Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/)

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a “terrific danger” to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on “The 700 Club” it was the United States’ duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a “launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.”

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

“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,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela’s total exports.

Venezuela’s government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan “terrorists” in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

“We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,” Robertson said.

“We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,” he continued. “It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”





Damn religious fanatics.

God speaks through him. :lol:

Never paid much attention to him before... now I know why ;)

It's what Jesus would have done.

:shrug:

Seems like Mr. Robertson is saying the exact same thing that most posters did in the thread here on the same subject.


And he is most correct in one regard, America sure as hell better worry about the Chavez-Islamist connection. It is real.

I'm not as experienced with this as some of the other otters....

This is where the "religion of peace" phrase goes, right? ;)

I'm not a Christian but :up:

i think robertson is an ass but i'd be lying if i said i opposed this kind a stuff...

Didn't we try a bloodless coup on him a few years back? (Chaves, not Robertson)

I'm not as experienced with this as some of the other otters....

This is where the "religion of peace" phrase goes, right? ;)

yeah but at least in this religion, this one stupid man's opinion isn't going to send a buncha crazy young men and women into suicide bomber mode and at least it won't result in some random old woman torn apart on a bus by some bomber. ;)

yeah but at least in this religion, this one stupid man's opinion isn't going to send a buncha crazy young men and women into suicide bomber mode and at least it won't result in some random old woman torn apart on a bus by some bomber. ;)I'm sure that comes as a great comfort to the families of Eric Rudolph's victims.

Oh noes. Chavez has ties with Iran. This could mean trouble for our - I mean, Venezuela's - oil industry. Let's take him out.

I think that having assassinations off limits is wrong.

I'm sure that comes as a great comfort to the families of Eric Rudolph's victims.
:lol:
For some reason, a lot of libs hate all religion except Islam.

I've heard people suggest that we pay some mobsters to go to Afghanistan or whereever and kill OBL. If we tried to assassinate Castro and it failed and we don't seem to be able to get OBL, why not turn it over to people who have better skills at that sort of thing? (by the way, it's just an idea--not mine, but I'd be willing to give it a shot, I suppose)

:shrug:

Seems like Mr. Robertson is saying the exact same thing that most posters did in the thread here on the same subject.
How many posters here have millions of followers and also claim to be a religious and spirtual leader?

I've heard people suggest that we pay some mobsters to go to Afghanistan or whereever and kill OBL. If we tried to assassinate Castro and it failed and we don't seem to be able to get OBL, why not turn it over to people who have better skills at that sort of thing? (by the way, it's just an idea--not mine, but I'd be willing to give it a shot, I suppose)

Yeah right. You know how hard it is to get a good veal parmesan in Kandahar?

the guy is a kook...

he's the same nut that suggested that a "nuke" should be used to "wipe out" the State Department (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/).

he is insane, pure and simple...read his own words:

"I recall an incident from my own life when I was staying in a motel near Seattle, Washington. One morning, when I was in that stage between sleep and waking, an awful depression seized me. I felt that everyone was against me, that people around me were failing, and that everything I was doing was falling to pieces. Discouragement overwhelmed me like a dark cloud."
"As I struggled to wake up, I realized I was under demonic attack. I immediately took control over it and said, "Satan, in the name of Jesus, I cast you forth." The minute I said that, my mind was free and my despair was gone. I realized later that the Seattle-Tacoma area led the nation in suicides. The spirit that was coming upon me was a suicidal spirit, the sort of influence that would lead to such depression that a person would wish to kill himself. I was in an area where many had been gripped by this kind of demon." -- an excerpt from "Pat's Perspective -- Christians and Demonic Influence", Pat Robertson, 2001 www.patrobertson.com

nobody should care what the hell he says...but the fact that there are Christian Conservatives that follow him like lemmings says something about the sanity of that sizable portion of American society. sad, but true.

he is a terrorist, plain and simple...he promotes hatred and intolerance towards anyone who is not a Christian.

How many posters here have millions of followers and also claim to be a religious and spirtual leader?
You're looking for a showing of hands, perhaps?

- David Stein

nobody should care what the hell he says...but the fact that there are Christian Conservatives that follow him like lemmings says something about the sanity of that sizable portion of American society. sad, but true.
I don't know of one... ONE Christian (conservative or not) that pays attention to anything Pat Robertson says. I'd like to see some evidence to support this "fact".

Pat Robertson's ministries and media programs may be popular, but I doubt many look to him for any kind of insight and direction.

he is a terrorist, plain and simple...he promotes hatred and intolerance towards anyone who is not a Christian.
Many believe that anyone who adheres to an absolute moral authority promotes hatred and intolerance. :shrug:

he is a terrorist, plain and simple...he promotes hatred and intolerance towards anyone who is not a Christian.
:rolleyes:
Unless he goes on public buses and blows himself up trying to make the US a country that uses his religious book to derive all laws, I have to disagree with you.

Yeah right. You know how hard it is to get a good veal parmesan in Kandahar?
It's hard to get veal parmesan anywhere because calves don't generally lactate. Veal parmigiana on the other hand...

:rolleyes:
Unless he goes on public buses and blows himself up...
Obviously, many people we've classified as terrorists don't kill anyone by themselves.
...trying to make the US a country that uses his religious book to derive all laws...
Based on Roberts's other comments, I think he might approve of that effort.

- David Stein

Obviously, many people we've classified as terrorists don't kill anyone by themselves.
I'd like a link showing that he wants his followers to kill random other people.


Based on Roberts's

Who?

I'm sure that comes as a great comfort to the families of Eric Rudolph's victims.
Link to where rudolph and robertson are connected?

I don't know of one... ONE Christian (conservative or not) that pays attention to anything Pat Robertson says. I'd like to see some evidence to support this "fact".

The guy founded and ran an extremely popular religious PAC and founded and ran (and continues to run) an extremely popular ministry. You and your circle of acquaintances may not respect his version of Christianity, but many people do.

The guy founded and ran an extremely popular religious PAC and founded and ran (and continues to run) an extremely popular ministry. You and your circle of acquaintances may not respect his version of Christianity, but many people do.



Yep - isn't the 700 Club still on the air? Obviously there are some people watching.

he is insane, pure and simple...read his own words:

"I recall an incident from my own life when I was staying in a motel near Seattle, Washington. One morning, when I was in that stage between sleep and waking, an awful depression seized me. I felt that everyone was against me, that people around me were failing, and that everything I was doing was falling to pieces. Discouragement overwhelmed me like a dark cloud."
"As I struggled to wake up, I realized I was under demonic attack. I immediately took control over it and said, "Satan, in the name of Jesus, I cast you forth." The minute I said that, my mind was free and my despair was gone. I realized later that the Seattle-Tacoma area led the nation in suicides. The spirit that was coming upon me was a suicidal spirit, the sort of influence that would lead to such depression that a person would wish to kill himself. I was in an area where many had been gripped by this kind of demon." -- an excerpt from "Pat's Perspective -- Christians and Demonic Influence", Pat Robertson, 2001 www.patrobertson.com
If you believe that demons and devils and such are real (which he clearly does), then this is a relatively short step after an experience of Sleep Paralysis (http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/paralysis.html). It's a fairly common phenomenon, I've experienced it several times.

