August 29, 2005

Assassination: Only Bad When A Conservative Religious Figure Suggests It
— Ace

Way back in '97, Mother Jones magazine noted sever liberal pundits calling for the assassination of Saddam Hussein.

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."

...

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."

But now that Pat Robertson has similarly called (less emphatically) for exploring the assassination option with regard to anti-American thug and dictator Hugo Chavez, the liberal media has its panties in a twist (as usual).

I don't get it. How can they be so transparent?

Mother Jones has apparently been consistent on the issue-- they're against assassination, period, and they don't like it when liberals in the media make noises about assassination, either.

But the establishment media has seen its own call for assassinations and now makes a major story about a political has-been saying something similar.

When will Sam Donaldson and George Stephanopolous and Jonathan Alter apologize for expressing such plainly-disgusting views?

Posted by: Ace at 07:54 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ace, I'm not defending liberal hysteria here, but it must be noted that, unlike Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein was a defined enemy of the United States. We had been to war against him, we continued to have military action against him, and eventually, it was even the official policy of the United States to effect regime change against him.

Chavez is a bad guy who hates America, but none of those conditions apply. It'd be like me coming out and saying we should assassinate Robert Mugabe-- people would be better off with him dead, but it's not a rational act in the interests of the United States Government.

I think that's what sent (intelligent) people for the loop here with Robertson-- post-9/11, assassination doesn't give many liberals/Leftists the willies so much as picking fights with people liberals/Leftists make excuses for. Especially when something like this comes out of the blue-- Hugo Chavez? Isn't there like, a war on? Might as well go all LaRouche, and advocate assassinating the Queen of England (damn British. . . ).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at August 29, 2005 08:19 AM (y1hCN)

2 and of course, how many of our liberal minded friends have advocated violence against our own president without so much as a peep?

Posted by: christopher aland at August 29, 2005 08:30 AM (Hmx0Q)

3 In what way are Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez similar and what serious liberal has advocated violence against the president? Come on people. Let's get our heads screwed on correctly here. Chavez is a twice elected popular leader. Both elections were monitored extensively.

Posted by: Bill at August 29, 2005 08:42 AM (Wq3Yh)

4 I'm glad to see you don't consider Air America a "serious" liberal network, since one of their on-air talents has made repeated references to assassinating the president.

Posted by: Slublog at August 29, 2005 08:47 AM (V7NgR)

5 I've listened semi-regularly to Franken, Garafolo, Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz and I've never heard anything of the sort. Which "talent" has advocated assassination, Sublog. I'd really like to see documentation on that.

Posted by: Bill at August 29, 2005 08:49 AM (Wq3Yh)

6 Randi Rhodes did, not once but twice.

Oh, right-- she was "joking."

I'm glad she had the chance to explain her deft pun to the Secret Service.

Posted by: ace at August 29, 2005 08:52 AM (W7JEQ)

7 In what way are Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez similar

Both indicated their support or solictied the support Al Queda. At least Saddam did this before 9/11. Its unforgivable that a world leader can do this after 9/11 and he gets a free pass.


what serious liberal has advocated violence against the president?

I assume you inserted 'serious' in order to give you an out. I further assume that anyone I mention you will discount them as serious.

Randi Rhodes, Ted Rall, members of Moveon, etc. etc. . But they were only joking to make a point, right?



Posted by: Dman at August 29, 2005 08:54 AM (m2CN7)

8 Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.

As recounted by Michelle Malking. It was humor, of course. Assassination being so gosh darned funny.

Posted by: S. Weasel at August 29, 2005 08:55 AM (rasT+)

9 If we actually had people who were competent at assisnation, I'd be more in favor of it...Oh who am I kidding, waste the commie fuck.

Posted by: Iblis at August 29, 2005 08:59 AM (9221z)

10 I've listened semi-regularly to Franken, Garafolo, Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz and I've never heard anything of the sort. Which "talent" has advocated assassination, Sublog. I'd really like to see documentation on that.

Above is one.

Here is another.

Posted by: Slublog at August 29, 2005 09:03 AM (V7NgR)

11 Bill wrote:
Chavez is a twice elected popular leader. Both elections were monitored extensively.

How many terms/years is Chavez limited to?

Dictatorship is not defined by the way a person takes power, but by the unwillingness to give up power.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at August 29, 2005 09:07 AM (rE+jU)

12 Dave,

Chavez/Fidel are clearly up to something. You don't buy a fleet of new Russian fighter jets, when you've got a load of perfectly fine US/French/UK gear, unless you've got something unpleasant cooking.

My SWAG(Scientific Wild Ass Guess) - they plan on making a grab for Curacao.

Why Curacao? O.I.L.

CURACAO"...Oil refining is the principal industry, and the island has one of the world's largest refineries, receiving oil from the enormous reserves at nearby Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. There are also phosphate deposits. Other major industries include tourism (Curaçao is a free port) and ship repairing. Curaçao's ship-repair dry dock is one of the largest in the Americas..."IMO, Chavez wants control over the whole shebang. Why build your own capability, when you can steal someone else's?

He's not selling Fidel cut rate oil just because they're "pals". There's a quid-pro-quo expected. I think the QPQ is Fidel's help in making the grab.

Posted by: Tony at August 29, 2005 09:15 AM (dYcZw)

13 Chavez is a twice elected popular leader. Both elections were monitored extensively.

He attempted a coup, but failed. When he was elected he took away the legislative's power to legislate in favor of a group of 6 cronies. He has supplanted the right of an independant judiciary in favor of ultimate executive fiat. He is a dictator in the making, and you should be far more careful claiming otherwise.

