Today, I received a visit from Dr. Neekni Bzez-Emak ibn Himar, Chairman of the National Islamic People’s Party Legal Extension Service, which is headquartered here in Washington DC. Fresh from a meeting at the Embassy of the Republic of Yemen, he was equally full of tea and indignation.
“Mr. Collins,” he bitterly complained, “words can hardly express my disappointment with the conduct of the United States government.”
“You’re upset,” I surmised, “about the drone attack that killed Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki last Friday?”
“That,” Dr. ibn Himar huffed, “and the murder of his father Anwar on September thirtieth! Such hypocrisy! Both Anwar and Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki were United States citizens, and as such, they were entitled, under the Constitution, to due process of law!”
“Theoretically, yes,” I agreed. But I’m sure you’re aware of the difference between theory and reality.”
“I certainly have my concept of the difference,” my guest replied. “What’s yours?”
“A small boy,” I began, “approached his father, who relaxed in the living room after work, with a question. ‘Father,’ he asked, ‘what’s the difference between theory and reality?’ ‘Go,’ said the father, ‘and ask your mother and your sister if they would have sex with the ugly fat guy across the street or the nice old man next door in exchange for a million dollars.’ So the boy did as his father instructed, returning a few minutes later to tell him, ‘They both said yes about the nice old man next door, but Mom said she’d want two million for the ugly fat guy across the street and Sis said she’d want three.’ ‘There you have it,’ the father concluded, ‘the difference between theory and reality. The theory is, the guys next door and across the street are millionaires, and the reality is, you and I live with a couple of whores.’”
“And how,” Dr. ibn Himar demanded, “does that apply to the situation at hand?”
“The theory,” I explained, “is that Anwar and Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki were United States citizens and thus entitled to due process of law. On the other hand, the reality was that they were terrorists, members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, skulking around the lawless, failed state of Yemen, hiding behind civilians, and…”
“Excuse me,” Dr. ibn Himar interjected, “but I find your comparison and analogy to be in questionable taste. Perhaps an apology would be in order.”
“Quite right,” I agreed. “My apologies to whores for comparing them to the state of Yemen and for using their profession in an analogy involving al-Qaeda.”
A long moment passed as Dr. ibn Himar considered what I had just said. Finally, he spoke, in a slightly acid tone. “I nevertheless find it nearly unbelievable that a liberal Democratic president would be the one to sign orders for what amounts to the execution of two Americans abroad, without trial.”
“On the contrary,” I informed him, “only a liberal Democratic president could ever have done so.”
“What?” Dr. ibn Himar’s eyebrows shot up in twin arcs of incredulity. “On which basis could you possibly reach such a conclusion?”
“On the basis of American political history,” I explained. “Consider Communist China. Could Kennedy have ever gone to Red China? Obviously, he could not. Because if he had, the conservatives would make more hay out of it than an Iowa farmer nursing a bumper crop. It would have proved, at least as far at the conservative Republicans were concerned, that the Democrats were, at best, soft on Communism, if not, at worst, actually Fellow Travellers themselves. In short, since the Democrats were less extreme about Communism than the Republicans, it would have been political suicide for Kennedy to visit China and offer normalized relations. Could Lyndon B. Johnson have ever gone to Red China? Again, absolutely not – how would it have appeared, the architect of Medicare and the Great Society visiting the Land of Chairman Mao Zedong? What other evidence, the Republicans would roar, does the public need that the Democrats are in fact Socialists in disguise? The entire Southern wing of the Democratic Party would have defected to the Republicans before Johnson ever set foot on the airport tarmac in Beijing. But wait; Richard Nixon – the old Red Baiter himself – he could go to China. And why? Because nobody could ever suspect Nixon of being soft on Communism! And by the same token, could George W. Bush sign off on drone strikes to kill American citizens in foreign countries, even if they were terrorists, even if they were members of al-Qaeda? No, he could not – no way, José, it wasn’t going to happen. And why? Because if he did, the Democrats would be howling like scalded hound dogs about the erosion of freedom, creeping totalitarianism in the name of the war on terror, the conservative hidden agenda to repeal the Bill of Rights, and a whole laundry list of other such clichés, that’s why. So, ordering drone strikes to kill Anwar and Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki would have been political suicide for Republican President Bush, just as going to China would have been political suicide for any Democratic president. But President Barack Hussein Obama? The guy whom the Republicans claimed was secretly a Moslem? The person whom the Republicans constantly vilify for defending constitutional rights like any typical liberal does? The man they continually insinuate doesn’t like the Pentagon and isn’t tough enough to deal with the military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can he order US drones to blow American Moslem citizens to smithereens oversees? You bet your taqiyah, Doctor, he certainly can! And what does his political opposition do? Well, what can the Republicans do? They offer him grudging recognition and parsimoniously administered words of praise, just like the Democrats had to when Nixon went to China.”
