Jesus will be resurected again and strangle that basturd on his TV show.

Hopefully Jebus will do this during sweeps. I'm sure it'll be a big buzz generating ratings booster.

OK - you have got to be kidding to even entertain agreeing with Mr. Robertson who is out of his mind. Obviously you have not done your research about what has been transpiring in Venezuela over the past five years. Long and short - we want their oil. Sound familar? You have heard about CAFTA??? Well that little trade agreement was pushed through so fast by Bush our heads were spinning - and you wanna know why? So Rummie and his sidekick could go to Peru and Paraguay and blackmail these countries into shutting out their neighbor Venezuela. The sidekick refered to the democratically elected Chavez as an "irritating cartoon character." I hope that you look into what is going on in South America as the events transpiring there will soon be in the news - or maybe not.

Jack them meds, Al.

Robertson's comment sounds a little too close to comments made by Islamic "radical extremist clerics" who call for death to the infidels (aka, those who dare to disagree with my religion).

Yes you're right -- fundamentalist extremism is fundamentalist extremism.

Now that Chavez has rounded up and locked away all the journalists in Venezuela you won't find anyone there criticizing him the way that Robertson has from the safety of the US.

And Namaste, you need to read up a bit on the current activities of the Chavez regime. Contrary to all the praise the left was heaping on his Fidel-light ass when he was elected, he's now trying to fulfill every negative prophecy the right had about him being just another neo-marxist dictator.

Dave

That doesn't give a televangelist the right to advocate his assassination...

True. As I recall the Constitution gives him that right. A right they don't have in Venezuela, btw.

None of which makes Robertson any less of a nut for saying it.

Dave

Yes, yes... he has the "right" but it's not right, right?

Especially from someone who is a self-appointed moral leader.

Does/should freedom of speech cover incitement of violence? This is clearly hate speech.
Also, why does the religious right seem to get away with "treasuring every human life" when it comes to unwanted pregnancies or brain-dead retards in Florida, but then 25,000 dead Iraqi civilians, or elected leaders of sovereign countries who stand up for themselves, those lives aren't worth two bits??
I really want to know - when they say every human life, who are they counting as humans? Arabs and gays and blacks and, and,, are all those people really being counted as equals?

I'm not sure that a 'maybe we should' comment counts as inciting anyone to violence.

And trying to apply logic to Pat Robertson and who he does and doesn't want to see dead is liable to drive you mad.

Dave

There are too many misinformed people in the U.S. -- a product of our "free" press. Just to keep the record straight: (1) Chavez is a democratically elected president (not a dictator); (2) Venezuela has a very open and "free" press, which criticizes Chavez far more than the U.S. press criticizes Bush.

No one said Chavez was a dictator. Perhaps you need to read what you're responding to more carefully.

As for the 'free press' in Venezuela, wave bye bye as you read these articles:

VOA News
VCRISIS
Committee to Protect Journalists

Chavez has as his role model Fidel Castro. How much of a free press is there in Cuba? Need I say more?

Dave

Dave, the links you are giving are just propaganda. If you read Spanish I invite you to read any newspaper in Venezuela and you will notice right away that your links are not reliable.

If only the Ten Commandments were posted more places, perhaps Pat would remember that "shalt not kill" one.

I personally love when Robertson and his scumbag ilk get publicity for their asinine violent statements. Is there anything more hateful than advocating the death of another human being?

Of course, many people won't make the connection, and will continue to believe that Robertson is a moral person, because he mentions Jesus in between his wishes for the deaths of others.

But I say he's a fucking immoral hateful asshole.

He said this, too, in 1998: "Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together."

What an appalling excuse for a man.

Mmmm...seems like Robertson is just being a good Christian. Who would Jesus assassinate...?

WWJA

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

What do you think would have happened to good old Pat if he had said that about Blair or Bush?

Wow, Pat's upping the ante. He's only praying for the deaths of Supreme Court justices.

It's obvious that Hugo Chavez is falling victim to the temptations offered by that Satanic Fidel Castro. Not to mention the fact that this petroleum seems to be the handmaiden of evil. Every country which depends on this black gold for its economic spine becomes disenfranchised with Christ and the forces of good. Rev. Robertson only wants to see to it that Christ is accepted by all humanity as the King of Kings. We should be rewarding his efforts instead of criticizing everything he says. Rev. Robertson's proselytizing has failed to get Hugo Chavez to see the Light and accept Christ as his personal Savior. As a result the good Reverend knows the only alternative is to dispatch Hugo's soul to the lake of fire and brimstone. That is what Jesus would do, isn't it?

heh..Silas...sarcasm coming from you?

oh my gooses!!

i guess Pat just doesn't like catholics

we know that Mr Nalle (who i just can't believe is playing apologist for Robertson), hates anyone to the Left of Gordon Liddy...and the team up here just makes me nauseous...

when did it become OK for a "minister of christ", you know somebody that supposedly "talks to God" on a regular basis, to not only advocate assasination...but also pray for the demise of Judges here in the states?

somebody get Pat a turban

Excelsior!

Granted that Robertson's pretty much of a nutjob, but in fairness advocating the assassination of a thug dictator is nothing like calling for the deaths of infidels, as LMarie in comment 2 compared this.

And don't get too heated up over "Thou shalt not kill." As my hero Harry Powell noted in a conversation with God at the beginning of Night of the Hunter, "There's plenty of killing in your book." There were in fact plenty of capital crimes in the Old Testament.

I understand how it sets people on edge to hear him talk like this, but maybe it's in fact a good thing. He's not calling for a lynch mob to get him, but advocating public policy. Maybe the US government should send someone in and whack him. It's a perhaps not 100% crazy public policy debate.

Perhaps we should have had such discussions a couple of years ago over Saddam. Maybe whacking a handful of Iranian clerics might save us having a big war or nuclear armed jihadists. Or maybe that's all completely untenable.

But cutting off debate and saying that you can't publicly express such ideas does not seem our best bet either.

first..it is against american Law to assasinate folks...go and look it up Al

second..do you really think it is a good idea for a christian fundamentalist minister with his own fucking TV station to be publicly advocating such a law-breaking policy?

if so, you are even crazier than he is

third, this is a duly elected official in his own country, is he invading anyone?

what's next...someone going to start saying Venezuela has WMDs?

please fucking spare me, he doesn't like the Shrub, and runs his nation to the Left of center

for this it should be American policy to "whack" him?

i see how it is, big Al Barger, Mr Nalle and Pat Robertson advocate Tony Soprano for the 2008 election

i can't make this shit up , kiddies

Excelsior!

