Bad Day For Satire

If you're in the business of extracting the Funny from the day's news, there's a simple maxim today: Avoid Fallujah. This, by the way, also makes an excellent travel advisory. There's absolutely nothing amusing about what went on there yesterday, so it's a topic that we'd ought to avoid.

But I can't. Especially when I find my self staring at the massive gulf between What We Should Do and What I Think We're Gonna Do. If you stood on one side of that divide you'd need to use semaphore to communicate with the other. And your message would probably be "Duck!"

We've already promised an overwhelming response. And when I say "we," I mean the US Army.

Not that some sort of military response isn't called for here, like after any horrifyingly bloody riot. But I don't think this is going to resemble crowd control any more than it's going to resemble police activity or investigative work. It's likely going to resemble... war. There probably won't be any judges, juries, or due process. I could be wrong, but I sense there's some major bloodshed coming. And if it's done absolutely perfectly, it'll only harm those who perpetrated this atrocity (though you don't have to surf too far on the web to find rabid calls to replace Fallujah with a smoldering crater and a business card).

But here's the thing: I may be somewhat deprived of my sense of humor today, but the ol' irony gland is still working fine. So it strikes me as odd that while right now things are happening in Iraq that unequivocally require a US military response, we're somehow comfortable saying that in 90 days we'll be happy to put matters like this into the hands of the Iraqi Provisional Government.

After all, we're giving them sovereignty. So if there's another Fallujah-type incident 90 days from now, will we be satisfied tossing the matter over to the Iraqi police? Perhaps they'll give us special permission to march into their cities and fire upon civilian suspects ("Have fun in Tikrit, and if you see my cousin Samir, tell him I say hi."). Or will we have to invade all over again, depose the newly sovereign government, take care of the insurgents, and then get to work re-reconstructing Iraq?

If so, you can bet that Ahmed Chalabi will provide us with all the dirt on the atrocities of the first provisional government and will become a key player in the new one.

Sooner or later the Bush administration is going to have to fess up that the June 30 deadline is actually more of a... guideline. My guess is that they'll try to redefine "sovereignty" a bit before they give up the ghost, but give it up they will. And by then they may even get the idea that a power transfer should be effected by transitioning to a truly multinational force that includes Muslim soldiers...

Then again, that could just be my optimism leaking out. It does that occasionally, which is why I always carry a handkerchief. In truth, we may just end up reducing Fallujah to a two-dimensional city, accepting that this will further enrage the hearts and minds that we were hoping to take hold of, and digging in for a prolonged guerilla war.

On the bright side, if that happens then it won't be too long before we all become numbed to the constant parade of violent atrocities. And then we satirists will be back in the ol' saddle.

More Wacky

"In a 1994 interview, Senator Kerry mentioned a 50-cent gas tax as part of a plan to cut the federal deficit. He never talked about the gas tax again and later refused to back a similar bill by someone else."

As a top prosecutor in Middlesex County, Kerry took on organized crime and put the Number Two mob boss in New England behind bars.
- from Kerry's official bio

[Black screen fades into a pan over black and white photos of mob violence. Somber music plays.]

ANNOUNCER: Some folks think that organized crime will just go away if you ignore it. John Kerry does. Back when he was a prosecutor, he never once took New England's Number One mob boss to court. No, he settled for slapping less important mobsters on the wrist. Nobody has ever suggested that this was because Kerry had deep ties to the mob or was taking kickbacks from violent and dangerous mafia dons. So there's probably another explanation. America deserves to hear it: Ask John Kerry why he let the mafia kingpin go.

---------------------

"[Kerry and Kennedy] have had policy differences in the past," she said, specifically citing Kerry's early endorsement of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction act of 1985...
- from Boston.com

[Slam zoom on John Kerry in stark black and white. We see a rapid-fire sequence of Kerry in various outfits.]

ANNOUNCER: Which John Kerry do you want? You can take your pick. He'll tell you he's a Democrat, but when it was convenient for him he betrayed his party and went behind his state's senior senator's back to vote for the Gramm-Rudman Act, a bill that has had to be revised twice because it was... unconstitutional.

[A red stamp reading "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" comes down and partially covers Kerry's face.]

ANNOUNCER: Not a big surprise from a man who served in Vietnam and then came home to protest the war while his buddies were still fighting.

[We see several snapshots lying side-by-side on a table: John Kerry, Jane Fonda, an unidentifiable hippie burning a flag, Pol Pot, Barbra Streisand, Osama bin Laden, Genghis Khan, and Janet Jackson.]

ANNOUNCER: John Kerry - Not even his liberal friends can trust him.

