WASHINGTON, May 11 (Rhoiders) – U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has unwittingly become the first Bush insider to offer a biting assessment of the president’s intelligence. In brief, Rice thinks Bush’s shuttlecock is missing its feathers!
Rice’s opinion of the president’s IQ was gleaned from Cabinet meeting notes that she inadvertently left in the Oval Office March 4. Those notes were anonymously mailed to Rhoiders’ Washington bureau with the note, “So much for Condi’s undying loyalty.”
Rhoiders hired former CIA cryptologist Giorgio Galluzzi and Rand Corporation software developer Milena Gramatikova to decipher what they have called the “Da Condi Code,” a series of apparently meaningless acronyms written on the margins of the Cabinet meeting agenda memo. (Handwriting expert Sean Morrissey has confirmed the writing to be Rice’s.)
Gramatikova developed a software program that Galluzzi then used to run the acronyms against every speech Rice has made in the past two years in an attempt to establish their meaning. Galluzzi said, “Although Rice probably felt that she was constructing random acronyms, they are consistent with her use of language, as evidenced by a comparison with her speeches.”
Here is a sampling of Rice’s notes with Galluzzi’s analysis:
1. Relations with the Democratic leadership. WAFM: What a fucking moron.
2. Increased vulnerability of the Green Zone. DHRTAWBY: Does he really think anyone will buy that?
3. How to deal with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. CICWTGBTA: Christ, I can’t wait to get back to academia.
4. Is the change in Cuba genuine? MLNNIAO: My long national nightmare is almost over.
5. How to help McCain. GDRTDPIOH: God damned right, the dumbest president in our history.
6. Spinning the tax rebate. STYA: Spin this, you asshole.
7. Congressional hearings on oil industry profits. HCYSANDYHOFOCBYE: How can you sleep at night? Do you have one fiber of curiosity between your ears?
State Department spokesman Francois Agustin told Rhoiders, “White House security policies absolutely ensure that writings from all meetings are accounted for. This is obviously an attempt to disparage not only the president, but also the Secretary, whose loyalty to the president has always been unquestioned and something he can count on.”
Developing . . .