You are joking - right?

Robertson can comment on public policy all he wants --- when his tax exempt organization starts paying Uncle Sam.

I've said it before and I believe it more now, Pat Robertson is no better then Bin Laden. They are both preaching the same bullshit. God have mercy on those that follow the teachings of these fools.

At the rate things are going, Robertson will probably be our next Republican President.

Onward Christoid Soldiers!

[To save time, Shark is already sewing a 'liberal star' on his tattered wool jacket -- and lining up in front of the First Christian De-lousing Center in downtown Bumfuque, Alabama awaiting the next train out...]

Geesh, Shark, at least all you get is delousing. They're gonna a-bomb-i-nate me! The irony is that fundamentalist conservative Christians seem to breed more homosexuals than not. Why is this?

They also breed more child molesters & serial killers than anyone else. Interesting, ain't it?

WWJW? (Who Would Jesus Whack?) Nobody, if the Gospel account of his life is to be believed.

Plenty of people around back in his day deserved to have somebody bust a cap in 'em, as much as anybody alive today "deserves" it. But Jesus didn't go in for that sort of thing.

Too bad some of his followers don't pay any attention to what he taught.

Some people here are substituting mere sarcasm for real thought about tough choices in the real world.

Gonzo has the best bit of logical argument though, something that actually might be answered.

For starters, if assassinating foreign leaders is purely and categorically against OUR laws, then they should definitely be changed. There are certainly times and places where whacking some thug dictator is the best, most humane thing. What, we have to make a full fledged war, kill a big chunk of somebody's army and populace rather than cut off the head?

However, I'm NOT advocating such a thing in any specific case, particularly this Chavez guy. He seems like another two bit thug whose passing would go unmourned, but I don't see how he's near enough of a problem to us to merit such drastic action.

Also Mr MARX, you misrepresent our beloved Dave Nalle as a right wing nutjob. In fact, he's really a flexible moderate. It would seem closer to reality to say that YOU hate anyone to the right of Fidel.

And Silas, that's distinctly un-American of you wanting to wave that tax stick to shut somebody up just because you don't like their opinion. I doubt you'd have the same reaction to, say, a liberal black Baptist minister advocating more welfare programs.

Finally, ya know Gonzo, Tony Soprano might would be JUST the guy to deal with some of these dictators and jihadists.

Al Barger: Granted that Robertson's pretty much of a nutjob, but in fairness advocating the assassination of a thug dictator is nothing like calling for the deaths of infidels

Wait... what dictator are we talking about?

not so, big Al...

i rarely "hate" anyone...

as for folks on the "Right"..i'll take George Will and William F. Buckley for $1000, Alex

real, old school "conservatives" are just fine by me...we can disagree, but both are trying to do the best for the Nation

unfortunately, those running the GOP are anything but

nuff said?

Excelsior!

So Gonzo, you don't think that Dubya is even TRYING to do good by the nation? He's not merely mistaken in how he goes about it, but has some evil personal agenda? Perhaps you could write a whole new column for us on Dubya's REAL agenda.

Oceans of ink have been expended on Smirk's real agenda. Most people with intelligence and not intent on being GOP/Bush apologists (or who are not themselves part of the Smirk regime or profiting therefrom) are quite convinced of the unethical & possibly/probably criminal nature of Smirk's true agenda; however, it's not too late; if you read fast, you may be able to catch up.

But we're not discussing the soi-disant 'presidential' chimp; we're talking about the fundimentalist evangelical christian nutjob with the TV station and several million half-witted 'believers'.

Nancy, you've made absolutely NO argument there WHATSOEVER, merely thrown some namecalling. Sounds more like YOU are the one with the "Smirk." I've swum through a fair part of that ocean of ink, without seeing anything even close to justifying the evil conspiratorial stuff you're throwing at him.

In fact, President Bush seems to be trying to do what he thinks is right by the nation first and foremost- particularly in that most critical area of foreign policy. Not that I necessarily share all of his ideas of "right."

This entire conversation is comical and illustrates precisely why none of you who cling to childish ideas like this will ever be taken seriously in real journalism or as serious commentators on foreign affairs. Not only is assassinating foreign leaders oustide of war illegal, "taking out" Chavez would be an incredibly stupid idea because it would destroy our entire credibility in Latin America and the rest of the world and would be perceived as another oil grab. If you're looking to make enemies and destroy all aspirations of sustainable hegemony, keep speculating about weird ideas like this from nutjobs like Robertson.

Pat has consistently proven that he's more interested in politics than he is in religion. And his religion has always been filtered through his politics, which are bizarre and hateful.

This post and the simpletons supporting this story are the worst example of the excesses of the political blogosphere and unmediated Internet commentary on issues far beyond the understanding of keyboard ideologues who lack any perspective about public policy.

That is all.

I don't have to argue: my point is & was that the subject of Bush's purported nefarious plots, pro & con, has been exhaustively covered elsewhere. I thought this blog was about Robertson. BTW, I've heard you referred to as an elected official; if it's not a problem to you, what exactly are you elected to?

>>Dave, the links you are giving are just propaganda. If you read Spanish I invite you to read any newspaper in Venezuela and you will notice right away that your links are not reliable.<<

The VOA is NOT propaganda, neither is the CPJ, it's a non-paritisan free speech group. By now the Venezuelan press is likely to be so intimidated by the new Constitution and the threats Chavez has been making that nothing they print is likely to be true.

Dave

>>we know that Mr Nalle (who i just can't believe is playing apologist for Robertson), hates anyone to the Left of Gordon Liddy...and the team up here just makes me nauseous...<<

Gonzo, I hate everyone to the right of Liddy too. But I do find Liddy himself mildly entertaining in a trainwreck kind of way.

Dave

LOL, Dave - Liddy reminds me of something like the 2-headed calf: you have to stare in horrified fascination that anything so perverse could exist.

Miss Nancy, I am not an elected official. I was, however, most recently the Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate last year running against Evan Bayh. CAMPAIGN ARCHIVE

Yes this is a column about Robertson, not Bush. But if you want to speak of the president in such an accusatory manner, you need to back it up. It cuts no ice at all to simply refer to him as an evil conspiratorial Smirk or Chimp and expect us to take that as having meaning.

And Silas, that's distinctly un-American of you wanting to wave that tax stick to shut somebody up just because you don't like their opinion. I doubt you'd have the same reaction to, say, a liberal black Baptist minister advocating more welfare programs.

