Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

President O'Bomber Defends Acceptance Of NoBull Prize For Implementing Philosophy Of Peace Through War In Goniffstan.

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H3 12/14/09

opednews.com

December 14, 2009

President O'Bomber Defends Acceptance Of NoBull Prize For Implementing Philosophy Of Peace Through War In Goniffstan.

In a wide ranging interview, President B. Rack O'Bomber defended his refusal to reject the NoBull Peace Prize. He had been urged to reject it by American militarists on the ground that sometimes the NoBull Prize had been awarded to people who had contributed to peace, and therefore the NoBull Committee was a bunch of hypocrites.

President O'Bomber began the interview by explaining his new post-campaign philosophy that, in order to reach peace, you must first have war. "The Pentagon and the right wing have persuaded me of this great truth by powerful historical arguments," he said. "To have peace in 1918, nations first had to fight World War I. How could peace have broken out in 1918 without first fighting World War I? The same has been true many times in our history. How could peace have broken out in 1945 without first fighting World War II? How could peace have broken out in Viet Nam in 19, in19, well, wherever it was, if we had not first fought the Viet Namese War (which the Viet Namese, in a fit of anti-American viciousness, call the American War)? I understand all this," he said, "so I am happy to accept the NoBull Prize even if the NoBull Committee is a bunch of hypocrites because they previously gave the NoBull Peace Prize to people who had not created war and therefore had made no contribution to peace. I prefer to think that they have now seen the light of American exceptionalism, that they now recognize the truth of the American theory of making peace as we continuously did with Native Americans, with the Philippines Insurrectionists, with Germany and Japan, with Viet Nam, and so forth."

President O'Bomber said that he nevertheless feels very humble in accepting the NoBull Peace Prize because his accomplishments are so much less than those of deserving past recipients. "I am only fighting two wars and, more importantly by far, I have only been fighting wars for a brief amount of time," he said. "Whereas Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho managed to implement the theory of peace through war by keeping the Viet Nam War going for four years or so. For an accomplishment like that they truly deserved the NoBull Peace Prize." He added, "Didn't they even argue over the shape of the table in order to keep the war going? That was genius, sheer genius. I wish I were able to do something like that. I fear that I won't be able to. Good Lord, Goniffstan is so poor that there are only five tables in the whole country. So how could I get away with arguing over the shape of a table?"

"However," he mused, "we are fighting to create an honest country, so maybe I can argue that we have to stay there until people in Goniffstan stop stealing. That will never happen. 'Gonniff' means thief in Yiddish, you know. Rahm Emanuel has told me that and Larry Summers verified it (like what's his name, I trust but verify), and the country has warlords who steal, a government that steals, citizens who steal. No, stealing will never stop in Goniffstan, and therefore maybe it will be my 'table,' so to speak. We are fighting to create an honest country, and that will never happen, so I will be able to fight in Goniffstan for years and years. Ultimately I will be as deserving of the NoBull Peace Prize as Kissinger and Le Duc Tho."

"You know," he said to this reporter, "I'm really glad we had this interview. It has enabled me to think things through. Those damn people in the Pentagon don't present me with the kind of clear, unassailable logic that I've reached today."

President O'Bomber denied that in Cairo he had said that America had fomented the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953. "I was misquoted," he said, "viciously misquoted by all the left wing media -- and there is no other kind -- all over the world." He would not, however, elaborate on how he had been misquoted. He would say only, "Look, it was all Mossadegh's fault. Kermit Roosevelt had nuthin' to do with nuthin'. The very idea -- that a descendant of Theodore Roosevelt could have anything to do with imperialism!! It's offensive. Let's face it: Mossadegh wanted the Iranians to benefit from Iranian oil -- he deserved whatever he got. And what he got was not oil."

President O'Bomber commented on the allusion to Martin Luther King in his acceptance speech. "What did his non-violence ever accomplish?" asked the President. "I'll tell you in one sentence. All it accomplished is that it got him shot. By some Hitlerite who did not believe in non violence, no less. The same is true for Gandhi," he added. "All that non-violent crap just got him shot too. And nobody gave a damn about India anyway until it developed the atomic bomb. Then people started to listen to India. Including Pakistan, which listened so hard that it developed its own bomb, called the Kashmiri Special."

