Why is the White House getting hammered for saying one bullet will do when it comes to Saddam Hussein?
Why would any sane person choose a massive war involving hundreds of thousands of troops, and the virtual certainty that innocent people will get hurt — if not killed — when one bullet could solve the very problem you've sent an army to cure?
The U.S. government does not assassinate foreign leaders. Well... we do, but we do it with an army instead of one guy with a gun and one bullet.
In this case — since we've clearly said that a regime change must take place in Iraq, and that Saddam has to either go to a jail cell or to Allah — why not go for the one bullet approach?
We don't want to get into the messy business of assassinations, but we will get into the messy business of a full-scale war?
Come on. Let's cut to the chase. We want Saddam dead — plus a few others who are close to him — and we're willing to send an army in to do it.
So why get all moist and weak of heart about the question of some brave person walking up to Saddam and giving him the Jackie Jr. treatment?
This is about the stupidest non-issue kerfuffle Washington has produced in years, but this time it's really gone around the bend.
I'm with Ari... put me down for one bullet if one bullet will do the job of an army.
It only makes sense.
That's My Word.
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org. Some of your emails will be featured on the air or on our site.
• Looking for some previous My Word columns? Click here!