-----------------------

Kerry's French Toast

A French toast sandwich with a cream cheese and brown sugar center. My family loves this, and it can be cut into wedges and served at brunch...

- from allrecipes.com

[Edith Piaf's "La Vie En Rose" plays while we see slow-motion black-and-white video of Kerry sipping from a suspiciously small coffee cup.]

ANNOUNCER: If you go onto the internet, you can find a prominent recipe for "Kerry's French Toast." And no wonder. John Kerry seems to like the French more than Americans. He even married a woman who was born just a few hundred miles from Paris.

[We see a blurry picture of Kerry which seems to sway and shake.]

ANNOUNCER: So what IS John Kerry? A scientific study has shown that he is made up of at least 60 percent water. And other research shows that he may be related... to monkeys.

[A split-screen: We see John Kerry speaking and gesticulating on the left of the screen, and a dirty chimpanzee masturbating furiously on the right.]

ANNOUNCER: This fall, it's up to you. You can re-elect George Bush, or you can vote for the wet French monkey. The choice is yours.

Those Damned Precedents...

But the administration's lawyers have determined that her testifying "would leave the institution different than it was," he said.

-----------------------------------------------------

"We're just sick about it!" exclaimed White House spokesman Scott McClellan at today's briefing. "The President was all likem 'Wow, it would be super duper if Condi could testify,' but his lawyers were like, 'No, she's not allowed because of, you know, precedents and stuff,' and we were all like 'No way!' but they were like, 'Way!' So it's a bummer."

"Absolutely," agreed Vice President Dick Cheney, making the rounds on Sunday. "It's a shame, but we have to settle for her making the case on the news, on talk shows, in editorials, and at public appearances. So the real shame about that is that Condi doesn't get to take an oath, which is something she'd really, really love to do."

At issue was the legal precedent that would be set by a sitting National Security Advisor testifying in public bedore "a Congressy kinda thing," White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales explained.

"I hate to be the heavy here," he said. "But it's a slippery slope. One minute it's okay for the National Security Advisor to publicly testify before Congress concerning the most devastating and unprecedented attack ever on American soil, and the next thing you know she's being compelled to testify about private thoughts that the President shared with her concerning state dinner menu choices. Where do you draw the line?"

"It's a sacrifice, but future National Security Advisors will thank us," concluded Gonzales. "What a pity, though. Condi's exactly the kind of person that we'd want testifying under oath and having to explain some of her more strident and questionable statements while opening herself up to the possibility of perjury - I mean, she's perfect for that kinda stuff. But the law is the law, I suppose."

A Concise History of "My Marriage" (2003-2004)

In the 24 hours since the airing of my piece, I've answered a lot of requests for a transcript. More than anything, I think that's a testament to the amazing "This American Life" and the devotion of its fans.

Finally, if you DO email it around to your friends, I have one humble-yet-incredibly-vain request. Please make sure my name remains attached to it. I want the Penguin Anti-defamation League to know where to find me.

--------------------------------------

[from Ira's introduction:]...Since January, 18 states have introduced amendments ... echoing the president's language.

Adam Felber says he knows just what the president's talking about.

This gay marriage thing is tearing my wife and me apart. Now, because of activist judges in Massachusetts and overzealous officials in San Francisco, our union is hanging on by the thinnest of threads.

Back in the simpler days of 2002, when we were planning our wedding, Jeanne and I used to coo fondly at each other about the joys that lay ahead. It wasn't that we were unsupportive of our gay friends, no. We were just looking forward to the government's validation of our relationship's specialness - a license that affirmed that the two of us had made a unique and personal eternal vow to each other. Something uniquer and specialer than any of our homosexual acquaintances could ever even hope for.

We're all for the separation of church and state, naturally, but if the government doesn't define marriage as the sacred union between a man and a woman, who will? Are Jeanne and I expected to treasure our union solely on the basis of our deep love, personal beliefs, public vows, and the government's blessing? Sorry, Judge Pinkypants, but that's just not good enough. Not for us. We need to know that we've got something that's only available to 90% of the population, the select and upstanding few.

Sure, some of us are criminals. Murderers, even. Some of us have committed rape, beaten children, tattooed swastikas on our bodies, abused animals, broken into houses, bilked the government out of millions of tax dollars, lied under oath, cheated on previous spouses, dishonored our fathers and mothers, failed to keep the Sabbath holy, mowed down pedestrians in our SUV's while intoxicated, coveted our neighbors' stuff, gotten ourselves put on death row, sold military secrets to the Chinese, urinated in public places, beaten up people who looked or sounded different than us, and sold drugs in schoolyards.

