[Mb-civic] How's This for Satire? - Richard Cohen - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

How's This for Satire?

By Richard Cohen
The Washington Post
Tuesday, March 14, 2006; A19

The movie version of Christopher Buckley's book "Thank You for Smoking" 
opens Friday and in conjunction with that, Buckley was interviewed on 
National Public Radio. Buckley mentioned the difficulty of writing 
satire in Washington, where the most outrageous idea is trumped by the 
next day's headline. I heard the interview just as I was reading in the 
newspaper that Republicans were "distressed by the White House's 
performance since President Bush's reelection." As the old saying goes, 
can you top that, Chris?

Republicans were not "distressed," mind you, by the war in Iraq, which 
turns out to have been waged for no good reason. Republicans were not 
distressed by the massive intelligence failure that preceded the war. 
Republicans were not distressed, either, by the intelligence failure 
that produced the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, more than seven 
months after our MBA president took over as CEO of the federal government.

Republicans were not distressed by a war plan that envisioned an 
enthusiastic welcome for U.S. troops by the people of Iraq. They were 
not distressed by a faulty battle plan that relied on too few troops and 
enabled the sacking and vandalizing of Baghdad by the local barbarians. 
They were not distressed by a war that has gone on two years past the 
point where George W. Bush pronounced it substantially over. Republicans 
are a cheerful bunch.

Republicans are not distressed by a war that is costing many billions of 
dollars more than estimated. They are not distressed by what that has 
done to the federal budget, the deficit and the debt, and how we as a 
nation are in hock to China and Japan, not to mention the odd 
billionaire in Dubai. They are not distressed by General Motors and Ford 
sinking into a witch's brew of ineptitude, greed, pension obligations 
and high costs. This is distressing, but mostly if you happen to be an 
autoworker. Most of them are not Republicans anyway.

Republicans are not distressed by the deaths of more than 2,300 
Americans in Iraq, many of whom ( most of whom) lost their lives 
needlessly fighting a war that should have been over long ago. 
Republicans are not distressed by the wounded or the widowed or the 
orphaned or the merely haunted who will, on account of combat, never get 
another good night's sleep.

No. Republicans are distressed because Bush suddenly has made their 
lives a tad more difficult. His ratings are down. Their elections are 
coming up. Oy, what distress!

Lest you think I am a partisan hack, let me tell you what distresses the 
Democrats: an innocuous port deal that lent itself to demagogic 
mischief. This reprehensible exercise in Arab-bashing was led by New 
York's two senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, both of whom 
revealed themselves to be ill-suited to fill the Senate seats once 
occupied by the likes of Jacob Javits, Pat Moynihan, Bobby Kennedy, 
Herbert Lehman and Robert Wagner. They wound up taking the same side as 
Bill Frist, the Senate's most nimble opportunist, a physician who took 
one look at a videotape of Terri Schiavo and rendered a medical opinion 
so wrong and so irresponsible that he violated the physician's paramount 
obligation to "First do no harm" by simply getting out of bed that 
morning. If Frist is your doctor, seek a second opinion.

Truly, we -- you and I -- should be the ones distressed. This country 
has a bunch of fools for leaders. Almost daily, they flock to one press 
availability or another, yakking spin at us all. They hurl press 
releases back and forth, like kids throwing spitballs at one another, 
trudging from one photo-op to another and never neglecting to invoke 
"the American people" to justify their own selfish interests. If the 
fraudulent phrase, "Frankly I don't think the American people . . . " 
was banned in Washington, the town would fall mute and long-extinct 
birds would return. Just banning "frankly" alone would do wonders.

Buckley, take note. The other day, a spokesman for the military in Iraq 
refused to confirm the identity of the Abu Ghraib prisoner photographed 
wearing a hood with his arms extended by electrical wiring. The 
spokesman said it would violate the Geneva Conventions to identify the 
guy. These are the very Geneva Conventions that the current attorney 
general, Alberto Gonzales, had characterized as "obsolete." I guess it 
was once considered okay to abuse the prisoner and scare him half (or 
three-quarters) to death but not to identify him.

You cannot top this, Chris -- which is why, frankly, I'm distressed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301484.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060314/0f48457f/attachment.htm