Sorry, Al, don't go there. A liberal Black Baptist minister should pay their fair share of taxes as well. I'm not discriminatory in that regard. Religious institutions have had a free ride in this democracy. I'll gladly keep the exemptions in place provided that every single penny received and disbursed is transparent with the public. It's that simple. We Americans have been asked to sacrifice quite a bit since 9/11. These religious and 'charitable' groups have been coated in teflon for far too long.

We Americans are so damn discombobulated by all the bullshit thrown at us that we don't even realize that our status as a 'superpower' has eroded almost to the point of no return. The media is controlled by advertising dollars. The politicians are controlled by special interests. Middle class Americans are controlled by the almighty dollar and the quest to have enough of it to make ends meet. Our education system is a joke. Our children have no respect for America much less themselves and their parents.

We need more parents like Dave who gave a shit about his kids' education and ethical well being. We need more Bloggers not less arguing the issues of the day. Sure, there are the extremists in Blogospheria. Get over it. There are extremists everywhere. The mainstream news media isn't going to reverse the ratings dollars paradigm. It becomes incumbent upon those in this world of Blogdom to keep the debates alive. It's up to those in Blogdom, regardless of ideaolgy, to keep politicians, the media and even ourselves accountable.

We now return you to network programming.

Nancy, have some respect with your smirks! Al is the Grand Elf Wizard of the Indiana Chapter of the Dungeons and Dragons Ayn Rand Libertarian Partay. Don't you know we need to support our President in a time like this? Your comments are simply a non-starter because that dog won't hunt to cut any ice in my father's house and we love to use cliched faux-wonk speak despite not having a clue about how politics work, don't we?

That is all.

Speaking of insane religious evangelists who like to assassinate people, whatever happen to Osama?

Al, I call 'em as I see 'em. In this case, referring to Bush as the Chimp-in-Chief is being restrained, compared to what I really think of him & his buddies. NO ONE gets a free ride just for having bought themselves an elected position - at least, not from me.

Well, everyone buys elections now since we refuse to have real electoral reform in this country. My issue is with Bush is how he's governed once he took office.

That is all.

This is true: until corporate money is barred & there's true finance reform, there is no such thing as a true election.

Speaking of insane religious evangelists who like to assassinate people, whatever happen to Osama?

He has a Mobil Mart franchise in Crawford, Texas.

So Mr. Barger was a for real US Senate candidate? And wasn't aware that it's against the law to assassinate foreign leaders? That Chavez was elected as opposed to being a dictator?

There ought to be a test. Some way to keep out the riff raff.

No, he was a Libertarian!

Ba-dum-bum.

That's it for me, folks. I'll be here all week. Enjoy the veal.

That is all.

The thing I don't get is why anyone was paying attention to Robertson to begin with... he was history when Reagan left office.

Bob -- You've watched the original Shrek withint the last week, right ?

Actually, I've never seen it, my friend.

Why? Am I an ogre? He sounds like a funny mofo :)

That is all.

Anyone like to join me in mourning the demise of the image of America and Americans we once treasured--largely idealistic, altruistic, truthful, just, tolerant, peace-seeking, working to improve--not perfect, but still a shining example of freedom, democracy and national responsibility to the world. Now, we have those like Al advocating "whacking" someone HE decides is a "thug dictator", and soft-pedaling Robertson's vileness as "he's just advocating public policy."
He has no right to advocate murder as a policy of America in my name or the name of any other U.S. citizen who is revolted by such suggestions. When and where did we get the divine right to run every other country on the planet, and why should anyone in the world respect us ever again if we even consider becoming a nation of wanton political killers?
Carpe diem & Peace.

VOA not propaganda? What does it say at the top center of the page?

Editorials

Reflecting the Views of the
United States Government

Nope, doesn't sound like propaganda to me at all.

Mr. Robertson is a nut. So is the former coup-leader currently in power in Venezuela.

The difference is, Robertson is a much less dangerous nut than Hugo Chavez Frias.

How many divisions does Robertson have? ;-P

"this is a duly elected official in his own country, is he invading anyone?"

Go ask Colombia...

Lee, you've got at least a couple of different issues there. One, "He has no right to advocate murder as a policy of America." Well, yes Robertson absolutely does have that right. It's free constitutionally protected political debate about what our government should do.

Now, whether what he's advocating in this particular case makes sense is a different issue. I don't have a strong opinion about Chavez one way or another really, and certainly would not advocate killing him. That would be creating a lot of bad PR for US, if nothing else, and clearly would not be in our overall interest.

On the other hand, yes I think we should most definitely reserve the possibility of just goddam WHACKING a deserving dirtbag from time to time.

I so much do not have any desire to play world police, but our stuff is all interconnected, and people want to come from other parts of the world to kill US here at home.

Thinking forward for example, if it were a viable option- which it might not ever would be- I would say it would be an absolute moral imperative to consider killing some Iranian mullahs rather than letting these extremely vicious and unstable people acquire nuclear weapons.

You can reach for your smelling salts, but all the indignant whining about being revolted and losing respect won't deter those mullahs from getting and using weapons.

Perhaps you'd consider it morally superior to just let it all go until Israel or US ends up having to use nuclear weapons against Iran, rather than considering unpleasant options like political assassination.

I, however, would consider that LESS rather than more moral. Any true morality has to mesh with the real world. If your idea of morality means that we have to just sit back and let many thousands of people die rather than killing a handful of deserving dirtbags to try to prevent it, then your idea of morality is a false and invalid one empirically.

comment #35 big Al sez...
*So Gonzo, you don't think that Dubya is even TRYING to do good by the nation? He's not merely mistaken in how he goes about it, but has some evil personal agenda? Perhaps you could write a whole new column for us on Dubya's REAL agenda.*

well now..no need fer a whole Article..simplicity itself...

first, scope out all the original WH staff and Cabinet...if memory serves EVERY ONE of them, with the exception of Powell, came from oil, coal or gas (energy businesses)...

how much did you pay for a gallon 5 years ago?

how much now?

i know 5 years ago, a gallon of kerosene was $1.09...price today $2.49...it's what we heat our homes with here in the great white north...you know, like Kennebunkport

remember kiddies..kerosene takes much less refining than gasoline

remember also, that there's NO shortage...OPEC is pumping at full steam...loving that over $50 an dsometimes $60 a barrell price

so, big Al et al...what the fuck do YOU think is the Agenda???

oh yeah..and to stay on topic...Robertson is a dink and a con-man...anyone that sends him money shoudl be checked for EEG signs...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

"Perhaps you'd consider it morally superior to just let it all go until Israel or US ends up having to use nuclear weapons against Israel"

You mean, Iran, right? :-)

Yes RJ- a mere typo, which is hopefully being editorially corrected.

