Yes, we do a "regime change" as soon as possible Mr. President.

Submitted by Jay Esbee (United States), Aug 31, 2002 at 19:38

While no one is saying that Saddam is a "good guy" in all of this, there are any number of FACTS being swept under the rug regarding any alleged to be impending attack on Iraq;

1. While not a "good guy", he is OUR guy -REMEMBER? And when one really looks at this situation with the degree of cynicism required of a president, who?s Father is historically regarded to have made a very stupid decision about Saddam, and who wasn?t really even elected by the majority of Americans, AND when one also understands that Iraq sent an ambassador, to the United States, to TELL us in advance, that they would be attacking Kuwait for stealing their oil, and were met with "that's not any concern of ours", one can really only shake their head in utter disbelief, at the office of the president being used for a personal "business" vendetta.

2. If being a tyrannical state in possession of weapons of mass destruction is going to be the criteria for going on the offensive, I would advise the Bush administration of turn the nuclear launch keys on China, now. After all, they are a totalitarian state, they have ICBM?s trained on all out major cities, and their defense minister said in 1996 "we regard an all out war with the United States as inevitable and we are preparing for that war and we are preparing to win it". Oh wait, for THIS, they get ?most favored nation trade status?. Well that?s not hypocritical or anything, is it. Oh well, lets give the administration another chance shall we?

3. OK, North Korea. And it's even made the 'axis of evil' list! Yup, "totalitarian", and like China, they've already got deliverable nukes. No? Oh, maybe the nation needs to be Islamic before the "firm policy" takes effect? OK, that seemed to me to be 2 strikes, but let us do our best to avoid placing this president in the camp of blatantly transparent hypocrisy by giving him one more chance. Lets see what he does with a nation that?s a) Islamic, b) a military dictatorship, c) harboring terrorists, d) already in possession of nuclear weapons, and lets ad e) a known threat to their neighbors who happen to be democratic. Who would that be?

Pakistan. Oh no, what happened? We?re not going to attack them? But they fit all the requirements don?t they? Well then, will he at least put them on his "axis of evil"? No? You?re kidding, right? Oh. Well then, what will he do about them? What! He gave them money and sold them new high technology weapons? OK, but maybe he?s not a total hypocrite, I mean they did beat back the angry anti-American mobs in their streets. Well, I guess if Mr. Bush feels this indebted to them for arresting a few people and ?taking a stand? against the sentiments of his own people, the President of Pakistan should get that money and as for India, oh well, they?re "overpopulated" anyway aren?t they.

But all is not lost! In an act of political courage, the president has added another nation to those who threaten out nation?s security; Cuba. Never again will the good people of America have to fear Universal health care, 100% literacy, and the possibility of being hit with coconuts by this dangerous nation with almost 400 people in jail and no death penalty. I sleep so much better knowing this.

I also sleep well knowing that rather than wasting our military reserves on the Mexican where Islamic fundamentalists can shop in T.J. on Saturday and plot in L.A. on Sunday, he's secured our safety by "educating" Americans about the beautiful and peaceful nature of Islam, and put the troops to work training to man their future "checkpoints" on America's roads so they'll know how to stop each and every American citizen and demand their national ID. Yes, please Mr. President, you're doing the right thing. But I think you need to know, you won't get the rest of your plan through if there's not another attack. Better open a few more doors to them and be a bit more reckless in what you say. But don't tick-off the Saudis, invite them over for the weekend. It's those ignorant masses over their that you really need to rile up. Make sure they see their leaders hanging out at your ranch, maybe with a little assistance from the State Dept and CIA you can get us hit again. We all want a police state to feel safe you know.

Now about Israel, although Saddam can't actually get a missile over HERE, they could sure get one over to Israel couldn't they. But doesn't Saddam know that if he did that, it'd be all over for him instantly? Yes, of course. But how do you find a way to get rid of all those problematical Jews without looking like an antisemite Mr. Bush? I mean wasn?t your family involved in funding The Third Reich? Boy, that is a political liability isn?t it. OK Georgie boy, try this: Make all kinds of pro-Israel statements while your state dept does the dirty work. This has always worked hasn?t it. Look at all the Jews we managed to keep out of the U.S. during WW2, and look at the wonderful reputation we have in that one as saviors. So call for a Palestinian State after acts of terror, then tell Israel they can defend themselves, and make sure that when you play "good cop/bad cop", Powell is always the bad cop. Now if you can just provoke Saddam into total certainty that he's got nothing to lose, just maybe take out Israel. You could play this for all it's worth Mr. President! "Hey, we told you the guy was a nut job and that you should have listened to me!". Yes Mr. President, you may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but you've sure got a friend in your Dad! And you're at least as smart as the average American who?ll never see through the "stragity".

But wasn't it your Father who said:

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the
United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth
pledge their allegiance."
1992 -- President Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N"?

And was it not 1991 when his CIA director said:

"We have a much bigger objective. We've got
to look at the long run here. This is an example -- the situation
between the United Nations and Iraq -- where the United Nations is
deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign
nation...Now this is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all
countries of the world..."
CIA director Stansfield Turner July, 1991"?

...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".