PDA

View Full Version : Pat Robertson Calls for Assassination of Hugo Chavez


Infiniti2001
Aug 23rd, 2005, 03:41 PM
Televangelist Calls Venezuelan President a 'Terrific Danger' to the United States

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/03/02/20050823001909990001

AP
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, left, met with Fidel Castro, right, on Sunday during an official state visit to Cuba.


VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (Aug. 22) - 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's Views

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/01/00/20050823094309990001

KRT"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."
-- On Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, August 2005

"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
-- On whether "activist judges" are more of a threat than terrorists, May 2005

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up."
-- Referring to the State Department's location while criticizing the agency, October 2003


Source: cnn.com

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."


8/22/2005 23:07:21

Can you believe this shit coming from a so-called man of God?? When people who just happen to be muslim utter words like these they're labelled terrorist :rolleyes: Meanwhile this anti-Christ gets a pass :fiery:

Oneofakind0490
Aug 23rd, 2005, 03:49 PM
The guy is wierd. I was watching his show yesterday and he said it was alright for a 21 year old to date a 14 year old:retard:

ptkten
Aug 23rd, 2005, 04:17 PM
:lol: He's really gone off the deep end. It's really Christian to call for the murder of someone else :rolleyes:

griffin
Aug 23rd, 2005, 04:28 PM
Oh he went off the deep end, alright - YEARS ago.

This is the same "man of God" who suggested that 9/11 was the fault of feminists, homosexuals and the prochoice crowd. (anyone else noting the silence from the pundits who complain about moderate Muslims not denouncing Muslim extremists? anyone else smell a double-standard?)

Meesh
Aug 23rd, 2005, 04:38 PM
Thou shall not :rolleyes:... hmmmmmmmmmmmm what is that one Pat.. Oh yeah, It's THOU SHALL NOT KILL

SelesFan70
Aug 23rd, 2005, 04:46 PM
Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord (or Pat Robertson's depending on which version of the Bible you have). :devil:

Wigglytuff
Aug 23rd, 2005, 05:09 PM
Thou shall not :rolleyes:... hmmmmmmmmmmmm what is that one Pat.. Oh yeah, It's THOU SHALL NOT KILL
please pat aint never read two words from the bible.

Lord Nelson
Aug 23rd, 2005, 07:11 PM
Does that mean that Kennedy who probably gave the green light to the CIA to let the opponents of Ngo Do Dhiem, the southern Vietnamese leader be killed just a few days before Kennedy was killed, was also wrong to do that? I guess than that Kennedy too was wacko. I have mixed feeling s on what robertson said. Chavez is supporting FARC rebels and other leftist extremists, thus creating instability in the area. I don't support what Robertson said but I certainly can understand him. If you condemn him then you should condemn Kennedy's hardline policy against Dhiem.

griffin
Aug 23rd, 2005, 07:19 PM
Wacko? No. Wrong? Yes. I don't care if it's my MOTHER calling for someone's murder, you can safely assume I think it's "a bad thing."

Mind you, my mother doesn't have a television audience of millions, and (so far as I know) has no control over the CIA.

Lachrymarum
Aug 23rd, 2005, 08:52 PM
:rolleyes: What an ass munch!

Zummi
Aug 23rd, 2005, 10:26 PM
This is the same "man of God" who suggested that 9/11 was the fault of feminists, homosexuals and the prochoice crowd.

I think that 9/11 quote was made by Jerry Falwell, not Roberston. He blamed the pagans too. Though it all took place during an appearance on Robertson's 700 Club show.

Scotso
Aug 24th, 2005, 04:08 AM
Scotso calls for the assasination of Pat Robertson.

