Monday, November 13, 2006


A national policy allowing assassination of leaders of countries has been declared uncivilized by the world leaders. These are similar to or the same world leaders who have plunged us (meaning humanity) into war after war costing millions of lives of people who are not world leaders.

But think about it.

Leaders don’t want to legalize the killing off of leaders because that would amount to suicide for some. They would much rather send hordes of commoners to their deaths, in effect, to defend themselves.

I think most people would agree that the assassination of Hitler at any time before or during the war would have saved countless lives. But that is probably an aberration. It is such a clear example of how an assassination would have been beneficial it probably shouldn’t be put into the equation.

In the other theatre, there was no single person whose elimination would have changed the course of the Japanese. Their entire leadership, including the Emperor, supported their war aims. We did, in effect, assassinate their leading military strategist, Admiral Yamamoto. In the end, Truman had to kill off a hundred thousand Japanese civilians to get their attention.

Idi Amin has been accused of killing of as many as 500,000 of his own people when he was bossman in Uganda. Knocking him off may have saved many lives but perhaps not. I am not familiar with African politics and the order of succession. But it probably wouldn’t have hurt.

Saddam Hussein would probably have been succeeded by one of his whacko sons if he had been terminated. On the other hand a message would have been sent. Not just to Iraq but around the world. Behave responsibly or face the consequences.

What does this have to do with me and Watergate? I’m getting to that.

In 1972 I was an unpaid “operative” for the Democratic Party. A good friend of mine was a National Committeewoman. I fed her some of my writing concerning the Presidential Campaign then going on. It pleased me greatly when sections of what I had written would turn up verbatim in a national speech by some prominent Democrat.

One of the things I wrote and sent along contained the phrase, “Richard Nixon is a man completely without principle.” I was delighted when Larry O’Brien, then the head of the DNC, used that phrase in a speech the same week. I understood Nixon. He was one of the most despicable men of that era. I knew that phrase would infuriate him because it was such a perfect description of him.

Shortly afterwards O’Brien’s offices in the Watergate were burglarized by Nixon’s men. Nixon’s motives for that had nothing to do with the presidential campaign, he had that sewed up. He wanted to get something on O’Brien, that’s why he sent in those burglars. He wanted to get even. That’s the way he was.

Now I don’t know if O’Brien got that phrase from me. I like to think he did but I know that he probably didn’t. It was a widely held belief that Nixon was unprincipled.

But the point is that there cannot be a national policy of assassination when such an unprincipled man can take over the reins of the government of The United States.


Post a Comment

<< Home