August 25, 2005
And now GeeoorgeÂ….Stephanopoulos !!!!!!!
Sorry Sam I always wanted to do that. I see that when the former Clinton Administration advisor turned journalist George Stephanopoulos suggested that Saddam be Assassinated no one even raised an eyebrow.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."... ..."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."
Well now that kind of puts the Robertson thing in perspective.
Posted by: Howie at
09:29 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Not that I advocate assassination (who would lose sleep if Saddam was suddenly room temperature)... but to paraphrase Rusty, if you can't tell the difference between Saddam and Chavez, you're an idiot.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 25, 2005 09:41 PM (BueBw)
2
Oh yeah they're way different. Ones taller than the other. One speaks Arabic the other Spanish. Must I go on.
Posted by: Howie at August 25, 2005 09:56 PM (D3+20)
3
....one admires old Joe Stalin the other Fidel Castro. Ones a facist the other a communist. One supported Al Qaida the other the FARC. To paraphrase Rusty : See how this works?
Posted by: Howie at August 25, 2005 10:08 PM (D3+20)
4
... there's one born every minute I guess.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 25, 2005 10:32 PM (BueBw)
5
Pat Robertson apologized. Did Stephanopolous?
Interesting how a Democrat GOVERNMENT official could say something like that without a peep in response from the mainstream media and all those currently "outraged", while a PRIVATE individual like Pat Robertson who thinks out loud about it sends them into a tizzy.
How can we take such people seriously? They're like children.
Posted by: Carlos at August 26, 2005 12:35 AM (8e/V4)
6
"Professor", may I be the first to congratulate you on how well you mark the minute?
Posted by: Phillep at August 26, 2005 01:37 AM (zNjIG)
7
Heh, let's see Berger put that in his pants....
Posted by: caltechgirl at August 26, 2005 03:15 AM (ZqNBm)
8
I agree with the professor. You people are idiots.
Posted by: Ralph at August 26, 2005 07:18 AM (qCIKZ)
9
Oh come on Professor Nostril Van Peterbreath. It's a double standard. If a Dem calls to knock off a dictator it's OK. If a Rep does it Oh my. I thought the argument the other day was the US should never ever put out a hit on anyone. Also if Saddam was no threat why would he deserve killin. I'm not talking about the degree to which either dictator deserved it.
Hey my name calling is more creative than your name calling. Ooh gee I',m a sucker Oh my I'm an idiot. Sniffle..choke sniffle.
Posted by: Howie at August 26, 2005 08:35 AM (D3+20)
10
Dang, Howie! You're on roll here. First, the great detective work on Stephanopoulos, then you come up with "Professor Nostril Van Peterbreath".
hahahaha.
Posted by: Oyster at August 26, 2005 08:55 AM (fl6E1)
11
Oh, so now the Libs are pretending Robertson's comments were "outrageous" only because Chavez is such a swell guy. bwahaha!
And so it goes.
Posted by: Carlos at August 26, 2005 08:57 AM (8e/V4)
12
Oyster Gee thanks but yer spellin is better. I always forget that greek thing.
Posted by: Howie at August 26, 2005 09:15 AM (D3+20)
13
George stupidnopolous the little adolecent who cant think what a dweeb
Posted by: sandpiper at August 26, 2005 09:27 AM (poF4d)
14
Maybe the bigger difference is that Roberston is an evangelist, which you typically don't associate with calls for assassination? At least not in the western world, anyways. Which would make sense why the media would have a field day with it, and not Stephanopoulos' comment.
Posted by: Venom at August 26, 2005 09:39 AM (dbxVM)
15
Now Venom wants us to believe the liberal community respects Pat Robertson's status as an evangelist. Please, oh please, you can't pile the shit any higher, guys.
The reason the left has no credibility has everything to do with hypocrisy. They condemn it only if a conservative does it. There's always a different standard for a liberal.
Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with getting rid of both the bastards, but the good professor would object with Chavez, mainly because he likes the piece of shit. Well, you know what they say, "Birds of a feather...flock together.
How about it, Prof? Can you be any more of a hypocrit than what you are?
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 26, 2005 10:21 AM (DDXXI)
16
Heh, Nostril Van Peterbreath, that's a good one. Almost did a spit take on that one. I salute you, you magnificent bastard!
Seriously though, I have read many posts by this moron Van Peterbreath, (I'm gonna flog that one to death), and the idiot has never posted anything resembling substantive argument, but instead relies solely on circular rhetoric, hysterical hyperbole, and ad hominem attacks. Not that there's anything wrong with a good ad hominem, but as a general rule it's only good as a finishing touch, and can't be the core of the argument. "You're a poopy head!" just doesn't carry the same weight as a well-made logic-based rhetorical argument. The Greeks knew this three thousand years ago, and the libidiots still haven't figured it out.
The sad part is that all the idiot leftards that come to conservative blogs and post their moronic drivel, which on DU and Kos get them acclaims and hosannahs, and which they expect here, are shocked to discover that they have come to batter down the walls of a fortress with nothing more than water balloons. This however doesn't stop them from proclaiming victory once the walls are thoroughly wetted. Watching these poor simpletons work is like watching a Monty Python skit with twice the absurdity, but none of the humor; it's just sad.
Posted by: Imrobulus Maximus at August 26, 2005 11:51 AM (0yYS2)
17
Joe, I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. People were commenting why Stephanopoulos' comment didn't raise an eyebrow from anyone, while Robertson's did. I think the fact that an evangelist made a call for an assassination is pretty surprising. I didn't say anything about how the left or right views either comment - I was simply stating a reason why the *media* picked up on one and not the other. Thanks for missing the point and trying to argue something different. Now, I'll let you argue how you didn't miss it, and was arguing along those lines the whole time.
