We missed a chance to kill Dan Rather and Saddam.

[el Guapo]

NEW YORK (The Hollywood Reporter) --- CBS has scored one of the news coups of the year as "Evening News" anchor Dan Rather landed an exclusive three-hour interview with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) on Monday in Baghdad...Asked how Rather beat every other news organization to the story, CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "He's Dan Rather. He did it the old-fashioned way: He went after it."

If the CIA was on the ball they would have Lojacked(tm) Dan Rather and got 'em both sitting down together for the interview with an ALCM. Too bad Juraldo went to Fox instead of CBS. 8-{

Kidding (somewhat). But here is the question: Would you trade the life of Dan Rather or any other individual without their knowledge or consent to avoid a war? Would that kind of black op be morally justifiable?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...030225/en_bpihw/rather_lands_saddam_interview

 

[Jeff]

Are you serious? We have Americans meeting with him and we are not taking him out?

Hell yeah, Dan Rather would be a martyr in my book....

 

[Planderella]

Maybe Dan's on a secret mission.

 

[Dan]

I don't care if it's bin Ladin; I wouldn't do it. It would seriously undermine the free press in the United States, with repurcussions that could last for decades. I'd sooner fight a war than sacrifice a freedom we take for granted. Not only that, but American journalists all over the world would become targets of terrorists; ity'll be assumed from that point forward that they're all working for the government, and therefore spies.

Journalist-subject privilege is something we should hold as sacred as the client-doctor and client-lawyer privilege.

 

[el Guapo]

I guess I was trolling. As much as it would warm my cold Republican heart, I wouldn't do it either.

 

[Dan]

I guess I was trolling. As much as it would warm my cold Republican heart, I wouldn't do it either.

There's a difference between a rhetorical question and a troll.

Rhetorical question: If you were Jimmy Carter, and you got invited to meet Osama bin Ladin, would you carry poison with you and try to kill him discreetly?

Troll: Are planners communists, socialists or facists? Why can't you leafve me alone? My cars are just a hobby, and if they bother my neighbors, they should move. That's not junk .... it's art. This is worse than the old Soviet Union.

 

[BKM]

LOL!

But planners are communists, Dan. And they are all damned to hell

 

[Habanero]

Is Dan from Canada?

 

[Chet]

Is Dan from Canada?

I think we covered that, yeah.

[ot] You're almost in the clube, Ash! [/ot]

 

[Habanero]

Then wouldn't it slightly odd if we sent a Canadien to do our dirty work and then watch the drama ensue because a Canadien killed Sadam? Sheeh- I'd feel bad for the Canadiens if that did happen.

 

[Mud Princess]

Personally I think Geo. W. (aka "Dubya") and Saddam Hussein should have an old-fashioned duel and get it over with. Most importantly - leave the rest of us folks out of it.

 

[Jeff]

Where do you draw the line with protecting American freedoms, times have changed and we all have to give a little. So maybe having journalists walk into the middle of a war zone to get interviews is a freedom we have to sacrifice right now.

If it helps us get to one of the roots our problems so be it.

 

[donk]

Mud Princess said

Personally I think Geo. W. (aka "Dubya") and Saddam Hussein should have an old-fashioned duel and get it over with.

I heard on the news this morning that Saddam Hussein has challenged GW Bush to a live televised debate on teh issues to let the people of the world decide. Close enough?


Here is a link

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iraq0225feb25,0,268038.story?coll=chi-news-hed

 

[Mud Princess]

Actually one of my co-workers just told me that Saddam suggested a duel a few months ago...

Who would win in a sword fight? What about a fist fight?

Or maybe they would just kill each other and we can send the troops home.

 

[Downtown]

Mud Princess said

I heard on the news this morning that Saddam Hussein has challenged GW Bush to a live televised debate on teh issues to let the people of the world decide. Close enough?


Here is a link

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iraq0225feb25,0,268038.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Good lord. I can just picture that in my head. The question is, which one has the better grasp on the English Language?

 

[biscuit]

Actually one of my co-workers just told me that Saddam suggested a duel a few months ago...

Who would win in a sword fight? What about a fist fight?

Or maybe they would just kill each other and we can send the troops home.

Interesting question. I'm gonna guess that G.W. would win a fist fight. He's in much better shape then old Uncle Saddam. Did you ever see the film of Saddam taking a swim? If you have, you know what I'm saying.
As for a sword fight, I'd have to cal this as a draw. Sword play takes patience, and skill and... well it goes without saying.

