Democrats have to say Qasem Soleimani was a really bad dude so they can object to the way President Trump starched him:
A government taking out a foreign enemy is not a conspiracy. A single political assassinations is always a conspiracy as opposed to nut jobs who kill, or try to kill, a political figure they do not like. (If every unlikable politician was snuffed by a malcontent there would be no politicians left.)
QUESTION: How many in the dictator’s inner circle like Qasem Soleimani should be assassinated with the boss? ANSWER: All of them. Example: Very few would recommend sparing Joseph Goebbels to name just one of Hitler’s cronies from the beer hall days. Conversely, Democrats went bonkers at the mention of assassinating Castro’s guy, Che Guevara. Hell, they even put a statue of him in NYC’s Central Park:
A long-running philosophical debate asks “Should all dictators be starched early on if they can be identified with certainty? Or should a distinction be made between dictators who dream of conquest, and dictators who will never have influence beyond the borders of their own countries? Answer the questions this way. Separate friendly dictators like the Shah of Iran and Muammar al-Gaddafi, from dangerous petty dictators like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong-un. Naturally, first team dictators are inseparable.
NOTE: Remember the “outrage” when Pat Robertson put the hit on a Communist dictator. The liberal press was beside itself with moral indignation.
In 2005, Greek George was all for political assassinations.
This is the entire article:
Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 12:23 p.m. EDT
Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination
http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_...ewsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/122804.shtml
Saddam Hussein aside, the Robertson-Stephanopoulos flap showed that Democrats are in favor of killing friendly dictators, but God forbid knocking off dictators they love.
Lets go back to to 1939 when Hollywood made the movie Man Hunt containing a plotline about assassinating Hitler.
Incidentally, Hitler never said “Today Europe tomorrow the world.” I believe the phrase was first said by a fictional Nazi agent, played by George Sanders in Man Hunt.
America was not at war with Germany when Man Hunt was being made in 1939. In fact the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a long way off. America was still at peace with Germany when the movie was released in mid-1941.
No movie plot ever explored the possibility of assassinating Stalin after WWII ended. As far as I know, Hollywood never made a movie about knocking off a Communist dictator. Indeed, the Left is still angry over CIA plots to rubout Fidel Castro.
The late Fidel Castro was always a local dictator with no chance of global conquest, yet he espoused an ideology calling for worldwide Communist domination.
There is no doubt that this hemisphere would be the better for it had assassinating Castro been successful. Events in Latin American today show that the failure to snuff Castro had consequences far worse than the consequences of a successful assassination. Unfortunately, technology like smart bombs were not available to those who failed to get Castro. Smart bombs are available today. The will to use them on dictators has been lacking.
On the other hand, libs know that the dictators they appease might devour them for dessert:
The Democrat game plan is to doublespeak their overt support for Communist regimes and hope that President Trump solves the problem without actually killing a Communist.
Frankly, I would order heavy starch for every Communist true believer.
I never understood what the fuss over assassinating Communist dictators was all about? The American Left never minded assassinating non-Communist dictators like Hitler during peacetime. Nor was there much said by media liberals when the news told us that Stalin ordered the murder of a Hollywood icon known for his anti-Communism.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?113619-The-Karl-Marx-Airport&p=2903083#post2903083
Assassinations in peace and war are fairly commonplace. Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated during WWII. Archduke Ferdinand and Huey Long were assassinated in peacetime although the results were worlds apart. Assassination motives vary. Self-defense, profit, and revenge lead the pack.
White House notifies Congress of Soleimani strike under War Powers Act
Updated on: January 4, 2020 / 11:54 PM / CBS NEWS
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-update...illed-in-u-s-airstrike-in-baghdad-2020-01-04/
Updated on: January 4, 2020 / 11:54 PM / CBS NEWS
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-update...illed-in-u-s-airstrike-in-baghdad-2020-01-04/
A government taking out a foreign enemy is not a conspiracy. A single political assassinations is always a conspiracy as opposed to nut jobs who kill, or try to kill, a political figure they do not like. (If every unlikable politician was snuffed by a malcontent there would be no politicians left.)
