Memo to President Bush: The case for invading Canada
Date: Tuesday, October 04 2005
Memo to Bush: The case for invading Canada
by Steven Laffoley : Mr. President, I propose a bold new action: you must immediately declare victory in Iraq, bring home the troops, and then promptly order another invasion.
TO: The President of the United States
FROM: Steven Laffoley
RE: Showing national resolve at half the price, the case for invading Canada
Just recently, I watched on television as you renewed your case for war in Iraq. With leaps of logic worthy of any C-minus graduate from Yale and Harvard, you spoke with great eloquence about America's lack of resolve throughout the 90s (during those immoral Democratic Clinton years) to stand up to terrorists when America suffered attacks against the USS Cole, a few embassies abroad, and the basement parking lot of the World Trade Centre.
And you powerfully spoke of how, under your Republican administration, America is now demonstrating its mighty national resolve to thwart terrorism by invading and occupying Iraq.
It was unfortunate, Mr. President, that your Clinton-loving critics promptly noted that Iraq, prior to the American invasion, was a nation that had never attacked America, nor threatened to attack America. In fact, these critics were even so crass as to note that Iraq had no previous relationship with known Islamic terrorists.
But frankly, Mr. President, to hell with your critics. You know best how to fight the bad guys. As you so directly put it: fighting this endless, immoral, irrational war in Iraq, shows those darned terrorists — now living relatively undisturbed, well-fed and well-funded lives in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Syria — that America is truly resolved to be mighty tough on terrorists.
However, Mr. President, despite the persuasiveness of your argument, somehow your poll numbers continue to drop. As such, I believe you must consider a new approach to national resolve.
Consider: given that your Iraq “showing resolve” thing is getting so terribly expensive, and given that your newest “showing resolve” thing of paying any price to fix the mess in New Orleans (except for raising taxes on the ridiculously rich or slashing spending on fat gorged pork, like that nifty bridge to nowhere in the Alaskan Aleutian Islands) is not so popular with some Republicans, I believe there is another way to show American resolve — and at half the price.
Mr. President, I propose a bold new action: you must immediately declare victory in Iraq, bring home the troops, and then promptly order another invasion - which, if you don't mind my saying, sir, you do very well — against a country that is much closer, with defenses even more porous than Iraq's, and which also happens to be swimming in oil.
The place? Canada, Mr. President. Specifically, Alberta, Canada.
Consider, Mr. President: like Iraq, Alberta, Canada does not harbour any thoughts of harming America. Nor does it have any weapons of mass destruction, save for the occasional mad cow shipped to Montana. Alberta is run by a provincial leader sometimes referred to as “King Ralph.” And best of all, Mr. President, like Iraq, Alberta, Canada is positively soaked with oil — and it's right there, just across the northern border, ripe for the occupying.
In short, Mr. President, you have all the same reasons for invading Alberta, Canada as you did for invading Iraq.
And how do you sell the invasion of Alberta, Canada to the American people?
Mr. President, as you have done so well in other cases, you could portray the Alberta premier as power-crazed and heartless.
An example? Well, not long ago, while on a frat-boy style bender and looking for some fun, “King Ralph” had his government limo driven to a nearby homeless shelter where, once inside, he loudly berated the startled residents for being poor and not having jobs. Then he rashly tossed a bit of money on the floor in front of the residents and left. (Inexplicably, the Albertan voters promptly reelected him.)
That said, as I consider this angle, Mr. President, it seems unlikely that your conservative base will see “King Ralph” as cold and heartless — after all, in the true spirit of Compassionate Conservatism, he did throw money in the general direction of the poor.
But wait, Mr. President. What about this angle? You could “liberate” Alberta — from the rest of Canada. You could tell the American people that Canada is rife with 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 power for most of the last four decades is “the Liberals.” So imagine this angle: for all that time, Canadian “Liberals” have been oppressing these freedom-loving Albertan people.
What could be an easier sell?
And better still, Mr. President, unlike those ungrateful Iraqi people who don't know they have it so good, perhaps some Albertans would joyously welcome an American “liberation” force with colourful flowers, open arms — and free beef. Just consider the Photo Op, Mr. President!
In closing, sir, given the cost savings for the shorter distance, troop movements to Alberta, Canada, and given the likely non-resistance of the under-funded Canadian armed forces, and also given the lucrative contracts available for privatizing Canadian health care and medical insurance (each, of course, in the good name of American Democratic Free Enterprise, to be given to subsidiaries of Halliburton in multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts), I believe that the “liberation” of Alberta from Canada would stand as an undeniable beacon of liberty throughout the world. It would certainly continue to show America's mighty national resolve against all terrorist threats — and at half the price.
Thank you, Mr. President, for considering my proposal.
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 5, 2005]