Kill Saddam! U.S. journalists agree: If you can't beat him, assassinate him. (1997 of course)

Mother Jones.com ^ | 25 November 1997 | Eric Umansky

[Grampa Dave]

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/11/kill_saddam.html

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:

The law:

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 Neither Bush nor Clinton has rescinded it.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."

Thanks

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Just consider that we conservatives were perfectly fine with any plan to off Saddam and the media would not criticize Clinton because he is one of theirs. Who does that leave to offer criticism other than Saddam's friends. All though he seems to have many now, when Clinton was after him, no matter how weakly, he had none.

You made a false statement, and a dumb one, so stop digging.

[stuartcr]

Who's digging? That was hours ago. As I said, I got the predicted response, and I got a free lunch.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

If you are doing this as just a joke with a colleague, you are wasting expensive bandwith and should be banned for that alone as you did it purposely. In addition you try to get others to waste their time looking for non existent media items. Shame on you.

[stuartcr]

Actually, the media items aren't non-existent, but yes, it did prove my point to my colleague. Not a joke, but an interesting lesson about people. BW has been wasted by many more than me, and on far less interesting subjects. Besides, continual whining about Clinton, is an incredible waste of BW in itself.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Besides, continual whining about Clinton, is an incredible waste of BW in itself.

I find it insightful that you consider our criticism of Clinton to be whining.

Actually, the media items aren't non-existent,...

Perhaps not non-existent but still not as plentiful as you suggest.

I have exhausted my interest in this and I imagine we can drop it by mutual agreement.

[CDB]

Thanks, GD! Great quotes. I can just hear the "that was then. This is now" flip flops.

[GBA]

As I recall, Clinton and company did far more to warrant investigative reporting than Bush and his crew, so naturally, there is more to report. Look into the number of indictments and convictions for the people around the Clintons. They were, and likely still are, dirty. However, Clinton did enjoy a decidedly biased media who reported more as reluctant apologists more willing to blame Clinton's problems on the "vast right wing conspiracy" than on Clinton's own actions. You can't say that about any Republican president.

If the press was so eager to bring down another president like they credit themselves with Nixon's resignation, Clinton gave them more than enough to do it. But, the media is predominately liberal/democrat and they weren't going to turn on their own. But hey? If you want to re-write history to suit your biases and/or get a free lunch out of it, who here is going to be able to talk you out of it? What fact would change your emotionally based opinion?

[inquest]

Excellent find. Thanks.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Anything the Killer Klintoons did was wonderful in the eyes of the left wing lunatics who controlled the MSM.

Sometimes I wonder if the MSM supporting the Clintons is a form of religion to those in the MSM.

[Grampa Dave]

The sound of flip flops is definitely clomping down the halls of history.

[Grampa Dave]

You are welcome.

Send it to conservatives and liberals on your email list.

[Grampa Dave]

Abortion and the hatred of a strong America is part of the core religion of the left.

[CDB]

The sound of flip flops is definitely clomping down the halls of history.

Agreed!!!

[lowbridge]

bump

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks. How are you?

[SauronOfMordor]

But the EO notwithstanding, the first bombs of Operation Iraqi Freedom were aimed at Saddam personally

An EO is not legislation. It's just an order from the President. All it means is "don't do it unless the president explicitly orders otherwise" (since an explicit order from the President would override the EO

[paltz]

BTTT INTERNET TIME MACHINE BUMP!

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the internet time machine bump:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472719/posts

Kill Saddam! U.S. journalists agree: If you can't beat him, assassinate him. (1997 of course)
Mother Jones.com ^ | 25 November 1997 | Eric Umansky


Posted on 08/29/2005 6:21:35 AM PDT by Grampa Dave


http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/11/kill_saddam.html

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:

The law:

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."

[DocRock]

Thanks for the bump

[roses of sharon]

I'll never forget the NYT editorial where they called on Clinton to put boots on the ground in Iraq, take out Saddam and bring freedom to the Iraqis.

Why?

Because of WMD dangers. (and Monica)



(I used to have that editorial somewhere, I'll have to search when I have time)