 

[donk]

The rules of the duel would have to include no hair pulling or kicking below the belt.

As for command of the english language, maybe they could get Chretien in the middle as the interpreter and maybe an
inspector of proof of "disarmature".

For your reading and logical assessment

A proof is proof. What kind of a proof?
It's a proof. A proof is a proof and when
when you have a good proof it's proven?"

- Jean Chretien, Sept 5, 2002

 

[PlannerGirl]

you know id pay to see them go at it in any way, then id welcome our boys back home.

GW scares me more than saddam

 

[SGB]

Mud Princess said

I heard on the news this morning that Saddam Hussein has challenged GW Bush to a live televised debate on teh issues to let the people of the world decide.

Read The Guardian (UK) article on what might happen in such a debate.

 

[gkmo62u]

I am sorry on this one Danie but to say that GW scares you more than Saddam is absurd.

You may not like him for tons of policy reasons and that I can respect, but gratuitous comments like that lend nothing to the debate.

 

[Habanero]

I am sorry on this one Danie but to say that GW scares you more than Saddam is absurd.

You may not like him for tons of policy reasons and that I can respect, but gratuitous comments like that lend nothing to the debate.

I'd have to agree- at least we have freedom of speech and can protest without GW ordering us shot.

 

[Repo Man]

I am gonna step in and defend PGs statement. I wouldn't say that is an absurd comment at all. GW has a far greater impact on our lives than Saddam. As much as Saddam is an evil man, his wrongdoings don't affect the lives of most Americans. This will obviously change if we go to war with Iraq.

You don't think it is scary that people can be detained and stripped of their constitutional rights, like Jose Padilla (the dirty bomb suspect)? Guilty or not he is an American citizen who deserves access to lawyers. They still haven't even charged him with anything yet, yet he has been detained for 8 or 9 months becuse the Bush administration called him an enemy combatant and transferred him to military custody.

 

[el Guapo]

my 2cents

As much as Saddam is an evil man, his wrongdoings don't affect the lives of most Americans.

He affected my life and the lives of many of my personal friends. I still cough up the smoke of the oil well fires some mornings. I can't feel my feet some nights. I have no memory of some things most people remember. I have three dear friends that he "affected" to death. I have had no children with my wife purposefully so these children don't live a life with a birth defect or two. I have other even more personal issues that relate directly to his core evil.

I also have three members of my family that may be called upon to die to defend our freedom. That affects the equation.

I have seen and worked on nuclear weapons. Some are not much bugger than a coffee can. We have people moving tons of coke and a million illegals a year into this country. Why can't a dedicated evil man with the resources of an entire nation move a coffee can size bomb into your hometown?

He may decide to go out in a bang.

He is an evil man that needs to die.

 

[PlannerGirl]

I'm not dismissing that Saddam is an evil man-he IS. On a personal level GW scares me, the long term impact of some of his policy moves and choices *if he gets to choose another Supreme court justice for example* will be with us for a long long time.

I dont think GW is evil-i have no word for him beyond out right scary as hell. Yes and I am aware much of that is becouse Im pretty left on the spectrum. Even if I were not I could not deny hes having serious and lasting impacts on our nation.

Now if I were on the front lines or a Iraqi I would see things diffrent.

Im speaking for ME in my OWN life.

 

[El Feo]

I dont think GW is evil-i have no word for him beyond out right scary as hell.

I take you at your word, PG, that you don't think he's evil, but I have to admit your latest avatar's really gotten to me, and it's hard for me to square with that. Like much I saw of the war protests last week, it smacks of hyperbole.

You haven't sought my opinion or approval, and don't need either. I'd only like to express that to me, equating an American administration official with a Nazi soldier is a nasty ad hominem attack, period; it makes it hard for me (though not impossible - I know you are sincere, decent, and earnest) to treat your arguments seriously; and I think it's vaguely an insult to people that were oppressed, and worse, by real Nazis.

That's life in a democracy, though, and I guess we're all tough enough to take bein' a little bothered.

I hope you don't think I'm trolling, just trying to tell you how it's made me feel as respectfully as possible.

 

[BKM]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, El Feo, but many of the beliefs of John Ashcroft-beliefs reflected in his policies, the judges that the Bush Administration selects, etc. warrant a bit of hyperbole. A Nazi? Of course not!