Infiniti2001
Aug 24th, 2005, 05:37 AM
Good commentary



Published: Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Bylined to: Mary MacElveen
Why not use the Patriot Act against religious fanatics like Pat Robertson?
VHeadline.com guest commentarist Mary MacElveen writes: Just yesterday in his broadcast on the 700 Club Reverend Pat Robertson called for the assassination of President Hugo Chavez who is the President of Venezuela.
I find this outrageous coming from an alleged man of God.
I find this equally outrageous that a man who believes in the sanctity of all human life would call for this.
By calling for a world leaderís assassination, this proves that he is NOT PRO LIFE, but part of the sick machine that has taken hold of our country in Washington, D.C. where death goes hand in hand with the promotion of their agendas.
Here is the transcript where Pat Robertson calls for this action:

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.Ē
What I am STRONGLY suggesting to all of you is to call for the revocation of the Christian Broadcasting Networks FCC license.
Pat Robertson states of Venezuela, that they are ďcontrolling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly.Ē
Let us all remember that this oil belongs to the people of Venezuela and it does not belong to us.
We are not entitled to it, and President Chavez has every right to sell it to whomsoever he chooses.
Inasmuch as Pat Robertson calls President Chavez a ďdangerous enemy,Ē President Chavez has rightfully also called Bush, ďMr. DangerĒ

* I am asking you to call in to the Christian Broadcasting Network to vent your outrage that this alleged man of God would call for the killing of another.

This proves that the religious right-wing fanatics are NOT PRO LIFE. They are truly the enemy and we only have to look at Bush who. through the help of these groups. became our president.
To aid you in your correspondence and calls, please visit VHeadline.com http://www.vheadline.com to read up on President Chavez and you will see he is a true man of courage for standing up to Bush.

* Tell Pat Robertson that, through sales of CITGO oil, many of the profits go to feed the poor in 1,100 food centers that President Chavez has set up.

What has Bush done to feed the poor here?
Remind him of this fact that Castro gave access to thousands of Venezuelans in his country for free medical care and he did so by partnering with President Chavez.

* Bush has not even addressed the millions that go without health care in this country.

If these are the acts of an enemy, I would not mind being governed by a man who is looking out for the poor and powerless. In fact, I would welcome it.
My praises of President Chavez has been published on VHeadline.com ... if you are not familiar with that site, its main focus is issues and news that face the good people of Venezuela.
From what I have read on VHeadline.com and through participating in it, I can see clearly that President Chavez is a man who leads Venezuela both morally and with compassion.
As one who normally stands up for anyoneís right to free speech, I find Robertson's tirade to be offensive and the equivalent of shouting fire where the end result could be the assassination of President Chavez.
In closing, there is NO finding Ďcommon groundí with these zealots and fanatics.
I am of the belief that through actions such as this, they promote terror.

So, why not use the Patriot Act (which I abhor) against these fanatics?
After all, they wanted it; now let them suffer the consequences of it.
Mary MacElveen
xmjmac@optonline.net
More VHeadline.com commentaries by Mary MacElveen

Lord Nelson
Aug 24th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Infiniti2001, I'm quite conservative and I don't mind having a Patriot act against Robertson but it should also be used against extremists in the U.S. who preach hatred such as Islamists. The UK who has some of the most farcial laws i've seen should also use a Patriot Actg. Good to see you supporting the Patriot Act, such a good chap you are.

kiwifan
Aug 24th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Oh he went off the deep end, alright - YEARS ago.

This is the same "man of God" who suggested that 9/11 was the fault of feminists, homosexuals and the prochoice crowd. (anyone else noting the silence from the pundits who complain about moderate Muslims not denouncing Muslim extremists? anyone else smell a double-standard?)

Surely you're not saying that no one has denouced him?

He's been getting "denounced" 24-7 on every show in the country. :lol:

There's been the complete opposite of silence on this.

Moderate Muslims have a long way to go to match this criticism. ;)

No double standard.

ps. Pat Robertson disgusts me, not for this comment but for pretty much his entire career.

kabuki
Aug 24th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Zealots of any religion are scary. :scared:

Helen Lawson
Aug 24th, 2005, 01:55 PM
I only watched the 700 Club once, when B.D. Hyman was on and I heard she apologized for the book about her mother. She didn't. I was misinformed. She did say, however, that her mother was "demon possessed." I may think Harry Potter and astrology are the work of the devil, but I do not believe people are "demon possessed" and certainly would not say something like that on national tv.

Grachka
Aug 24th, 2005, 01:59 PM
Infiniti2001, I'm quite conservative
:lol:

Infiniti2001
Aug 24th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Surely you're not saying that no one has denouced him?