In other words, just because he thought a demon was attacking him in his sleep doesn't make him insane. It's the fact that he thinks devil/demons/god/angels are real at all that makes him so. :)

Absurd.

1. We're better than that.
2. What happened to "though shalt not kill" Pat?

That guy's a wacko. No difference between him and an Islamic extremist.

The guy founded and ran an extremely popular religious PAC and founded and ran (and continues to run) an extremely popular ministry. You and your circle of acquaintances may not respect his version of Christianity, but many people do.
There's a difference. People can latch on to his PAC for a voice and appreciate his ministry and NOT look to him for insight, guidance, and direction. If his ministry and PAC promoted the odd-ball things he says, I would not be surprised to see that his ministry loses popularity.

Again, I would be interested in anything that shows that when he says some odd-ball thing that people take it and run with it.

That guy's a wacko. No difference between him and an Islamic extremist.
When I see Islamic extremists extend humanitarian efforts to victims of natural disasters, I might begin to take that comment seriously.

Yep - isn't the 700 Club still on the air? Obviously there are some people watching.

I think he owns the station, doesn't he? That might help keep it on the air. -wink-

I don't have any real warm feelings for the man, and I think he is pretty snakey, but he is a long ways away from a terrorist.

I'm sure that comes as a great comfort to the families of Eric Rudolph's victims.


Riiight. Same thing. Thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:

Absurd.

1. We're better than that.
2. What happened to "though shalt not kill" Pat?

1. according to liberals ...NO WE'RE NOT.

2. Good point.

That guy's a wacko. No difference between him and an Islamic extremist.


Oh there's plenty of difference but I can see where you might think there isn't any...

It's all part of Robertson's "pro-life" agenda.

By the way, Chavez has no ties to Islamists that I have heard. He is friendly with Castro, but he is no hardline communist, and he's leading a democratic socialist rennaissance in South America that spells hope for millions of poor people. "Dictator" my fucking ass; he has some of the most hostile media arrayed against him (owned by the elites who oppose him), unlike the president of the so-called beacon of liberty. A dictator would rub those out pretty quickly.

The U.S. government has already twice put its meathooks where they don't belong in illegal bids to depose him, without success. Warning: The world is watching. Please don't piss off even more people, unless you cotton to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

When I see Islamic extremists extend humanitarian efforts to victims of natural disasters, I might begin to take that comment seriously.


Some of them helped after the tsunami.

Please don't piss off even more people, unless you cotton to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).


..i'm scared.

<--- ... waiting for Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to grab the mic.

I think he owns the station, doesn't he? That might help keep it on the air. -wink-

Where do you think he got the money to fund his TV station? Lots of people think enough of him and his opinions to donate to him.

Look, I understand that he only speaks for a fraction of a fraction of all the Christians there are. I understand that most Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopilians, and every other denomination you can think of believe that Robertson is looney. But why are we trying to pretend there aren't hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people out there saying "Preach it, Brother Pat!"

Where do you think he got the money to fund his TV station? Lots of people think enough of him and his opinions to donate to him.

Look, I understand that he only speaks for a fraction of a fraction of all the Christians there are. I understand that most Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopilians, and every other denomination you can think of believe that Robertson is looney. But why are we trying to pretend there aren't hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people out there saying "Preach it, Brother Pat!"

Maybe there are. However, I still don't think that is analogous to him saying, "strap bombs to yourself and strike the infidel."

He makes silly comments every year or so, probably about the time he needs attention. In the end, I have not seen any actions (and I think that is far more important) out of him for me to honestly worry about him. I have heard people make off-handed comments about how we should just assassinate Castro, etc. before as well. Right now, I don't think this deserves any more attention than that, except that as a person who has influence over others, he should think through what he says rather than think out loud on the air, which is what I guess he was doing, or will claim he was doing.

Warning: The world is watching.

Let the nations of the world watch, it is what most of them do best.

So a hugely popular religious leader says something disgustingly hypocritical to his religion, but rather than condemn him, conservatives should all just give a shrug and make excuses for him because he happens to be a powerful member of the religious right-wing of their political party. Have I got it right?

He's been praying on his show for the liberal and moderate members of the Supreme Court to die for the past 2 years. Considering how succesful that has been Chavez will probably be around for another 50 years.

Well, since I’m an atheist, Pat’s religion is irrelevant. I think the US should do what is in its best interest including keeping viable the option of assassination.

:rolleyes:
Unless he goes on public buses and blows himself up trying to make the US a country that uses his religious book to derive all laws, I have to disagree with you.

Osama has never blown himself up, or personally killed anyone as far as we know. I guess that's why bush forgot about him, because he's not really a terrorist.

Osama has never blown himself up, or personally killed anyone as far as we know. I guess that's why bush forgot about him, because he's not really a terrorist.
Claiming responsibility for terrorist acts is good enough for me.

So a hugely popular religious leader says something disgustingly hypocritical to his religion, but rather than condemn him, conservatives should all just give a shrug and make excuses for him because he happens to be a powerful member of the religious right-wing of their political party. Have I got it right?

It looks like you are seeing what you want. I think it is a poor analogy to claim he is like a Muslim terrorist. Obviously what he said was stupid, and I think I pointed that out.

The U.S. government has already twice put its meathooks where they don't belong in illegal bids to depose him, without success. Warning: The world is watching.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

Whoops. Not the reaction from the WH some hoped for. :(

:shrug:

Seems like Mr. Robertson is saying the exact same thing that most posters did in the thread here on the same subject.

And he is most correct in one regard, America sure as hell better worry about the Chavez-Islamist connection. It is real.

I think we better worry more about the Iraq-Saudi Arabia-Islamist connection. :lol:

Pat just wanted a little attention. He's old, tired, senile, and craps his pants spontaneously.

I'm not a Christian but :up:

So if a Mufti called for all Muslims to assassinate President Bush or Tony Blair, then that would be seen as being fair? Or is it OK for Christians to call for a fataawa, but not other religions?

<i>Any</i> religious or spiritual leader calling for, and justifying, assassination does not deserve to be in the job they're in.

While I don't agree with their (Venezuelan) politics, I do agree that Robertson's statements are bordering on a criminal act. If he'd said anything like this against Bush or Blair or similar, the police would already be knocking at his door.

sorry to interrupt any serious discussion, butYou 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. this is just comedy gold.

I can't wait to watch Jon Stewart tonight.

Roberts is a nut and a hypocrite, but he's nowhere near being a <i>terrorist</i>. Come on.

As far as I'm concerned, Chavez can run his country however he wants, but let's be real: if there ever did come a day when we were at war for whatever reason, it would be in the form of high-altitude bombings. What would he throw at us? MiGs?

Wait, is Chavez infected with body thetans or something? I think I got things mixed up.

What would he throw at us? MiGs?

What's the supposed quote from a WH aide about what we do to MiG's? :)

So if a Mufti called for all Muslims to assassinate President Bush or Tony Blair, then that would be seen as being fair? Or is it OK for Christians to call for a fataawa, but not other religions?

<i>Any</i> religious or spiritual leader calling for, and justifying, assassination does not deserve to be in the job they're in.

While I don't agree with their (Venezuelan) politics, I do agree that Robertson's statements are bordering on a criminal act. If he'd said anything like this against Bush or Blair or similar, the police would already be knocking at his door.


Good points. But again, Robertson has no influence on what the Gov will do and not enough charisma to get "followers" worked up enough to do "his bidding". His words are just his opinion and I doubt the vast majority of Christians even give a shit what he says. I know I don't. Besides, 80 year old men and women are his main audience and what the fuck can they do? Oh wait, they can "throw the election for Repubs in Florida". ;) Never underestimate the power of the 80 year old mind. :lol:

I can't believe how much news this story got. How could this be a "top story" for ABC evening news?

I don't like Chaverz, but he can run his country however he likes and the US certainly shouldn't be considering assassinating him.

And really, stop this "criminal" nonsense. It is freedom of speech. Plain and simple as that. I have said before that the Muslims clerics have the right to preach whatever they want, even hate. I also have said before that when "hate" speech is made criminal, it will lead down to that slippy slope and further free speech violations.

If Johnny Jihad wants to blow up a building because he got all riled up from his cleric's preaching, the responsiblity still lies solely with Johnny Jihad. Same goes for that Rudolph guy. Unless their spiritual leader was directly involved such as helping with the plans and resources.

<i>Any</i> religious or spiritual leader calling for, and justifying, assassination does not deserve to be in the job they're in.



True, but I don't think that's relevant. Regardless of his beliefs/status, he made a sound suggestion. Sadly, it's politically incorrect but would save many lives and much money.

Good points. But again, Robertson has no influence on what the Gov will do and not enough charisma to get "followers" worked up enough to do "his bidding". His words are just his opinion and I doubt the vast majority of Christians even give a shit what he says. I know I don't. Besides, 80 year old men and women are his main audience and what the fuck can they do? Oh wiat, they can "throw the election for Repubs in Florida". ;) Never underestimate the power of the 80 year old mind. :lol:

What he is suggesting is almost solicitation of murder. The argument that this guy doesn't have enough charisma to get his followers worked up really isn't a good one IMO. Who determines whether someone is charismatic enough to be a threat? The charisma police?

Once you start saying that "this guy can say anything he wants because no-one will listen" and "this other guy needs to be regulated because people do listen", then you're that's really getting into situations that we really shouldn't be.

While this guy might not have the charisma to pull off a stunt like this, should we say "no foul"? What about the next guy?

What if Howard Stern came on radio and said that he really wished one of his listeners would kill the President?

Ranger makes the comment that although Johnny Jihad blows up a building because he got riled up by his cleric's preaching, there should be no responsibility placed on Kenny Cleric's shoulders (unless he was directly helping_. Try as I can, I don't agree with this. If Kenny Cleric called for a crime to be committed, and as a result a crime <i>was</i> committed, then Kenny should be held to some degree of responsibility.

Same with this guy.

Sure, there does need to be some leeway for free speech and matter of private opinion, but incitement and solicitation aren't AFAIK covered by this. Soliciting someone to commit a crime - even if the crime is never carried out - is still a criminal offence.

That being said - I don't think that Pat has quite crossed the line, but it's pretty damned close.

Regardless if Pat doesn't have a following, what would the US say about a Muslim Cleric mentioning Bush should be taken out.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

This man is a leader. Not a common citizen. He needs to be held to a different standard.

Pat Robertson isn't involved in the policy making decisions for the United States.

Why should he be held to a different standard that any other known person - say Michael Moore for example?

Any religious or spiritual leader calling for, and justifying, assassination does not deserve to be in the job they're in.

Maybe if more had so argued for assassination in the late 1930s - things might have been different - milllions of lives might have been saved.

Robertson and the million or so viewers of the "700 Club" are part of Bush's base - and they do have an influence on administration policies.

Pat Robertson isn't involved in the policy making decisions for the United States.

Why should he be held to a different standard that any other known person - say Michael Moore for example?Don't be so disingenuous. You know as well as I do the sway of public opinion and the influence some non-governmental individuals can have over policy. The fact that Robertson would say such a thing makes the idea of activities such as overthrowing a government because we don't like the leader a little more palatable to the general public. Pat should get back to saving souls and taking money from gullible widows, and leave public policy for people who aren't nutjobs.

Maybe if more had so argued for assassination in the late 1930s - things might have been different - milllions of lives might have been saved.Maybe. But don't switch the subject - Chavez is no Hitler, and you;re just trying to confuse the issue.

I think we better worry more about the Iraq-Saudi Arabia-Islamist connection. :lol:

Pat just wanted a little attention. He's old, tired, senile, and craps his pants spontaneously.



Yeah, I forgot, we can and should look only in one direction.



It is a real concern and threat.

Eh, if Pat Robertson thinks that the US Government should assassinate Chavez, then he has every right to say that. The reality is that he has little influence in even the "Christian right" at this point... and far from enough to convince the WH to carryout anything that they didn't already want to do. For a number of reasons, comparing Robertson to terriorist Islamic leaders is a reeeaaallllly big stretch of reality. Not to say he isn't off his rocker though. :)

Moore and the million or so viewers of "Fahrenheit 911" are part of Democrats' base - and they do have an influence on minority party policies in Congress.

Reads the same to me.

Robertson and the million or so viewers of the "700 Club" are part of Bush's base - and they do have an influence on administration policies.

You can make that argument about almost any organization.

Maybe. But don't switch the subject - Chavez is no Hitler, and you;re just trying to confuse the issue.

I'm not switching the subject. We're talking about political assassination. I'm not making a comparison between Chavez & Hitler. You're reading things into what I said - things I didn't say.

I don't believe we should be so quick to abandon the idea of political assassinations.

Reads the same to me.Have you missed the single special rule of this forum which has been stickied for over 2 months?

I don't believe we should be so quick to abandon the idea of political assassinations.


I agree. I advocated assassinating SH before the first Gulf War (certainly over a large military operation).

I don't believe we should be so quick to abandon the idea of political assassinations.
I agree, but we don't need Pat Robertson or NY's Cardinal Eagan or any other religious figure yacking about it to their congregations. Leave that to secular forces, like the Pentagon, CIA and of course, DVDTalk! :D

I agree. I advocated assassinating SH before the first Gulf War (certainly over a large military operation).Assassinating people is a risky business. Before the "no assassinations" policy, some presidents were more, shall we say, "casual" in their requirements to murder a foreign country's leader than others. I don't think a president should have the arbitrary right to kill anyone without a mandate to do so in the form of a declaration of war. In war, all bets are off.

