Speakeasy forum

General discussion

WPost Editorial Writer calls for Saddam's Assassination!!!!

by Evie / August 24, 2005 12:26 AM PDT
Should We Assassinate Saddam?

Aerial bombing is inefficient, however, and rarely successful. And although everyone responsible for policy will hotly deny that anyone has ever attempted assassination of anybody in Serbia or Iraq, it is becoming clear that in the wake of Kosovo?and in light of the continued threats posed by Saddam Hussein?the thought of trying to target terrorist dictators with greater precision has begun to enter the heads of some NATO planners. The argument goes like this: Wars in both Kosovo and Iraq have been extremely expensive, costing huge amounts of money and thousands of lives. If new technology?say, hit teams with access to satellite-tracking technology?could make assassinations easier, faster, and more likely to succeed than the exploding cigars we used to send to Castro, shouldn't we try that instead?

OK, this is not in the Post, but the article is credited to one Anne Applebaum, member of the editorial board of the Washington Post. How can we have people on the editorial boards of major media outlets that are advocating terrorism (I don't agree with that definition but I'm going with it here ...) or at the very least espouse such an abomination to Christianity?

Another INTERESTING note is the date of this article: February 19, 2001. That's right folks PRE-911 back when I'll repeat for emphasis:

?and in light of the continued threats posed by Saddam Hussein?

Hmmmmm...... But I digress.

You know, come to think of it I seem to recall quite a few people advocating taking out Saddam without an invasion. Probably right here on SE, but the wonderfully new and improved search function here makes it a collossal waste of time to try to find them.

A Fox News poll found that 75 per cent of Americans would support Mr Bush authorising the CIA to use deadly force to overthrow Saddam, a step that he has not taken. Fifty-five per cent think that Washington should try to assassinate Saddam. {sorry about the Rense link, I can't find the original Times London article}

I remember A LOT of similar chatter leading up to the war. Folks simply suggesting that assassination may be a more expedient solution.

Chavez is no friend of America. While I don't agree with Robertson's comments, I think the reaction to them has been WAAAAAYYYYYY overblown and taken somewhat out of context.

Let's compare: You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

to: The argument goes like this: Wars [are]... extremely expensive, costing huge amounts of money and thousands of lives. ... [if] assassinations easier, faster, and more likely to succeed ... shouldn't we try that instead?

But the first was said by Robertson, a lightning rod for the Christian hating left, while the latter by a journalist. Robertson is NO more inciting violence than Applebaum. And he has every right to express his opinions as does Cindy Sheehan. He is NOT tied to the Bush Administration so the attempts to smear GWB with this nonsense are ridiculous.

Evie Happy
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: WPost Editorial Writer calls for Saddam's Assassination!!!!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: WPost Editorial Writer calls for Saddam's Assassination!!!!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Discussed on McLaughlin Report! **GASP**
by Evie / August 24, 2005 1:55 AM PDT




MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue one: Options to war.

(Footage of anti-war demonstrators in various cities.) They numbered in the millions and came from all segments of society, in capitals spanning the planet. Last weekend's unexpectedly strong showing of energized anti-war protestors worldwide has led policymakers this week to reevaluate tough measures short of war:

One, assassinate Saddam. If Special Forces can't execute him, a CIA missile-firing drone can do so at his next public speech. Congress would amend legislation barring assassination of heads of state.

Panel Responses: {not to inundate with "..." I refer the reader to the full transcript and state here that these are select quotations}

MR. BUCHANAN: But look, assassination, no.

MS. CLIFT: There's a whole system of body doubles. He
has 17 palaces. So assassination is unlikely to happen. But if somebody put a bullet in his head, the president and a lot of other people would declare victory and have a victory dance.

The fact that you say a great power doesn't want blood on its hands and wouldn't assassinate one man, but is contemplating going to war, which would kill many of -- innocent people, is totally illogical, Pat, with due respect.

I don't know about you but it sounds to me like Clift is not averse to this action, only saying it is impractical. Surely the McLaughlin Group reaches as vast an audience as the 700 Club.

Evie Happy
Collapse -
Journalism or terrorism?
by Kiddpeat / August 24, 2005 1:02 PM PDT

Isn't that the basic formula.

Collapse -
Liberalism or Terrorism?
by Evie / August 24, 2005 2:20 AM PDT
This didn't garner much condemnation from the left when originally posted,

UK Guardian published a column by Charlie Brooker that ended with the following line: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr ? where are you now that we need you?"

The original link to the Guardian piece in question now contains this

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

I know I was laughing ... NOT! And while the Guardian is entitled to it's "the views expressed are not those of the Guardian" disclaimer wrt views expressed, that does not absolve them from disseminating such views.

Then there's that other bastion of compassionate anti-violent liberalism -- Air America. On which the delightful Randi Rhodes once exclaimed:

The United States "is on the slippery slope to theocratic fascism." "The Catholic Church has been secretly encouraging oral sex for years."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "ought to be tortured." President Bush should be taken out and shot.

