Guess who ?

George Stephanopoulos

 

Oh yeah. I distrust him just as much as Pres. Clinton.

 

Exactly! Good point, Bro. Curtis! To the best of my knowledge it was Clinton who restored the option of assassination of foreign leaders anyway. Chávez and Commandant Castro both have syphilis of the brain.

 

Where is the link? What year was this? What is the context? Why did you stop the quote in the middle of a sentence?

Perhaps, but it's hard to tell from the little, out of context, selective quote given here.

 

I would be outraged, if I could find the article. I did a google advanced search, and came up with the article at NewsMax as my first two hits. I found several blogs that talk about this, but could not find the article. Do you have a link?

Also, are you offering that Pat Robertson is just as stupid as George Stephanopoulos?

Regards,
BiR

 

There wasn't any. Why? He's a liberal.

 

"December 01, 1997, Newsweek,
By GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
Why We Should Kill Saddam

IN THE MIDDLE OF A CRISIS WITH IRAQ DURING PRESIDENT Clinton's first term, I wondered aloud in an Oval Office meeting about the prospects of killing Saddam Hussein. Before I could finish the sentence, the then national-security adviser Tony Lake looked up to the fight fixtures and said: "He was just kidding. We're not planning anything like that." Of a the words you just can't say in the modem White House, like "shred this," none is more taboo than"


This is at http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=list&p_topdoc=41 (go down to the seventh header). To see the article costs $2.95. I do not wish to pay for the article. Maybe Daisy or Baptist in Richmond will do so if they want to verify what Mr. Stephanopoulos wrote.

 

The information free here:


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/122804.shtml?et=y

 

Yes, but you know that Daisy and BiR are not likely to accept Newsmax as a "legitimate" news source. I gave them a link to get to the original document.

 

True. But I don't think I'd go out of my way to satisfy them. They both know how to use google. And if they don't like your source, that's exactly what they should do. It's what I do when I don't like someone's source.

 

You should provide an original source, not a very selective, edited version or rightly be discounted. You don't want to do the work, fine - you don't have a lot of credibility anyway. I remember very well how you distorted what I had said - you called it "walking a fine line" - so I know how you can be.

 

So, Daisy, are you going to expend the $2.95 to read the original document?

 

You should provide an original source, not a very selective, edited version or rightly be discounted. You don't want to do the work, fine - you don't have a lot of credibility anyway. I remember very well how you distorted what I had said - you called it "walking a fine line" - so I know how you can be. </font>[/QUOTE]For you to think I don't have any credibility is OK with me. You don't seem to have much either.

Now if we're through insulting each other, maybe the discussion can move along.

 

KenH,

Thanks for locating the source. I'm not sure I care $2.95's worth.

Yes, you accused me of lying, but were unable to back that up either.

You missed my point - it's up to the person making the allegation to provide a credible source; it's not about "satisfying" anyone. If you don't want to "go out of [your] way" to back up your own contention, then it's fair for us to dismiss it for being without credible evidence.

 

Um, Daisy, Bro. Curtis started this thread, not carpro. Did you miss that?

btw, I think Pat Robertson and George Stephanopoulos both had good ideas.

I don't think it has come to the point of necessity that we assasinate Chavez, but if he becomes more like Saddam, posing a real security threat to us, then I would like to keep that option on the table. That option should always be there when dealing with potential security threats.

There are many "leaders" in history who should have been assasinated to avoid much carnage and bloodshed. It's a viable option, rather than all-out war.

 

Um no, I answered him in my first post to this thread. After that, I was responding to carpro, just as now, with this one, I am responding to you. I realize this can be confusing, but since I almost always quote the statements/questions I'm responding to, you, or most people anyway, shouldn't have that much trouble following.

Yes, you've often mentioned your fondness for state-sanctioned murder.

So, do you consider it an equally good option for other countries to assassinate our president when we pose a threat to their security?

Perhaps, but we don't know that their replacement wouldn't have been as bad or worse. I still think murder is wrong.

 

There is no reason to get sarcastic with me, Daisy. I am simply pointing out that you are hitting up carpro to provide a credible source, according to your view, which would support the quote which Bro. Curtis gave. It looks to me like you are going after the wrong person.

There is a difference between murdering an innocent in cold blood and killing someone who needs to be killed. In that sense, you are right, I do support state-sanctioned death penalties. Frankly, I don't believe it is applied near enough.

Of course, that is just me and the last, oh, 3,000 or so years of human history talking.

In any event, could you point me to my posts (provide a credible source, as you say ) where I have said I support murdering people. I didn't realize you had been following me around the BB and taking mental notes of all my posts.

Good is a relative term. Hitler would have considered it good to continue murdering Jews. I'm sure that some countries consider it a good option to assasinate President Bush. I can not dictate what another country, or any other person, believes is good. I can only say that I believe a good option for thousands or millions dying in war is to assasinate your enemies leader. In some cases it averts war and in some cases it does not. Pardon the pun, but it is at least "worth a shot".

Again, I don't think we are at the point where we need to begin planning Chavez' assasination, so I do think Robertson is off in the respect.

I'm just saying, you never know what the future will bring. In hindsight, I think most of us would agree that it would have good for America had someone assasinated Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc. I think we can safely assume that the slaughter of the Jews and the large scale of WWII would never have taken place if Hitler had been eliminated immediately. (of course, on a personal side note, then I would not be here because my grandparents would never have met.)

I think you neglect to see that the reason these men were in power was because they were the worst. Worse men would have eliminated the competition and assumed power for themselves. Besides, I don't see how you can get much worse than those butchers who killed millions of their own people.

I also do not approve of murder, and I don't think I could ever be capable of murdering anyone, but I do believe that our country has the authority to protect us, and if protecting us involves eliminating those that would seek to do us harm, then I am all for giving them the death penalty via assasination. I do not consider that murder.

 

I know. I'm sorry for being so snarky with you.

Maybe, but carpro was the one saying not to bother....

Nobody "needs" to be killed. The state does execute innocent people, although rarely.

Assassination is murder.

Not all your posts...I once had a long conversation with you about the death penalty. You stated that no one has ever been executed wrongly. I've followed your death-penalty posts since then to see if you'd modified your views at all....so when I see your moniker, I think, "Oh, the death penalty guy from Texas".

If I thought it would work, I might agree with you - might rather than would because murder is still wrong.

It might have been good for Russians if Stalin had been assassinated, but I don't see it doing much for America. Hilter didn't come up with the idea all by himself; neither did he carry it out alone.

I'm not convinced that that is true.

Do you believe that Bush is the worst? Do you believe he's the best? (I'm not comparing him to them, except that he is in power now.)

Not necessarily - sometimes power is achieved through persuasion and intelligence, sometimes through charisma, sometimes through collusion - perhaps a mix.

Butchers who kill millions of our people? (Point taken).

That's where we differ as I think assassination is murder.