I'm all in favor of declaring open season on heads of state - Pat's minions shall be sent out on world wide missions of assassination as in earlier evangelical movements

in fact...let's extend the assassination OK down to the seventh level job classification

in addition to being somewhat biblical in scope and therefore appealing to the american public it would solve the problem of bloated governments that wrong wingers complain so much about

off with their heads and off my bridge

troll

>>That Chavez was elected as opposed to being a dictator<<

And are you, Bill B, aware that an awful lot of dictators - including Hitler - were elected by the people they eventually oppressed?

Dave

troll fer Secretary of Defense!!

Excelsior!

troll fer Secretary of Defense!!
SECOND!

All in favor of troll for Secretary of Defense say "aye"...

Mr Nalle sez...
*And are you, Bill B, aware that an awful lot of dictators - including Hitler - were elected by the people they eventually oppressed?*

including Bush too, right?

Excelsior!

You need to learn to resist the urge to make silly comments just because they pop into your head, gonzo.

Who do you think is more likely to round up the press and throw them in jail in the next 6 months, Chavez or Bush? Let me give you a hint. One of them definitely will, the other one definitely won't. You pick.

Dave

and you need to resist the urge to swallow the Shrub's load, Mr Nalle...you get 0 points for credibility when you side with someone like Robertson

but then again..that has been your modus operandi...same as the Shrub and crew...join up with anyone that will go your way, because the Ends justify the Means

sorry..i don't buy it..i don't know a fraction fo what is going on in Venezuela...but i do know if folks like Robertson are pissed off, it makes me all happy in my pants...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

The vision in my mind from that first line of yours leaves me distressed, gonzo. Clinton is something I can picture. The shrub? Well, that's just blasphemy!

>>you get 0 points for credibility when you side with someone like Robertson<<

When did I side with Robertson? Being opposed to the budding communist totalitarian state in Venezuela doesn't mean I support a single word of the looniness that spews from Robertson's fanged maw.

>>but then again..that has been your modus operandi...same as the Shrub and crew...join up with anyone that will go your way, because the Ends justify the Means<<

My ass. Show me one time when I've backed Robertson, any other fundies or the PNAC.

sorry..i don't buy it..i don't know a fraction fo what is going on in Venezuela...but i do know if folks like Robertson are pissed off, it makes me all happy in my pants...<<

Well, I do know something about Venezuela, having followed the Chavez regime as it developed.

Robertson's reasons for being pissed off are probably very different from what troubles the rest of us. Chavez is a radical secularist and opposed to the presence of fundamentalist missionaries among the indiginous population in Venezuela - one of his more sensible positions. I assume that's why Robertson has issues with him.

Those of us in the rational middle have differences with him because he's rewritten the constitution and included a really extreme sedition law which will make it possible for him to arrest and imprison anyone who publicly criticizes him or the government. That's the first step towards dictatorship.

Dave

As a Venezuelan I can tell you that Pat Robertsons comments are out of line and irresponsible, which were condonded by even the opposition in Venezuela. Yes Robertson has the right to say what he did but should he have. No! he shouldn't have said what he did. As for the Venezuelan situation Chavez is not as innocent as many people think. While what he says sounds great his actions are very different. Poverty, unemployment, etc.. have all gotten worse.

Please see these links (these are just a few)
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10240
http://www.vcrisis.com

sorry "condonded" should be "condemned"

sorry for the mistake

KA, what's your take on the new Constitution? Are we right to be concerned that the press is going to be rounded up, shut down and made an aparatus of the state if they don't let themselves be bullied into silence?

Dave

Well, Chavez would not be as big of a problem were we not dependent on Venezuela for 10% of our oil. Since Nixon it's always been about petroleum and petroleum byproducts. We've done this to ourselves, my friends. Rather than conserve and live within our means we have created a society of "gimme, gimme, gimme". Our automobiles consume and pollute. We heat our homes with fossil fuels. We are as plastic as the material sold at Tupperware parties.

The religious right should have been teaching us those values of conservation and appreciation of what we have not what we could gain materially. But no, in order for their coffers to swell with the American treasure, they needed their congregations to spend, spend, spend. Wake up and smell the mocha java soy latte, my brethren. Is this the legacy we want to leave our children? We may have computers, automobiles and all the modern conveniences. But when it comes to God and all things spiritual we've evolved about as far as the cockroach.

Thanks for the assist gonzo.

>And are you, Bill B, aware that an awful lot of dictators - including Hitler - were elected by the people they eventually oppressed?<


Sure, but you'll have to do better with your sources. I agree with Nick Jones in Com 58, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

VCRISIS has an agenda and is akin to me citing Moveon.org for something in which your only retort would be to call them communists.

I don't know enough about CPJ although their criticism is a tad more tame.

No matter how you slice it, Mr. Chavez is well short of the dictator moniker.

The point is he was democratically elected and is pissing off a lot of entrenched Venezuelan wealth. He has enemies? No shit! Has he made missteps? Of course, but democracy can be a messy business, especially when you're trying to do your best Robin Hood routine amongst a bunch of Nottingham sheriffs. May he have to take some drastic steps? Yes. Can he come through such steps with a clear conscience? Yes. May his power go to his head and he be corrupted? Yes. But not yet. For sure he's made some blunders. But that does not a dictator make.

Take note. Can happen here if the gulf between the rich and the poor gets seriously out of hand as it has in Venezuela. But I think our ruling class is too smart for that.

But that gets to the next point.

Gonzo makes a great point. Bush is the anti-Chavez with a compliant media. Just as potentially oppressive, but does he have to wear it on his sleeve?

The US msm is so whipped that you have to search high and low to find a published photo of a dead or even injured American soldier.

Hell, the conservative hounds went ape shit when Koppel did a roll call honoring the dead and reminding us of the price of war.

Who needs to rail against the media when they're already on your side? But the right does it anyway - gotta remind them who's boss by appealing to the most base of human tendencies.

I think we need a few more Judith Miller's to jump on that grenade for the sake of journalistic integrity. Don't you?

And don't forget the value of the profit motive. A good many issues, if not quashed for the sake of appearing too anti war/US may have blossomed into full fledged scandals if it weren't for editorial discretion that took them off the table due to perceived backlash.

