Tysto home

 


f r o n t . p a g e

 

b u s i n e s s

 

c u l t u r e

 

e n t e r t a i n m e n t

 

g o v e r n m e n t

e - m a i l . t y s t o

 

a b o u t . t y s t o

s e a r c h . t y s t o
s e a r c h . t y s t o | a b o u t . t y s t o | e - m a i l . t y s t o

 

Election 2004: George vs Saddam

2004.03.12 — Government | Iraq | War | Satire | by BB Rodriguez

Click for larger image

"Anyone but Bush"? He's tanned, rested, and ready in 04.

Now that the dust has settled, it is time to prepare for an election to determine who will lead the nation into the future. The Iraqi nation, that is. With Saddam Hussein caught alive, it puts us in a unique position to contemplate: who would win an election between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein?

Note: When I say that the "dust has settled," I'm talking about the dust from our bombs. The dust from Iraqi insurgent bombs is still up in the air, of course.

Shall we ask Iraqis the question made famous by Ronald Reagan in his campaign against Jimmy Carter? Paraphrased, it is: Are you better off today than you were a year ago? That's when the war in Iraq started, provoked by Saddam's unique kind of passive imminent threat (the kind without weapons to back it up). Do Iraqis have enough food, water, electricity, and hope for a non-authoritarian future?

What choice would the Iraqi people make if we gave them a truly free and open election and let Saddam run?

What choice would the Iraqi people make if we gave them a truly free and open election and let Saddam run? Saddam would surely get enough support among his old pals to qualify for matching funds. Then the campaign would be rolling, probably stronger than Dennis Kucinich's; certainly winning his own party's nomination.

I don't think George W Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein, but George never bombed my village. If Bush thinks the Democrats' calls for "Anyone but Bush" are harsh, imagine those words at a Saddam Hussein rally. It takes on new meaning.

I don't think George W Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein, but George never bombed my village.

With the right media consultants to play down his history of violent dictatorship ("The past is behind us. It's morning in Iraq."), Saddam could mount a formidable campaign. He would have a lot of things going for him:

  • He comes from humble beginnings in a village called Tikrit.
  • He has decades of experience running a country.
  • He is a Baghdad outsider—for the last year, anyway.
  • He can sympathize with the poor people of Iraq. After all, for months, he was living in a filthy farmhouse and hiding in a hole.
  • Like many Iraqis, he has recently suffered the personal tragedy of losing two sons.
  • He'll cut taxes on the middle class and raise them on the wealthy. (They all say that.)
  • He's not an Islam-hating American Christian who defied the UN and bombed and invaded Iraq without provocation.
  • He's tanned, rested, and ready.

He's tanned, rested,
and ready.

The people of Iraq may be grateful that Saddam is gone, but they also harbor resentment for the Americans occupying them. It's a natural reaction to being overrun with foreigners with guns. American administrator L Paul Bremer has a big job cut out for him putting the pieces back together when they puzzle was never complete in the first place.

It's sadly possible that, given another despot like Saddam, the Iraqis might choose him (or let him take over without much protest) over democracy. That's the risk that George W Bush took when he ordered American troops into their country a year ago. They might just not be ready for self-determination.

 

f e e d b a c k

Respond to this page by your e-mail client. Please be sure to mention the title of the article.

 

s i d e b a r
TOP