To your reporter's immense surprise, President O'Bomber criticized the Wall Street Journal of all papers for truncating a quotation, from his Cairo speech, that expressed his views of how to proceed in the world. The Journal, he said, had left off his all important last sentence when it set forth a quote from his Cairo speech in a heavily bolded special section next to his picture on Friday, December 11th. The full quotation, with the all important last sentence italicized, which the Journal omitted, he said, is:

There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. And then open fire.

The President found it especially puzzling that this sentence was omitted by a national newspaper that had moved heaven and earth to try to prove that he had been born in Kazakstan, not the United States, and had unearthed the previously well kept secret that his first name is the Gallicized (i.e., Frenchified) "Bom," which in English is Bomb, so that his name, Anglicized, is Bomb Rack O'Bomber. (Some of his closest family members, who are southerners, and are used to double names that are run together, like Bobby Joe and Billy Bob, run his first and middle names together and call him Bombrack, so that his correct title and name are President BombRack O'Bomber.)

Irate at the Wall Street Journal, the President expressed great pleasure at what he called, off the record (but like a good reporter I am going to tell you anyway), "the completely thoughtless, vacuous, but wonderfully favorable editorial in the New York Times. The Times editorial," he said, "had completely accepted his view, repeatedly expressed at the NoBull festivities, that it is "just war." "It is true," he said, "that while the Times' editorial said 'we agree that this war . . . is a necessary one,' it was unable to give reasons for this view. "But that inability to give reasons is not the important point. The important point is that they support anything I say. I agree with Stephen Colbert. I am the decider. My press secretary tells the press what I've decided. And the job of the press is to write down and tell the public what I've decided. The Times carried out its function beautifully. Just like with WMDs." "It was almost as great as the trumpets blaring in the hall where the NoBull Peace Prize was awarded," Mr. O'Bomber added.

President Bombrack O'Bomber conceded in the interview that, because of American exceptionalism, it will be this country, and no other, which decides when and where wars shall be fought, who shall be killed, and so forth. "If that point of view is a criticism," he said, "then, as FDR said of his wealthy capitalist opponents, 'I welcome their enmity,' or something on that order. Somebody has to decide who should be killed all over the world," he said, "and, for my money, our record with regard to the Native Americans, the Filipinos, the Central Americans, the Viet Namese, the Iraqis, and now the Goniffs prove that America should be that somebody."

"This is, after all, an evil world with many evil people," he said, "and now modern technology allows a few small men with outsize rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale. So, thank God that modern technology also allows an even smaller number of us big men to decree the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands or even millions of innocent people." "Us big men, they don't call us predators or drones for nothing," he added.

Mr. O'Bomber added that he would have no hesitation in invading what he called Yeahman if members of Al Qaeda congregated there, as is being reported. "Look," he said, "they tell me that there are only 100 members of Al Qaeda left in Goniffstan. That's good. It will enable us to destroy large swaths of the country without strong opposition. It will also enable us to invade Pakistan to kill the rest of the Al Qaedas without large numbers of American soldiers being tied down in Goniffstan. The government of Pakistan welcomes an invasion," he said. "It has publicly made a statement saying "We welcome the U.S. invasion. Please bring in 50,000 heavily armed American troops with destructive artillery and fighter bombers."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Lawrence R. Velvel is a cofounder and the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, and is the founder of the American College of History and Legal Studies.
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Preliminary Memorandum of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference on Federal Prosecutions of War Criminals

Investing With Bernie Madoff: How It Happened, What Happened, What Might Be Done (Part I)

Irving Picard's Three Percent Commission In The Madoff Case.

Alan Dershowitz on Whether to Prosecute Executive Branch Criminals

Madoff And The Mafia: A Mere Speculation Or Almost A Sure Thing?

It Appears That The Madoff Scam Was Not, Repeat Not, A Ponzi Scheme.

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments