DIGGING DEEPER , By Ivan G. Goldman
Quite a number of U.S. troops don’t mind letting him take his taking his time -- for example, the six G.I.s who were killed by roadside bombs in Iraq on Dec. 25 and 26. Other Americans are restless. Unfortunately, even this great Churchill-caliber speech we’re going to get in January won’t divulge what the Blunderer-in-Chief actually wants in Iraq. On that point he’s uncharacteristically shy.
Before he went in he railed against WMD and ties to Al-Qaeda. When these proved nonexistent, he said, no big deal, the goal was always to democratize Iraq, and the earlier goals were said not to matter anyway, just as catching Osama turned out, he told us, not to matter anyway.
Okay, I’m a good citizen. I read Orwell. I’m willing to forget what Bush-O-Ramus tells me never happened in the first place. But like a lot of us, I suspect the goals of our leader are not as stated, and that’s why we never seem to get over the solution hump. So in no particular order, let’s state them in his behalf:
DEMOCRATIZE IRAQ
CONTRACTS FOR BUSH’S PALS
OIL
ADULATION
WEAR A SPIFFY UNIFORM
AVENGE DADDY
SHOW UP DADDY
PROTECT PALS IN SAUDI ARABIA
EXPAND POWER OF BUSH REGIME
CLEAR THE WAY FOR THE NEXT BUSH RULER
CUT TAXES FOR RICH GUYS
ARMAGEDDON (FOLLOWED BY PARADISE FOR THE GOOD GUYS, COMMUPANCE FOR BAD GUYS)
Iraq had its election. The contracts for Production Sharing Agreements that are fantastically favorable to Exxon-Mobil, etc. are already in the works and should be completed within weeks. It would take at least two months to get all our service people out of there, so everything’s on track there. Some other contractors -- Bechtel, Halliburton, etc. -- will just continue paying bribes in exchange for contracts to do things that the companies will continue not doing. But instead of spreading some of the action to the Bush people, they'll have to shift all their bribes to Iraqis, who are unlikely to resist.
Let’s pass a resolution declaring Prince George the greatest commander in chief in U.S. history and simultaneously giving him the right to wear his flight-suit costume even to bed. We’ll let him and Laura deal with the zippers.
Daddy’s been avenged and shown up. Saddam’s supposed to be hanged within 30 days. And we’ve had troops in Saudi Arabia ever since the reign of Daddy. Clinton never pulled them out. They protect the oil and the royal family. So there nothing changes.
As for getting another Bush in office, voters are unlikely to come across on that one. They’re getting a tad impatient with the dynasty. But The Smirkster was originally elected by the Supreme Court, and with not much prodding, this new Gang of Justices, rejuvenated by two new appointees from our Prince, are far more right-wing than the court in 2000. So the family will just have to rely on them to do the job. When you compromise, you rarely get all you want.
The last goal, Armageddon, that’s a little tough, because we don’t actually want to let Junior play with the red button, do we? But probably a joint congressional resolution favoring the concept of the End of Times will satisfy him.
Some might ask, as “centrists” like Diane Feinstein do, what will happen to Iraq after we pull out? We understand their concern. Feinstein's hubby, for example, has a gazillion-dollar contract predicated on U.S. participation in a continuing Iraq war. But he'll just have to take his chances along with Halliburton and Bechtel [see above] And the answer to what will happen in Iraq, is, of course, the same whether we withdraw in five, ten, or twenty years or in two months -- chaos and death. Perhaps we could leave behind a statue of Junior in his flight-suit costume. It will mollify him and simultaneously provide the first step toward the unification of all Iraqi parties as they pull together lickety-split to handle that statue.
There really is a formula to solve this Iraq business to everyone’s satisfaction. As any good negotiator knows, workable compromises require that all parties first state their desires. In the case of Prince George, he’s been hesitant to divulge what it is he actually wants. That’s why, four years after invading the place without a grown-up policy, he says he doesn’t want to be rushed into anything. But he does promise us a “new way forward,” which he will divulge in a nationwide address at some point after the New Year.
