As regular readers know, much of my satirical writing ( http://www.crisispapers.org/weinerpubs.htm#fantasies ) walks the razor's edge of believability. I like to think of it as "scraping close to the bone," and am delighted when letter-writers ask whether my scenarios really happened or whether they are fictional.
But I find that as a satirist, it's getting more and more difficult to skate the thin line separating reality and parody. (Tom Lehrer had much the same feeling in the '70s: "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.")
In that light, check this out: An increasing number of nations in the "coalition of the willing" are abandoning Bush's war in Iraq (most notably our one remaining major ally, Great Britain), and yet Cheney is viewing that development as evidence of the Administration's successful strategy. All this while the U.S. is "surging" more troops into Iraq because the situation is so dire there.
How could a satirist possibly top that one?
THE ABSURD AS POLICY
In this and other matters, Dick Cheney resembles "Baghdad Bob." Do you remember that guy? He was the Iraq Information Minister (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf), the official spokesman for the Saddam Hussein regime in its last days. "Baghdad Bob" was the ultimate absurdist spin-doctor who would put the best face on the worst possible news happening to his regime.
The foreign reporters hovering around him would burst out laughing when he'd unravel another whopper about how well the Iraqi troops were doing in fending off the American invading force.
His ultimate performance, as I recall, took place on a Baghdad street when, surrounded by the foreign press shouting questions at him, he denied that the Americans were anywhere near Baghdad. ("There are no troops there. Never. ... There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad." ) Behind him, one could see the U.S. tanks rumblng by.
One could giggle at his lies because we all knew that he didn't believe what he was saying. He was spouting such nonsense because if he didn't toe Saddam's line, he'd be executed in a second. Besides, he had no power to affect events.
But Cheney has no such excuses: Along with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, Cheney is largely responsible for the policy that took the U.S. to war in Iraq, a policy based on outright lies, distortions, deceit. Cheney is the major progenitor of the war's current escalation of sending 21,000 more troops into Iraq. (This escalation comes nearly two years after Cheney, always consistent in his wrong-headedness, declared that the Iraq insurgency was "in its final throes." Baghdad Bob-ing again.)
"SIGNS OF PROGRESS"
Here is Tony Blair announcing the beginning of the end of British involvement in Iraq, by withdrawing one-third of its expeditionary forces, and Cheney is claiming that as a "sign of progress" for the Bush Administration's approach.
Lest you think I'm making this up for satirical effect, let's quote more of what Cheney said about the Brits pulling out of Basra in that interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl: ( http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2891713&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 ) "Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well."
>> "This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Sadr-controlled Maysan province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn't protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. ...
>> "Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come."
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