I really believe that Ashcroft is sincere, but Christian Reconstructionism, which I believe in his heart is what he wants for this country, is not a society I could live under. I don't see Nazi Germany-I do see "A Handmaidens Tale." And THAT scares me to death.

As for the evils of Sadaam-only a few nuts are defending Sadaam per se. But, what we keep asking ourselves is how "THE ENEMY" is defined by this administration. This is an Administration whose leading members immediately jumped in bed to make tons of money WITH SADAAM after the Iran-Iraq bloodshed and gassing. This is an Administration full of folks who believe "Realpolitic" means arming our enemies-and profiting from the armament sales. I think it would be better if Sadaam goes away/is deposed. Call it hyperbole, but I don't trust the people behind the throne and their reasons to do it.

As for our wonderous ability to create a democratic state in Iraq, my question for Bush supporters would be "Can he pronounce "Quagmire?"

I hope I don't come across as trolling. The Patriot Act, the summary imprisonments, the proposed expanded Patriot Act ARE frightening.

Let the attacks begin!

 

[Cardinal]

I'll agree with PG, but put a spin on it.

Saddam is the immediate threat. He has the power to inflict some pretty nasty stuff on us or our allies. He needs to go, and one way or another, I think he will be gone before all that much longer. What troubles me is a series of questions about Bush and his policies.

To what extent did Bush's rhetoric and actions help to create the problem we now have with Saddam. Sure, it is Saddam's actions that ultimately are at the root of things, but did Bush exacerbate the problem? Perhaps instead of handling it the way he did, creating a "war on terrorism" that is now unfavorably shaping our interactions with many nations and peoples, we should have simply sent in some CIA assassins and quietly eliminated the problem. No war, no caualties, no countries using terrorism as an excuse to commit atrocities, no axis of evil, no confrontation with North Korea....

What are the long term implications of Bush's war on terrorism. Far too often, to me it smacks of a war on basic freedoms we have long enjoyed as Americans. I do not want to see people picked up by the police, held in secret, and denied their rights. I do not want "big Brother" watching my every move; reading my every post on Cyburbia. Once there is a precedent is set for these types of breaches in our rights, where will it lead? That is the long-term threat that makes Bush the scarier of the two.

 

[Repo Man]

What amazes me is that the Bush Administration has somehow turned the war on terror into action against Iraq. Removing Saddam was never a cornerstone of Bush's campaign, nor was it the administration's policy pre Sept 11. The administration keeps looking for a link between al Queda and Iraq and they can't find it. When the BinLaden tape came out a few weeks ago, Bin Laden urged Iraqi citizens defend against the US. The administration tried to claim this was the link between al Queda and Iraq despite the fact that the tape calls Saddam an infidel. They can't find a credible link and they know it.

 

[El Feo]

BKM, Michael, and jtfortin,

I appreciate your points, but I can't buy any of them. Guess this is what they call "agreeing to disagree."

Concern over civil liberties is more than valid, but my question is - if the slope's so slippery, why didn't we end up at the bottom of it under Lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus), Wilson (jailing of "unfriendly" journalists - Ashcroft would be proud!!), or F.D.R. (how many Japanese-American families and lives destroyed there??)? I'm no fan of curtailed civil liberties, but I don't like the idea of El Guapo's "Chock Full o' Nukes" coffee-can ending up at Quincy Market, either. I'll give a smidge, short term, to cut the chances of that. Call me a wimpy tool of The Man, I guess, but we're not nearly as far down the path of oppression as we were under the presidents I've mentioned.

No link between Iraq and terrorism? Well, granted, I haven't heard about any Iraqi-Al Qaeda box lunch socials, but there have been reports of links and coordination from pretty well-respected mainstream news organizations from as early as last March.

Honest, though, I'm glad we (still?) live in a nation where we can have this type of discussion without stickin' shivs in each others' throats.

 

[Repo Man]

The administration shouldn't even use the AlQueda link as a rationale, but they know that it is their "ace in the hole" If they can link them, they will get more support from Americans. If they are going after countries with links to terrorism they should focus on countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Sudan.

I guess I would prefer if Bush would quit trying to use the weapons/terrorism issue as a reason to attack Iraq. Everyone knows that this administration will not settle at anything less than removing Saddam. So why not just come out and say "we want Saddam out at all costs." If regime change is your policy, don't give us all this bs about him not complying with UN sanctions. He could comply with everything and Bush would still find a way to attack Iraq.