< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Recent developments had left me rather confused as to how I might demonstrate that I was trying to be a good citizen, so I called my favorite inside source, Ananias Ziegler, director of media relations for the Committee That Really Runs America.
I suppose you're one of those partisan
bleeding-hearts who thinks we should be coddling prisoners
in Iraq by letting them sleep and wear clothes,
Ziegler
began, before I could even get a word in. Don't you know
what Sen. James Inhofe said about them?
I confessed that my life is much happier when I don't
listen to Republicans from Oklahoma, so Ziegler filled me
in: They're murderers, they're terrorists, they're
insurgents.
So they were all duly convicted in fair trials, and getting sodomized was part of their just punishment as we bring democracy and the rule of law to Iraq.
Don't get smart with me, Quillen,
Ziegler
snapped. The point is, we're at war with a brutal regime
that warred against its own people and ran hideous prisons
where torture was commonplace.
But more than a year ago, President George W. Bush said
that major combat operations were over. Our President wore
a flight suit under a Mission Accomplished
sign on a
U.S. aircraft carrier. If the mission was a accomplished,
and Saddam Hussein is now in U.S. custody, then whom are we
at war with?
Never mind,
Ziegler said. The point is, by
talking about the alleged mistreatment of prisoners, you're
giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
That's a definition of treason, which is punishable by death, so I asked for some clarification.
In a combat situation,
he explained, the idea
is to put the enemy out of action. Sometimes you have to
kill him. But almost always, the job is easier if you can
get him to surrender, and he's more likely to surrender if
he believes that he will be treated humanely.
That sounded sensible, so I pressed Ziegler to continue.
Pictures like this come out, and it makes them doubt
that they will be treated humanely, and so they're less
likely to surrender, and more likely to fight it out to the
end, which could mean more American casualties,
Ziegler
said. To make matters worse, our enemies are more likely
to mistreat American captives if they think we're not
following the Geneva conventions. The release of more
pictures could harm our personnel.
Thus the more attention people pay to this, the more it detracts from our cause?
Precisely,
Ziegler said. Just like that
'Nightline' broadcast a couple of weeks ago. ABC might have
said it wasn't political, but those brave patriots at
Sinclair Broadcasting Group knew better, and they did what
they could to keep Ted Koppel from undermining American
resolve.
It took me a moment to remember what he was talking
about: Koppel read the names of the American war dead and
showed their pictures. Sinclair refused to air the program
on the eight ABC stations it owns, because merely reading
the names was a strategy employed by numerous anti-war
demonstrators who wish to focus attention solely on the
cost of war.
So we shouldn't be paying attention to the cost of the war? I asked Ziegler.
Of course not,
he said. After all, back in
2002 and early 2003, the war-planners themselves told us
they couldn't say how much the war would cost. If they
didn't care, why should we?
He had a point. But I still asked about the ban on photos of flag-draped coffins from Dover Air Force Base.
Quillen, I'm running out of patience with you, so
I'll make this real simple. At the Committee, we have
determined that the best way for you to be a patriotic
American who supports the war is to pay absolutely no
attention to it. Have you got that?
He hung up before I could ask What war?
Where?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >