Skip to comments.Kill Saddam! U.S. journalists agree: If you can't beat him, assassinate him. (1997 of course)
Posted on 08/29/2005 6:21:35 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
Kill Saddam! U.S. journalists agree: If you can't beat him, assassinate him. Eric Umansky November 25 , 1997
The latest saber-rattling with Iraq has an odd twist: As the United States government shows restraint and revives the lost art of diplomacy, this time it's the U.S. press that's howling for blood -- the blood of Saddam Hussein personally. The press, of course, has the distinct advantage that nobody really follows their policy suggestions anyway, so their advice doesn't have to be diplomatic, or even legal:
Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. -- Executive Order 12333, issued Dec. 4, 1981, by President Ronald Reagan, continuing the policy of his predecessors Ford and Carter. Neither Bush nor Clinton has rescinded it.
The handy (and illegal) tips from the press:
"Conventional Wisdom," Newsweek, Nov. 17: "Take him down." (next to a photo of Hussein and a downward-plunging arrow)
Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist, New York Times, Nov. 6: "Saddam Hussein is the reason God created cruise missiles. ...So if and when Saddam pushes beyond the brink, and we get that one good shot, let's make sure it's a head shot."
George Stephanopolous, former Clintonite and current ABC News analyst, on ABC'S "This Week," Nov. 9: "This is probably one of those rare cases where assassination is the more moral course...we should kill him."
Sam Donaldson, co-host of "This Week," Nov. 9: We should kill Saddam "under cover of law.... We can do business with his successor."
Bill Kristol, ABC News analyst, "This Week," Nov. 9: "It sounds good to me."
Cokie Roberts, co-host of "This Week," Nov. 9: "Well, now that we've come out for murder on this broadcast, let us move on to fast-track..."
Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, Nov. 17: "It won't be easy to take him out. ...But we need to try, because the only language Saddam has ever understood is force."
Newsweek, Dec. 1: "Why We Should Kill Saddam."
FRIEDMAN: "I was taken out of context by the neo-cons...What I meant to say was that this is only valid when a Democrat is in the Oval Office."
Anything the Killer Klintoons did was wonderful in the eyes of the left wing lunatics who controlled the MSM.
Anything that GW wants to do to protect Americans in the WOT is terrible in the eyes of thee lunatic lefty mediots in control of the MSM today.
Because Klinton is GOD to the left and could never do any wrong.
"FRIEDMAN: "I was taken out of context by the neo-cons...What I meant to say was that this is only valid when a Democrat is in the Oval Office."
FYI and indexing.
"Because Klinton is GOD to the left and could never do any wrong."
Amazing isn't it?
Just like when Clinton ordered the execution of that retarded inmate when he ran for election and the media didn't say nothing but Bush caught hell over his executions (never mind that Ma Richards oversaw more executions than he did)
Fyi and ping lists.
Were there attempts from 1992-2000 to kill Saddam, and, if so , what evidence is there?
> Executive Order 12333 ...
> Neither Bush nor Clinton has rescinded it.
But the EO notwithstanding, the first bombs of Operation
Iraqi Freedom were aimed at Saddam personally (based on
faulty intel, as it turned out).
I wrote a letter to the editor the other day about this. And also JFK's administration trying to kill Castro.
MoonbatLand: Somehow, Karl Rove is behind this.... < /Leftist paranoia>
Excellent! Thanks for posting this.
Excellent post! Bump for great justice! MSM, make your time!
I don't think that is true. Clinton got just as much, if not more flack from the press for all the stuff done in his presidency. It just seems like less, because it was from FR, instead of against FR.
Thank you Grandpa Dave.
So you are saying Clinton got more flack from the press than W does?
You're simply wrong. And any flack Clinton got, he more than deserved. Actually, he deserved MUCH more than he got and he still does.
9/11: The real Clinton legacy.
"I don't think that is true. Clinton got just as much, if not more flack from the press for all the stuff done in his presidency. It just seems like less, because it was from FR, instead of against FR."
Post the flack that Clintoon and these mediots got. Then we can compare them.
I don't know if there were any. If they failed, would we have been told.
Actually, threats like this by the Clintoons were probably extortion tools to get some of that "Oil for Food" money from Saddam.
I'd say it was about the same, but it's easy to forget stuff....when we want to.
This will be going out on my conservative email list and my list to drive lefties into a deeper insanity.
No, just go back and do your own research...there's simply too much to look up.
"I'd say it was about the same, but it's easy to forget stuff....when we want to."
Research the flak and post it.
I'm not the one who brought up this diversion attempt. You did. Now back it up with data.
News flash for stuart! FR is not "the press". And just in case you don't remember -- the press might have well been clinton's public relations firm the way it carried water for him during his presidency.
As I just said, no, I don't have enough time. Just go over to a liberal forum and ask the same question, I'm sure someone there will be more than happy to accomodate you.
And its easy to make contrary assertions without data to back up your claim when you want to.
Keep replying with your refusal to find data to back up your claim. You have time to reply but no time to back up your claim.
If you were to use the entire sentence when quoting, you would see what I was talking about....I did not say FR was the press.
This is quite amusing. I told a colleague of mine that this would be the response I would get, and that no one would remember, and everyone would demand back-up data. Thanks.
Because, um, er, just because.
Poolie18's Toons Today has a copy of an article by one of these liberals re killing Saddam.
John, good morning.
This might be worth 2 cents.
FYI and creative mind.
"Why was it OK to get rid of terrorists the easy way under Clintoon and forbidden under Bush?"
Because the MSM are DNC shills.
That inmate was not retarded because he had been so from birth, but because he had tried to commit suicide after the police had cornered him after he committed the murder that put him on death row. The bullet instead of killing him gave him a lobotomy.
Well that was different because Clinton was president, and we wanted to bash the first Bush. LOL! Well that is the way the MSM and the liberal press look at it. Republicans are damed if they do and damed if they do not.
"Republicans are damed if they do and damed if they do not."
The above is the standard operating order for the MSM.
the Clinton years made these guys forget they were raised on anti-war socialism
I believe that the internet saved us from the Gore 2000 post election coup, and we sank the SS CBS 2004 Coup with Blather and Mapes.
The ability to go back into time and find the remarks of the Clitoonistas and Deaniacs and post them in today's time is a powerful tool.
The internet and Freepers are helping to derail the Cindy Impeach GW train.
Yeah, the Clintooners became real hawks during their Desert Fox situation and the Bosnia fiasco.
Klintoon took some mild falck on some of his more egregious personal behavior, but it was in the tut-tut school of criticism. And it was more like friendly criticism rather than attack. ("You know, Bill, you really shouldn't have done that. Even we have a hard time defending it, though we try, and it makes you look bad. Sloppy, sloppy.")
You are simply and completely wrong.
Being forced to report stories is not giving one flack.
The media liked Clinton and even when they reported on his actions that usually did not reflect well on him, they would then proceed to mitigate and dismiss, informing their readers or viewers that the American people did not care according to the latest poll, and then they would come up with some lamebrained "everybody does it" equivalency story.
And that's the way it was and continues to be.
When Clinton said Saddam posed a threat to us, the media believed him. When Bush said it, they didn't. Period.
Thanks for posting this.
Is Robertson more influential than all of these "top shelf" journalists and therefore the target of so much more ire? These duplicitous bastards out to be "taken out" and horsewhipped.