US Responds to Iraqi Claims, Prepares Unique Solution

(UPI) US officials, stung by recent Iraqi accusations, hurriedly scrambled to answer by sending Defence Secretary Ronald Bumsfeld out as their spokesman. Asked why he was sent and not Secretary of State Colin Powell, as it is this position that answers foreign policy questions, Bumsfeld-reminiscent of former Secretary of State Alexander Haig in the Reagan administration, declared, 'I am in charge here. I am fully capable of answering any question regarding the United States previous, current or future actions. Please go ahead with your questions and I will answer them as indirectly as possible.'

Asked why the US government dropped two atomic weapons on heavily populated civilian centers during WWII, Bumsfeld responded, 'What would your alternative have been------to let millions of our serviceman die in a war with one of the most evil regimes on our planet at the time?' Questioned specifically as to why it necessary to drop them on two major cities which resulted in the immediate deaths of 200,000 people and the eventual deaths of another 200,000, Bumsfeld responded with the claim that the question was 'anti-American.' Asked why the Japanese government could not have been shown a demonstration of the A-bomb's destructive power by dropping it on an unpopulated island as was done at Bikini Island a few years later, Bumsfeld responded with cries of 'anti-Americanism.' Asked how was it possible that millions of highly trained, battle-hardened US serviceman, enjoying complete air superiority (noting that the B-29s that dropped the A-bombs flew unescorted over their targets since the Japanese air force had ceased to exist), complete naval superiority (the remnants of the Japanese navy were destroyed at Leyte Gulf), and fighting the ragged remains of what was left of the home force, could suffer such casualties, Bumsfeld conceded that he had drudged up that response from old White House press releases from the Truman White House in 1945.

Asked why it was alright to use chemical weapons in the Gulf War, Bumsfeld responded, 'what would your alternative have been, to put our head in the sand and let one of the most evil regimes in present history invade a sovereign country?' Asked why the US did not respond the same way with the Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan, Bumsfeld responded with accusations of 'anti-Americanism.' Asked why the US did not invade Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon when they attacked Israel in the 1973 war, Bumsfeld responded with a blank face, saying, 'But we were trying to extricate ourselves from the Vietnam mess at that time--you know, Peace with Honor?'

Asked why the US only follows those decisions by the UN or World Court that they see fit too, Bumsfeld responded , 'are you in favor of obeying a world organization who has terrorist supporting nations as part of it's whole when they make biased judgments that affect the national security of the US?' Questioned as to how a majority decision could be reached in such judgments--in other words, do the majority of UN member nations support terrorism? Bumsfeld responded with 'I guess so!!'

Asked about other allegations of US foul play in South America, Bumsfeld paused briefly, somewhat nonplussed and said, 'I know nothing!' (the resemblance to Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes was noted). Recovering quickly, Bumsfeld said, 'I get my news from the major news organs which are full of Al Qaeda terrorist threats, US preparation for war, and Allied intransigence. If I read anything else and express an opposing opinion I may appear unpatriotic.'

Asked what the US planned to do to stop terrorism Bumsfeld offered a unique solution which he said the US has immediately begun to implement, 'The US, finding that it too is guilty of many of the allegations it has flung at Iraq has prepared to *invade itself*. Yes that's right, while we speak at this very moment US carrier battle fleets are quickly heading to the coasts of California, Florida and New York with coalition forces aboard. The carrier battle fleet heading to the coast of California has 50,000 Russian coalition forces, the carrier battle fleet heading to the coast of Florida has 50,000 French coalition forces and the carrier battle fleet heading towards New York has 50,000 German coalition forces. All are prepared to round up dissidents opposed to US policies. They are to be placed in former WWII internment camps and for convenience called 'Japanese'.' Afterward, an House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) will be formed again and all those guilty of disagreeing with Bush administration policies will be blacklisted from further employment.'

Finally asked why $360,000,000,000 was not considered an exorbitant amount to spend on defence, Bumsfeld responded that it was 'only a little over 3.3% of our gross national product, the norm is over 5%.' Asked why the US does not increase it expenditures to the 5% norm, since it declares the world is under such a great threat, Bumsfeld responded that the US does spend the norm, it is simply hidden in the budget. Asked if he didn't just contradict himself, Bumsfeld ducked, reached into the air to flag down the question that just flew over his head and shouted, 'Nice try!!'