University of Oregon Columnist Lists Top 10 Reasons Not To Assassinate Bush (from ATSNN)

A University of Oregon newspaper columnist has written a article entitled "10 reasons not to kill Bush". Among the reasons given are: "A dead President Bush leaves a live Dick Cheney in charge. Need I say more?" and "Any criticisms of the administration will be regarded as more unpatriotic than ever. In the next election, you could expect to see Democratic primary candidates proclaiming that their Republican counterparts aren't 'fit to follow in President Bush's footsteps.' "



I'm sure that this column will spark an enormous amount of contorversy in Oregon and across the country - which is probably what the columnist wanted. To her credit, among her reasons not to murder the president is the fact that it is "immoral". Hooray for her.

Frankly, I'm surprised this column made it past the editors.

There's no word on the UWire website or elsewhere whether or not the Secret Service has paid Ms. McBride a visit yet, but I'm sure that she'll be talking to someone with dark glasses and no sense of humor soon.

The link below is for the story directly from the Oregon Daily Emerald website (the story linked above is from Uwire.com) where you can post some feedback to the columnist. Now that the article has been linked on the Drudge Report, the traffic is a bit high and the link is a little slow.

Related News Links:
www.dailyemerald.com

[edit on 5/29/2005 by ChemicalLaser]

She's got a good point. Assassinating him would immortalize him. Look at Kennedy. Not a "great" president, and in fact, his administration was involved in many contraversial foreign policies. But his assassination turned him into a hero and everyone forgets everything else about his administration.

If Bush were assassinated, the religous right would probably deify him.

I don't really agree with Bush but the thought of killing him is just outrageous. And of course those are excellent points, such as a dead President Bush equals a live Dick Cheney in office. I actually thought that it was sort of funny at how true those statements were. Very well thought out I must say.

I read the column and it is simply amateur and unprofessional. There is little merit to the authorship in the piece. Her intentions may be noble, but her execution lacks direction and sense.

Nothing to get upset about, though. Just an opinion piece by an inexperienced writer.

Zip

I thought this was going to be along the lines of a Letterman Late Night Top 10 Reasons.

"Thou shalt not kill" is the major ethical reason that comes to mind.

Never mind that it does not apply to Bush's own principles. Bush holds the undisputed record for executions of death row inmates as a State governor, and his administration has caused tens of thousands of needless deaths through contrived and unjustified war and foreign occupation after "major combat operations" were concluded in Iraq.

Bush will never be deified, dead or alive. But it remains to be seen how corrupt the US has become, in whether or not he and other criminals and traitors are incarcerated and punished.

Originally posted by Zipdot
I read the column and it is simply amateur and unprofessional. There is little merit to the authorship in the piece. Her intentions may be noble, but her execution lacks direction and sense.

To me, it read like an end-of-the-semester, go out in a blaze of glory, too lazy to think carefully rant.

I think some of the later paragraphs and possibly one or two of the points were written by someone other than the main author of the column. Perhaps she was forced to add some softening language by her editors? Either way, not a particularly bright move. If she is a journalism major, I doubt this will make it into her portfolio when applying for a real job.

Unless, of course, she applies at the New York Times.

I think sophomoric best describes this column. Certainly, it's not the sort of thing that should have been printed in a reputable journal, but then again, reputable is not a term that describes the tone of the American academy.

[edit on 05/5/30 by GradyPhilpott]

As for the deification, I think that Bush would find immortality to a certain extent if he was assassinated. Conspiracy allegations aside, to the majority of Americans, Bush was the president confronted with the greatest threat to national security since the Civil War - a terrorist attack on a major urban site in the contiguous United States. He has been a "wartime president" since that time, a factor which weighed heavily in his favor during the last election - Americans do not traditionally like to switch Presidents while troops are in harm's way somewhere.

Originally posted by Watcher_Don
Conspiracy allegations aside, to the majority of Americans, Bush was the president confronted with the greatest threat to national security since the Civil War - a terrorist attack on a major urban site in the contiguous United States.

Uhh no, such a threat happened much more recently with the Oklahome City bombing and during World War II with Pearl Harbor. Comparing such threats though, we see that 9/11 was pale in comparison to WW2, the Civil War, etc.

Originally posted by Watcher_Don
Conspiracy allegations aside, to the majority of Americans, Bush was the president confronted with the greatest threat to national security since the Civil War - a terrorist attack on a major urban site in the contiguous United States.

... and did way too little about the threat before it was brought to execution. In fact, it was his partners in crime Cheney et al who restructured the intelligence services to prevent the free flow of information between them on issues of threats, and who called off the investigations into the southern Flight Schools that were training an unusual number of middle eastern men to fly aeroplanes but not land them.

How quickly we forget who the author of 'Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations' was.

Hint: This wallbuilder served under President Clinton.

I'm sure that this column will spark an enormous amount of contorversy in Oregon and across the country - which is probably what the columnist wanted.

Actually no, I live in Eugene OR, and I havent heard a single thing about this story, in fact its a rather light hearted story compared to the types of things that emerge from the mind of this town. I love it.

Originally posted by Infamous Zordak9
Actually no, I live in Eugene OR, and I havent heard a single thing about this story, in fact its a rather light hearted story compared to the types of things that emerge from the mind of this town. I love it.

How about writing a letter to the university chancellor outlining the reasons he should not be assassinated, or, perhaps the mayor of Eugene. How about the chief of police. Clearly, the article is an attempt at satire, but the assassination of the President is no laughing matter.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Clearly, the article is an attempt at satire, but the assassination of the President is no laughing matter.

No its not a laughing matter, its more of a matter of falling on the floor wetting your pants in an explosion of hysteria and maniacal cackling...

There was a day when talk like this would land you in Jail even in jest.

We are no Barbarians, and our political process has spoken, even though originally I wasnt a big Bush supported.

There is no reason or right, in humor or jest to speak of killing a man, especially the President.

Peace