Robertson Now Averaging One Of These Statements Every Six Months
Silly season continues at high velocity, as sclerotic Yoda impersonator Pat Robertson weighs in on Venezuelan politics. You have to hand it to him: one valid way of curing Chavez’ apparent paranoia is to actually try to assassinate him.
Some saner commentary on Venezuela and Chavez – who is, let us not be mistaken, an even worse person than Pat Robertson – here, and here. In a just world, Hutton would be banking some of (say) Ted Rall’s syndication dollars.
Longer, less funny, but nevertheless gripping stuff for (say) law students who might need something to peruse during their afternoon lectures here. (PDF link.)
The newest H&R post on the subject highlights a new Bloomberg article which says that Robertson’s proclaimation may end up helping Chavez. I believe it.
Chavez certainly deserves to be removed from power, but if you’re going to call for his assasination, at least frame the issue sensibly and don’t lie about it afterwards.
Also, “radical cleric” is a fitting description for Robertson. He’s a short step away from people like Fred Phelps.
Plus everything I know about Venezuela I learned from Harry Hutton. But it’s probably more than Robertson knows.
Why shouldn’t we assassinate Chavez? I think the big deals with the statement are:
1) He’s a Christian calling for political murder — ooh, he’s inconsistent and sounds like a “radical cleric,” as Reason pointed out.
2) He is perceived as being close to the Republican leadership, therefore this statement has likely strengthened Chavez by giving perceived validity to his paranoia.
All that said, I don’t see the assassination of Chavez as that outrageous an idea. But then, I don’t suffer from the limitations of 1 and 2, above. Nobody cares what I say.
I can’t say I’m terribly outraged, although maybe I should be. Robertson just sits there and rambles extemporaneously. It’s not even a particularly extreme statement, by his standards.
Not sure at what point he becomes a net minus to the Republicans. Probably hasn’t happened yet, alas.
The new developments are even more idiotic:
“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.
It’s sad that someone who calls for murder and then lies about it considers himself a Christian. What a scumbag.
Jesus did have a do-over. Why else would we have an oversized bunny hide eggs on Easter? He could have mobbed on Judas after the resurrection, but he let it slide.
If he had a do-over? Judas, maybe.
One question: Who would Jesus assassinate?