Washington, Tuesday (FA wire) - With today’s announcement that the U.S. is willing to release oil reserves independently of its partners in the International Energy Agency, the Bush administration acknowledged that it was fast running out of international agreements to renounce.
“We’re way ahead of schedule,” confided one State Department official, “If you had told me during the inauguration that by this month we would’ve already declared our independence from the UN, NATO, the International Criminal Court, missile treaties, Kyoto, international trade agreements, and the IEA, well, I would’ve called you a crazy dreamer!”
The pace may even be too quick, according to some Administration officials. “Frankly, we’re running out of things to renounce. And with the elections still 20 months away, this creates a bit of a problem,” said one Republican strategist. “Declaring independence is the American way, and it plays really well with our support base. But what’s left?”
What indeed. The Bush administration seems split on how to deal with this impending crisis. On one side are those, apparently led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who believe that the U.S. could further violate already-renounced agreements. “Basically, we’ve buried ‘em, but we can still spit on the graves,” said a Defense spokesman, “To use another metaphor - we’ve driven by the U.N. and mooned ‘em, but we haven’t stopped the pickup, turned around, gotten out, and beaten ‘em with baseball bats. That’s something to look forward to.”
But there’s another faction, led by top advisor Karl Rove, which feels like simply declaring independence again from already-renounced international accords simply doesn’t go far enough. “Bo-ring,” said one highly-placed official, “Been there, violated that. What we need is to get our diplomatic asses in gear and negotiate some new treaties so that we have something to rally the troops against and distance ourselves from in ‘04.”
Still, there’s cause for hope. “There’s always the Geneva Convention,” said an inside source, “We can’t really step out of that now, because it’s part of our case against Saddam. But once Iraq’s been pulped, I think we’ll get some big numbers out of stepping away from that one. I mean, Geneva’s a European city, for godsakes. And they speak French. You’re looking at a 5% poll bump right there.”





20 comments
craig
February 25, 2003 at 3:13 pm
1We still have NAFTA and the WTO …
As for the Geneva Convention, those guys in Cuba are not sure the US hasn’t already renounced it.
However, my prediction for the really big finale is that the Southern Leadership “rises again” and once again declares independence for the Confederacy. Strom Thurman will be elected “President for Life,” fulfilling Trent Lott’s wildest fantasies.
Ken
February 25, 2003 at 5:51 pm
2Craig,
“Strom Thurman will be elected “President for Life,”‘
Do you think that the Confederacy is ready for a two year Thurman Presidency?
He can’t possibly last longer than that.
Tim
February 25, 2003 at 7:49 pm
3There goes America’s shot at the World Cup in 2006. Question is– do we pull out now or wait till for election season?
tim
February 25, 2003 at 8:15 pm
4I think we should pull out of this whole “plate tectonics” business. Let those other silly countries float around on a subterranean sea of molten magna, not the U.S.! We need to start financing the Deep Underground Mooring System (DUMS) right away. I think $100 billion to selected defense companies should get us started.
Antsy
February 25, 2003 at 8:25 pm
5You can stop now, you’re done, nothing more to say!
ishmael
February 26, 2003 at 12:05 am
6Adam, you certainly have a gift. Your general concepts are great, but ofttimes you use a word or phrase that really catches on my mind. The pulping of Iraq was one such.
Craig: I appreciated your comment, but then thought that, hey, the South already is in charge, and has been for many years. Why would they want to cut away from the mother’s milk that they have going for them?
Secessation from Earth. If only …
Will-o'-the-Wisp
February 26, 2003 at 12:22 am
7Well, they have found another one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2798857.stm
Don
February 26, 2003 at 2:23 am
8We still hafta get NAFTA!
Dugrless
February 26, 2003 at 3:31 pm
9Hey, now that’s not fair: Bush et al welcome the opinion of every single country that agrees with them completely. And their relationship has been extremely tight with LOTS of foreign countries. Like, well, … uh, like New Mexico!
You know, the world would be a lot better off if instead of having these “councils” like in the UN, we could have “summits” on foreign policy like the Bush Administration’s economic summit. These things are a lot easier if everyone falls in line at the outset.
Ken
February 26, 2003 at 3:53 pm
10What you don’t point out is that the administration has already been working hard on getting out of many *domestic* agreements - like the Constituation, War Powers Act, Roe v. Wade, and so on. Hell, I think they’d pull out of the Bible if they didn’t need the Christian Conservative vote to maintain their majority.
***
“‘Love thy brother’, ‘thou shalt not kill’, ‘turn the other cheek’ - they’re all great ideas on a personal level, sure, but when you’re talking about international politics, I prefer to use the Old Testament as the framework for a compresensive administration foreign policy. I mean ‘an eye for an eye,’ that’s gonna get the popular vote every time! And nobody complained about slavery or polygamy back then, you know!” said an unnamed senior administration official in the back of a Georgetown bar with four empty highball glasses in front of him.
***
Chicory
February 26, 2003 at 4:19 pm
11I like the idea of renouncing plate techtonics. From there the BA can move on to renouncing evolution, the earth being round and the sun being the center of the solar system. That will really play with his conservative backers.
mark
March 3, 2003 at 9:47 am
12Ken: amusing point, but “thou shalt not kill” is, in fact, Old Testament stuff.
Which is truly interesting, given that God takes a hand in killing a hell of a lot of people in the OT.
David
March 3, 2003 at 10:45 am
13Mark: It doesn’t say “Yahweh shall not kill.”
That’s God killing, not Thou.
You can thank the Bible for some handy “do as I say, not as I do” logic.
John
March 3, 2003 at 6:19 pm
14As I point out here, the obvious next step is for the US to repudiate its foreign debt.
David Lloyd-Jones
March 4, 2003 at 5:25 pm
15The tumbling bullets and flechettes used in Vietnam were already violations of the Geneva Convention of 1899.
Oh, no. Oops! Under 1899 it’s only illegal to use ‘em against white troops.
-dlj.
Linda
March 5, 2003 at 10:53 pm
16My first trip to this site! I think all you guys have great ideas but here’s one for you: the Shrub Admin. will revoke its connection to the Bill of Rights! Of course, it will keep the one amendment it likes the most–with Charlton Heston additions, of course: “Thou shalt not only bear arms but shoot anyone and anything that invades your personal homeland. . .” Then all kinds of happy things can happen to the Ersatz Pres–he can use the Secret Service (SS?) for target practice! Woo hoo!
The Penguin Master
March 7, 2003 at 11:27 pm
17In reference to what “Craig” said, on the first comment, Strom Thruman being elected “President for life”, that would be about as long as any normal president would last. about 4 years, max.
john
May 6, 2003 at 1:14 am
18If only Texas had seceded long ago, as they like to flaunt as one of their state’s rights…
Anyway, there’s still time, just take Dubya with you and don’t let the door hit ya on your giant collective Texas bum on the way out.
Bills Baseball Bat
January 26, 2006 at 9:10 pm
19I like what you have done with your site, and can’t wait to see more.
performance appraisal example
January 27, 2006 at 5:57 am
201-26-06