Assassinating people is a risky business. Before the "no assassinations" policy, some presidents were more, shall we say, "casual" in their requirements to murder a foreign country's leader than others. I don't think a president should have the arbitrary right to kill anyone without a mandate to do so in the form of a declaration of war. In war, all bets are off.I agree that it doesn't seem to work very well in practice. Probably not useful unless it's a once-in-a-century person like Hitler.

But then if we had assassinated him things overall might have been much worse for us now, so you can't really predict what will happen if you assassinate the few people that need it.

Assassinating people is a risky business. Before the "no assassinations" policy, some presidents were more, shall we say, "casual" in their requirements to murder a foreign country's leader than others. I don't think a president should have the arbitrary right to kill anyone without a mandate to do so in the form of a declaration of war. In war, all bets are off.



Some presidents are, shall we say, "casual" in their requirements to go to war or use military force. I'd like to see a viable option short of war.

Maybe if more had so argued for assassination in the late 1930s - things might have been different - milllions of lives might have been saved.

...........................

I'm not switching the subject. We're talking about political assassination. I'm not making a comparison between Chavez & Hitler. You're reading things into what I said - things I didn't say.

I don't believe we should be so quick to abandon the idea of political assassinations.
So by that logic, you wouldn't rule out using nuclear weapons against Venezuela as well?

Worked pretty good back then.....

What he is suggesting is almost solicitation of murder. The argument that this guy doesn't have enough charisma to get his followers worked up really isn't a good one IMO. Who determines whether someone is charismatic enough to be a threat? The charisma police?

Once you start saying that "this guy can say anything he wants because no-one will listen" and "this other guy needs to be regulated because people do listen", then you're that's really getting into situations that we really shouldn't be.

While this guy might not have the charisma to pull off a stunt like this, should we say "no foul"? What about the next guy?

What if Howard Stern came on radio and said that he really wished one of his listeners would kill the President?

Ranger makes the comment that although Johnny Jihad blows up a building because he got riled up by his cleric's preaching, there should be no responsibility placed on Kenny Cleric's shoulders (unless he was directly helping_. Try as I can, I don't agree with this. If Kenny Cleric called for a crime to be committed, and as a result a crime <i>was</i> committed, then Kenny should be held to some degree of responsibility.

Same with this guy.

Sure, there does need to be some leeway for free speech and matter of private opinion, but incitement and solicitation aren't AFAIK covered by this. Soliciting someone to commit a crime - even if the crime is never carried out - is still a criminal offence.

That being said - I don't think that Pat has quite crossed the line, but it's pretty damned close.


I ain't buyin' it. Also, as far as "who judges charisma", just trust me. Christians aren't going to go running to other countries to kill Leaders based on Robertson's opinions.

Robertson is a big fish in a little pond. No one of importance with any true power takes him seriously. His "Fan base" can't make the Government go kill leaders in other countries either.

Some presidents are, shall we say, "casual" in their requirements to go to war or use military force. I'd like to see a viable option short of war.Well, I also think the US shouldn't go to war unless war is declared on us, we are attacked, or we learn of a serious plan to attack us. But that's neither here nor there.

Assassinating people has the nasty effect of creating enemies and making allies uneasy. Like an unprovoked act of war, which is what it is.

He's been praying on his show for the liberal and moderate members of the Supreme Court to die for the past 2 years. Considering how succesful that has been Chavez will probably be around for another 50 years.

Sandy Baby left the SCOTUS and didn't die. Where did he say "die" in his prayers aired last night on CNN?

So by that logic, you wouldn't rule out using nuclear weapons against Venezuela as well?

Worked pretty good back then.....

You use the least damaging weapon you can use to accomplish what you set out to accomplish.

I don't believe covert assassinations would have to involve nuclear weapons, do you?

What's the supposed quote from a WH aide about what we do to MiG's? :)

Ask and you shall receive:

Venezuela's oil revenues subsidize food prices for the poor, although a large bottle of cooking oil can cost just pennies. The money generated from the $50-per-barrel cost also is being used to buy weapons such as 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles and 30 attack helicopters from the Russians. There also have been discussions about a possible $4 billion purchase of advanced MiG fighter jets.

One U.S. State Department official noted, "We shoot down MiGs."

I don't think you want to put a MiG in the air with this one

http://www.xp-office.de/bomberb1/f22.1.jpg

make no mistake; when a foreign religious leader calls for the death of another country's democratically elected head of state, it usually raises the spectre of international terrorism...

I don't believe covert assassinations would have to involve nuclear weapons, do you?

The "covert" use of nuclear weapons is pretty difficult. They have too big a bang.

The "covert" use of nuclear weapons is pretty difficult. They have too big a bang.What if it's just an itty-bitty nuke?

according to the current issue of National Geographic, the entire South America continent has no nukes, as of warhead.

Here's the estimate number of warheads in 04

Russia: 16000
US: 10350
China: 400
France: 350
UK: 200
Israel: 200
Pakistan: 24-48
India: 30-35
N. Korea: 6-8???

according to the current issue of National Geographic, the entire South America continent has no nukes, as of warhead.

Here's the estimate number of warheads in 04

Russia: 16000
US: 10350
China: 400
France: 350
UK: 200
Israel: 200
Pakistan: 24-48
India: 30-35
N. Korea: 6-8???
I'd add to that list: "Iran, coming to a theater near you." ;)

What he is suggesting is almost solicitation of murder. The argument that this guy doesn't have enough charisma to get his followers worked up really isn't a good one IMO. Who determines whether someone is charismatic enough to be a threat? The charisma police?

Once you start saying that "this guy can say anything he wants because no-one will listen" and "this other guy needs to be regulated because people do listen", then you're that's really getting into situations that we really shouldn't be.
I do think Robertson is very influential and that there certainly is a Christian right (though some continue to stubbornly deny that). While that is a strong base, I still do think some people overestimate their numbers. I think the 700 Club has a variety of different sponsors. And some of them have missionaries all over the world, especially in Central and South America.

I have no indea what those missionaries are thinking about Robertson's comments. THey might think that Chavez IS a bad guy, but on the other hand, they don't want raised tensions - ex. Chavez or his officials might get mad and kick out the missionaries providing humanitarian services.

While this guy might not have the charisma to pull off a stunt like this, should we say "no foul"? What about the next guy?

What if Howard Stern came on radio and said that he really wished one of his listeners would kill the President?
I don't listen to talk radio, but I'm certain that there are many unique talk show hosts that spew out a lot of inflammatory comments. But all of it still has to be protected by free speech.
Ranger makes the comment that although Johnny Jihad blows up a building because he got riled up by his cleric's preaching, there should be no responsibility placed on Kenny Cleric's shoulders (unless he was directly helping_. Try as I can, I don't agree with this. If Kenny Cleric called for a crime to be committed, and as a result a crime <i>was</i> committed, then Kenny should be held to some degree of responsibility.
Do you remember when Newsweek printed the Koran flushing story and some Afghans rioted and some were killed? And how some people were calling on for Newsweek to be criminally prosecuted for inciting a riot? I thought it was so ridiculous how they were comparing Newsweek's action to that of yelling "fire" in a movie theater. Later on and ironically, it turned out some parts of the story was true.