He's been getting "denounced" 24-7 on every show in the country. :lol:

There's been the complete opposite of silence on this.

Moderate Muslims have a long way to go to match this criticism. ;)

No double standard.

ps. Pat Robertson disgusts me, not for this comment but for pretty much his entire career.


The state department issued a tepid distancing statement while proclaiming he is a private citizen, but you know he's still on duhbya's speed dial. :tape:

griffin
Aug 24th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Surely you're not saying that no one has denouced him?


Nope. Not what I said at all :) I'm just looking at who's doing the talking (I've also NOT said that moderate Islamic leaders have a great record of speaking out against the pronouncements of their more radical bretheren.)

And Zummi's right - I did misspeak, and it was Falwell who suggested that the ACLU, feminists, etc. were partly to blame for 9/11. Robertson just said he agreed with him.

I think what horrifies me about Robertson is less the man himself and what he says, than the size of his audience.

Infiniti2001
Aug 24th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Infiniti2001, I'm quite conservative and I don't mind having a Patriot act against Robertson but it should also be used against extremists in the U.S. who preach hatred such as Islamists. The UK who has some of the most farcial laws i've seen should also use a Patriot Actg. Good to see you supporting the Patriot Act, such a good chap you are.

First off I wear a bra , and no , I'm not a drag queen :mad: I doubt the American people know how many extremist muslims homeland security have hustled off to top-secret prisons indefinitely :tape:

*JR*
Aug 24th, 2005, 04:51 PM
Denouncing him isn't the point. If a media news anchor with an audience the size of his said that Tony Blair should be whacked for the bogus intelligence W used to "sell" the war to Congress and get the authorization, you don't think he'd be prosecuted? (Keep in mind that Rev. Pat went beyond just saying "it would be nice if", but specifically urged killing Chavez).

Edit: the weasel is now doing a "back and fill" like he was fucking misquoted... but its on tape! :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Aug 24th, 2005, 07:03 PM
I doubt the American people know how many extremist muslims homeland security have hustled off to top-secret prisons indefinitely :tape:
you are just saying that to make me happy :D

lakeway11
Aug 25th, 2005, 02:21 PM
by Bill Barnwell

The worldwide press is having a field day with Pat Robertsonís recent suggestion that the United States ought to look into assassinating Venezuelan socialist ruler Hugo Chavez. Robertson, prominent Religious Right broadcaster and former Presidential candidate, clearly was not demonstrating the most virtuous judgments in making his statements. He is now taking a pounding from conservatives, liberals, and libertarians alike.

However, Robertsonís statements are much ado about nothing considering he is a non-player in American foreign policy and in terms of influence with most of the American public. Not only that, but those making the loudest noise about Robertsonís statement promoting assassination of a single man are the same people who support Bushís war in Iraq that has killed close to 2,000 Americans, wounded thousands of others, and has killed or maimed many more Iraqiís. If youíre having a hard time seeing the consistency of such moral outrage then join the club.

Apparently Robertson is a moral reprobate and has absurd judgment because he thinks it might be preferable to kill one man instead of killing many and spending billions of dollars on a full-blown war. But his conservative critics are bold and courageous heroes by trying to rid the world of "terrorism" by ironically spawning more terrorism and instability with their cowboyish drive to remake the Middle East in their own image through endless invasions (watch out, Iran).

Robertsonís folly is that ethically he is choosing the "lesser of two evils" rather than a more just solution. Chavez certainly is a nitpicking, far left-wing socialist and is not to be admired. He also is not the brightest man and is a terrible ruler. But just because Chavez is a big mouth critic of American and wants to ship his oil elsewhere doesnít exactly make him a giant national security threat that needs to be imminently "taken out" as Robertson apparently believes.

The truth is that Chavez is just another big mouth thug. He can criticize the U.S all he wants, but the fact is right now his oil industry is dependant on U.S business. And if he wants to try and find other business, then his country has that right, just as we have the right as a buyer to find other sellers or find other ways to get the energy and supplies we need.