QUESTION: How many in the dictator’s inner circle like Qasem Soleimani should be assassinated with the boss? ANSWER: All of them. Example: Very few would recommend sparing Joseph Goebbels to name just one of Hitler’s cronies from the beer hall days. Conversely, Democrats went bonkers at the mention of assassinating Castro’s guy, Che Guevara. Hell, they even put a statue of him in NYC’s Central Park:
A long-running philosophical debate asks “Should all dictators be starched early on if they can be identified with certainty? Or should a distinction be made between dictators who dream of conquest, and dictators who will never have influence beyond the borders of their own countries? Answer the questions this way. Separate friendly dictators like the Shah of Iran and Muammar al-Gaddafi, from dangerous petty dictators like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong-un. Naturally, first team dictators are inseparable.
NOTE: Remember the “outrage” when Pat Robertson put the hit on a Communist dictator. The liberal press was beside itself with moral indignation.
'We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out,
The New York Times
Robertson Suggests U.S. Kill Venezuela's Leader
By LAURIE GOODSTEINAUG. 24, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/politics/robertson-suggests-us-kill-venezuelas-leader.html
Robertson Suggests U.S. Kill Venezuela's Leader
By LAURIE GOODSTEINAUG. 24, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/politics/robertson-suggests-us-kill-venezuelas-leader.html
XXXXX
In 2005, Greek George was all for political assassinations.
August 25, 2005
MSM bias on assassinations
From NewsMax:
https://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2005/08/msm_bias_on_ass.html
MSM bias on assassinations
From NewsMax:
https://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2005/08/msm_bias_on_ass.html
This is the entire article:
Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson prompted a firestorm of media outrage on Tuesday after he suggested that the Bush administration should assassinate a foreign leader who posed a threat to the U.S. - in this case, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all. Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.
His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."
"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."
Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.
"We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.
Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:
"If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."
The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted air strike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."
The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."
Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all. Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.
His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."
"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."
Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.
"We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.
Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:
"If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."
The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted air strike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."
The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."
Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."
Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 12:23 p.m. EDT
Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination
http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_...ewsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/122804.shtml
Saddam Hussein aside, the Robertson-Stephanopoulos flap showed that Democrats are in favor of killing friendly dictators, but God forbid knocking off dictators they love.
Lets go back to to 1939 when Hollywood made the movie Man Hunt containing a plotline about assassinating Hitler.
Incidentally, Hitler never said “Today Europe tomorrow the world.” I believe the phrase was first said by a fictional Nazi agent, played by George Sanders in Man Hunt.
America was not at war with Germany when Man Hunt was being made in 1939. In fact the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a long way off. America was still at peace with Germany when the movie was released in mid-1941.
No movie plot ever explored the possibility of assassinating Stalin after WWII ended. As far as I know, Hollywood never made a movie about knocking off a Communist dictator. Indeed, the Left is still angry over CIA plots to rubout Fidel Castro.
The late Fidel Castro was always a local dictator with no chance of global conquest, yet he espoused an ideology calling for worldwide Communist domination.
There is no doubt that this hemisphere would be the better for it had assassinating Castro been successful. Events in Latin American today show that the failure to snuff Castro had consequences far worse than the consequences of a successful assassination. Unfortunately, technology like smart bombs were not available to those who failed to get Castro. Smart bombs are available today. The will to use them on dictators has been lacking.
On the other hand, libs know that the dictators they appease might devour them for dessert:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Winston Churchill
The Democrat game plan is to doublespeak their overt support for Communist regimes and hope that President Trump solves the problem without actually killing a Communist.
Frankly, I would order heavy starch for every Communist true believer.
I never understood what the fuss over assassinating Communist dictators was all about? The American Left never minded assassinating non-Communist dictators like Hitler during peacetime. Nor was there much said by media liberals when the news told us that Stalin ordered the murder of a Hollywood icon known for his anti-Communism.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?113619-The-Karl-Marx-Airport&p=2903083#post2903083
Assassinations in peace and war are fairly commonplace. Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated during WWII. Archduke Ferdinand and Huey Long were assassinated in peacetime although the results were worlds apart. Assassination motives vary. Self-defense, profit, and revenge lead the pack.