Chock up another one as capitalism trounces truth and integrity.

No need to be overtly oppressive when all the leg work is done for you.

We wouldn't even have the White Houses' nuts in a vice over Valerie Plame if it weren't for an in house spat generated by the CIA, and Robert Novaks narcissism. Another one the media would have taken a pass on as being too controversial if it weren't shoved down their throats by the CIA.

Anyway even you would have to admit that Mr. Chavez is well short of dictator.

Silas you're right on the money. I would only say that a good part of the religious right is not to big on conservation. You know, armagedden and all. Why conserve when the end is near? The rest of us need to get our heads out of our asses.

Back in the day when I seriously considered the priesthood, I was resigning myself to a life of poverty, chastity and obedience. That was until I started hanging out with many priests. Let me tell you something about priests. The majority of those I knew were as materialistic as Jim and Tammy Bakker. Some had Waterford crystal collections (don't go there, gonzo). I knew another who had a full length mink cape that he wore in the winter. They drove snazzy cars that were gas guzzlers. What's my point? If you can't figure it out then you're in serious trouble.

First of all I totally agree with Silas I think the US should do a much better job in eliminating energy dependence.

Secondly, Vcrisis does have an agenda, it is to expose the Venezuelan government for what it is, especially the things that the international media does not report. Is there a problem with this? Calling Chavez a dictator in the classical sense may be incorrect, he is more of a caudillo and populist. As for the resented rich, just so you are aware many of the rich are only getting a lot richer under Chavez! In particualr the military and Chavez govt. members. What we are fighting for is a free transparent government where the rule of law is followed! is that to much to ask from a goverrnment and where elections are transparent, by the way not even the Chavez supporters believe they are.

Dave, as for the new constitution. In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with it nor was there anything wrong with the old one. Chavez is bent on getting rid of everything that came before him (every thing!) He has a complex to say the least. The problem is that rule of law is not followed and that Chavez has surrounded himself by people who are incompetent and socially resentful. But most importantly he is unwilling to listen to people who are experts in a certain area simply because they differ from him politically.

The fall of Chavez will not be from the US or from the international community or even the "rich" people in venezuela (which are about 10% of the population) it will come from the poor, his "supporters", because Chavez can't continue subsidizing them and feed the corruption that is taking place in the government. This will happen when oil prices start to decrease. What venezuela needs is to diversify and create a long term development strategy, not a band-aid to fix gashing wound.

Anyone interested in Venezuela and Chavez should spend some time learning it's history particularly from about 1958 to the present and Chavez from the 1980's to the present. Only then will you probably understand how Chavez came to power and venezuela is in this mess. Unfortunately a lot of the info is in Spanish but anyone interested can contact me and I will try to help. there is still good info in English.

KA, what you describe is the classic scenario for a traditional south/central american dictatorship. They always seem to start out with the best of intentions, but then the cult of personality takes over, the leader starts to believe his own press, the praetorians close ranks and the people get forgotten along the way.

Dave

well Silas, you mention waterford and it seems Mr Nalle has his own crystal ball

so this is the extrapolation of the whole pre-emptive bit?

shall we whack this guy cuz of what folks like Mr Nalle and Pat Robertson think he is going to do?

quick..check him for WMS while yer at it

Excelsior!

Al, re comment 61 (sorry, I know I'm going a ways back):

On the other hand, yes I think we should most definitely reserve the possibility of just goddam WHACKING a deserving dirtbag from time to time.

If this isn't strictly unconstitutional, it's certainly ANTI-constitutional. Assuming, of course that "just goddam WHACKING" a deserving dirtbag means "without due process to determine whether the victim is, in fact, a deserving dirtbag." Why, wouldn't this be exactly the reason why the Constitution makes use of due process at all? To prevent a leader or the government from unilaterally killing anyone without visibly and credibly demonstrating the need for it?

Personally I'm not convinced you believe any of what you're suggesting; I wonder if you just like to stir the pot. But on the off-chance you're really speaking your beliefs, I can't possibly share them. They certainly work completely against the ideas on which this nation is built. And the idea that America reserves the right sponsor the assassination of anyone for the sake of our own interests--in all honesty it sounds like a terrorist tactic to me.

Also consider: if the U.S. established such a policy, even discreetly, it would set a precedent that would make it hard to legally/politically challenge any other nation's sponsoring the assassination of an American official. It certainly wouldn't put us on higher moral ground than other countries with similar plans toward us....

I just wanna say that this guy is crazy. Nobody has the right to say it's ok to assassinate somebody. What does this guy expect? The CIA to go right out and assassinate him because this guy says its ok?

as secretary of defense I declare that if Chavez messes around with OUR oil...he's fucked

and he'd better leave Peru alone and not get in bed with China

of course the strategic and logical way to get at him and expand stability in the area will be to take over Colombia first and then...

troll

Gonzo, I haven't advocated whacking Chavez, much though he may turn out to deserve it.

Right now we have a law against political assassination, in force since 1977. There's been some discussion of repealing it, and if that happens then the situation might be different. But frankly, even if they repealed it I wouldn't support assassinating Chavez, because if assassination were legal I'd only want to see it used in our direct national interest, and I don't see that in Venezuela.

Dave

Personally, I've grown tired of The Chimp's faked evidence for war when we already have a deadly enemy who is inconveniently not the head of a country, his continuing misrepresentation of those who disagree with him as terrorist sympathizers, and his crony capitalism. I say it's time to whack HIM!
Anybody with me? Okay, first, buy a medium-sized box and a bag of plastic peanuts. Then, go to your local convenience or grocery store and buy a BIG bag of regular-sized pretzels...

Re:#61
Al: Robertson's freedom of speech under the Constitution is not an unlimited right, as you seem to believe. All our freedoms have some limits;for example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there's no fire is not protected free speech. Would you defend his "absolute" right to call for the assassination of Supreme Court justices, state governors, Senators, black Democrats, liberal Catholics or anyone else he might choose to put on a hit list? Or is it just those pesky foreigners that have got to go?
As for your Wrestle-Mania approach to foreign policy and international relations-"WHACKING a deserving dirtbag from time to time"-do you get the names of those we should WHACK from the Lord like Robertson does? And wouldn't it then be a good idea to start WHACKING some home-grown 'dirtbags' right here within our borders? Or really, have you just watched one too many episodes of The Sopranos, or one too many re-runs of The Godfather?
Please allow me just one more whine: when you freely support murder as a worthwhile and admireable political tactic for us to openly embrace, your medieval ideology becomes more dangerous and threatening to America than any outside enemy is.

