Editor’s note: Michael Ackley’s columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.
Memo to John Edwards: My dad worked in a mill, too, but I don’t bring it up in every conversation. This is because in the United States of America, it is commonplace for the children of mill workers, file clerks, ditch diggers and grocery checkers to study hard, graduate from college and move up the economic ladder. I am certain your father was special to you and that he was a great guy. You have a right to be proud of him. But his story is not rare or amazing – not in this country – and neither is yours.
We were bemused at Edwards’ tale of his father learning math from the television, which showed how far we have come from what TV anchorman Tom Brokaw dubbed “the greatest generation.” When kids went out into the world in the ’30s, they actually had been taught math in school …
What’s with the president’s rope-a-dope strategy on discussions about Iraq? He is letting Edwards and John Kerry beat him about the ears on weapons of mass destruction, when WMD were only one of our reasons for invading. Most important was the Bush doctrine that we would fight not only terrorists, but also the nations giving them safe harbor. All the Kerry-Edwards campaign’s obfuscatory rhetoric cannot obscure the fact Saddam was a terror sponsor …
By the way, has anybody else noticed that the critics of our involvement in Iraq are pretty much the same people who for years have lambasted the United States for failing to foster freedom and democracy in the Middle East?
To answer the questions, “Why Iraq? Why not Iran or North Korea?” we contacted Howard Bashford, assistant director of the U.S. Office of Strategic Vision, a little-known subunit of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Bashford greeted us in his windowless office, deep under ground at the Pentagon.
“You ask, ‘Why Iraq?'” he began. “The answer is, we had to start somewhere. Afghanistan was just a warm-up, because it wasn’t really a nation, but a territory fragmented by war lords and ‘governed’ by unpopular extremists.
“We couldn’t begin with North Korea, because that would disturb China. It couldn’t be Iran, because the topography would make the fight extremely costly – all those mountains.
“Iraq was perfect because Saddam was an international outlaw, there were substantial dissident elements in the country, and militarily it was easy pickings.”
“But Iran is more dangerous,” we protested, “and Syria, besides being a terror sponsor, is a constant threat to our ally Israel.”
Bashford smiled slyly.
“One thing at a time,” he said. “Once we get Iraq more or less buttoned up, then we can think about Syria. And after Syria folds, the pressure really will be on Iran to straighten up.
“You can call it the ‘New Domino Theory’ if you wish.”
“Now that you explain it, it seems obvious,” we said. “Why doesn’t the president just come right out and say that’s what we’re up to?”
“Of course it’s obvious,” Bashford smirked. “Syria’s Assad certainly understands it, and so do the mullahs in Iran. But you can’t come right out and say it because that would hinder our diplomatic efforts.
“If these governments were to respond to overt threats, they wouldn’t be able to control the extreme elements in their countries.”
“Gosh,” we said, “that makes it tough on Bush and Cheney this election season. They can’t just come right out and explain our strategic objectives.”
“And don’t think other hostile elements don’t understand this,” said Bashford.
“Which hostile elements?” we queried.
“The Democratic Party,” he replied.
WATCH: See body-cam footage of Routh’s arrest
WND Staff