"Satircal in nature", yeah right. The dishonest part was that he
neglected to tell the folks he was reporting to that it was "satircal"
and any of them would get a very negative opinion, based on half
truths and dishonest framing of the article.

Can't comment on the article, as I haven't been able to find a copy on line.
(If you know where I can find a copy it would be interesting to see).

A satirist doesn't start with a disclaimer:
"The following work is a satire."
The article may or may not be good satire.
If it *is* good satire, there are people who might not read it carefully or who
strive to represent the article in a certain light who
will not recognize it. Good satire sneaks up on you......you begin reading it
and then you finally realize that the author is just putting you on. Once
you're clued in, the remainder of the article becomes particularly funny.

. Are you guys
all reading out of the same play book?

No. The world is not comprised of a series of absolute stereotypes. (I know
that isn't what you're sold by much of the right wing media, "libs this, all
libs that, etc"),
Everybody who disagrees with you, including the huge percentage of the country
who have serious doubts about your beloved Bush, isn't guilty of treason and
sedition.