I don't know about Robertson, but I suspect Nick Jones is about to have a visit from the Secret Service.

Dave

"KA, what you describe is the classic scenario for a traditional south/central american dictatorship. They always seem to start out with the best of intentions, but then the cult of personality takes over, the leader starts to believe his own press, the praetorians close ranks and the people get forgotten along the way."

Which was the reasoning given for taking out Allende back in (September 11) 1973. Oh, now I get it: KA stands for "Kissinger Associates"!

Actually, KA appears to be a Venezuelan grad student studying here in the US. But I like your Kissenger Associates thoery better - if only it were true.

Dave

Yes, Dave I am a grad student here in the US getting my education. No secret here!

Nick I am not saying that the US was right in taking out Allende, what I am saying is that many countries have medaled in other countires affairs for there own personal gain. (ie. USA, USSR, cuba, etc...) so while it is wrong for the US to have done it is also wrong for other countires too. BTW are you aware of the extent to which Cuba is medaling in Venezualn affairs? You would be impressed I'm sure.

As I understand it Cuba sees Venezuela as a foothold in south america for a resurgence of Cuban-style communism - a strangely quaint and archaic concept.

Dave

Lee [comment 90]: For starters, killing an enemy would go back way further than being merely medieval.

I think your claim that this makes me more dangerous than our enemies is nonsense. All this reaching for the smelling salts over even considering the possibility that there might be a time and place to kill a dangerous thug- that's just hysterics, an emotional outburst- not an argument.

Why would it be such a bad thing? Chavez seems like a minor pest, hardly worth the grief that would be involved. Forget him.

But think instead of Kim Jong Il. Would it be better to just categorically say that we're never going to confront him with force absolutely no matter what he does? Then what would stop this guy from selling nasty stuff to the Bin Ladens?

Would it be better to say that we might go to war with North Korea if necessary, and all the mass killing that would entail?

Or would it be wiser and more humane to at least keep open the remote possibility that rabid dogs may get individually put down?

I absolutely do not even a little bit see how the complete categorical refusal to consider political assassination is the morally superior position.

Now Mr West [comment 85] makes a much better practical argument for why this would probably be unwise under most circumstances: "if the U.S. established such a policy, even discreetly, it would set a precedent that would make it hard to legally/politically challenge any other nation's sponsoring the assassination of an American official."

That's absolutely a good point. Killing an evil mullah who's been providing money and training grounds to terrorists would not be in fact morally equivalent to killing a US congressman. But it would look arguably close enough that we would tend to look really bad. It might not be evil, but it sure would be a PR nightmare for years.

However, if a PR nightmare was the price to make US and the world safe from North Korean nukes, it would be absolutely morally imperative to consider it.

However, Mr West makes a mistake in calling political assassinations "unconstitutional." Foreign policy is not the same thing as domestic criminal law, and was never intended to be understood as such. We're not having hearings and judges on the battlefield before we shoot insurgents in Iraq. Nor am I concerned with granting US costitutional rights to Bin Laden in some mountain of Afghanistan. Anybody making acts of war against US has volunteered for target practice.

Also, consider that even the remote possibility that we'd actually do such a thing would have to enter into the calculations of a thug in a way that they understand. Dear Leader may calculate that we won't start a war over his behavior- but the possibility that we'll send people after him and a few of his brass personally might be the thing that makes him become just a sconce more rational.

I'm not saying that such a practice would particularly be "admirable." It's not. I appreciate that it would be opening Pandora's Box. But there might be circumstances where it is less bad than the alternatives.

nothing like a justified fear of being murdered to make an egomaniac rational...

Kim Jong Il is definitely a better argument for repealing the law restricting us from engaging in political assassination. He presents more of a danger to his people and the rest of the world and is absolutely unresponsive to any kind of diplomatic approaches.

Dave

You know, for a "troll" you speak surprisingly reasonably: "nothing like a justified fear of being murdered to make an egomaniac rational..."

I know this isn't as much fun as South Park politics, but it'd be nearly impossible to assassinate Kim Jong Il. North Korea is the most closed-off society in the world and you'd never get access. We don't even have particularly good intelligence to make it possible, and if you make an aerial strike with a fighter and try to take him out, your chances of getting him aren't good. If you miss, you're in big trouble because you virtually GUARANTEE nuclear World War III. If you try to kill Kim Jong Il, North Korea will detonate all their nuclear bombs on Seoul and hundreds of millions will die. Even if you kill Kim Jong Il, North Korea's military commanders have no doubt been trained in their chain of command to retaliate ASAP using nuclear weapons.

We don't know where North Korea's nuclear weapons are and it's likely they've been spread out to strategic locations, so there's no chance of taking out both Kim Jong Il and all his weapons in one strike.

Nuclear war with North Korea isn't just nuclear war with North Korea -- Russia and China will be infuriated by any use of nuclear weapons in their neighboring part of the world and we'll come as close as we've ever come to forcing them into each other's arms and starting a global nuclear war. There's no way they'll have any sympathy for us, either, because they'll see us as the antagonists, the instigators. We can't win a global nuclear war against both Russia and China -- in fact, there's no such THING as winning a global nuclear war. Lots of people die and societies are destroyed, along with all international stability and the global economy.

If you attack or kill him even without a resulting nuclear exchange, you seriously antagonize China, which has consequences we don't want to contemplate.

If you want to have nuclear conflict and perhaps the worst Depression ever in human history, go ahead and go after Kim Jong Il.

A better approach would be to continue to isolate him and let the society crumble under its own weight. The Stalinist regime is crippling North Korea's people, which is a humanitarian nightmare, but Kim Jong Il is aging and has no clear succession plan and no heirs. No ruler after him will be able to rule North Korea with an iron fist, and more importantly, no ruler will be able to fight the massive popular support for reunification with the South. Once Kim Jong Il dies on his own, it's only a matter of time before North Korea reunifies with the South under relatively peaceful negotiations.

Attacking North Korea now won't happen. No one advocates it because Kim Jong Il is a wild card and because it guarantees nuclear war even if you get him. If you wait him out, he's not going to attack anyone with nuclear weapons because he's being restrained by China and doesn't want to be destroyed. Nuclear weapons are a defensive measure for North Korea, meant to defend their archaic system against invasion or intrusion. North Korea has gone on record as having a de facto "no first strike" policy regarding its nuclear weapons.

