NEWS ITEM: Two Iraqi businessmen have sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top U.S. military commanders, claiming that American troops put them in a cage with lions as a means of interrogating them. Rumsfeld called the allegation “far-fetched,� but when he was asked whether he was saying it didn’t happen, he said, “I didn’t say that.�
MEMO
TO: American troops
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
RE: Lions
To all,
It has come to the attention of this office that perhaps some of you have been using lions to interrogate prisoners in the course of your lawful duties in the war zone.
The report caused some initial confusion in this office because nobody could imagine how lions would be used in such circumstances and what utility they could possibly have. It was noted that the Detroit Lions can be kind of scary — some of them do weigh more than 300 pounds, mostly the linemen and assistant coaches — but additional research revealed those Lions are 4-5 and don’t pose much of a threat to anyone, much less Iraqi businessmen. Yet, other analysts did say that Lions quarterback Joey Harrington has been described as “a horrorshow,� but it is unlikely that his presence would prove frightening enough to extract information from recalcitrant Iraqis.
At that point in time — just as this office was ordering intelligence agencies to gather additional information about the Detroit Lions and expand the probe to include the British Columbia Lions of the Canadian Football League — it came to our attention that they were talking about different lions, notably the animals. We do not wish to pass judgment, nor do we wish to cut off any inquiry, as we already have agents on the way to Dallas for today’s Lions-Cowboys game, and we want to keep an open mind into the Lions’ role in these incidents, but we have shifted some of our focus to lions of the animal variety.
Our office conducted an initial inquiry into the lion allegations and has learned that lions are not standard equipment for any of our armed forces. We have contacted contractors — Halliburton and all of its affiliates — to determine whether it has deployed lions to the war zone. But so far, all we have found was a line item in a contract for food services that refers to a $12.3 million payment for “several large cats� to be used in an unspecified manner. Our investigation into that aspect of this case reached a dead end when representatives from Halliburton responded to our inquiries with “tastes like chicken.�
The department is awaiting word from contractors on providing a stable and reliable source of lions for non-chicken-like-related uses. Halliburton officials recently reported to have broken off negotiations with the Ringling Brothers to provide lions because all of their lions had been tamed and would be of little use unless troops wanted to put Iraqis’ heads in their (the lions’) mouths or amuse themselves by having them (the lions, again) balance themselves on large balls.
While we are making strides toward securing a reliable source of lions, we are awaiting a definitive ruling from the White House counsel’s office regarding the use of lions in the war zone. So far, all we’ve received was a note from White House Counsel Harriet Miers that consisted of a crude drawing of a lion named George surrounded by hearts and smiley faces.
Our legal staff has studied the note, which has prompted extensive debate on its intent. Some of our lawyers have interpreted it to mean that interrogating prisoners with lions was acceptable under current law and treaties, as evidenced by the use of hearts and smiley faces. Yet other lawyers interpreted it in a way that this office, frankly, finds demeaning to Ms. Miers. The department’s request to Miers for a clarification garnered several other drawings of lions and a hand-written note that consisted of Miers writing variations on “Mrs. George W. Miers� and “Harriet W. Bush,� which our counsel did not find helpful.
Meanwhile, the department has sought the expertise of those in the field of lions and their use and is awaiting such advice. The department has contacted Seigfried and Roy, but has not received a formal report from them. Some in the department believe this may be because Seigfried and Roy are experts in the field of tigers. Others have studied the intelligence and have concluded, “What’s the difference?� We have sent a contingent of staff to Las Vegas to conduct some fact finding, and as of this date, they have not recovered any facts beyond reporting that the brunch buffet at Bellagio is “spectacular.�
So, as you can see, the issue of lions remains in flux and as the department continues to look into it, we ask that all troops in the field use caution when using lions in any operation as they are reported to be large, ill-tempered animals with sharp teeth and claws.
Same with tigers, not to mention bears.
Oh, my!
----
Mike Argento, whose column appears Mondays and Thursdays in Living and Sundays in Viewpoints, can be reached at 771-2046 or at mike@ydr.com.


No difference? No Difference???
What about this?