This morning I was listening to a member of the House of Representatives speaking on WOR’s morning radio show. I didn’t catch his name, but the point of his interview was to actually list the current world leaders the USA must assassinate. He also listed leaders we should have assassinated in the past.

Specifically, the representative called for the heads of both Saddam and Arafat, claiming (if I may paraphrase) that these two are the cause of all the troubles in the Middle East and that once liberated from them, the people of Iraq and Palestine would be so grateful and indebted to the US that they’d have no trouble getting along with us and Israel.

Hearing the representative speak—and I’m trying to find out who he is— raised in my mind the same point you make in your comments about the Newsday article. Namely, aside from the fact that we’re much better armed and funded, there really is very little difference between the US and Al Qaeda, or Israel and Palestine for that matter.

I know this is not a new notion, but hearing an actual member of our government openly talk about killing heads-of-state on a radio show really drove it home. Keep in mind this is not some tiny, independent station, but the flagship affiliate of huge multimedia conglomerate. What’s worse, the host of the show, Ed Walsh, and the few callers I heard chime in on this were in complete agreement with the congressman.

Whether they realized it or not they all believed that the will of the United States is God’s will (or the natural order of things) and that only we have the right to kill and install leaders as we please because of that fact. Sound familiar? Though I guess you could say that another difference between the US and Al Qaeda is that the US promises prosperity in this life, not the next.