My prediction, the Venezualians will have a really hard time getting rid of him.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 29, 2005 09:20 AM (jPCiN)

14 In what way are Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez similar and what serious liberal has advocated violence against the president? Come on people. Let's get our heads screwed on correctly here. Chavez is a twice elected popular leader. Both elections were monitored extensively.

Since you're such a big fan of documentation, Bill, I figured I'd provide some on Chavez:

Chavez packs Supreme Court, threatening judicial independence
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/venezu9864.htm

Rights Lawyer Faces Judicial Persecution
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/05/venezu10423.htm

Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm

Curbs on Free Expression Tightened
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

Doesn't sound like a guy who respects the democratic process to me.

Posted by: Slublog at August 29, 2005 09:26 AM (V7NgR)

15 Do you think anyboy really cares about the call for assisnation made by Pat Robertson in and of itself? When you are a Christian religious leader and your supporters call the FCC and complain because some black women's tit made its way onto the half time show, then you open yourself up for retaliation. Thats all this is here.

Posted by: anon at August 29, 2005 09:36 AM (qbH5I)

16 anon agreed. If the christian right hadn't made such a big stupid ridiculous stink about Janet Jackson's tit I'm sure we wouldn't be seeing the backlash against Pat Robertson that we are seeing. I mean isn't Chavez going down for the dirt nap a good thing regardless of who suggested it?

Posted by: Al at August 29, 2005 09:39 AM (qbH5I)

17 On the Randi Rhodes death threat: I read Byron York's The Vast Left-wing Conspiracy over the weekend, and he documents the Fredo Corleone incident in some detail. Apparently Rhodes added that Bush would be allowed to say a brief prayer first, "since he's so into God and all," and then imitated the sound of a gunshot. "Works for me," she concluded. The woman's a class act all the way.

Posted by: utron at August 29, 2005 09:47 AM (CgIkY)

18 Doesn't sound like a guy who respects the democratic process to me.

You're using the wrong dictionary Slu. You need the one that uses the word like this:

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

Freedom → Slavery
Truth → Lies
Dictatorship → Democracy

Posted by: Tony at August 29, 2005 11:04 AM (dYcZw)

19 I'm still waiting for my copy of the Liberal Doubletalk Dictionary.

It's on back order at Amazon.

Posted by: Slublog at August 29, 2005 11:07 AM (Px80s)

20 Slublog, thanks for the background. Really. But, since when does not having sufficient respect for the democratic process mean we have to do something about it? What this is really about is he's a guy with a lot of oil who is not friendly with American oil interests. He wants to spread oil profit wealth to the lower and working classes of his country. You know how the Bush people always say they want the Iraqi people to profit from their oil? Think of it like that. Chavez has even offered to sell heating oil directly to citizens groups helping the poor here in the United States. The Bush administration tried to foment a military coup almost the moment they took power (I know, another damn lie, right?). They and their friends in the oil business don't like Chavez. That's no reason to break international law. We should be making friends with a guy who's sitting on one of the world's largest reserves, not making an enemy of him. Why is the Saudi's disrespect for the democratic process OK, but Chavez' disrespect a threat?

Posted by: Bill at August 29, 2005 01:08 PM (dpJaB)

21 Mother Jones is consistent - it supports America's enemies.

Posted by: Simon Oliver Lockwood at August 29, 2005 01:16 PM (/40mF)

22 Saudi Arabia produced 15 of the 19 9-11 attackers. The group's leader is a Saudi. The Saudis have no respect for democracy or human rights. The Saudis fund Islamic schools which teach hatred for America. A Saudi Cleric just issued a Fatwa for Osama bin Laden that says it would be just to detonate a nuclear device somewhere in the U.S. The Saudis are our enemies. The Bush family has been close to the Saudis for decades. They are consistent in their friendship -- they support America's enemies.

Posted by: Bill at August 29, 2005 01:39 PM (dpJaB)

23 Slublog, thanks for the background. Really. But, since when does not having sufficient respect for the democratic process mean we have to do something about it?

Personally, I don't think we should do anything about it. I'm sim-ply trying to show that Chavez is taking his country toward a dictatorship.

Posted by: Slublog at August 29, 2005 04:27 PM (KUYsH)

24 The hyphen, BTW, is because for some reason, the site doesn't like the combination of m and p.

Posted by: Slublog at August 29, 2005 04:28 PM (KUYsH)

25 As an engineer that worked on the development of the JASSM cruise missle I would like to point out that God did not make cruise missles, conservatives did.

Posted by: jump me at August 30, 2005 06:06 AM (F26eZ)

26 If Pat Robertson and the Christian Right are so worried about the general public, especially children, being exposed to sex and violence on TV, then isn't it completely hypocritical for Robertson to engage in such violent talk? Every child and teenager who heard that broadcast was hearing a supposedly respected person advocate "taking out" another human being. Doesn't sound very Christian to me, and his apology should have been heartfelt and sincere, instead of wimpy and full of justifications and excuses.

Posted by: Robert Welsch at September 04, 2005 05:07 AM (2Go9D)

27 Robert,

If you're looking for somebody here who will disagree with you I suspect you'll be waiting a long time. You see, the difference between this blog and, say for example, Daily Kos is we won't defend the indefensible. To get a feeling for what real Christians might be thinking go here.

Posted by: BrewFan at September 04, 2005 06:22 AM (95UaF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
88kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.9804 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.9419 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.