So those rioters have to take the blame and take personal responsiblity for their actions. Newsweek didn't force them to riot.

And as for Kenny Cleric, I really think there's a flaw in the idea that he should be punished for his preachings only if someone actually committed a crime as a result of it. The ability to think for yourself is supposed to be a major component of personal responsiblity. If your buddy said your wife was cheating and told you who she was cheating with and that you should kick his ass, if you actualy act on that in a violent manner, you have to take responsbility for yourself, your friend, whether he lied or not, shouldn't share the blame for your violent actions, unless he actually helped you commit the crime.
Sure, there does need to be some leeway for free speech and matter of private opinion, but incitement and solicitation aren't AFAIK covered by this. someone to commit a crime - even if the crime is never carried out - is still a criminal offence.
According to dictionary.com, the third definition of soliciting is "To entice or incite to evil or illegal action." That can be taken many ways. For example, the government, in its infinite wisdom, decides to ban violent video games/movies because they may "tempt" some people to commit crimes.

Man, I didn't want to type up that much stuff. This thread ends up getting locked, I'm going to be really pissed. :)

Well, I also think the US shouldn't go to war unless war is declared on us, we are attacked, or we learn of a serious plan to attack us. But that's neither here nor there.

Assassinating people has the nasty effect of creating enemies and making allies uneasy. Like an unprovoked act of war, which is what it is.
Agreed!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_us/robertson_assassination

Pat Robertson Says He Was Misinterpreted

41 minutes ago


VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson insisted Wednesday that he did not call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, despite comments broadcast on his program two days earlier.

"I didn't say 'assassination,'" Robertson said Wednesday on his Christian Broadcast Network show "The 700 Club" about remarks reported by The Associated Press and other media outlets.

"I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time."

But a video of Monday's telecast shows that Robertson's exact words were: "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."

He continued: "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."

When the AP called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. On Wednesday, Watts did not respond to two telephone messages, three pages and a fax seeking further comment.

Chavez, whose country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush. He accuses the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

On Tuesday, the State Department called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."


rotfl

Since we are talking about taking someone 'out'

Chris

Apprently Robertson realized how ridiculous his spin was.

Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during Monday's broadcast of his "700 Club" program.

"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement," he said in a written statement.

Earlier, Robertson said that his remarks about Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html)

His usual back-peddle.

Like I said, if anyone needs 'taking out' it's....

He is in no way a Christian, he's just a money/power hungry individual, whose god is Satan and I feel sorry for all of those 'sheep' that follow his every word.

There will be a special place for all of these 'televangelists' in Hell.

Chris

Death Threat May Bolster Chavez's Popularity Before Election

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez may see an increase in popularity because of the death threat leveled by a U.S. television evangelist, according to Datanalisis, the country's No. 1 polling company.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson's calls for the U.S. to ``assassinate'' Chavez will lead more Venezuelans to believe his claims that the Bush administration is trying to kill him, said Luis Vicente Leon, director of Caracas-based Datanalisis. The additional support may help Chavez's ruling coalition extend its majority in congress in December elections.

``The evangelist's declarations are terrible for the U.S. in that they totally back up Chavez,'' Leon said in a telephone interview from Caracas. ``It is absolutely going to have the opposite effect on Chavez than the U.S. wants. It's something that resonates with the country's poor.''

Seventy-one percent of Venezuelans said they support Chavez, 51, in a May poll by Datanalisis, up from 67 percent in April. Datanalisis, which surveyed 1,300 Venezuelans from May 6 to May 14, said the poll has a margin of error of 2.71 percentage points. Leon declined to say how much more of a boost Chavez could get in polls from Robertson's comments.

Chavez has used the additional revenue generated by the surge in oil, the South American country's biggest export, to increase government spending on education, health care and food subsidies.

`Criminal'

Robertson, a 75-year-old former U.S. presidential candidate who claims 1 million viewers a day for his ``700 Club'' program, said on the show on Aug. 21 that Chavez is a ``dangerous enemy'' and that killing him would be cheaper than going to war with Venezuela to remove him.

``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,'' Robertson said.

Chavez downplayed Robertson's comments.

``I don't know who that person is,'' Chavez told reporters yesterday before he boarded a plane in Havana, where he met with Cuban President Fidel Castro, one of his closest allies, for four days. ``I don't care what he said.''

Chavez's vice president, Jose Vicente Rangel, and his ambassador to Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, reacted with more outrage. Rangel yesterday called Robertson's comments ``criminal'' and Alvarez called on the U.S. to issue a stronger condemnation of Robertson's comments than they had given.

Al-Qaddafi, Hussein

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the government can't control what Americans say.

Robertson ``is a private citizen,'' Rumsfeld said at a news conference yesterday in Washington. ``Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.''

Chavez, a former lieutenant colonel who often dresses in a red beret and military fatigues, has been quarreling with the U.S. government on and off since first taking office in 1999.

He has accused the U.S. of helping plan a coup attempt against him in 2002 and has threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. in retaliation for what he says are the Bush administration's efforts to assassinate him. He has criticized the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and met with Libya's Muammar Al-Qaddafi and with Saddam Hussein before he was removed from power in Iraq in 2003.

`Mr. Danger'

He purchased $240 million in Russian arms, drawing criticism from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Rumsfeld, who said the buildup poses a threat to stability in the Western Hemisphere. Chavez is setting up a people's militia to help defend against a military invasion he says the U.S. is planning. He calls President George W. Bush ``Mr. Danger.''

``Any allegations that we are planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are completely baseless and without fact,'' U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington yesterday. The U.S. has also denied playing a role in the coup attempt that drove Chavez from power for two days in 2002.

Rice and Rumsfeld have said Chavez is using Venezuela's oil wealth to undermine democracies in Latin America.

``The rhetoric helps Chavez in the polls,'' said Luis Christiansen, executive president of Consultores 21, which has been polling Venezuelans for over two decades. ``It helps stir up nationalist feelings and distracts voters from discussing other issues.''

Oil to China

Venezuela is slated to hold congressional elections in December and presidential elections a year later. Chavez, who defeated a recall vote the opposition organized against him last year, can stand for re-election.

Chavez has said that he wants to reduce the country's dependence on the U.S., which currently takes about 60 percent of Venezuela's daily exports of about 2 million barrels a day. Some of that diversification may come as state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA aims to boost exports to China fivefold by 2012.

This month, Chavez stepped up his effort to find markets for Venezuelan crude outside the U.S. by meeting with the presidents of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. Chavez said he offered each leader a lease to develop and exploit an oil field in the country's Orinoco Belt, which he says has the world's biggest deposit of oil.