Yes, they're dangerous and unstable if provoked. But the odds of an aggressive use of nuclear weapons by North Korea is very, very slim. They crave isolation and to be left alone with their ways. Unless you're misled by ignorant assumptions about crazy foreign cultures or Cold War notions of diplomacy, no one takes the idea of taking out Kim Jong Il seriously if you want a stable future for the Korean peninsula. Once he dies on his own (which shouldn't be too long), North Korea is no longer a threat. If you try to kill him, you make every worst-case possibility a reality and set the world on fire. Everyone gets burned.

Learn something about foreign policy or military affairs before speculating on these childish impulses to kill.

That is all.

That should say "hundreds of thousands" die in the first paragragraph.

If Russia and China get pushed to the brink of nuclear conflict, hundreds of millions might die, however.

The much more likely nuclear war and threat comes from the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan.

That is all.

Ahhh, but Al, I didn't say it was necessarily unconstitutional. I was deliberately ambiguous on that one.

I said, "If this isn't strictly unconstitutional, it's certainly ANTI-constitutional."

Unconstitutional and anti-constitutional are not the same thing.

Anti-constitutional means, "Against the spirit and intention of the constitution." And sponsoring the killing of foreign leaders is certainly against the spirit of the Constitution: remember, the Bill of Rights wasn't intended to GIVE rights to the people. It was intended to PROTECT rights with which the people were naturally endowed.
Among them, says the Declaration of Independence, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Yes, "Life" is at the top of the list.

At the very least, it would therefore make us hypocritical to go out shooting foreign leaders without demonstrating its merit and necessity in advance. Even if it's not specifically forbidden in the Constitution, it's certainly the kind of nation that the Founders DID NOT want the United States to become. And as I said before, if another country sponsored the assassination of our president, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on in protesting it or indicting the culprit.

Actually, this is one of the few political things I agree with Robertson about, in a qualified way.

Assassination is a much more just and ethical way of solving conflict than war, as the victims of assassination are the guilty parties (in my books, all members of any govt are "guilty"), while war embroils civilians and innocents.

Even better, let the leader who wants to kill another leader do the job himself.

I would much rather have seen Our Leader agree to Saddam's offer of a deathmatch than what he ended up doing. The likely outcome would have taken care of a whole bunch of issues.....

As far as Chavez goes, I got a great deal of pleasure and vindication watching the Bush Administration's transparent, failed attempt to forment a coup against him.

So I would like to keep him alive, personally, as his failure to kiss ass to American Foreign Policy gives us a great opportunity to see realtime how the US handles these threats to its hegemony.

I think maybe it's time to knock off Robertson, what say? As for assassinating Kim J. Il, no problemo: just send him a pair of elevator shoes engineered to either explode & launch him into space, or wobble so that he falls off & breaks his neck. Or perhaps infected or poisoned hair mousse for his pompadour?

I wonder if this is a precursor to Smirk making a case for a preemptive strike against Venezuela, in order to 'bring freedom & democracy to its people'? He's used that lie twice now (afghanistan & Iraq) & it seems to work for a chunk of the non-sentients on the right who swallow whatever he says.

Nancy, besides being belligerant and striking a highly unappealing (and totally unearned) tone of condescension, you're just determinedy not dealing with reality. Afghanistan certainly was NOT pre-emptive. The Taliban were direct sponsors and guardians of the specific people who had been attacking us. That's incontrovertible.

Iraq was more of a judgement call, but the main point there was always presented to be knocking down terrorist training grounds and connections, along with WMDs (which we admittedly haven't FOUND). Freedom for the Iraqis and the Afghans is, from our viewpoint, a bonus- though an important point in terms of avoiding a recurrence of trouble going forward.

And how is it a lie to say that we're bringing them freedom? Both of those countries are having elections and working towards something if not perfect, then at least far superior to what they've had.

And your ridiculous crap about killing Robertson is not a serious comment from a serious person. Robertson is not a murdering thug. He is, at worst, a whacko spouting off in his little tv studio.

Your comments about Kim Jong Il might be amusing in themselves, but further underscore your lack of seriousness in dealing with the real world. This stuff isn't an Austin Powers movie. This dictator has killed and oppressed a lot of people, and has the danger to do exponentially worse. It'll take a lot more than a couple of sarcastic remarks about his hair to contain this very real threat.

I can see why they nickname you "the senator": you're just as big a pompous asshole as if you WERE on The Hill, lol!

"The VOA is NOT propaganda, neither is the CPJ, it's a non-paritisan free speech group. By now the Venezuelan press is likely to be so intimidated by the new Constitution and the threats Chavez has been making that nothing they print is likely to be true."

Yeah right, you are really lost Dave. I have no time for this but You can be sure I can give you classes about freedom of speech in Venezuela. Please,do yourself a favor, don't talk about something you have no idea.

People who send money to Pat Robertson's organization are sending their dollars to support terrorism. Someone call the FBI on this mullah and his fatwa.

I do have one question concerning Chavez:

Why does he need 100,000 military issue rifles?

I wanted to like this guy when Bush didn't and he survived the first coup attempt but...
100,000 rifles?

This is rank hypocrisy on my part. On thinking it over, I suspect I do support assassination of some of the more noxious 'leaders'/plunderers like Kim Il & Mugabe, but for reasons I can't put a finger on, Robertson's declaration makes me uneasy & riled. Maybe it has to do with the person making the pronouncement; maybe I would take it better if it were coming from someone else I don't automatically knee-jerk categorize AS a jerk. I don't know. I don't think it would make me feel any better if Bush or anyone else said the same, yet at the same time, if we DID carry out hits against the above-named leaders, I sure wouldn't cry about it, & would probably approve. It shouldn't be that I feel this way, but I do. Now what?

Now we're talking, Nancy. Stepping back from an instinctive emotional reaction like that is at least some small sign of thinking.

For my part, I admit to kind of liking Pat Robertson. He's like some kind of crazy old uncle that I'd argue politics with at the family reunion.

Which isn't to say that he's not out of his tree. Right here, he's stirring up useful public debate- but I'm glad that he's not commander in chief.

On the other hand, I can certainly somewhat see why lefties and even more so good respectable conservatives would find this guy absolutely MADDENING. Which is probably why I like him.

