A Letter from Jo Ann Davis

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

Other Essays

A Letter from Jo Ann Davis

Epistolary art has been around for a long time, though it was perhaps the Romans who surpassed all others when it came to the development of letter writing. People such as Pliny, Cicero, and Ovid all wrote letters of high quality and managed to provide us with unimaginable glimpses into their historical and philosophical milieus.

In our own country, the well constructed letters of, among others, Jefferson and Adams provide some clue as to what the founding fathers were up to, while a not so founding father, Harry Truman, delighted in sending terse letters to those critics at the NY Times who were so unrelenting when it came to judging the quality of daughter Margaret’s vocal endeavors.

How lucky we of the first congressional district in Virginia are, then, to have a letter writer of such estimable quality as Representative Jo Ann Davis. In fact, her abilities in this regard are enough to make those great epistle writers of the past wince with envy. Indeed, her latest effort, published in the October 3 edition of the Daily Press, far surpasses her previous letter concerning the benefits of tax cuts and moves her onto the international stage of foreign policy. For in this letter she informs her contituents why we must obliterate Iraq.

Unbridled by specifics, Davis begins her letter by indicating that throughout modern history America has fought wars “to liberate the world.” What Davis’s “world” consists of is hard to say, though obviously she’s referring to the liberation of Chile, where we ousted a duly elected, albeit socialist, president named Allende. Or perhaps it’s the liberation of Nicaragua, a country whose salvation brought upon us the glories of the Iran-Contra scandal. Or the Philippines, where we played footsy with dictator Marcos and his wife for years. Or perhaps Davis’s world is limited to Europe and Asia and she’s talking about WWII. Hard to say.

Whatever world Davis is dealing with, however, the fact is that we must do what we have to anywhere in it, since “America faces a war for its very preservation.” Though some might consider this a bit of a stretch, or overstatement, the point is that Davis is deadly serious and goes on to assure us that, when it comes to the future of America, “I do not take this responsibility lightly.” And thank Zeus for that. What we don’t need in Washington is another respresentative who shirks her global responsibilities.

Davis then gets to the guts of the issue and wonders how that fateful day, September 11, could have been avoided. The implication is, of course, that, if we had taken out Saddam before then, we would have been home free. Never mind that the Islamic raiders were Saudis and that their plot had been hatched in Germany. No, it’s all Saddam’s fault, and he has to go. If we are to “preserve our way of life,” we must enable a regime change in Iraq “to restore global peace.” And here Davis’s logic really shines through.

In fact, it’s all quite simple. Our way of life is the equivalent of global peace, and anything that upsets our way of life is tantamount to waging global war. The Germans call it Weltanschauung. We call it a World View. And if Davis doesn’t have that, I don’t know who does. In the end, America is the globe, and our way of life is the equivalent of global peace. How much simpler than that can it get?

Never mind that Saddam has waged only two wars, one with Iran, in which he was fully supported by this country, and one against Kuwait, in which he was intially given the go-ahead by our government. Nor should we mention the fact that it is our own CDC which initially gave him the incubi for chemical and biological weaponry. But at that time he was doing our bidding, and hence working for global peace.

Now, however, the tables have turned, and, says Davis, “Our very way of life is threatened, and I will not ask ‘what if’ on my watch.” Once again Davis works her way with words and nicely links her “watch” with the “not shirk my responsibility” theme mentioned above. One would normally think of this as George W. Bush’s “watch,” but Davis once again assures us that she is in league with the highest echelons of government and that she’s standing right next to the president on this issue.

Indeed, she tells us outright that she’s attended “intense closed-door meetings” and has been privy to “many classified briefings with military officials and hearings with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell.” And if that isn’t moving in high places, I don’t know what is. True to our way of life as she is, however, Davis will not tell us what she heard at these intense meetings or what information the classified briefings provided her. No, her summation of all this secretive information is simple: “Our very way of life is threatened.” Period. No details, no specifics. But it definitely is all Saddam’s fault.

And we know it’s Saddam’s fault because last year’s terrorist attacks proved our vulnerability and we are now “confronted with a direct threat to the safety of America.” How much clearer can it be?

Then, rather amazingly, Davis returns to her global motif, and indicates that “we have been more than patient with the international community, and our patience has simply bought Saddam more time.” Furthermore, says Davis, “It is not the United Nations that is at risk; it is America and we must act accordingly.” In this paragraph, then, Davis nicely augments her preceding World View with the notion that the international community and the United Nations know nothing about global peace and furthermore aren’t interested in it. They have failed to see the clarity of her argument that global peace is the equivalent of the American way of life. How foolish can they be? Are we to be patient with their stupidity forever?

However, and here is where Davis really reaches the climax of her argument, we “know” that Saddam has nuclear weapons and he’s ready to “use these nuclear weapons against the world.” This, you see, fits in nicely with the preceding argument that the world, including the United Nations, is not at risk. It is America that is at risk. Ergo, America is the world. And isn’t it amazing how all this fits together? How does she do it?

Furthermore, and this is the clincher, “Saddam is the world’s most dangerous terrorist.” And won’t Osama bin Laden be happy to hear that? All of a sudden, and in accordance with the Davian World View, al-Qaeda and Osama have been left in the dust by Saddam, who, as far as we know, had very little, if anything, to do with the attacks of September 11.

So, you see, Davis has developed a replacement theory that really works. If you can’t catch the real culprits, you transfer attention to another bugaboo and make him the prime target of attention. The former Evil One and his organization are laid to rest, and a new Evil One emerges. As I said before, it’s all so simple.

We know where Saddam and his henchmen are, and we can easily take them out. We have no idea where Osama is, so let’s just forget all that “Dead or Alive” stuff and move on to a more doable target.

Yes, this is a truly amazing letter. Standing side by side with our president, Jo Ann Davis has managed to get chummy with Rummy and, as a result, adopt and present to us her fantastically well reasoned World View.

I’m so proud of her I could cry.

October 5, 2002