``We want to lessen our traditional dependence on the U.S.,'' Chavez said in an interview Aug. 12 in Brasilia, after a three-hour dinner with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

``For the last several years Chavez has been hammering away at the U.S. and he's gradually changed the perception of the Venezuelan population,'' said Robert Bottome, an analyst with research company Veneconomy in Caracas. ``The U.S. used to be highly admired and now more and more people are saying they don't like the U.S.''

[Source. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aW0HtBbsP0qU&refer=latin_ame\)]...

Wasn't Pat Robertson the same guy who blamed 9/11 on athiest, paganist, homosexuals, single mothers, minorities, which made the Bush administration quickly send out press statement saying they do not share his views?

I'm sure that comes as a great comfort to the families of Eric Rudolph's victims.

Uh, enlighten me, what is the similairty between Eric Randolph and Pat Robertson?

Uh, enlighten me, what is the similairty between Eric Randolph and Pat Robertson?

Extremeists in the name of 'God'

Chris

Wasn't Pat Robertson the same guy who blamed 9/11 on athiest, paganist, homosexuals, single mothers, minorities, which made the Bush administration quickly send out press statement saying they do not share his views?I believe that was Jerry Falwell.

I believe that was Jerry Falwell.

OK, so who is less dangerous , falwell or Robertson? :frankie:

Uh, enlighten me, what is the similairty between Eric Randolph and Pat Robertson?

They both say "I'm sorry"?

I ain't buyin' it. Also, as far as "who judges charisma", just trust me. Christians aren't going to go running to other countries to kill Leaders based on Robertson's opinions.

Robertson is a big fish in a little pond. No one of importance with any true power takes him seriously. His "Fan base" can't make the Government go kill leaders in other countries either.

I don't think he's got the charisma either. But that's just the point. We say that this guy is safe tpo say what he wants - because noone is going to listen to him.

But when an Islamic-extremo nutjob says much the same thing - and a charismatic one at that - then we get worried and offended. WHere exactly does the line get drawn?

That's all I'm saying. Regardless of his influence, he is a public figure and a head of a religious organisation - and <b>if</b> you're going to hold public figures to a higher degree of responisibility for their words, then this guy needs to be included.

If you have no problem with an Islamic cleric saying the same thing Pat said against Chavez - only against one of our leaders - then that's fine. Me, I do have a problem with it, but then again we don't have the free speech protection laws you guys in the States do.

Extremists aren't just from the other side of the fence.

I believe that was Jerry Falwell.
It was Falwell, however he said it on Robertson's 700 Club:

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

...
If you have no problem with an Islamic cleric saying the same thing Pat said against Chavez - only against one of our leaders - then that's fine. Me, I do have a problem with it, but then again we don't have the free speech protection laws you guys in the States do.
...

If the Pope suggested that the world would be better off if someone "took out" Bush, I still wouldn't consider Benedictus a terrorist... just a nut case. Things are a little different with Islamic clerics because many of them are training terrorists, funding them, and directing them to kill anyone who disagrees with their version of Islam. So, many of the Islamic clerics would be considered terrorists even if they didn't suggest that someone "took out" Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_us/robertson_assassination

Pat Robertson Says He Was Misinterpreted

41 minutes ago


VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson insisted Wednesday that he did not call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, despite comments broadcast on his program two days earlier.

"I didn't say 'assassination,'" Robertson said Wednesday on his Christian Broadcast Network show "The 700 Club" about remarks reported by The Associated Press and other media outlets.

"I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time."

But a video of Monday's telecast shows that Robertson's exact words were: "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."

He continued: "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."

When the AP called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. On Wednesday, Watts did not respond to two telephone messages, three pages and a fax seeking further comment.

Chavez, whose country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush. He accuses the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

On Tuesday, the State Department called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."


rotfl

Since we are talking about taking someone 'out'

Chris



Pat, you're full of shit.....

:lol:
Pelosi said robertson is a prominent republican
what a joke
before this recent fuck up by him if you had asked me either of these questions, separately, I would have had no answer
"who is pat robertson?"
"who is the guy on the 700 club?"
at most I could have said "I've heard the name/of the tv show"

That retraction reads like an onion article. rotfl

:lol:
Pelosi said robertson is a prominent republican
what a joke
before this recent fuck up by him if you had asked me either of these questions, separately, I would have had no answer
"who is pat robertson?"
"who is the guy on the 700 club?"
at most I could have said "I've heard the name/of the tv show"

Your ignorance notwithstanding, Pat Robertson is a prominent Republican.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/JFliegel/Rep1988map.jpg

17 years ago

:lol: like saying Michael Dukakis is a prominent democrat.

When was the last time Dukakis made the talk show rounds?

Hannity had Robertson on as a guest a week and a half ago.

Your ignorance notwithstanding, Pat Robertson is a prominent Republican.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/JFliegel/Rep1988map.jpg



What about Pat Buchanan?

:lol: like saying Michael Dukakis is a prominent democrat.It's really a lot more like saying Jesse Jackson is a prominent Democrat.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/122804.shtml

Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 12:23 p.m. EDT

Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination

Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson prompted a firestorm of media outrage on Tuesday after he suggested that the Bush administration should assassinate a foreign leader who posed a threat to the U.S. - in this case, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.

Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.

His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."

"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."

Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.

"We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.

Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:

"If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."

The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted airstrike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."

The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."

Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...24/122804.shtml

The lamestream media showing why it's the lamestream media.

Stephanopoulos shouldn't count. While he was politically important a while ago he just hosts some TV show now.

Stephanopoulos shouldn't count. While he was politically important a while ago he just hosts some TV show now.
Plus, he's not the "mouth of GOD!" ;)

Plus, he's not the "mouth of GOD!" ;)... anymore.

He used to be exactly that, to way more people than Robertson ever was.

Plus, he's not the "mouth of GOD!" ;)

Robertson doesn't speak for the true God, don't let the smoke and mirrors confuse you! ;)

Chris

Daily Show: Headlines - Pat Sounds
To be fair, Pat Robertson used "assassinate" as a verb and not a noun, so he didn't really mean it.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17493

and a bit more here:

Daily Show: Headlines - Iraq Strategy
With 58% of Americans unhappy with Iraq, Bush has started giving up naptime to drum up support.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17448

Stephanopoulos shouldn't count. While he was politically important a while ago he just hosts some TV show now.

plus when he made the comment he was actually part of an administration

plus when he made the comment he was actually part of an administration

1) No he wasn't

2) For the last 4 years, all we've been hearing is that Saddam was the most evil man since Hitler, and that Clinton was the worst president ever for letting him remain in power. Now we're trying to pretend he's morally equivalent to Chavez? Can we please make up our minds?

Pat Robertson: An embarrassment to the church
by Jim Wallis

Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to the church and a danger to American politics.

