Never one to let down his macho guard, Geraldo Rivera has made an entertaining suggestion on President Obama should deal with Syrian leader Bashar Assad -- "Let's kill him."
Gee, what could possibly go wrong if we did that? Aside from possibly converting Syria into yet another lawless failed state in the Middle East turned jihadist launch pad. Aside from that. (Audio clips after the jump)
Here's Rivera on his radio show talking with WABC newsman Noam Laden (audio) --
LADEN: Couldn't we use the CIA to do what Pete (earlier caller) wants to do?
RIVERA: I want to assassinate Assad. Let's kill him.
LADEN: Yeah, so let's send the CIA to do that.
RIVERA: Let's send the drones to kill the bastard who authorized the strike, if that's what happened. If that's what happened.
It came across as more than a little strange for Rivera to suggest this because of what he said several minutes earlier (audio) --
RIVERA: This is day two for our campaign here on the big show to keep the United States out of the civil war in Syria. I think despite the president's emotion that unilateral action by the United States is a terrible idea. I don't think it serves our national interests. I've been covering war for 40 years and I have to say that I have no doubt, that despite the president's obvious sincerity and his obvious passion on this subject, it is impossible to have the kind of limited, surgical, punitive strike that the president contemplates in Syria without unintended consequences. I'm telling you, folks, I promise you, write this down -- if we hit the dictator Assad, then we are choosing up sides in a civil war and where that process stops nobody knows, not the president of the United States of America, God bless him, not his secretary of state, John Kerry, not those leaders in Congress, not our commanders in the United States military, nobody knows. You start dropping bombs, you start launching missiles and they say no boots on the ground, that's a bunch of baloney! You've gotta understand what it's gonna be. It's gonna be a war!
You heard that right: "limited, surgical, punitive" air strikes by the US against Assad would be an act of war -- but killing him wouldn't. Uh, does it get any more surgical than to kill another country's head of state? All those decades of war coverage by Rivera, wasted.
A half century ago, the Kennedy administration engaged in repeated attempts to kill Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Those efforts ended when a left-winger who considered Castro his hero assassinated JFK in Dallas.
The dubious legality of Rivera's suggestion aside, does he actually believe that taking out Assad would not have "unintended consequences"?