No, not was he right to advocate the assassination of Chavez specifically.
But, should assassination be a weapon in our nation's arsenal?
So, here's the question- you are someone in the inner workings of the Bush administration during the run up to March, 2003. You know the administration is set on going to war in Iraq, but, you believe that the one alternative that Bush could be sold on would be to assassinate Sadam. Given only these choices, would you:
- Advocate to assassinate Sadam and see the results of that before resorting to war?
- Do anything else other than the first option, which will inevitably lead to the current results- the US will invade.
From my perspective, I don't really know the right answer to my own question, because ultimately the results of number one are unknowable. What would have Iraq looked like post-Saddam? Would one of his son's taken over, and just continued down the same road? Would there have been an all out civil war? Or might the country started down the road to a better future?
I'm also frankly uncertain about how practical the use of assissination is. Once upon a time, you could argue that it should be refrained from simply as a matter of MAD- you didn't want to do it, unless you wanted the other team gunning for your leader as well. But, I don't think that really applies any more. The other danger is that knocking off leaders doesn't really solve problems most of the time, it simply masks them for a little while.
Anyway, this diary is really more of a getting a sense of what others think, rather than a diary of my own beliefs, since I am still thinking about it myself.