Robertson calls for the assassination of Venezuela's president

Pages

Pat Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club: (Video here)

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Clearly, Chavez is not terribly fond of our current leadership, which would be a problem even if he wasn't sitting on huge oil reserves.

But the fact remains that he is the duly elected leader of his country, and apparently a popular one. Only a year ago, he survived a recall election with a comfortable 59.2% of the vote - this in an election certified fair by the likes of the Carter Center and the OAS. Which is more than the our current regime can claim, by the way.

I find it appalling, and yet not terribly surprising, that a mainstream Republican (and theoretically a man of God) like Pat Robertson would suggest - nay, demand! - that we have Hugo Chavez assassinated.

You know, that's just the sort of thing that leads some people to question our commitment to democracy. Go figure.

Hey, now. Robertson stopped being a "mainstream" Republican a looooooooong time ago.

He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

I have yet to see any indication that the stout socialist Chavez has any ties to the muslim world (other than sitting on huge oil reserves).

Blast thos evil communist muslim extremist fundamentalists. They're everywhere. And they're probably liberal too.

duckideva wrote:

I find it appalling, and yet not terribly surprising, that a mainstream Republican (and theoretically a man of God) like Pat Robertson would suggest - nay, demand! - that we have Hugo Chavez assassinated.

I find it slightly ironic that a Christian fundamentalist accuses Chavez of facilitating muslim terrorism, and the effectively calls a fatwa on him.

Those assclowns are also praying on TV for God to strike down more supreme court justices in the hope that they can get more "religious" ones appointed. Not surprised by this latest abortion of logic, yet it never fails to disappoint me more in humanity. I always see one bumper sticker that amuses me: "No Jesus, No Peace. Know Jesus, Know Peace." Sometimes, it seems that switching around one of the No/Know pairs would better illustrate the actual point. Remember when Jesus taught people to turn the other cheek, to love thy neighbor, and to judge not lest ye be judged? I wasn't there, but apparently he did. And yes, I'm aware that there are still peaceful Christians. But when millions watch this worthless bag of flesh and take his word as gospel, we've got a problem.

Read this this morning, and have to say that as a conservative Christian, I don't find any way, shape, form or fashion that Robertson's comments can be construed as anything but naive, bigotted and ignorant, and I for one condemn them. To call for the assassination of another nation's leader in our hemisphere (no matter how much of an asshat he is) is just plain wrong and should be condemned.

On the second side, I also condemn when people use this example as why Christians are a bunch of bigotted and hypocritical future terrorists...

On the other side, Deva...please explain your comment if you would -

Which is more than the our current regime can claim, by the way.
Geck wrote:

I find it slightly ironic that a Christian fundamentalist accuses Chavez of facilitating muslim terrorism, and the effectively calls a fatwa on him.

This was my first thought as well.

Robertson is a perfect example of why Heaven could only be an endlessly annoying place.

In order for Venezuela to be a proper ally of America, like Saudi Arabia, it must have a real Democracy. Come on, we all know they're just faking it.

I find it appalling, and yet not terribly surprising, that a mainstream Republican (and theoretically a man of God) like Pat Robertson would suggest - nay, demand! - that we have Hugo Chavez assassinated.

He is not a mainstream Republican and hasn't been one for years.

And Carter hasn't met a leftwing dictator he hasn't liked.

baggachipz wrote:

Remember when Jesus taught people to turn the other cheek, to love thy neighbor, and to judge not lest ye be judged? I wasn't there, but apparently he did.

Yeah, most current translations actually have him saying "love your enemy." A Christian leader calling for murder = profoundly disgraceful and deeply repulsive.

Gio_Clark wrote:

Robertson is a perfect example of why Heaven could only be an endlessly annoying place.

Don't worry Gio, I doubt he'll make it.

Have you ever watched Robertson's show? I caught 15 minutes of it the other day and it was utterly disgusting.

I want to know how Mr. Robertson thinks that assassinating a country's duly-elected president won't hurt oil shipments, especially if said shipments are to the country from which the assassination plot originated?

LeapingGnome wrote:

Have you ever watched Robertson's show? I caught 15 minutes of it the other day and it was utterly disgusting.

I saw a show on his channel with Kirk Cammeron and it was so anti-catholic and anti-non-raving-look-Christians. I refuse to watch that crap.

I've seen Kirk Cameron's show once or twice.

Best laugh riot my g/f and I have ever seen.