But we're straight, and that means we can get married. And that's special. Or, at least it was. Jeanne and I could look around at other married couples - at least the ones that aren't currently dealing with serial infidelity, divorce, spousal abuse, or bigamy - and think to ourselves, "Yes, that's what we're striving for. That kind of sanctity."

Are some gay people serious about their commitment to each other? Sure, of course, that's not the point. Let me give you an example. Jeanne and I know this couple, these two men. They've been together for years and years, longer than we have. They live on a farm in Pennsylvania and treasure their time together. They're loved by their community, have saved lives as members of the local fire department and have opened their home to youth groups from the city. They've built a life together based on love and trust. BUT - and here's my point - they're gay. They're both men. And if they're allowed to marry someday, where does that leave us, my wife and me? See what I'm saying? It'd cheapen everything we have.

And that's not a knock on gay people. No no no. America loves its gays. Look at the TV, with all those funny gay people on "Will and Grace," and "Queer as Folk," and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." They're funny! Funny, colorful people - they're nature's clowns, really. Like penguins.

And we don’t allow penguins to marry, do we? No, these are dark times in my household. My wife and I look at each other with haunted, suspicious eyes, feeling like we've bought a whole bunch of shares in a stock that is about to be devalued. Suddenly, the eternal, personal vows that we swore to each other will mean very little. We'll basically become roommates who happen to wear matching rings, while meanwhile out our window we'll see gays and penguins feeding each other wedding cake willy-nilly on our very own street corner.

That’s why we need a Constitutional amendment that will protect marriage for straight people. Until we have the right to enter that sacred union, violate it, exit it, and enter it again with somebody else, again and again, regardless of what crimes we commit, until we’re too old and feeble to mouth the words, "I do," - unless we have that right and gay people don't, then there is truly nothing sacred in the United States of America.

Hear Me Roar

This weekend, you can catch me on This American Life. Or on Wait Wait. Or both. Your choice.

And if you need proof that I'm better heard than seen, The Next Big Broadway Musical is still running.

Of course, it's still possible to enjoy your weekend in a Felber-free fashion. But I'm working on that.

Future Punchlines For the President

From CNN - "Bush Pokes Fun at Himself at Dinner"

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

-------------------------------------------------------

Campaigning in Florida, April 12, 2004:
"All through the spring of 2001, Dick Clarke was asking to see me about something urgent. I said, 'Call me old-fashioned, but I only want to see Dick Clarke on New Years Eve!' Thank you! So when he came to see me on September 12th, I remember saying, 'Whoa, Dick! Didn't you used to just drop a ball?!' Get it? Drop a ball..."

To the troops, Iraq, May 4, 2004:
"Maybe you guys misheard me: I said they had 'weapons of ass destruction.' And it's your ass! Hahaha! Thank you..."

To Future Farmers of America, May 25, 2004
Some people are saying, 'When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died.' That's pretty clever. But I say, 'When Bush Feigned, No Dresses Got Stained!' Whoa! Folks!"

To the Young President's Association, June 17, 2004
"So I heard today that more people than ever are living below the poverty line. Well, I have some advice for those folks: Move north! Thank you, you're very kind..."

To an Illinois Rotary Club meeting, July 4, 2004:
"...so I said to the war widow, 'What casket? I thought YOU had it!' No, seriously, you know I made that up - I don't go to soldiers' funerals. Those people are touch-y, lemme tellya. They're like a Frenchman's pantry - no cash and plenty of whine. Thank you! Drive safe, and remember to tip your waitress..."

Inside the White House

Madeline Albright, in yesterday's testimony:

"...there should have been no confusion that our personnel were authorized to kill bin Laden. We did not, after all, launch cruise missiles for the purpose of serving legal papers."

-----------------------------------

Meanwhile, in the Oval Office...
[Present: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Secretary Colin Powell]

BUSH: Heh heh, that's a good one! "Legal papers..." She's really good.

POWELL: Well, she's a former Secretary-

BUSH: I think they're called "Administrative Assistants" now, Pow-Pow.

POWELL: Yes, Mr. President.

CHENEY: Gettin' killed out there. And CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are all showing it. Uncut.

ROVE: This is unforeseen.

CHENEY: Clarke tomorrow. And William Cohen is up later.

BUSH: Oooh, he's good. He's always got those... details. Y'know, facts and figures and stuff. At his fingertips.

ROVE: He's very precise.

BUSH: Heck, he's just like anybody in The West Wing.

POWELL: Thank you, sir.

ROVE [in an undertone]: He's talking about the television show.

POWELL [also in an undertone]: Oh.

ROVE [clearing throat]: You'd better start going down there, General Powell.

BUSH: Knock 'em dead, C. Piddy!

POWELL: Yes, Mr. President.

[Powell exits.]

BUSH: He'll be good, right?

ROVE: Yes...

BUSH: And we got Rummy later.

ROVE: True...

BUSH: Can they be like Cohen? You know, facts n' figures?

ROVE: Well, Mr. President, this administration works in, um, broader strokes.

BUSH: Come again?

CHENEY: The Clinton people were small picture, while we're big picture.

BUSH: Not quite readin' you...

ROVE: We. Keep. Things. Simple.

BUSH: Hmm. Wonder why that is.

[Pause.]

BUSH: So, can we get Toby Ziegler?

ROVE: No, sir.

BUSH: Damn, he's really good. Lots of facts at his fingertips. So, let's think. Who was in charge of national security back then... Say! Maybe we can send Condolee-

CHENEY: No!

ROVE: No!

BUSH: Whoa, okay. So, what're we gonna do?

ROVE: What we always do, sir. And with broad strokes.

CHENEY: And let's do it during Cohen's thing.

BUSH: I'm in! [pause] What is it?

-----------------------------------------

Yesterday, 2:05 P.M. EST (actual transcript)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. We've just had a very constructive Cabinet meeting. We talked about the need for us to remain strong in the war on terror. I assured our -- my team that America is not going to blink in the face of the attacks that took place in Spain. As a matter of fact, we'll continue to rally the world to fight off terror. Here at home, my economic advisors, economic team presented a very upbeat assessment about our economy. It's strong, and it's growing stronger...

The Emperor's New Wardrobe Malfunction

Well, that didn't take long. Less than 24 hours after Clarke's interview hit the airwaves, the Bush administration had this to say:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan vehemently denied the assertion, stating, "This is Dick Clarke's 'American Grandstand.' He just keeps changing the tune... Clearly, this is more about politics and a book promotion than it is about policy."

I'm sure that I'm not the first to point out that only two months ago former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill published a book and went on "60 Minutes" and asserted (among other things) that Bush was planning to invade Iraq all along, before and after 9/11. The White House, if memory and Google serve, had a similarly temperate response:

"We didn't listen to [O'Neill's] wacky ideas when he was in the White House, why should we start listening to him now," said a senior official.

It's not the fact that the emperor has no clothes that amazes me here; it's that after repeated and very public "wardrobe malfunctions," people still think he's decently clad, that what's dangling in the breeze is just an oddly-placed necktie.

Out in the wondrous Land of Blog, it's even worse. You can go over to Instapundit to catch the gnarly wave of Clarke bashing, but I wouldn't recommend it. There's a lot of unfocussed bile: Clarke didn't know anything, Clarke is just trying to earn a buck, Clarke is in John Kerry's back pocket, Clarke was sent by evil space aliens to undermine our resolve, poison our precious bodily fluids, and soften our resolve before they invade, etc...

I guess the essential question is this: What would it take for Bush's supporters to believe that the Iraq war was policy from the start, and that the War on Terror and US intelligence were cynically twisted to bolster public support for this agenda? Who would have to leave the administration, write a book, and go on "60 Minutes" with anecdotes and documents before America's Bushies began to smell something rotten?

You can answer in the Comments below, but it's my suspicion that if George W. Bush himself resigned, wrote a book entitled "I Lied to You All, Especially About Iraq," and confessed tearily to Lesley Stahl that he'd been "a very, very bad boy," the next morning Scott McClellan would express President Cheney's disapproval, assert that Bush missed most of the meetings that involved national security and Iraq, and point out that Bush was never really in the administration's inner circle.

And a lot of folks would buy it.

[And, come to think of it, it's really not that implausible...]

Tick...tick...tick...

For those of you who don't watch "60 Minutes" (and I don't - Sunday nights are when I head down to Princeton to teach tomorrow's leaders of this great country how to write silly, inconsequential, and often lewd comedy sketches. Because I care about America's future), you should probably check out tonight's interview with Bush's former terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke.

Or just read the article linked above. [My thanks to the indispensable Atrios for the link.]

What do we learn from it? Pretty much that when Bush and Rumsfeld told us that the the War on Terrorism is a fundamentally new and different kind of war, they were telling the truth. It's a war wherein someone attacks us and we retaliate by attacking someone else entirely. That sort of strategy might seem a bit counterintuitive, but you have to admit that it does carry the essential element of surprise.

It really does work, too, and you can prove this by trying it in your own life: The next time your neighbor allows his dog to foul your lawn, march over to your neighbor on the other side and shoot his cat. You're probably going to alienate a few people with this approach, and you might get invited to fewer parties. But it's pretty clear that nobody on your block will ever mess with you again.