No one wants war.
All we really want is to kill Saddam Hussein.
When you strip away all the excess verbiage, our policy toward Iraq is pretty straight forward.
Kill Saddam Hussein.
President Bush is willing to take out a few thousand bystanders in the process, but he really doesn't want to hurt anyone but Saddam.
He would just as soon have someone else do it.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer suggested last week that "one bullet" could solve all our problems with Iraq.
"Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes," said Fleischer in his daily briefing Oct. 1.
He coyly suggested that Iraqis opposed to Saddam Hussein could save the United States the estimated $9 billion to $14 billion a month it would cost to go to war.
One bullet is a lot less expensive, he said.
Nice idea, but I doubt many of Iraqis are concerned about how much it's going to cost us to bomb their country to smithereens.
Fleischer should have put in on a personal level. Unless a kindly Iraqi citizen steps up to the plate and rubs out Saddam, a lot of Iraqis are going to die. So are a lot of Americans.
That seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to kill one guy.
If our foreign policy is going to include first-degree murder, we need to work smarter, not harder. A lot of really good killers are sitting idle in American prisons, leeching off the taxpayers.
These people know what they are doing when it comes to taking human life. They take pride in their work. Is it fair to lock them up just because they chose to work in the private sector?
I say we put them to work.
O.J. Simpson isn't doing much these days. We could send him to Iraq on the pretense of a golf tournament. You know, like the Saddam Hussein Celebrity Open.
Just watch out for those sand traps.
Amy Fisher also springs to mind. Granted, she is only an attempted murderer. However, she spent some time in jail picking up pointers.
And she could easily be sneaked into Iraq on the pretense of a date with Saddam.
The risk here is that she might actually fall for the big lug. There is just something about pudgy, deranged older men.
Tanya Harding and Jeff Gilooley might be safer bets.
Think about it. Bush really hates Saddam. There's a lot of bad blood between the Bushes and the Husseins.
Bush's dad bombed Iraq. Saddam responded by trying to kill him. Now little Bush wants to avenge big Bush. It just goes on and on.
Sure, Bush wants Saddam dead, but I bet it would really be satisfying to see the despot suffer a little first. Watching Gilooley go to town on Saddam's kneecaps could be quite cathartic.
Of course, for the sheer thrill of revenge, nothing beats Lorena Bobbitt. We might not even have to kill Saddam. Once Lorena works her magic, he might not be in the mood to cause any more mischief.
It worked with our dachshund.
Charles Manson briefly crossed my mind, but technically, he never killed anyone. He had other people commit murder for him. Enlisting him would just add another layer of bureaucracy.
The point is that we need to think outside the box here, people.
CIA agents in the 1960s came up with the idea of slipping Fidel Castro an exploding cigar. Now that was a good idea. Instead, Kennedy opted for the Bay of Pigs. And we all know how that turned out.
America specializes in war and large-scale military operations. With a few exceptions like Salvador Allende, we need help when it comes to the murder-for-hire business.
No shame in admitting it.
It's about time we took crime out of the streets and put it to work for our national security interests.
Killers get the wrong idea by being sent to prison or death row. We are telling them that murder is wrong. That's only partially true.
Murder is wrong only if there isn't a foreign policy objective to consider.
Conservatives react with horror about how our country has lapsed into "situational ethics." But where would this war on terrorism of ours be without situational ethics?
Ask the White House press secretary. The difference between murder and patriotism all depends on where you aim.