I think if Cindy Sheehan is now magically a leader of the anti-war movement in the US, then certainly Robertson can be claimed to be a mainstream Republican. And 1 plus 1 equals 3, for sufficiently small values of 3. Wheeee!

We Americans are masters of the one-off, plausible but illogical political claim.

I'm beginning to fear radical Christians as much as radical Muslims.

Marsman wrote:

I'm beginning to fear radical Christians as much as radical Muslims.

Dude - you should've been afraid of them already. Crusades? Hellooooo?

Loganrapp wrote:
Marsman wrote:

I'm beginning to fear radical Christians as much as radical Muslims.

Dude - you should've been afraid of them already. Crusades? Hellooooo?

Crusades? Why limit yourself to the dark ages? Ever hear of the KKK?

There are nut-jobs any where you look. Heck, even the atheist have history - just look at the Soviet Regime!

Fortunately, I don't let the nut-jobs speak for the group as a whole. It's not hard to find Christians that will quickly and decisively come out against the likes of Robertson (fortunately).

Ulairi wrote:

I saw a show on his channel with Kirk Cammeron and it was so anti-catholic and anti-non-raving-look-Christians. I refuse to watch that crap.

Kirk Cameron, like the kid from Full House? Or am I totally uninformed.

Fortunately, I don't let the nut-jobs speak for the group as a whole. It's not hard to find Christians that will quickly and decisively come out against the likes of Robertson (fortunately).

I have been waiting for a public denouncement from the big names in the Christian Republican ranks. Delay or Santorum should say something, if they want to present a good image to the public. Although, if they keep their mouths shut it might help them with the radical right. I don't know - PR stuff isn't my bag

Edit: There we go, that's better:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate." He acknowledged that the U.S. has its differences with the Caracas government.

LeapingGnome wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

I saw a show on his channel with Kirk Cammeron and it was so anti-catholic and anti-non-raving-look-Christians. I refuse to watch that crap.

Kirk Cameron, like the kid from Full House? Or am I totally uninformed.

Growing Pains, but yeah that guy.

Watch his show sometime. Its awesome. Once. Beyond that it's just...well ok it's still funny.

Pigpen wrote:

On the other side, Deva...please explain your comment if you would -

Which is more than the our current regime can claim, by the way.

Only a year ago, Chavez survived a recall election with a comfortable 59.2% of the vote - this in an election certified fair by the likes of the Carter Center and the OAS.

2004 election; Bush 50.73% of the vote...in an election surrounded by claims of vote tampering, poll place changing, refusals to let Black Americans vote in heavily Democrat districts, my own experience with having my votes all changed to the Republican ticket...and I wasn't alone on that one, black boxes disappearing, etc. There was no certification of the American vote.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

Kirk Cameron, like the kid from Full House?

Growing Pains, but yeah that guy.

Close. His sister was the eldest daughter on Full House.

And this isn't anything new for Robertson. He called for the nuking of the State Department in '03. He's prayed to God for two Supreme Court Justices to roll over and die. There's practically no difference between Pat Robertson and al-Qaeda's leadership.

Robear wrote:

I think if Cindy Sheehan is now magically a leader of the anti-war movement in the US, then certainly Robertson can be claimed to be a mainstream Republican. And 1 plus 1 equals 3, for sufficiently small values of 3. Wheeee!

We Americans are masters of the one-off, plausible but illogical political claim.

Pat Robertsons popularity peaked over 15 years ago and he has been a incidental figure in republican politics since. Cindy Sheehan is the current symbol and spokesman for the peace movement to the point where she is the subject of stories she isn't even in.

what is more illogical to me is that Pat Robertsons statement gets front page coverage on every paper even as he is shot down by every single republican pundit and leader who has commented on him, but sheehans craziness like "this country is not worth dying for" and "my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East" receive zero media attention in the hundreds of stories about her and no democrat comes down on her.

if we are going to assassinate anyone it should be castro anyway.

duckideva wrote:

2004 election; Bush 50.73% of the vote...in an election surrounded by claims of vote tampering, poll place changing, refusals to let Black Americans vote in heavily Democrat districts, my own experience with having my votes all changed to the Republican ticket...and I wasn't alone on that one, black boxes disappearing, etc. There was no certification of the American vote.

not to nitpick but bush won 51.07% of the vote with 3 million more than the next guy.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...
None of the claims of vote tampering have been proven, no blacks or anyone else was turned away from a polling precinct where they were registered, and do you have any proof that your and other peoples votes were changed? I don't believe that happened.