So why all the clamor over Robertson? Heís a private citizen who can say whatever he wants no matter how silly it is. Sure, as a minister, he should have used better judgment, but when exactly did he become so influential in swaying foreign policy or swaying the opinions of anyone on anything, save for a small segment of religious conservatives (the Religious Right itself is even split in its opinion of Robertson).

Letís stop acting like it matters what Robertson thinks about foreign policy. What really matters is what George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and the rest of the War Party thinks about foreign policy, including every member of Congress who continues to support an indefinite involvement in Iraq. Letís also extend that to every mainstream think-tank and magazine that puts its stamp of approval on our ill-advised Middle Eastern makeover.

If youíre going to pretend itís "worth it" (in the immortal words of Madelyn Albright) to see a great deal of needless death and human suffering in Iraq, then think again before going off on Robertson. If you support the President of the United States ignoring every piece of evidence suggesting his foreign policy is faulty, then donít scream about what a private citizen thinks who has no influence about such weighty matters of war and peace.

After all, what exactly is everyone expecting anyway? Are we really scared that Robertsonís words have now sparked some middle-aged white guy at home watching CBN to personally fly down to Venezuela in an attempt to assassinate Chavez and plunge South America into chaos? Come on.

Robertson is right though that a "lesser of two evils" approach is preferable to outright war. It certainly is preferable to kill one person instead of many and spend little money on an assassination instead of a blank check that ultimately ranges into the hundreds of billions for foreign wars and occupations. In fact, a system preferable to both Robertsonís and Bushís would be to go back to the days of dueling, something that was practiced even in Americaís early days. Then we could just let the heads of state go at it while the rest of us, our sons and daughters, and our pocketbooks, are left alone.

Instead, it is best to rebuke both the pro-assassination Robertson and the cheerleaders of pro-mass casualty Middle Eastern domination, but letís be honest and recognize Robertson is nothing more than a side show in this whole affair. The real outrage belongs to those on the top. Too many want to have it both ways though. They want to condemn Robertson for his remarks and the "instability" it has caused U.S-South American relations, but give the administration a free pass on the real causalities and instability that have been caused since March of 2003 and which seem to have no end in sight. Only honest liberals and antiwar conservatives have been consistent on these issues from the beginning.

How about this: enough picking fights with leaders on every continent. Come up with a clear timetable to exit Iraq and let the Iraqiís run their own affairs, even if that means they want to morph into some strange hybrid of a constitutional republic and an Islamic theocracy as they apparently want to do. Stop trying to drum up problems in Iran with the same sort of unsubstantiated nonsense we heard in 2002 about Iraq, and letís stop inserting ourselves in this centuries long pillow fight over East Jerusalem. In sum, letís work towards the "humble" type of foreign policy George Bush said he wanted in 1999 and 2000.

Where is George Washington when you need him?

August 25, 2005


http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell50.html

Infiniti2001
Aug 25th, 2005, 04:29 PM
by Bill Barnwell

The worldwide press is having a field day with Pat Robertsonís recent suggestion that the United States ought to look into assassinating Venezuelan socialist ruler Hugo Chavez. Robertson, prominent Religious Right broadcaster and former Presidential candidate, clearly was not demonstrating the most virtuous judgments in making his statements. He is now taking a pounding from conservatives, liberals, and libertarians alike.

However, Robertsonís statements are much ado about nothing considering he is a non-player in American foreign policy and in terms of influence with most of the American public. Not only that, but those making the loudest noise about Robertsonís statement promoting assassination of a single man are the same people who support Bushís war in Iraq that has killed close to 2,000 Americans, wounded thousands of others, and has killed or maimed many more Iraqiís. If youíre having a hard time seeing the consistency of such moral outrage then join the club.

Apparently Robertson is a moral reprobate and has absurd judgment because he thinks it might be preferable to kill one man instead of killing many and spending billions of dollars on a full-blown war. But his conservative critics are bold and courageous heroes by trying to rid the world of "terrorism" by ironically spawning more terrorism and instability with their cowboyish drive to remake the Middle East in their own image through endless invasions (watch out, Iran).

