“President Bush early this year signed an intelligence order directing the C.I.A. to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple Saddam Hussein, including authority to use lethal force to capture the Iraqi leader.”
…later in the article:
“Possible use of C.I.A. and U.S. special forces teams, similar to those that have been successfully deployed in Afghanistan since the Sept. 11 attacks. Such forces would be authorized to kill Hussein if they were acting in self defense.”
Isn’t this the same thing as one man saying to another man, “I’m going to kill you”?
Isn’t the second man obliged to defend himself after receiving what appears to be a death threat?
What happens if Hussein orders his troops to capture and depose Bush, and to kill him if he tries to defend himself? He is, after all, the president of a country. If Bush can do it, why can’t he?
What hapens if Hussein kills Bush first?
I must note that I am in no way supporting the regime of Saddam Hussein. I think he’s probably a sociopathic s.o.b. I’m just trying to understand the rules of this particular fight.
I’ve got tickets! Tickets here! George vs Saddam, they are going to fight to the death in a “steel cage death match”. Who will win! Tickets! Tickets! Come on, these babies are going fast! One is a sociopathic tyrant the other is the dictator of Iraq*. Get them while their hot. Tickets!
*(To all bush fans: sorry in advance, it’s a joke )
I try very hard to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, as I’m not privy to current Intel. Still, I feel like lil’ George is trying to fight his daddy’s battle again. No evidence - just a gut reaction.
I’m trying to figure out who thought it’d be a good idea to get this information out in the open. Is “leaking” it a ploy in and of itself?
As an American, I feel that Bush’s proposed actions are wrong. I mean “wrong” in the moral sense. We’re supposed to be the Good Guys! The good guys don’t do that sort of thing. While I understand that assassination can be an important tool, we are not at war with Iraq. Assassinating Saddam may give us the “satisfaction” of “finishing” the Gulf War, but it will do more harm than good. Even the threat of assassinating Saddam will incite more terrorist attacks, perhaps ordered by Saddam or perhaps on his supporters’ own initiative; probably both.
Oh, and by the way: If you’re going to try to take someone out, you don’t announce it!
We proudly proclaim that we are a nation of Laws. We seek redress through those laws, and we take action through those laws. How can we expect the rest of the world – allies and enemies alike – to respect us if we break our own laws?
when i heard about this, all i could think of was how back in grade school a guy would “call you out” over an incident at morning break. gossip would fly around the school and by lunch, man-o-man, you were sure world war III was coming down! by the end of the day, both camps were worked up into a lather, and the inevitable non-conflict to follow was a total letdown. the two combatants would face each other off, maybe push each other a couple of times, then withdraw, each shouting about how lucky the other was at avoiding the certain ass-kicking they just avoided.
stupid school yard shit, if you ask me! and, yeah, why the hell do you tell Hussain your coming after him? Duh!
I can’t believe that Hussein wanted to chain a US soldier to the front of every tank in order to drive to Saudi Arabia unscathed by our forces. He definitely has the insanity edge going for him.
I wonder how much is 'trying to finish Bush I’s war" and how much is info he has that we don’t.
Personally, I admire Bush I for not going on to Bagdahd. The purpose of the Gulf War was to free Kuwait.
)