B.I.G.M.E.D.I.A., that's how. Recently Pat Robertson voiced his opinion, one I agree with by the way, that we should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. And predictably BM went into a tizzy. Well, have a gander at this. In 1997, while still senior advisor to President Clinton, George Stephanopoulos wrote a column for Newsweek magazine called "Why We Should Kill Saddam". In the piece, Stephanopoulos wrote
| "Assassination may be Clinton's best option. If we can kill Saddam, we should" |
| "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" |
| "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" |
Pat Robertson, who's nothing to the Bush administration, says we should kill a foreign leader and the media treats it as if he's the right hand man to Bush and it's an outrage, but when one of Clinton's actual right hand men says it they were oddly silent. Go figure.
Thanks John.
The Only Thing Necessary For Evil To Triumph
Is For Good Men To Do Nothing
23 comments:
It is even more interesting that MSM can't or won't publish stories about the Liberal groups like Moveon.org and other group leaders who have consistanly wrote and spoke in public that Bush and Blair should be assasinated. At least you think they could be fair about the coverage; but then it would not fit the liberal agenda.
Jake, what about the media not caring about Stephanopoulos, someone who actually had pull in the administration saying the same thing?
Jake; The Ten Commandments were the old Law of the Torah and old Covenant. As A Christian; we (Pat etc) are under not the old covanant but the new one. One in which the law was abolished by Grace.
It seems that the news media never reports with a historical prospective. They're A bunch of monkeys throwing a handful of their own feces at the public. Rattling their cages while peeing on themselves. And George Stephanopolous; at least someone in that administration had the balls to say that. He is a prick of a guy, if you watch the documentary of Clinton's run in '92, but I agree we should have assassinated Hussein.
what good would assassinating saddam done. it would only have put his insane sons in charge and they were even more ruthless than he was, if that is even possibly.
And John, Jesus himself said he didn't come to do away with the old law.
If you want to use that argument though, you suddenly lose your argument against homosexuality. Nice one.
Want to know why there's little excitement over the suggestion to assassinate Saddam, but there is for Chavez?
Firstly, the "kill Saddam" thing didn't come from a promiment supposed Christian.
Secondly, Saddam wasn't democratically elected. Chavez was.
How 'bout you get some learnin' in you?
Interesting though that you're knocking Fox as well here though.
Za, are you serious?
Firstly, the "kill Saddam" thing didn't come from a promiment supposed Christian
No, it came from a man in the Clinton administration. Someone with a little more pull than Robertson. Bush doesn't listen to Robertson, but Clinton did listen to Stephanopoulos. Your argument has no merit. Now if Rove had said it rather than Robertson, then you would have a leg to stand on.
And you're the first person on the Left I've heard actualy admit that Saddam wasn't democratically elected. All we hear here is that "Saddam got 100% of the vote, Bush couldn't". They neglect to mention that not voting for Saddam would get you killed. Another reason to take him out of power.
And John, Jesus himself said he didn't come to do away with the old law. But to fullfill it. Meaning it has no hold over the people any longer. Funny how you left off that part. Intentional? It would have to be intentional on your part because you do not believe in Jesus and who he was therfore he could not have fullfilled the law in your mind.
If you want to use that argument though, you suddenly lose your argument against homosexuality. Not MY argument against homosexuality. The Bible does it. I do not have to augue against it. It is wrong and against God's soveriegn plan as stated more than one hundred times in the old and new testaments.
Firstly, the "kill Saddam" thing didn't come from a promiment supposed Christian. Right; it came from an ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL! Therefore having real substance more than a private citizen. So why focus on regular citizen and not a LIBERAL Administration? Because those writing about are LIBERALS!! Za; You are not good at the shell game.
Secondly, Saddam wasn't democratically elected. Chavez was. Wait a minute...just a few months ago you were saying we removed an elected head of state in Iraq.(ie Saddam) You changed your mind again or what? Was not that part of your beef? that the USA removed illegally a head of a democratically elected country? So what actually is your position? It seems to change with the wind..I guess that is what happens when you have no moral base to go on.
I stand corrected Jake. Thank you. But that still doesn't explain why the media ignored it while treating this new one like it has any steam.
hugo chavez was not democratically elected, the man basically ran a coup and stole the election through fraud and intimidation. he is saddam jr. planning to raise an army to threaten the region and allowing terrorist havens to exist throughout his country. he is undermining neighboring countries and trying to spread the disease of communism around latin america.
I still don't see where the connection is with Robertson to the Bush administration? The media I have seen is about Pat Robertson and the fact that he is a Christian leader - that's the irony that is being reported on. (And the fact that he ran for president, and what a scary thing that would have been if it happened!). Why are we arguing about Stephanopolous under Clinton versus Robertson? The issue is simply that Robertson is a hypocrit, and it is a travesty to the Christian world.....and the fact that he is a religious leader making political comments that he has no business making. Religion and politics - should be separate!
Yes Chris, I'm serious.
Doesn't matter who the president listens to, a major hypocrisy like that doesn't go unnoticed. It's hardly hypcritical for Stephanopoulos to suggest it though, is it?
