U.S. journalists agree: If you can't beat him

[Shady]

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."

Link

Gotta love the hypocrisy!

[BHS]

Particularly amusing given Pat Robertson's recent indiscretions and the howls from the Left that followed.

[Shady]

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's an interesting double-standard.

[Argus]

That's exactly what I was thinking.  It's an interesting double-standard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhmm, it might be worthwhile to take into consideration that Hussein was a vicious, brutal dictator who, along with his murderous sons, tortured thousands to death every year, gassed unruly civilians, brutally opressed his people, invaded his neighbours, and was a continued threat to the entire region through his large military.

Chavez was democratically elected, and then won a popular referendum when his leadership was challenged. His country has invaded no one. There have been no allegations of widespread torture or murder that I'm aware of.

So how exactly do you try to form some kind of moral equivillancy between suggesting Sadaam be killed and suggesting Chavez be killed?

[Montgomery Burns]

Argus:

Uhmm, it might be worthwhile to take into consideration that Hussein was a vicious, brutal dictator who, along with his murderous sons, tortured thousands to death every year, gassed unruly civilians, brutally opressed his people, invaded his neighbours, and was a continued threat to the entire region through his large military.

But we are still furious at Bush for overthrowing Uncle Saddam. :angry:

Chavez was democratically elected, and then won a popular referendum when his leadership was challenged.

Says dictator-loving Jimmy Carter

[err]

Sam Donaldson, co-host of "This Week," Nov. 9: We should kill Saddam "under cover of law.... We can do business with his successor."

Why bother killing him,

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation was successful, wasn't it ???

[Montgomery Burns]

Sam Donaldson, co-host of "This Week," Nov. 9: We should kill Saddam "under cover of law.... We can do business with his successor."

Why bother killing him,

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation was successful, wasn't it ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Practices the LLL mantra:

No Blood For Ooiilllll!!