Assassination: Only Bad When A Conservative Religious Figure Suggests It

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 12:54 PM

| Access Comments