Posted on 08/24/2005 10:44:31 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson prompted a firestorm of media outrage on Tuesday after he suggested that the Bush administration should assassinate a foreign leader who posed a threat to the U.S. - in this case, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.
Fresh from his influential White House post, 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."
Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.
"We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.
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."
Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."
Great find. MSM coverage to follow. LOL
***But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.***
Well, Sunffalupogas isn't and evangelists.
{an} evangelist.
***But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.***
----
Just the good old MSM and liberal double standard...liberals are not accountable for ANYTHING -- conservatives are accountable for EVERYTHING!!!
Take the word "allies" and replace it with any other constituency or group and you have the Clinton ethos in a nutshell.
Steponallofus is Greek Orthodox I believe.
I think it just points out the hypocrisy of the left as well as their ignorance. Once we removed Saddam the place went into a state of near anarchy and civil war. What would have happened without us being there? Secondly, the use of force is okay when a democrat is in the office but not a republican.
It makes no difference if someone else said something similar. Pat Robertson operates as a minister of the Gospel and when he thought, if he did, about saying what he did he should have bit his tongue hard until the urge went away.
Now reports are out that he's starting to "spin" his statement with stuff like "taking out doesn't necessarily mean killing..." Please! He's only sticking his foot in farther.
What he did was profoundly stupid and basically gave a lot of ammunition to the "all Christians are wackos" crowd. Quite frankly its time for him to cut his losses and make a very public apology so that he can move on.
That is gradually changing. Thanks to the Internet and talk radio. Long way to go but we have come a long way, too. MSM no longer have a monopoly on the news. And Americans are more savvy and lest trusting than they used to be.
Now that this story has surfaced, watch the MSM go silent on the Pat Robertson story.
From a November 25, 1997 article in Mother Jones:
"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."
bump
excellent.
Is it whacko to think that a nutjob like Chavez should be "taken out"?
The eleventh commandment:" Ignore the previous ten when it's convenient"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.