Bush Taps Mountain View Rodents for Duty in Iraq

Squirrels to be Used in War on Terror

Mountain View hit the national news early this week when the Bush administration tapped the small hamlet in the South Bay for their rabid rodent population in order to help fight the war on terror.

The Commander-in-Chief decided to recruit the small furry animals after growing pressure to end the war from the Democratic Party, the American public and Sean Penn hit a crescendo.

“We knew something drastic needed to happen in Iraq,” said Bush Press Secretary Tony Snow.  “And I think these rabid animals will give us the edge we need to defeat terror as we know it.”

Responding to criticism from a Department of Fish and Game warden that squirrels only know how to eat pinecones, have fun, and chase each other on wires, President Bush pointed out that several of them have attacked and maimed children, and that “squirrel populations tend to oppress, deny freedom to and brainwash their young while organizing poverty that tends to be psychologically debilitating.  It is the perfect culture in which to recruit.”

The first regiment of squirrels was outfitted, trained and sent overseas with mini-hummers and small weapons discarded by Disney following their successful Stuart Little series. 

In response to the mobilization order by the Commander-in-Chief, several hundred doctors from Veterinarians Without Borders have volunteered for duty to help deal with the inevitable road kill that will occur from thousands of grenade throwing animals running through the streets and deserts of Iraq.

35 Comments

  1. I certainly hope Dubya screened them first—you wouldn’t want Sunni squirrels in the same mini hummer with Shiite squirrels—they’d bomb each other and each other’s children before they left Moffett for the flight over.

  2. The Ballad of Chip ‘n Dale

    Fighting squirrels, from the park
    Fearless runts, who jump and bark
    Fleet of foot, branch to branch they sail
    The brave squirrels, known as Chip ‘n Dale

    Acorn armor, on their chests
    These rodents are, America’s best
    Others try, but always fail
    None can best, our Chip ‘n Dale

    Trained to live, in cartoon land
    Trained in combat, hand to hand
    They’ll be there, when the bullets hail
    Disney’s own, little Chip ‘n Dale

    Acorn armor, on their chest
    These rodents are, America’s best
    Others try, but always fail
    None can best, our Chip ‘n Dale

    Back at home, Bush sits and waits
    Both Chip ‘n Dale, have met their fates
    They have died, for his stupid war
    With dying breath, they did implore

    Quit watching cartoons, Mr. President
    Reading time, is time well spent
    War is not, some fairy tale
    Get a grip, signed Chip ‘n Dale

  3. It’s sounding like the natives are getting restless in DC finfan.  We are finally seeing the appropriate type of reception in Congress whether it’s about poking our nose where it doesn’t belong or poking pages.  Too bad it’s taken until midway through term two for W’s own party to wake up to the fact that the U.S. economy and military personnel are getting the shaft far beyond Mark Foley’s wildest instant messaging dreams.

  4. Dear John:

    I don’t know a lot about squirrels, but I have no doubt that Chuck Reed will be blamed, and that the Chavez Campaign is getting ready to send out a hit piece that contains a photo of Reed feeding the squirrels in St. James Park!

    I can’t tell you how thrilled I was to see the full page ad taken out by the Chavez Campaign in yesterday’s MERC.  Yes, negative ads are effective, but only most effective in unsophisticated areas.  Around here, I think/know that an ad like that backfires.  Such an ad doesn’t sell around here…people say to themselves, “Why didn’t she take out a full-page ad to list what she’s going to do as mayor, rather than trying to slime the other guy?”  PLEASE keep running this stuff!

    I’ve talked to a lot of people about Reed’s perceived “bump” in the road.  Not one person has changed their mind about him, and they can’t wait to put and end to the Gonzales/Chavez Administration…they’re counting the days until Nov 7th.

    Reed Volunteer,
    Pete Campbell

  5. #4
    Can’t imagine anyone in your circle would change their mind—thanks for the update—

    When will Reedimbursement release his charitable tax deductions he claimed on his tax returns?  What does he have to hide?

    You may not know a a lot about squirrels but you know a lot about your candidate being squirrley.  Writing personal checks for political contributions, religous events, and lifetime memberships.  Making sure to cross out his given name Charles on the checks and writing in Chuck so no one gets confused as to who should get credit and then running to the City Clerk to get reedimbursed with taxpayer dollars…..can you say SQUIRRLEY.

    Honest—Open Government—Fiscal Responsibility just doesn’t have the same ring as it once did.

  6. Thanks again, RC, for contributing nothing of substance. If the best you can do at this point is to point little things like he crossed out Charles to write in Chuck, then Chavez has a lot more to worry about than the animosity her mouthpieces on this board have caused.
    Keep up the good work.

  7. #6
    It’s the deception that stands out.  Why was Mr. Open Government hiding the true source of funds he contributed and donated to these organizations?  I was at many events Mr. Reed attended and at several of these events the host would personally thank Chuck Reed for making a personal donation for the event.  He never stood up and said the city was paying his way.  That is deceptive.  Many of these very same organizations endorse in the Mayoral race.  It’s the deception. 

    Mr. Reed’s entire foundation for running was that he would be an honest guy and support full disclosure.  He set himself on a soapbox and chastised others for moral shortcomings and ethical lapses.  At the same time he was pulling off a great deception of his own.

    How can he point fingers at others while he is signing up for lifetime memberships, doling out political contributions, and spending our tax dollars without a public vote?

    Why won’t he release his private law client list?
    Why won’t he release his charitable tax returns?
    Even the staunchest Reed supporters should want him to clear the air and make public whether or not he claimed these reimbursements on his personal income tax returns.

    If this was Gonzo, Chavez, or just about anyone else most on this blog would be calling for them to resign. 

    Chavez is gaining ground, rapidly, I predict the next public poll will show a dead heat—-Chuck’s 28 point lead is dust in the wind.  Without ethics and honesty to run on, what does Chuck have to offer the city?

  8. And Cindy sounded so lame when interviewed about Chuck’s apology.  She basically had nothing to say, showed her lack of ability to formulate a coherent response on the fly, and general failure as someone who could be perceived as an effective leader by the people of SJ and beyond.  I could end up being a Reed convert if she keeps this kind of lame display and smear campaign going.  This was a definite turning point for me, seeing Chuck sans flag tie and conducting himself in a much more professional and articulate manner, and little Katie Couric chipmunk Cindy blathering and not making any point at all. 

    RC keeps repeating his stale mantra about tax returns on donations whose totals are several decimal points to the left of the massive amounts of taxpayer dollars Cindy has voted to hand over to NON charitable entities.  He might as well be repeating “Stay the course” over and over, which is exactly the scenario he is pushing for at City Hall.

    RC, the SS Gonzo is going down and your candidate is leading the band. 

    So keep it up with “stay the course.”  Iceberg dead ahead on 11/7.

    Good night, Lucy . . . er . . . Cindy!

  9. Is there no discussionwe can have without it being hijacked by RC and DB?

    I don’t know if it is even LEGAL for a laywer to release his client list, for goodness sake.  It’s confidential.

    Yeesh.

    (I’m now expecting half a page from
    “Again, the reedite” )

  10. #9
    Are you kidding me-look at this client list—What is Reed’s excuse now?

    http://www.mofo.com/about/clientlist.html

    Well under a half page—

    #10
    Personal attacks are uncalled for Mark T.  You usually conduct yourself with class and in most instances base your posts on facts—maybe db has hijacked your handle—oh well, have a great weekend and enjoy the Mercury News this Sunday.

  11. “Singin’ songs and carryin’ signs
    Mostly say ‘Hooray for our side’.”

    Buffalo Springfield
    “For What It’s Worth”, circa late ‘60’s.

    That’s the Reed vs. Chavez debate on this blog by the Reedites and the Cindynistas.

    Gettin’ BORING.

  12. #11 Those clients need to consent to having their names listed.

    Why doesn’t Cindy release the list of her “clients?” Those who “donate” to her campaign pay to play.

  13. 14 – Stop playing dumb—you are playing, aren’t you? Where is Cindy’s list of all the events she and her staff have attended for which they did not pay for?? Where is her list of all the times she has used the city box at the arena?? The list goes on and on. Two can play this silly game—nobody wins and the citizens lose big time.
    Keep it up. You and your type are working to leave even more wreckage behind than the Gonzales and Chavez brigade have already done.
    Keep firing back with your cute little phrases and offer nothing of substance.
    It’s beyond getting stale—it stinks.

  14. RC you keep asking for Chuck’s clients and deductions.  An attorney would have to ask the client for permission to release their name.  Since an attorney is sworn to do what is best for the client how would asking for permission be in the best interest of the client?

    As for the deductions, as I recall Cindy offered her returns for 2 hours, Chuck offered his to the press for 2 days.

    As for the Merc poll…the same guy that had Cindy winning in the primary.  He wasn’t off by much then was he.

  15. RC-

    No one, other than you and DB, seem to think tax returns are an issue.

    You’ve made that post no less than 20 times.  You’ve never responded to the arguments on the other side. 

    For example, de-facto mandatory disclosure of tax returns may dissuade people from running for office.  Not everyone wants their private finances in the Mercury News.

    Instead, you keep making the same repetitive post.  Again and again and again, as though your thoughts were the only thoughts in the universe.

    It’s rude, and it disrupts other people’s attempts to have a discussion.  Either attempt to formulate a new thought, or go away.