Robertson is known for his completely irresponsible statements - that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were due to American feminists and liberals, that true Christians could vote only for George W. Bush, that the federal judiciary is a greater threat to America than those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center Towers, and the list goes on. Robertson even took credit once for diverting a hurricane. But his latest outburst may take the cake.

On Monday, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Robertson is worried about Chavez's critiques of American power and behavior in the world, especially because Venezuela is sitting on all that oil. We simply can't have an anti-American political leader who could raise the price of gas. So let's just kill him, the famous television preacher seriously suggested. After all, having some of our "covert operatives" take out the troublesome Venezuelan leader would be cheaper than another $200 billion war, he said.

It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself "What would Jesus do?" But the teachings of Jesus have never been very popular with Robertson. He gets his religion elsewhere, from the twisted ideologies of an American brand of right-wing fundamentalism that has always been more nationalist than Christian. Apparently, Robertson didn't even remember what the Ten Commandments say, though he has championed their display on the walls of every American courthouse. That irritating one about "Thou shalt not kill" seems to rule out the killing of foreign leaders. But this week, simply putting biblical ethics aside, Robertson virtually issued an American religious fatwah for the murder of a foreign leader - on national television no less. That may be a first.

Yesterday Robertson "apologized." First he denied saying what he had said, but it was on the videotape (it's tough when they record you breaking the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus). Then he said that "taking out" Chavez might not require killing him, and perhaps kidnapping a duly elected leader would do. But Robertson does now say that using the word "assassination" was wrong and that he had been frustrated by Chavez - the old "my frustration made me say that somebody should be killed" argument. But the worst thing about Robertson's apology was that he compared himself to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German church leader and martyr who ultimately joined in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler.

Robertson's political and theological reasoning is simply unbelievable. Chavez, a democratically elected leader in no less than three internationally certified votes, has been an irritant to the Bush administration, but has yet to commit any holocausts. Nor does his human rights record even approach that of the Latin American dictators who have been responsible for massive violations of human rights and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (think of the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Robertson never criticized them, perhaps because many of them were supported by U.S. military aid and training.

This incident reveals that Robertson does not believe in democracy; he believes in theocracy. And he would like governments, including our own, to implement his theological agenda, perhaps legislate Leviticus, and "take out" those who disagree.

Robertson's American fundamentalist ideology gives a lot of good people a bad name. World evangelical leaders have already responded with alarm and disbelief. Robertson's words will taint and smear other evangelical Christians and put some in actual jeopardy, such as Venezuelan evangelicals. Most conservative evangelical Christians are appalled by Robertson's hateful and literally murderous words, and it's time for them to say so. To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?

Robertson's words fuel both anti-Christian and anti-American sentiments around the world. It's difficult for an American government that has historically plotted against leaders in Cuba, Chile, the Congo, South Vietnam, and elsewhere to be easily believed when it disavows Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez. But George Bush must do so anyway, in the strongest terms possible.

It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails. It's time for conservative evangelical Christians in America, who are not like Islamic fundamentalists or Robertson, to distance themselves from his embarrassing and dangerous religion.

And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.

1) No he wasn't

ok, senior advisor then.
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.

Pat Robertson: An embarrassment to the church
by Jim Wallis

Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to the church and a danger to American politics....
And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.

Agreed. This is the kind of Christian that gives the REAL christian folks a bad name. That kind of talking smears the good name of other REAL Christians, kinda like the crazy militant Islam folks smear the good names of real Muslims.

ok, senior advisor then.
I wasn't quibbling over his job title; I was pointing out that he had already left the White House when he made these remarks:
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.

Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.

And Robertson hasn't run for president since when? Let alone ever worked in the White House or been the official spokesperson for a president.

I think they were both wrong for discussing this in public.

Plus, he's not the "mouth of GOD!" ;)

Can't we give the Dan Rather bashing a rest?

Can't we give the Dan Rather bashing a rest?
-confused-

Well, I know for a fact that if you're tuned to the 700 Club no tornaders will hit you.

Thanks Hugo

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/23/chavez.gasoline.reut/index.html

Chavez offers cheap gas to poor in U.S

HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered on Tuesday to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline.

"We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," the populist leader told reporters at the end of a visit to Communist-run Cuba.

Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States.

The offer may sound attractive to Americans feeling pinched by soaring prices at the pump but not to the U.S. government, which sees Chavez as a left-wing troublemaker in Latin America.

Gasoline is cheaper than mineral water in oil-producing Venezuela, where consumers can fill their tanks for less than $2. Average gas prices have risen to $2.61 a gallon in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.

Venezuela supplies Cuba with generously financed oil and plans to help Caribbean nations foot their oil bills.

Chavez, in Cuba to attend the graduation of Cuban-trained doctors from 28 countries, was seen off at the airport by Cuban President Fidel Castro. Washington has accused the two leaders of being a destabilizing influence in South America.

Chavez and Castro offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge.

Viva Chavez!

Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.


I do agree with his sentiment about oil speculators. They drive the cost up as much as anything else.

I wasn't quibbling over his job title; I was pointing out that he had already left the White House when he made these remarks:

doh
well, I'll admit I fucked that one up

for some reason I thought the short guy was there for the whole 8 years

Jesse Jackson throws in his two cents in support for Chavez (CNN Article) (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/28/jackson.chavez.ap/index.html)

:rolleyes:

Oh those Republicans, keep them in power long enough and they get greedy with their bloodlust.

Times like these and idiots like this one make me pine for the wit and wisdom of Senor Zappa:

DUMB ALL OVER
Whoever we are
Wherever we're from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
It's gonna take a lot more
Than tryin' to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether

They call it THE EARTH
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
'Cause we behave the same . . .
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near 'n far
Dumb all over,
Black 'n white
People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religious fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin' the Bible
Tells the story
'N makes the details
Sound real gory
'Bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Don't believe in the book
We got over here

You can't run a race
Without no feet
'N pretty soon
There won't be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religious fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it won't blow up
'N disappear
It'll just look ugly
For a thousand years . . . )

You can't run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

TO ARMS! TO ARMS!
Hooray! That's great
Two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (Get Down!)
Not his, not hers (but what the hey?)
The Good Book says:
"It gotta be that way!"
But their book says:
"REVENGE THE CRUSADES . . .
With whips 'n chains
'N hand grenades . . . "
TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS?
Have another and another
Our God says:
"There ain't no other!"
Our God says
"It's all okay!"
Our God says
"This is the way!"

It says in the book:
"Burn 'n destroy . . .
'N repent, 'n redeem
'N revenge, 'n deploy
'N rumble thee forth
To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
'Cause they don't go for what's in the book
'N that makes 'em BAD
So verily we must choppeth them up
And stompeth them down
Or rent a nice French bomb
To poof them out of existance
While leaving their real estate just where we need it
To use again
For temples in which to praise
OUR GOD
("Cause he can really take care of business!")

