Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Does Pat Robertson believe . . .
in throwing gasoline upon burning embers of the Looney Left's anti-war anger?
I think he does:
"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."
Wow. Now the Left can cling to THREE well-worn canards in their paranoid anti-Bush conspiracies.
Sigh. Robertson may at one time have been an eloquent spokesperson for a certain segment of modern conservatives, but those times are past. Back in 2001, he and Jerry Falwell suggested that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment of the United States for it's moral decline. Now, he suggests that assassinating Chavez is a good idea because it will ensure oil flow and, besides, Chavez already expects it, so we should oblige.
Someone should gently nudge Pat off to the side of the room and let him know that his time is up.
The Bush Administration has quickly distanced itself from Robertson's remarks:
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
The Venezualan Vice President, Jose Vincente Rangel,
called Robertson "a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country," adding sarcastically that his words were "very Christian."
The comments "reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times," Rangel said.
This is the problem with Robertson's idiocy. All he has done is (a) forced the administration to can any thoughts it might have ahd of actually killing Chavez and (b) given Chavez political cover and ammunition.
Chavez himself offered no comments. He was wrapping up a state visit to his great friend and model, Fidel Castro.