Stephanopoulos Thought Assassination Was the Answer

Liberals are often heard saying, "War is never the answer."

In 1997, one was heard saying that assassination is the answer.

Back in the late 1990s, former Clinton administration advisor George Stephanopoulos pushed for assassination as the method to deal with Saddam Hussein.

From NewsMax:

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 airstrike 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."

The liberal media went nuts over Robertson's idiotic assassination statements. They demanded that the President and the administration answer for what this private citizen said, even though the man holds no official position in Bush's administration and never has.

My immediate reaction to the Robertson story was that it was utterly lame for the press to turn it into an international incident.

How funny that Stephanopoulos would call for the assassination of Saddam Hussein and the media had no problem with it!

Was that acceptable because Stephanopoulos is a cute, little sweetie pie?

What a joke! The liberal bias in the media just oozes out of this one.

Did George have to apologize for calling for the U.S. to kill a foreign leader?

Did Clinton have to distance himself from George and his comments?

Were Clinton administration cabinet members forced to discuss the assassination policy promoted by George?

No. No. No.

To anyone claiming that the mainstream media outlets aren't biased---

Explain.