Robertsonís folly is that ethically he is choosing the "lesser of two evils" rather than a more just solution. Chavez certainly is a nitpicking, far left-wing socialist and is not to be admired. He also is not the brightest man and is a terrible ruler. But just because Chavez is a big mouth critic of American and wants to ship his oil elsewhere doesnít exactly make him a giant national security threat that needs to be imminently "taken out" as Robertson apparently believes.

The truth is that Chavez is just another big mouth thug. He can criticize the U.S all he wants, but the fact is right now his oil industry is dependant on U.S business. And if he wants to try and find other business, then his country has that right, just as we have the right as a buyer to find other sellers or find other ways to get the energy and supplies we need.

So why all the clamor over Robertson? Heís a private citizen who can say whatever he wants no matter how silly it is. Sure, as a minister, he should have used better judgment, but when exactly did he become so influential in swaying foreign policy or swaying the opinions of anyone on anything, save for a small segment of religious conservatives (the Religious Right itself is even split in its opinion of Robertson).

Letís stop acting like it matters what Robertson thinks about foreign policy. What really matters is what George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and the rest of the War Party thinks about foreign policy, including every member of Congress who continues to support an indefinite involvement in Iraq. Letís also extend that to every mainstream think-tank and magazine that puts its stamp of approval on our ill-advised Middle Eastern makeover.

If youíre going to pretend itís "worth it" (in the immortal words of Madelyn Albright) to see a great deal of needless death and human suffering in Iraq, then think again before going off on Robertson. If you support the President of the United States ignoring every piece of evidence suggesting his foreign policy is faulty, then donít scream about what a private citizen thinks who has no influence about such weighty matters of war and peace.

After all, what exactly is everyone expecting anyway? Are we really scared that Robertsonís words have now sparked some middle-aged white guy at home watching CBN to personally fly down to Venezuela in an attempt to assassinate Chavez and plunge South America into chaos? Come on.

Robertson is right though that a "lesser of two evils" approach is preferable to outright war. It certainly is preferable to kill one person instead of many and spend little money on an assassination instead of a blank check that ultimately ranges into the hundreds of billions for foreign wars and occupations. In fact, a system preferable to both Robertsonís and Bushís would be to go back to the days of dueling, something that was practiced even in Americaís early days. Then we could just let the heads of state go at it while the rest of us, our sons and daughters, and our pocketbooks, are left alone.

Instead, it is best to rebuke both the pro-assassination Robertson and the cheerleaders of pro-mass casualty Middle Eastern domination, but letís be honest and recognize Robertson is nothing more than a side show in this whole affair. The real outrage belongs to those on the top. Too many want to have it both ways though. They want to condemn Robertson for his remarks and the "instability" it has caused U.S-South American relations, but give the administration a free pass on the real causalities and instability that have been caused since March of 2003 and which seem to have no end in sight. Only honest liberals and antiwar conservatives have been consistent on these issues from the beginning.

How about this: enough picking fights with leaders on every continent. Come up with a clear timetable to exit Iraq and let the Iraqiís run their own affairs, even if that means they want to morph into some strange hybrid of a constitutional republic and an Islamic theocracy as they apparently want to do. Stop trying to drum up problems in Iran with the same sort of unsubstantiated nonsense we heard in 2002 about Iraq, and letís stop inserting ourselves in this centuries long pillow fight over East Jerusalem. In sum, letís work towards the "humble" type of foreign policy George Bush said he wanted in 1999 and 2000.

Where is George Washington when you need him?

August 25, 2005


http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell50.html




Contrary to popular belief, Robertson isn't "just" a private citizen . He is one of duhbya's most valued supporters, one of the country's most powerful evangelist and is generally regarded as a mouthpiece for Bush policies.His remarks so deserve the firestorm they've received. What he and the Rumfeld, and Fox News fail to realize is that Chavez , unlike duhbya :tape: is a democratically elected leader who is working to help the poor. Calling him a "big mouth thug" because he doesn't cater to the U.S. and to wealthy corporate interests is pathetic. :fiery: So you don't like that he's cozy with Cuba. Too bad. Let's talk about how cozy Cheney and Halliburton were with Saddam Hussein in 1999. If you want "big mouthed thugs," look no further than Washington D.C. :mad:

ys
Aug 26th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Chavez is one funny guy.. But so far he is ... mostly harmless..