Posted by: Venom at August 26, 2005 11:59 AM (dbxVM)
18
Well this poor undereducated redneck who knocks heads with engineers and MBA's on a daily basis and never gives up has earned himself the right to leave early today. Got some work to do over the weekend. Should be no sweat but seeins how I gots over 40 already I'm outta here.
Posted by: Howie at August 26, 2005 12:00 PM (D3+20)
19
Venom,
have you ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? I'll give you a little hint, he's one of the greatest theologians in the 20th century-- and a political assassin.
Posted by: Carlos at August 26, 2005 12:26 PM (8e/V4)
20
LMAO! IM, rare form.
Posted by: Carlos at August 26, 2005 12:39 PM (8e/V4)
21
Carlos,
Not too familiar with him, and I'd bet most aren't. Maybe you'd like to enlighten all of his as to how he's similar to Pat Robertson as it pertains to calling for the assassination of world leaders (unless, of course, you're referring to his struggle against Nazism - which might make a vast number of the world's population back then "political assassins." But I'm sure you're referring to something else I'm not aware of.
And, I think my statement still stands to some extent, and that was it's not common (or even expected) to hear an evangelist make a call for the assassination of someone. I'm sure it's been done before, but I'm pretty sure it's not often.
Posted by: Venom at August 26, 2005 12:45 PM (dbxVM)
22
Venom,
no, it's not common for religious people to openly suggest political assassination, and I personally think Pat Robertson was a fool to say something like that openly. It kind of defeats the purpose to say those things publicly because now if Chavez dies they'll know who did it. Plus it just gives cheap points to people with an anti-christian axe to grind.
The reason I raised the example of Bonhoeffer is that today he is loved by Liberals because they consider him a "pacifist" christian. It's true he started that way and was mentored by the great christian pacifist of his day, Michael Moller. But he obviously had a change of heart, of which he speaks about in his prison writings, because he was killed by Hitler for his involvement in a plot to assassin said fuhrer. Bonhoeffer died a man of conscience-- and a would-be political assassin.
What does this have to do with Pat Robertson? Simply that religious people of conscience will resort even to political assassination for what they perceive as the greater good, so Robertson is no exception.
Your only logical response therefore is that Chavez is no Hitler. That's fine, he isn't. But considering just the other day your teammates were claiming Saddam was no threat to us, how then can you excuse Stephanopolous for putting a hit on him?
My greater point is that this is nothing more than gotcha politics and that the mainstream media is only too happy to play along with your team.
Posted by: Carlos at August 26, 2005 01:16 PM (8e/V4)
23
minor correction of little consequence: not Michael Moller, but Jean Lasserre.
Posted by: Carlos at August 26, 2005 01:21 PM (8e/V4)
24
Good points. Though, if a religious person (even Bonhoeffer)who was following the pacifistic tendencies of their religion and then abandons them by advocating the killing of others, I'd suggest that that person is abandoning some of the very tenets of their religion - which, I'd say, might make them seem considerably less religious. Does this make Pat Robertson "less religious" from the traditionally accepted "love-thy-neighbour" definition of a Christian? Maybe, though I guess it depends on how often he's done this. And it kinda goes back to what I think we both agree on, and that is that you typically don't see prominant Christian figures calling for the killing of others. Because to do so abandons some fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Which is why it's surprising to hear Robertson and not Stephanopoulos.
And, I'd hardly call the left my teammates, though. Just because I don't buy into the whole bullshit neocon philosophy doesn't make me a leftist (or a liberal, for that matter).
Posted by: Venom at August 26, 2005 01:32 PM (dbxVM)
25
Venom,
Only a few very small denominations consider pacifism a basic tenet of christianity. Most denominations don't. But nobody, NOBODY, would consider Bonhoeffer less religious for his decision to assassinate Hitler.
American evangelicals are most certainly not pacifists, and don't claim to be. Even so, most have criticized Robertson's comments as foolish and counter productive, but generally for the reasons I gave you. And it's not the first time Robertson has embarrassed us. He should retire.
Posted by: Carlos at August 26, 2005 01:49 PM (8e/V4)
26
Carlos, don't let Venom derail the original premise of what's going on here. Evangelist or not, if it's to be condemned, it matters not who said it. Attacking the messenger for this (Robertson rather than Stephanopoulos) is simply a way to change focus from what was said to who said it.
The only reasonable argument here is that Robertson is a hypocrite for saying it, because it was just plain wrong for either of them to suggest it.
It's like an ex-con who robs a bank or an upstanding citizen who robs a bank. Is one worse than the other simply because it might be expected of the ex-con?
Posted by: Oyster at August 26, 2005 02:22 PM (fl6E1)
27
The original premise was that Robertson's call for the assassination of Chavez got saturation coverage from the MSM while Stepanopolus received no critisism or coverage from the same bunch for saying basically the same thing. What Rusty meant to show was the hypocrisy of the media. They condemn something when a conservative does whatever but say nothing when a liberal does the same thing.
And that is exactly what the media does!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 26, 2005 02:38 PM (DDXXI)
28
If the forces had only dropped a grenade down( to bad he didn't have greasy fingers) that spider hole Oooops we may not be where things are today!
And saving a military tribunal.
Posted by: Gerry M. at August 26, 2005 04:46 PM (MElsG)
29
Apparantly Chavez needs to do more destabilizing of his neighbors & support of terrorists/ism to be considered Saddam's equal.
Posted by: h0mi at August 26, 2005 06:01 PM (zpJBl)
30kb generated in CPU 0.0247, elapsed 0.1131 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1044 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.1044 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