The fact that nobody listens to Air America notwithstanding ..... (grin)

And lastly, In 1997 {repeat, 199-SEVEN date}

While the use of military force remains a real option, Cohen emphasized the United States is not spoiling for a fight. "A decision has not been made as whether it results in a military confrontation," he said. "That's still an option, obviously, but the president [Clinton] has indicated he wants to pursue every diplomatic option; that could include sanctions, that could include other types of pressure brought to bear upon the Iraqis."

But Cohen rejected a suggestion by former White House advisor George Stephanopoulos that the U.S. should try to assassinate the Iraqi Leader. Writing in Newsweek magazine, Stephanopoulos said, "If we can kill Saddam, we should."

Why no uproar at that time? I don't seem to recall one.
Collapse -
Unlike DK's 'Christian or terrorism'...
by Edward ODaniel / August 24, 2005 5:56 AM PDT

attempt, those and other comments about killing or assassinating a leader and others (such as the St. Petersburg FL Democrat Club ad) have a strong link to liberals.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The silence is deafening in here isn't it Ed? LOL
by Evie / August 24, 2005 9:39 AM PDT
Collapse -
More on Stephanopolous ...
by Evie / August 24, 2005 10:07 PM PDT

... did Newsmax read my post here Wink

Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination

...Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.

His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."

"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."...

...Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:

"If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."

The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted airstrike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."

The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."...

VERY interesting last sentence there!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Sorry Evie, completely different
by duckman / August 24, 2005 10:09 AM PDT

At that time, as far as EVERYONE knew, there were WMD's. And Haliburton wasn't there and Karl Rove hadn't yet exposed a deep undercover, double secret agent. No but really, I agree with you. More Liberal media bias.

Collapse -
Robertson said he was misquoted
by Dragon / August 24, 2005 10:55 AM PDT

That his actual words were, "take him out". I havent had time to verify that one way or the other.

At any rate, I think its a good idea to just ignore him as much as possible...

Collapse -
He's since apologized ...
by Evie / August 24, 2005 10:59 AM PDT

... but that won't be good enough for the liberal media. The examples I posted are only the tip of the iceberg. I don't recall anyone demanding Stephanopolous retract (presumably carefully) written comments in Newsweek suggesting exactly the same for Saddam in '97. He certainly had closer ties to Clinton than Robertson ever had to Bush.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
That's like Trent Lott's apology, Evie.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / August 24, 2005 10:29 PM PDT

Completely meaningless. The problem is the attitude behind the words, from one who calls himself Christian. And Robertson's taking major heat for it -- see, for example:
Unchristian: Robertson's call for assassination should end his credibility.
(Chronicle login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)

>> A man of the cloth and an inspiration to millions, Robertson apparently has discovered a new translation of the Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill, if it would interrupt oil shipments." <<

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
How about Sharpton and Jesse's ...
by Evie / August 24, 2005 10:39 PM PDT

... comments over the years? Or Stephanopolous (can you imagine a Greek Orthodox aide to Bush who's father is a Dean at a Greek Orthodox church in NY and who's sister is a nun there making such remarks and not being pilloried???)

Read Robertson's apology for yourself.

Raw Data: Statement by Pat Robertson

Not only is the apology sincere, but a full reading of his comments -- uttered while NOT preaching from a pulpit -- really denomstrate the overblown nature of the reaction to his comments. Please do take the time to read it.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Hmmmm. So what is your view of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Was he
by Kiddpeat / August 24, 2005 11:08 PM PDT

also someone whose Christianity you find offensive? Since Robertson brings up Bonhoeffer in the explanation you reject, it is your responsibility to discuss your views on Bonhoeffer.

Collapse -
LOTT really had nothing to apologize for...
by Edward ODaniel / August 25, 2005 2:56 AM PDT

other than for the misrepresentation the press made of his comment making it appear to have racist implications although it dealt with a platform of State's Rights (which are only now beginning to have any importance to liberals).

Strangely enough if you bother reading Robertson's actual words you will discover that much the same was done to him--his words were misrepresented by the media

Collapse -
his words were misrepresented by the media
by Evie / August 25, 2005 3:05 AM PDT

Ya think? The way the media reported it and the left responded, I could have sworn he was rousing up the masses to take out Chavez in the name of God and Christianity!

You mean that's not what happened?

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Would the same apply, Dave...
by J. Vega / August 25, 2005 4:52 AM PDT

Dave would the same apply to Senator Byrd relating to his Klan membership and use of the "n word" in recent times? Don't you find it unusual that the Democrats never comment on that membership? If it came to light that a Republican had been a member of the Klan in the past, do you think that the Democrats would let it "slide" and not demand that he resign? Of course not, Dave ,if such a thing were to come to light you'd be posting screaming about in seconds.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

The Samsung RF23M8090SG

One of the best French door fridges we've tested

A good-looking fridge with useful features like an auto-filling water pitcher and a temperature-adjustable "FlexZone" drawer. It was a near-flawless performer in our cooling tests.