“So what you are saying,” my guest syllogized, “is that because he’s a liberal Democrat, Barack Obama can do things that George W. Bush could never do, including signing secret orders to kill US citizens abroad.”
“Correct,” I confirmed. “It would have been impossible for George W. Bush to have gotten away with that, but Obama can do it all he wants.”
“Because Obama,” he snapped, “has a Moslem middle name.”
“Yes,” I agreed, “and because the Republicans did such a good job of convincing the… ah… less sophisticated members of the American public that Obama is, at the very least, sympathetic to Moslems, and, even possibly to al-Qaeda. That gives him a strong incentive to demonstrate his willingness to turn creeps like Anwar and Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki into finely shredded high-protein bird food with nice packages of high explosives, delivered courtesy of the American aerospace industry, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the US Air Force, the NSA and the CIA.”
“And because,” he continued, “Obama is, as you say, a bleeding heart liberal.”
“Exactly,” I concurred. “All that stuff about national health care, all that government spending to stimulate the economy, refusing to let the Justice Department enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, letting gays serve openly in the military, pushing for strict laws to regulate Wall Street – the whole liberal megillah, every bit of that shtick got wiped out when he ordered the Navy SEALS to put a few well-placed bullets in Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. It took the Republicans weeks to get the public back to griping about what an evil liberal Obama is. Face it – you don’t have to be William Safire to figure out that if the Republicans actually succeed in keeping the recession going until November 2012, Obama’s going to be killing a lot more Moslems with Hellfire missile drone strikes – US citizens or not.”
“And you,” Dr. ibn Himar challenged, “are not uncomfortable with regard to that prospect?”
“I didn’t say that I’m necessarily sanguine about it,” I qualified, “but let’s put things in perspective here – Obama’s going to kill maybe a dozen US citizens between now and November 2012, and maybe a hundred other Moslems who aren’t US citizens along with them, and all of them are going to either be terrorists or very, very unlucky local yokels. Compared to three thousand four hundred and four dead American heros and about half a million dead Iraqis sacrificed on the altar of George W. Bush’s political ambitions, well, what’s spitting in the ocean? In comparison, the numbers to justify the outrage just aren’t there.”
“In that case,” he inquired, “what should the other Moslem brothers do?”
“Brothers,” I sought to verify, “like Anwar and Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki?”
“Um… yes,” he admitted.
“Immediately cease all actions against the United States of America,” I shot back.
“That,” he whined, “is hardly the sort of advice I can repeat to my colleagues.”
“In response to the question you just asked,” I clarified, “it’s the only answer you’ll ever get out of me.”
“I see.” Dr. ibn Himar pursed his lips thoughtfully. “In that case, what other sort of question should I ask?”
“Try something… more… hypothetical,” I suggested.
“Very well,” he murmured, musing. “How about – given these circumstances, then, what do you suppose will happen?”
“Given that now no place outside the United States is safe,” I conjectured, “it stands to reason that criminals like Anwar and Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki, being the innate cowards that they are, will use their American citizenship to stay here in the US and take their chances with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.”
“You really think so?” Dr. ibn Himar wondered aloud.
“Sure,” I told him. “At least those folks will make a good faith effort to arrest them, read them their Miranda rights, give them an arraignment, set bail and see that they get a fair trial. And furthermore, if all they do is shoot their mouths off – like the white supremacists – they’ll be protected by the First Amendment, just like the white supremacists are, and nobody will even come to arrest them in the first place.”
“What a country,” Dr. ibn Himar sighed.
“Yep,” I seconded, “when it comes to spouting ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted, moronic nonsense until your stupid jaw goes numb, there’s just no place like the good ol’ USA.”
“And, most significantly,” he noted, “in the last analysis, that’s all Anwar and Abdel Rahman al-Awlaki ever did.”
“True,” I allowed. “And if they’d just kept their act Stateside, they’d probably both be alive today.”