TO: The President of the United States
FROM: Steven Laffoley
RE: Showing national resolve at half the price, thecase for invading Canada
Just recently, I watched on television as you renewedyour case for war in Iraq. With leaps of logic worthyof any C-minus graduate from Yale and Harvard, youspoke with great eloquence about America's lack ofresolve throughout the 90s (during those immoralDemocratic Clinton years) to stand up to terroristswhen America suffered attacks against the USS Cole, afew embassies abroad, and the basement parking lot ofthe World Trade Centre.
And you powerfully spoke ofhow, under your Republican administration, America isnow demonstrating its mighty national resolve tothwart terrorism by invading and occupying Iraq.
It was unfortunate, Mr. President, that yourClinton-loving critics promptly noted that Iraq, priorto the American invasion, was a nation that had neverattacked America, nor threatened to attack America. Infact, these critics were even so crass as to note thatIraq had no previous relationship with known Islamicterrorists.
But frankly, Mr. President, to hell with your critics.You know best how to fight the bad guys. As you sodirectly put it: fighting this endless, immoral,irrational war in Iraq, shows those darned terrorists now living relatively undisturbed, well-fed andwell-funded lives in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Syria that America is truly resolved to be mighty tough onterrorists.
However, Mr. President, despite the persuasiveness ofyour argument, somehow your poll numbers continue todrop. As such, I believe you must consider a newapproach to national resolve.
Consider: given that your Iraq showing resolve thingis getting so terribly expensive, and given that yournewest showing resolve thing of paying any price tofix the mess in New Orleans (except for raising taxeson the ridiculously rich or slashing spending on fatgorged pork, like that nifty bridge to nowhere in theAlaskan Aleutian Islands) is not so popular with someRepublicans, I believe there is another way to showAmerican resolve and at half the price.
Mr. President, I propose a bold new action: you mustimmediately declare victory in Iraq, bring home thetroops, and then promptly order another invasion -which, if you don't mind my saying, sir, you do verywell against a country that is much closer, withdefenses even more porous than Iraq's, and which alsohappens to be swimming in oil.
The place? Canada, Mr. President. Specifically,Alberta, Canada.
Consider, Mr. President: like Iraq, Alberta, Canadadoes not harbour any thoughts of harming America. Nordoes it have any weapons of mass destruction, save forthe occasional mad cow shipped to Montana. Alberta is run by a provincial leader sometimes referred to as KingRalph. And best of all, Mr. President, like Iraq,Alberta, Canada is positively soaked with oil andit's right there, just across the northern border,ripe for the occupying.
In short, Mr. President, you have all the same reasonsfor invading Alberta, Canada as you did for invadingIraq.
And how do you sell the invasion of Alberta, Canada tothe American people?
Mr. President, as you have done so well in othercases, you could portray the Alberta premier as powercrazed and heartless.
An example? Well, not long ago, while on a frat-boystyle bender and looking for some fun, King Ralphhad his government limo driven to a nearby homelessshelter where, once inside, he loudly berated thestartled residents for being poor and not having jobs.Then he rashly tossed a bit of money on the floor in front ofthe residents and left. (Inexplicably, the Albertanvoters promptly reelected him.)
That said, as I consider this angle, Mr. President, itseems unlikely that your conservative base will seeKing Ralph as cold and heartless after all, in thetrue spirit of Compassionate Conservatism, he didthrow money in the general direction of the poor.
But wait, Mr. President. What about this angle? Youcould liberate Alberta from the rest of Canada.You could tell the American people that Canada is rifewith nationalized-health-care-for-all, anti-gun nut,anti-war in Iraq, evolution-theory-loving liberals.Even the name of the Canadian federal party in powerfor most of the last four decades is the Liberals.So imagine this angle: for all that time, CanadianLiberals have been oppressing these freedom-lovingAlbertan people.
What could be an easier sell?
And better still, Mr. President, unlike thoseungrateful Iraqi people who don't know they have it sogood, perhaps some Albertans would joyouslywelcome an American liberation force with colourfulflowers, open arms and free beef. Just consider thePhoto Op, Mr. President!
In closing, sir, given the cost savings for theshorter distance, troop movements to Alberta, Canada,and given the likely non-resistance of theunder-funded Canadian armed forces, and also given thelucrative contracts available for privatizing Canadianhealth care and medical insurance (each, of course, inthe good name of American Democratic Free Enterprise,to be given to subsidiaries of Halliburton inmulti-billion dollar no-bid contracts), I believe thatthe liberation of Alberta from Canada would stand asan undeniable beacon of liberty throughout the world. It would certainly continue to show America's mightynational resolve against all terrorist threats andat half the price.
Thank you, Mr. President, for considering my proposal.