  16. Dang.  Can we stay on topic?  Squirrels…. remember.

    Ya’ see, the problem is we shouldn’t be sending our squirrels anywhere.  That’s the problem.  Why deplenish a gourmet food resource?  Hey, ya’ got them rarefied snails, fish eggs, and guineas… why not free-range rodent?  It’s the next white meat. 

    City people tend to overlook stuff we rural people know. Ya’ see, like most here in Santa Clara County, I’m an environmentalist, and a Democrat too, but I know the value of food, even squirrelly food, ‘cause I also come from a long line of family farmers, rural people.  And I ain’t one of those stupid “puppet” ones that the campaign manager of Measure A, Mr. Drekmeier, keeps referring to.  No, I am a bonafide Santa Clara County resident. I have been educated beyond my own intelligence and can (sometimes) cogitate with the best of ‘em.  That’s how I’ve come to figure that I don’t practice the same brand of Democratic values as The Measure A people.  Then again, I may need more education.

    Has anyone read all the 18 pages devoted to Measure A in the Voters Guide.  Dang.  I wonder how many trees gave up the ghost on that one.  I just can’t figure page 39, where the Measure A people say, “Measure A encourages private owners to make their lands available for
    public recreation.”  Ain’t that funny?  So many Measure A endorsers, like a lot of them fancy Palo Alto City councilmen and councilwomen, and them Palo Alto Mayoral officials, past and present, are on record,
    for keeping non-residents OUT of Palo Alto’s 1400-acre Foothill Park, the only city-owned park in all of Northern California to adopt exclusive local-resident privilege.  I would have made a mistake cogitating that one;  I would have cogitated de jure discrimination.  But Mr. Drekmeier and his endorsers have keen democratic sensibilities, don’t they?  I wish I could cogitate like them.  I’d be a better Democrat if I could.

    I thought I was a cogitating environmentalist, too.  But I just can’t find any of those fancy ideals of distributive fairness or deliberative democracy in any of that Measure A stuff, unless they mean all the taxpayer monies everyone’s gonna’ pay in litigation fees if Prop 90 also passes.  I guess that’s the distributive fairness part, huh?  Dang, what do I know, I eat squirrels.  Here’s the funniest part, I just can’t stop laughing, the same people who will be most impacted by Measure A, those puppets, and all, who are “encouraged to make their lands available for public recreation,” will still not be able to walk freely in Palo Alto’s Foothill Park whether Measure A passes or not.  Ain’t that the funniest?

    But ya’ know, it may be a joke not fitting in mixed company.  Go figure.  Ok, well, I’ll just stick to what I do know, like how to make tender fried squirrel with biscuits and milk gravy.

  17. Yikes! Now we have a new, somewhat incoherent poster. Well, at least it is on a different topic. I guess we should be thankful for small favors.

  18. Oh, Coyote, you are always the charmer, you little trickster, you. 

    But you are right.  I should have followed a more coherent thread, like the squirrels to Cindy to Reed progression.  Just that “squirrels” are such a wonderful metaphor for so many other things.  Like tricksters for instance.

  19. #19
    Those running for elected office or those appointed to serve on a commission, Planning, Parks and Rec., etc. are required to fill out a Form 700 Financial Disclosure form.

    On this form they must list their property holding, stock holdings, and a whole host of financial disclosures.  These forms for Mr. Reed show he is worth millions and probably could have afforded to pay his own way.  We have seen many perceived honorable government officials lose their way and I wonder why Chuck lost his way.

    The only reason charitable tax deductions has come up is because of the decietful manner in which Mr. Reed has written checks to make political and charitable contributions and then sought reimbursement from the city for these contributions.  It begs the question as to whether or not he also submitted these personal checks to the IRS as charitable deductions on his returns.

    I know for many true believers in Mr. Reed that it is hard to fathom him doing this, but who would have thought he would have billed taxpayers for lifetime memberships, political contributions and donations.

    Why not make public these itemized contributions claimed on his income taxes and let the public know?

    I seem to have read hundreds of posts railing against Cindy and her “involvement” in Norcal without the peanut gallery complaining about repetitive posts—-seems the same hypocrisy is rampant on this blog as it is in the Reed campaign—-say one thing and do another.

  20. You’re missing the point.  The real culinary opportunity for squirrels is as chefs.

    Their nible little hands can julienne vegetables far finer than yours or mine.  Just think aobut the quality of the angel hair they could make…

    The only difficulty is finding appropriate hair nets

  21. As usual, RC misses the point so he can push his agenda. Nobody on this blog, on either side, has been as repetitive or as obnoxious as you and your buddy Downtown. No one even comes close. So, nice try.
    As for your only issue, and I am not defending Reed, but it was hardly a secret, deceitful operation. All of the information was public and available through the Clerk’s office. If he really wanted to be secretive and as dastardly as you wish he was, he could have done this much differently.
    Instead of repeating yourself, you should be calling for all councilmembers and the mayor to show their records and for a revised set of rules that clearly state what is and isn’t an allowed expense. Too much ambiguity mixed with a lack of common sense and we end up with the mess we have today.
    Any chance you and your candidate would actually do something that would make the situation better rather than doing what you are currently doing????

  22. This Sunday one of the local news services may be   issuing the results of a recent pole on the Mayor’s race.

    Any bets on the results?

    Any guess as to the point difference or size of lead?

  23. #16
    So you are OK with Mr. Reed having private developer clients and not disclosing them to th public?  I am not.  He voted several times over the course of two years to allow gas stations to have mini marts and the whole time had a development client that wanted to build a mini mart.  A council member should not make money off of their votes.

    You recall incorrectly.  Mr. Reed did not disclose his itemized charitable deductions so that they could be compared with his taxpayer reimbursements for personal checks he wrote to many non-profit and political organizations.

    All polls show the race is tightening.  One must remember that many on this blog were so sure that all the Mulcahy votes, Pandori votes and Cortese votes were Chuck’s votes.  That is clearly not the case.

    Those are the facts. 

    So will Chuck let us know who he works for and release to the public his charitable contributions claimed on his income taxes?  What does he have to hide?

  24. RC—Look at the facts. In the Council meeting last Tuesday, the finance department clearly responded to Ms. Chavez’s question that writing personal checks and getting reimbursed is STANDARD procedure for those on the Council. She said that official checks are very expensive and take a long time to process. Chavez die hard supporter Forrest Williams discussed his writing of personal checks and somehow that is OK for Cindy. It’s not ok that Reed did it? How does that make sense?

    So much about Chavez’s campaign has been based on throwing out unsubstantiated claims and hoping they stick with the voters.  A few examples:

    The gas station voting. At the time of the vote, Reed’s client had no plans to build a gas station. This was not an issue with the City Attorney nor Chavez at the time. Why is it an issue now?

    Saying Reed knew about the “secret backroom deal” before anyone else. Did he? If he was involved, why isn’t he in the dog house with Ron and his budget director. Reed said he knew Norcal wanted more money. He didn’t say he knew the Mayor promised them more money. Is this somehow knowing about the deal?

    Now with the reimbursements. Cindy has focused on Chuck when her fellow Council members and supporters are equally as guilty. It is common practice in the City of San Jose. Does it make it right? I don’t know. The public begs for their councilmembers to attend events and give them donations. Do they think when they call the Council office and Chuck is able to come that it is a personal invitation? Doubtful. They speak with Reed’s admistrative assistant to work out details about the event. Do they suddenly think it is his personal assistant?

    I am proud of Reed because he points out Cindy’s voting record and asks her to explain. It’s only fair. She occasionally does this but only in debates where she responds to Reed’s answers. Why can’t Chavez focus on the issues rather than misleading the public in various ways that she hopes will hurt Reed? If people actually attended Council meetings and read the grand jury transcripts, they could see for themselves.

    How is distorting the truth productive? How will that help San Jose? My guess is, it won’t.

  25. After sweeping out the Reed office, Look at the Facts was given his pint bootle of hootchie, and decided to tell us how proud he is of Reed.

    Well, Look at your nose, let us examine the fact that Chuckie

    a. spent three weeks evading public record requests with his incompetent chief of staff, the Vice Mayor of Milpitas (who violated ethics guidelines and called each of his opponents racists)

    b.  met in secret with lawyers and developers

    c.  used the city to buy his anniversary cake

  26. 28 – You should try respecting those who think differently from you. Some of us are making an attempt to post literate, thoughtful, and truthful items here. You should try it. Nothing is served when you post foolish statements like you did. Keep it up and Reed supporters will ignore you and Chavez supporters will be embarrassed.

  27. #28 – Maybe it never occurred to you that I am a woman with a MA degree working in a field where I might know a few things about what’s actually happening.

    To be honest, I supported Reed but respected Cindy for her efforts as a successful woman in politics—until this election began. As a bright person who has done good things for San Jose, she didn’t need to play dirty. What happened to winning on merit? Maybe that’s too naive for politics in this area.

  28. Pete # 4:  you must have been talking to “the choir”, since the new poll numbers tell a very diferent stroy.

    RC#7 say: “I was at many events Mr. Reed attended and at several of these events the host would personally thank Chuck Reed for making a personal donation for the event.  He never stood up and said the city was paying his way.  That is deceptive. ”  He’s correct—it is deceptive.  And it was done dozens, if not hundreds, of times.

  29. Reality Check, I’ve finally figured you out.  You’re studying to play Dustin Hoffman’s part in a re-release of “Rain Man.”