None of the claims of vote tampering have been proven, no blacks or anyone else was turned away from a polling precinct where they were registered, and do you have any proof that your and other peoples votes were changed? I don't believe that happened.

I think the Deva's point was that those claims haven't/can't be approved since none of the mentioned organization were involved.

BobbyLaw wrote:

what is more illogical to me is that Pat Robertsons statement gets front page coverage on every paper even as he is shot down by every single republican pundit and leader who has commented on him, but sheehans craziness like "this country is not worth dying for" and "my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East" receive zero media attention in the hundreds of stories about her and no democrat comes down on her.

That's because we have Pat Robertson's words on tape as he himself says them. Most of what Cindy Sheehan has been accused of saying is solely attributed to an e-mail than can neither be credibly linked to her nor located by the news outlet it was allegedly sent to. You wouldn't want a news organization to start reporting news as fact based on a suspicious source, would you? But, that's enough of that.

duckideva wrote:
Pigpen wrote:

On the other side, Deva...please explain your comment if you would -

Which is more than the our current regime can claim, by the way.

Only a year ago, Chavez survived a recall election with a comfortable 59.2% of the vote - this in an election certified fair by the likes of the Carter Center and the OAS.

2004 election; Bush 50.73% of the vote...in an election surrounded by claims of vote tampering, poll place changing, refusals to let Black Americans vote in heavily Democrat districts, my own experience with having my votes all changed to the Republican ticket...and I wasn't alone on that one, black boxes disappearing, etc. There was no certification of the American vote.

How did you have your votes all changed to the Republican ticket? Did you find out about it after the fact?

Rat Boy wrote:

Most of what Cindy Sheehan has been accused of saying is solely attributed to an e-mail than can neither be credibly linked to her nor located by the news outlet it was allegedly sent to. You wouldn't want a news organization to start reporting news as fact based on a suspicious source, would you? But, that's enough of that.

that's enough of what? sheehan's worst statements didn't come from the disputed letter, but that has been shown to be her words pretty convincingly:
http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/side...

The quotes I referenced come from two speeches she made that no one disputes are her:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...
scroll down for Sheehan saying this country isn't worth dying for and "we might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden"

also from her speech kicking off her current protest:
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/conv...
This one has the "my son died to make your friends rich...my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East" line.

See what the problem is? most of Sheehan's defenders don't take the minimum of time to research before making claims about her that don't hold up (like sheehan herself), but will jump on Robertson as if anyone from the republicans have defended him, which they haven't. Its a double standard.

BobbyLaw wrote:

See what the problem is? most of Sheehan's defenders don't take the minimum of time to research before making claims about her that don't hold up (like sheehan herself), but will jump on Robertson as if anyone from the republicans have defended him, which they haven't. Its a double standard.

How is it a double-standard to support a message of peace while criticizing a message of murder and death?

Rat Boy wrote:

How is it a double-standard to support a message of peace while criticizing a message of murder and death?

you support her when she says for us to get out of afghanistan, israel to get out of palestine (which is all of israel) and that the US isn't a country worth dying for? wow.

BobbyLaw wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

How is it a double-standard to support a message of peace while criticizing a message of murder and death?

you support her when she says for us to get out of afghanistan, israel to get out of palestine (which is all of israel) and that the US isn't a country worth dying for? wow.

Her fundamental message is that of peace. How she chooses to get there is up to her and I don't necessarily agree with it on all accounts, but she is entitled to that. Likewise, Pat Robertson's fundamental message is rooted in hate and murder. He is entitled to that, as well, and note that I haven't asked whether or not you supported Robertson's statement, but getting into ad hominem attacks is against forum policy, now isn't it?

Rat Boy wrote:

Her fundamental message is that of peace.

Only if you ignore what she actually says since us leaving iraq and afghanistan and israel being forced out of palestine wouldnt have very peaceful results in my opinion.

Rat Boy wrote:

Likewise, Pat Robertson's fundamental message is rooted in hate and murder.

I think its a crazy idea to go after Chavez, but the idea that the US should kill heads of states of enemies instead of going to war isn't rooted in hate, and it wouldn't be murder anymore than it would have been murder if we had gotten saddam with that cruise missile at the beginning of the war.

Rat Boy wrote:

and note that I haven't asked whether or not you supported Robertson's statement, but getting into ad hominem attacks is against forum policy, now isn't it?

how would that be ad hominem?

Pages