Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The Culture Of Life!
The Religious Right is all for it -- except when it seems easier to just go in there and off somebody!

Is the former Republican Presidential Candidate a Christian terrorist?

Popular U.S. televangelist and conservative Christian Pat Robertson has called for the murder of democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Robertson has not publicly retracted his call.

Speaking on "The 700 Club," the 1988 Republican presidential candidate and staunch Bush supporter claimed that Chávez was trying to make Venezuela a launching pad for Muslim extremism all over the continent. Citing Chavez's close ties with Venezuela's significant supply of oil, Robertson said the need for his elimination is justified.

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Venezuelan Vice President José Vicente Rangel criticized the US and said, “It's deeply hypocritical to talk about fighting terrorism while at the same time, within that country, there are obvious terrorist statements.”

Commenting about President Chávez, Robertson had said, "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.” The conservative Christian continued, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

The White House vehemently denied trying to kill Chávez but accused the President of trying to transform Venezuela into a Cuba-style state. At the same time, administration officials were quick to denounce Robertson for his extremist Right-Wing views. Sean McCormack, a US State Department spokesperson, referred to Robertson’s statements as “inappropriate.” McCormack also said, “Calling for terrorist homicide against a democratically-elected president is not appropriate; it is illegal, immoral, must be condemned in the strongest language possible, and must be investigated for potential violations of federal and international law.”

The Miami Herald makes an interesting point:

The Federal Communications Commission should find this wretched episode of interest, as well. If Janet Jackson's ''wardrobe malfunction'' merits a $550,000 fine, what about an open appeal to commit murder?

UPDATED:

Now, Robertson reveals himself, not just as a thuggish advocate of murder, but a sleazy liar. Oh, were his remarks "misinterpreted"? You be the judge:

Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Wednesday that his remarks about the removal of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club" program. (Watch video)

The controversy began Monday when Robertson called Chavez "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas. (Full story)

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson on Monday's program. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." (Watch Robertson's comments)

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," he said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one 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."

Posted by aalkon at August 24, 2005 2:42 AM

Comments

One BBC listener asked this morning: "Is he still allowed in England?"

Posted by: kittie at August 24, 2005 9:35 AM

Liar, liar, pants on fire, Pat! You called for his assassination, and you know it. Also the AP was not the only agency that interpreted your comments that way. So did the current administration.

Now, I ask you, what makes Pat Robertson so much better than the fanatical Muslim jihadistic imans who call for the murder of the Americans?

Posted by: Patrick the cynic at August 24, 2005 11:54 PM

Pat Robertson has since issued an apology on his website. I'm guessing that Robertson has since been reminded that, in spite of his denials, he did indeed use the word "assassination."

Of course, that's pretty standard for these clowns with a Bible. When Jerry Falwell made his offensive remarks, with which Pat Robertson "totally concur[red]," Falwell insisted that he was taken out of context, and Robertson insisted that he wasn't actually hearing what Falwell was saying, and that something was wrong with his ear piece.

Well, let's see...Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

Robertson: Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population.

Falwell: The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...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 try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."

Robertson: I totally concur, and the problem is we've 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.

Falwell, of course, claimed he was taken out of context. Of course, he was. They maliciously edited out the "...NOT!" which he interjected after "...you helped this happen."

As for Robertson, since he continued to speak with Falwell on topic, it sounds like he knew exactly what he was hearing. Like I said, it's standard procedure for these clowns to backpedal and deny their own words.

I do give Falwell credit. Once he realized that his "taken out of context" contention didn't wash, he did the only thing he could do. Apologize. It was a good one, too. Of course, it would have been better had he not issued his apology after trying to lie his way out of it. Oh, well.

During an appearance on the 700 Club, in the midst of the shock and mourning of a dark week for America, I made a statement that I should not have made and which I sincerely regret. I apologize that, during a week when everyone appropriately dropped all labels and no one was seen as liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, religious or secular, I singled out for blame certain groups of Americans.

This was insensitive, uncalled for at the time, and unnecessary as part of the commentary on this destruction. The only label any of us needs in such a terrible time of crisis is that of 'American.'

I obviously did not state my theological convictions very well, and I stated them at a bad time. During the difficult weeks ahead there will be much discussion about the judgment of God.
It is a worthy discussion for all of us at a time when we are reminded of the fleeting nature of life itself, but it is a complicated discussion.

I do not know if the horrific events of September 11 are the judgment of God, but if they are, that judgment is on all of America, including me and all fellow sinners, and not on any particular group.

My statements were understandably called divisive by some, including those whom I mentioned by name in the interview. This grieves me, as I had no intention of being divisive.

In conclusion, I blame no one but the hijackers and terrorists for the barbaric happenings of September 11. We know, as Abraham Lincoln anguished in his second inaugural address, that

"The Almighty has his own purposes," but as he said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Some problems I have with this. "I had no intention of being divisive", for one. Oh, yes you did, Jerry. "I obviously did not state my theological convictions very well." Sounds to me like you stated them very well. You just realized a day later that they stink to high Heaven.

Posted by: Patrick the cynic at August 25, 2005 6:08 AM

Leave a comment