Quite a number of U.S. troops don’t mind letting him take his taking his time -- for example, the six G.I.s who were killed by roadside bombs in Iraq on Dec. 25 and 26. Other Americans are restless. Unfortunately, even this great Churchill-caliber speech we’re going to get in January won’t divulge what the Blunderer-in-Chief actually wants in Iraq. On that point he’s uncharacteristically shy.
Before he went in he railed against WMD and ties to Al-Qaeda. When these proved nonexistent, he said, no big deal, the goal was always to democratize Iraq, and the earlier goals were said not to matter anyway, just as catching Osama turned out, he told us, not to matter anyway.
Okay, I’m a good citizen. I read Orwell. I’m willing to forget what Bush-O-Ramus tells me never happened in the first place. But like a lot of us, I suspect the goals of our leader are not as stated, and that’s why we never seem to get over the solution hump. So in no particular order, let’s state them in his behalf:
DEMOCRATIZE IRAQ
CONTRACTS FOR BUSH’S PALS
OIL
ADULATION
WEAR A SPIFFY UNIFORM
AVENGE DADDY
SHOW UP DADDY
PROTECT PALS IN SAUDI ARABIA
EXPAND POWER OF BUSH REGIME
CLEAR THE WAY FOR THE NEXT BUSH RULER
CUT TAXES FOR RICH GUYS
ARMAGEDDON (FOLLOWED BY PARADISE FOR THE GOOD GUYS, COMMUPANCE FOR BAD GUYS)
Let’s take these goals in order:
Iraq had its election. The contracts for Production Sharing Agreements that are fantastically favorable to Exxon-Mobil, etc. are already in the works and should be completed within weeks. It would take at least two months to get all our service people out of there, so everything’s on track there. Some other contractors -- Bechtel, Halliburton, etc. -- will just continue paying bribes in exchange for contracts to do things that the companies will continue not doing. But instead of spreading some of the action to the Bush people, they'll have to shift all their bribes to Iraqis, who are unlikely to resist.
Let’s pass a resolution declaring Prince George the greatest commander in chief in U.S. history and simultaneously giving him the right to wear his flight-suit costume even to bed. We’ll let him and Laura deal with the zippers.
Daddy’s been avenged and shown up. Saddam’s supposed to be hanged within 30 days. And we’ve had troops in Saudi Arabia ever since the reign of Daddy. Clinton never pulled them out. They protect the oil and the royal family. So there nothing changes.
As for getting another Bush in office, voters are unlikely to come across on that one. They’re getting a tad impatient with the dynasty. But The Smirkster was originally elected by the Supreme Court, and with not much prodding, this new Gang of Justices, rejuvenated by two new appointees from our Prince, are far more right-wing than the court in 2000. So the family will just have to rely on them to do the job. When you compromise, you rarely get all you want.
If we pull out of Iraq we might as well cut more taxes though -- just a little -- for the rich. It’s something that’s so pleasing to Bush-Cheney that they’ll give up plenty in return, and it will show our good faith. Why not, for example, award tax deductions to anyone buying yachts or jewelry worth $1 million or more in one calendar year? It’s distasteful, but hey, after six years of this regime, we’ve all grown used to distasteful. It won’t cost us much, and remember, we won’t have to spend $8 billion a month on Iraq anymore.
The last goal, Armageddon, that’s a little tough, because we don’t actually want to let Junior play with the red button, do we? But probably a joint congressional resolution favoring the concept of the End of Times will satisfy him.
Some might ask, as “centrists” like Diane Feinstein do, what will happen to Iraq after we pull out? We understand their concern. Feinstein's hubby, for example, has a gazillion-dollar contract predicated on U.S. participation in a continuing Iraq war. But he'll just have to take his chances along with Halliburton and Bechtel [see above] And the answer to what will happen in Iraq, is, of course, the same whether we withdraw in five, ten, or twenty years or in two months -- chaos and death. Perhaps we could leave behind a statue of Junior in his flight-suit costume. It will mollify him and simultaneously provide the first step toward the unification of all Iraqi parties as they pull together lickety-split to handle that statue.