And when his humble TV servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls
Tells us our God says
It's okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
'Cause if we don't do it,
We ain't gwine up to hebbin!
(Depending on which book you're using at the time . . . Can't use theirs . . . it don't work . . . it's all lies . . . Gotta use mine . . . )
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night . . .
Every day . . .
Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following God's Orders
Hey, Let's get serious . . .
God knows what he's doin' . . .
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
"He made us all to be just like Him," so . . .
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/shared-gen/ap/Latin_America_And_Caribbean/Venezuela_US_Chavez.html

Chavez to Hold Bush Liable if He's Harmed
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez declared Friday that if anything happens to him it will be President Bush's fault.

Chavez brought up Robertson's remarks while addressing supporters at the presidential palace, saying "he has expressed the desire of the elite that governs the United States."

"If something happens to me, the responsible one will be George W. Bush," said Chavez, who has repeatedly accused the Bush administration of plotting to overthrow him.

The United States has repeatedly denied having any intentions to try to topple Chavez or harm him.

Chavez's comments were his sharpest since Robertson called for his assassination Monday on his TV show "The 700 Club," saying the United States should "take him out" because Chavez poses a danger to the region.

Robertson later issued an apology, saying he spoke out of frustration. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on Tuesday called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate," but stopped short of condemning them.

Chavez to Hold Bush Liable if He's Harmed
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez declared Friday that if anything happens to him it will be President Bush's fault.

Chavez brought up Robertson's remarks while addressing supporters at the presidential palace, saying "he has expressed the desire of the elite that governs the United States."

"If something happens to me, the responsible one will be George W. Bush," said Chavez, who has repeatedly accused the Bush administration of plotting to overthrow him.

Chavez elaborated: "I'm a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall me -- if I should get shot in the head by a police officer, or if I should hang myself in my jail cell, or if I'm struck by a bolt of lightning -- then I'm going to blame some of the people in this room. And that, I do not forgive. But -- that aside -- let me say that I swear -- on the souls of my grandchildren -- that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made here today..."

The United States has repeatedly denied having any intentions to try to topple Chavez or harm him.

Chavez's comments were his sharpest since Robertson called for his assassination Monday on his TV show "The 700 Club," saying the United States should "take him out" because Chavez poses a danger to the region.

Robertson later issued an apology, saying he spoke out of frustration. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on Tuesday called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate," but stopped short of condemning them.

:eek:

:lol:

Chaves and Kim Jong need to be lock up in the same room

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/08/30/2003269725


Chavez threatens to lodge a complaint against US at UN


AFP , CARACAS
Tuesday, Aug 30, 2005,Page 7
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has warned he will lodge a complaint against the US at the UN and other international bodies if the US government fails to act against television evangelist Pat Robertson, who has called for Chavez's assassination.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the UN and Organization of American States to denounce the US government," the Venezuelan leader said Sunday as he addressed participants at talks on a social charter for the Americas.

He added he believed that by failing to act against Robertson, the US was "giving protection to a terrorist, who is demanding the assassination of a legitimate president."

Robertson caused a diplomatic stir last Monday when he said on the air that if Chavez believed the US was trying to kill him, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

Robertson apologized Wednesday, but then went on to compare Chavez to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and to suggest the US could one day be at war with his oil-rich country.

Chavez, a twice-elected leftist and close ally of Cuban President Fidel Castro, has often said Washington would like to assassinate him, and accuses the Bush administration of involvement in a coup d'etat that toppled him for 47 hours in April 2002. US officials last week distanced themselves from Robertson's comments.

The Venezuela president said he had already instructed his foreign minister and the country's ambassador to Washington to begin the process in the international bodies.

He said Venezuela could use international treaties and conventions to demand the extradition of the television preacher.

Chavez said he believed Robertson "should be sent to prison to serve as an example for the entire world."

Meanwhile, visiting US civil rights leader Jesse Jackson lent his support to Chavez, saying Robertson's remarks were "repugnant, immoral, illegal." Addressing the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jackson called for the US Justice Department to investigate the statement. Jackson, on a three-day visit to Venezuela to meet Chavez, politicians and community leaders, also called on US President George W. Bush to issue "a swift rejection" of Robertson's statement.

"It must be unequivocally clear that such a heinous act is not desirable nor designed nor planned. We must use power to reduce tensions, reduce the rhetoric of our threats," Jackson said.

The US State Department sought to distance itself from Robertson last week, calling his remarks "inappropriate" but said the evangelist spoke as a "private citizen."

Chavez threatens to lodge a complaint against US at UN

He won't if we assassinate him.

:lol: Yeah, like John Bolton is gonna lose sleep over this.

Chavez is really serious.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/30/MTFH75938_2005-08-30_02-47-24_HO010025.html

Venezuela to sell cut-price heating oil to U.S. poor


CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Monday his government plans to sell as much as 66,000 barrels per day of heating fuel from its U.S. Citgo refinery to poor communities in the United States.

The offer, made after populist Chavez held talks with U.S. civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, would represent 10 percent of the 660,000 bpd of refined products processed by Citgo. The deals would cut consumer costs by direct sales.

Venezuela's Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said officials were still working on the details on how the oil would be sold from Citgo, a unit of the state oil firm PDVSA.

"We are going to direct as much as 10 percent of the production, that means 66,000 barrels, without intermediaries, to poor communities, hospitals, religious communities, schools," Chavez told reporters at a press conference.

The world's No. 5 oil exporter, oil cartel OPEC member Venezuela is a key supplier to the United States, providing about 15 percent of all U.S. energy imports.

But relations between Caracas and Washington have become strained since left-winger Chavez was elected in 1998 promising social reforms.

Chavez, a former army officer who survived a coup in 2002, frequently accuses the U.S. of backing efforts to kill him or topple his government. U.S. officials dismiss those charges but say Chavez has become a threat to regional stability.

There were Chavez supporters rallying in Govenment Center, Boston, last night. This Robertson idiot has given this Chavez idiot the biggest gift possible, at a time when he could really use it to shore up support. And I recall that Robertson's name was on Bush's list of "experts" he conferred with over the Supreme Court nomination. It seems that morons, religious fanatics and useful idiots have taken charge of the republic. May we survive them.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/175758/3_24_chavez_jackson.jpg

wow

That bastard wants to sell oil at a reduced rate without middlemen to hospitals and schools! Monster!!! ;)

This could get interesting. Let's see him offer disaster relief oil supply to the citizens of Louisiana and Alabama. We'll see how unpopular he is after that.

There is no meaning behind this whatsoever.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1835/jessehugo8xp.gif

That bastard wants to sell oil at a reduced rate without middlemen to hospitals and schools! Monster!!! ;)



But he's friends with Castro, a communist!, so he's obviously a menace! He's a flamboyant provocateur (ok he's a wee bit nutty :) ) but this demonization of his persona is just silly. Well the US press isn't helping much...



Hugo Chavez Is Crazy!

By Greg Palast, AlterNet. Posted June 25, 2003.


Well, actually, he's not. How the American media distorted events in Venezuela beyond all recognition is clear to one who reported from there.

Editors note