Assassination as a Policy

I was impressed by Dennis Kucinich's consistently peace-related stances amidst the torrent of Wolf Blitzer's hypothetical questions. While Clinton and Obama retreated into their omnipresent politician-posture and refused to comment on hypotheticals, Kucinich maintained that he would not use assassination as a policy whether or not any collateral damage would result. The question was loaded and included the points that he would have 20 minutes to make the decision, Afghan citizens would die, but they would kill bin Laden. Clinton waffled as she acknowledged that her platonic-business-partner-yet-enabler-for-tax-benefits-spouse tried to bomb bin Laden unsuccessfully, yet, she still refused to state her stance. She did, however, raise her hand stating she would use assassination as a policy, with all the other democratic candidates save Kucinich when Blitzer blitzkrieged them with this hypothetical.

I wonder how many of those candidates would have raised their hands if the loaded hypothetical had contained one more facet..."Would you use assassination as a policy if you knew you had a 20 minute window to kill bin Laden and he was in the United States so the collateral damage would be American lives?" Because, Homeland Security surely wouldn't help. Especially if he has TB.

1 comment:

Tripp said...

word up mike. i think i appreciate dennis because everyone is being trendy and standing against global warming, but he is also against global war-ing. maybe he is a jesus fan too. "do not resist an evil doer" probably doesn't equal assassinate them. but i could be wrong.