society has become inverted, the victim in Central America is obviously the United States, which is in danger of itself becoming inverted.

In defending the U.S. decision to exempt our peace-seeking activities in Central America from World Court jurisdiction, Jeane stopped short of saying that the United States should disregard international law, choosing instead only to think it. Nicaragua wishes to make a propaganda show in the Court, while the United States has the prudence to make its points in more appropriate venues, such as the harbors of Nicaragua.

All these developments come against the unspoken but disturbing background of changes in the character of the United Nations since its formation. It was originally a body focused on uniting the world against war and aggression; but with the addition of many newly-independent nations it has become a forum for attacks on the United States instead. This particular Orwellian Inversion can be traced to the tender age of the dissenting nations; I’m sure they’ll understand things better when they’re older.

The United States is embarking on a get-tough campaign against terrorists. Pre-emptive strikes such as the mining of Sandinoid ports and the mopping up of terrorist strongholds such as Slaveadoran villages will be supplemented by rewards of $500,000 for information on Potential Terrorist Activities (PTA’s). White House Press Secretary Larry spoke of this as “more co-operation and more sharing of intelligence,” the intelligence taking the form of $500,000 bills. So if you’ve been short of cash lately, and you know someone who may be active in the local PTA, please don’t hesitate to give us a call. If your suspicions prove partially un-founded, we will be happy to provide you with a new identity and transportation reimbursement as well.

President Ron has explained that a far-away totalitarian power is attempting to change the strategic balance of the world by taking Central America away from local totalitarian powers. This sort of destabilization will not be tolerated. If Central America is lost, we will be forced to take out ads in the lost and found, or even to go to the expense of buying new countries to replace the old ones. We cannot stand by and watch guerrillas force Communist Dictatorships down the throats of innocent peasants, even though there is not much else going down their throats under present arrangements.

Due to the continued incidents of unauthorized violence and criminals shooting their way around, we will be stepping up (though not escalating) our Neighborhood Watch in Central America, which is after all just over our Property Line. Debate on this issue has clearly strayed too far from realty.