And if I'm the first person on the left you've heard say that, then you haven't been listening to all the cries of "the CIA funded Ba'athist coups!".
John:
But to fullfill it. Meaning it has no hold over the people any longer. Funny how you left off that part. Intentional?
That's bullcrap and you know it. It's still just as much a sin to kill now as it was then. No wonder you can claim to be Christian and be such a nutjob.
Not MY argument against homosexuality. The Bible does it.
Yeah, in the old testament, which you've just said no longer applies, because it's a part of the old covenant. Contradictions-r-us John?
Right; it came from an ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL!
Who doesn't spend his entire life expounding morality.
ait a minute...just a few months ago you were saying we removed an elected head of state in Iraq
Bullshit - I said you were removing a SOVEREIGN head of the state of Iraq. Don't mince my words arsehat.
Anonymous:
hugo chavez was not democratically elected, the man basically ran a coup and stole the election through fraud and intimidation
Please - I'm dying to see the proof of your allegations.
GRR:
I still don't see where the connection is with Robertson to the Bush administration?
There isn't really one. The best argument that could be put forward is that the right-wing evangelicals were Bush's major election boost, and will he actually represent his voters?
Apart from that your summary has it 100% straight, which is why I think Chris's comparison is bollocks.
Za; You do not understand anything when I speak of the bible, covanants, grace, law, old and new testaments. If you did; then you would not be such a two faced simp and liar when you claim to be a Christian. Oh and by the way; even though you cannot seem to read very well the comments I post; you would be smart not to keep placing words in my mouth about my posts. Everything I wrote is still there where people can see what you have made up and accused me of saying that I did not say. Just because you fail to understand complex concepts; does not make them wrong and discountable.
Well then clarify yourself, if you're game enough to.
You're claiming none of the Mosaic law applies, because it was under the Old Covenant yes?
Firstly, any trained theology would slap you for saying such a thing.
Secondly, the anti-homosexuality laws are under the Mosaic law. Same as all the law against murder, theft, and so on.
Just because you fail to understand complex concepts; doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth, it just means that you're mentally deficient.
Ahhh - here's an argument you cannot beat.
If what you say is true, and all the old law ceased to exist because of its fulfillment in Jesus... then why does Paul have to wait until Acts 10:9-15 before he's allowed by God to eat any of the animals previously declared unclean under the Old Covenant? Hmmm?
The old Law did not "cease" to exist; because Jews were still there under the old law which defines sin for mankind. One has to make the choice to accept Christ as savior and be forgiven. Mankind has always had freewill. The "grace" comes in for future sins one makes (no one is sinless except the perfect God-man; Jesus) after accepting Christ and is meant for the judgement seat of Christ for "born again" believers only. The rest of people are under the mosaic law until the great White Throne Judgement. Paul waited and kept that part of the Law about eating of unclean animals until he heard from God that he could do so without being judged under the old law. He had not figured out what to do until he heard God tell him about that detail;(It was Peter BTW not Paul who recieved the revelation about eating of clean and unclean); many more came much later during his lifetime and he revealed more details as the holy spirit lead him to write in the many episiles to the various churches. Each revealing more and more about the new covenant. I dont actually think the books of Acts was also written in a chronological order of events since it deals with several different people and the beginnings of those peoples ministries. There are far too many details and points for this message board. But; I hope you understand though I doubt you will. It takes much time and study and prayer depending upon the Holy spirit to reveal truths contained in scripture. One can study for a lifetime and still only gather a fraction of the truths contained therin.
Riiight - so Christians are just exempt, and everyone ELSE has to follow Mosaic law.
But yes, my mistake, it was Peter.
I did not say "follow"; I said will be judged according to.
Oh of course.
The fact that the whole criteria by which you need to ask for forgiveness is... oh, THE MOSAIC LAW OF THE OLD COVENANT has no bearing on it at all.
The Mosiac law was given to show that people cannot measure up to God's Holiness. That is why a perfect sacrifice was needed because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death. It has bearing but not in the way you are trying to make it have bearing.
It's only the criteria on which everyone is judged.
Faith without deeds is dead, remember?
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God? Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.
Remember Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7? The ones you might as well be ignoring given your political stances? I'll remind you of Matthew 5:48:
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
So much for you policy of not even trying.
How true; how true. But; Iam forgiven. I still have a lifetime to keep working on the rest of my faults. How about you? I wont stop trying..but it's damm depressing knowing that I will always fail. That is why I cling to the blood of Christ..or Iam doomed.
Hardly depressing. Should make you happy!
How do the words to that song go? Ahhh yes:
I'm not afraid to fall,
It means I climbed up high,
To fall is not to fail,
You fail when you don't try.
Not afraid to fall,
I might just learn to fly,
And I will spread these wings of mine.
If I get up I might fall back down again,
So let's get up, come on!
If I get up I might fall back down,
But we get up anyway!
If I get up I might fall back down again,
So let's get up, come on!
If I get up I might fall back down again,
I might fall back down again.
Point is - you can fall infinitely, but when you fall, it gives you another opportunity to get back up.
Post a Comment