I can't help but agree deep down that offing Hussein & Sons would have been far preferable to any alternative we are currently engaged in; on that score I feel Robertson is right: better to whack someone than to kill off all kinds of ancillary people. Cripes, I need some kind of meds.... I LOATHE Robertson on principle; how can I possibly agree with him in ANY aspect?

ss, you are right to be concerned in that area we Venezuelans ask the same question why buy 100,000 outdated rifles (the same used by the FARC)! The Venezuelan armed forces is only about 60,000 or so, plus the military plans on keeping the onld ones too! Not only that but Venezuela is buying 33 helicopters, 6 C-295 transport planes, 4 Corvettes (ships from Spain), Military planes (super tucanos) from Brazil, and this past week the military announced they were buying a few more ships and 2 submarines, and it has been rumored that they want to buy Su-27 Flanker fighters from Russia. Plus Chavez wants to train up to 2 milliion people for the reserve army that is under his personal control not the army! But what is so hypocritical is that Chavez (around the year 2000) openly criticized Chile for buying weapons saying that that money should be spent on the poor. BTW which I agree with.

>>Yeah right, you are really lost Dave. I have no time for this but You can be sure I can give you classes about freedom of speech in Venezuela. Please,do yourself a favor, don't talk about something you have no idea.<<

Someone here has no idea, but it's not me. Point me to some evidence indicating that Chavez didn't have a severe anti-sedition law written into the new Constitution. Last I checked it was right there in black and white. I'm ready for the class. What alternative version of reality would you like to lecture me on?

Dave

Freedom of speech for the most part ended in December of 2004, see this link see what some of what the law entails

http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200412091318

BTW, the 24 hour news station Globovision was fined by the government for violating the law (due to some insignificant reason) a judge threw out the case against the news station, then the judge was fired the next day.

You can read reports by Human Rights Watch, Interamerican Press Association, Reporters without boarders, etc.. and they have all strongly spoken against this law.

Need I remind you that Chavez uses ALL Tv and Radio stations for his talk show on Sunday. How would you like to be forced to watch and listen on every Tv and radio station in the US to Bush for 4-7 hours on Sunday, and on any other time or day he wants to talk?

Yeah, using the media for propoganda and throwing reporters in jail is definitely a bad thing.

Chavez is a communist leader in a country that f-ing with the US oil supply. Why shouldn't he be assassinated? Why is this an issue of debate?

ummm..why is this a discussion..decent point...

i mean, the whole Rule of Law thing..you know, it's against american Law to go assasinating folks

so i guess the discussion comes from those that want to break the Law...

like Robertson....anyone else?

Excelsior!

Whats worse, having the Govt force the media to spit out the party line, or the press doing it voluntarily like in the US?

Mark the S and S;

Not sure the issue is whether Senor Chavez NEEDS to be assassinated. The issue is whether it's any of Pat Robertson's concern, and why an alleged Christian leader is advocating such action.

I think a LOT of people would be better off if Sr. Chavez met with an unfortunate accident. Going on TV and saying that the government should do it is another issue entirely.

http://pewview.mu.nu/archives/113580.html

I insist Dave, you have to start by learning Spanish before you even think about understanding what is going on in Venezuela. As for KA, stop reading Vcrisis, you're going to get sick and for your information, the buying of those rifles was approved by Molina Tamayo, have you heard about him?

To get a law to regulate the media doesn't mean there is no freedom of speech. See what is going on in London now and you will see, on the other hand, what would happen in USA if Robertson instead of openly proposing the elimination of Chavez propose the elimination of Mr. Bush?

When KA suggest to study Venezuelan history, he should mention how was handled the freedom of speech before Chavez, it is quite interesting Dave, ask him, there you have your first class.

Who does Pat Robertson resemble more, Jesus or Barrabas?

Barrabas, by the way, was a revolutionary who advocated regime change in the Roman-occupied Israel using assassination and murder as his primary weapons. Jesus, on the other hand, was a peaceful person intent on creating changes in the lives of men by leading them to God.

Who is Pat's role model? Looks a lot more like Barrabas to me... But then, what do I know?

Jesus or Barrabas? I would vote for Lucifer.

I'm going with Simon Magus.

Dave

Hanhnemann, while new weapons may be needed why this quantity? Why buy outdated ones (those used by the FARC) and not new ones?

I read all sources of news, even the communist ones but my stomach can't take it. Vcrisis is essentially the only source of news on Venezuela in English that is not financially supported by the Venezuelan government that actually reports on the details and stuff you can't find in the MSM.

Prior to Chavez the press was also controlled but does that make it right? I thought we voted for Chavez because we were tired of the injustice? But instead we got the same governments of the past but only worse. So much for the revolution. BTW countless independent organizations have criticized the media gag law. I guess you would say Cuba and Zimbabwe have freedom of speech too.

I already told Hahnemann this, but I suspect his mind is closed. CPJ is a neutral non-partisan group and they're very concerned, but he continues to deny the reality of where the Chavez regime is going.

Dave

Bravo Robertson, I wish we had more religious leaders that are brave like you. It would be great if someone assasinated Chavez. His freindship with Castro is a good enough reason for me.

KA, ask about the rifles to the fugutive admiral, he approved it. Maybe he has something to do with FARC which seems to be your major concern.
Vcrisis is not information, is propaganda and you know that.
Have you seen who is financing your independent orgnizations that critized the Radio and TV Responsability Law? It doesn't look so independent.
I am not talking about Cuba or Zimbabwe, I am talking about Venezuela. By the way, we are far from those countries regarding freedom.

Dave, you really think my mind is close?
Your information sources seem to be very limited and you think my mind is close. Funny

No, Hahnemann, I think your mind is "closed" not "close". I also think you're a flack for the Chavez government and not to be taken seriously in any way. Though it's interest to see that Chavez has taken a lesson from Kim Jong Il's book and put hired flacks out on the blogs to defend his budding dictatoriship.

Dave

Suppose we follow the gospel according to Robertson and assassinate Chavez. Is there ANY possibility at all that his sucessor could, in time, make him look like Mary Poppins? Same question for Kim Il, etc., etc. What do we do-keep on whacking them (Al's favorite verb) until we finally get one we can all respect and agree with, like maybe a PAT ROBERTSON?
There's your out, Nancy, if you want one. Your gut feeling just isn't viable.

I wonder if this will affect Pat's Pancake sales...

Well Lee, at least in the case of Kim Jong Il, I'd definitely be willing to roll the dice on who comes after. It would be hard to get someone worse.

I don't insist on one I "respect and agree with." I just want someone who's not a major threat to security for the whole world. Is that too much to expect?

Plus, if we WHACK a couple of dirtbags, even if the next dirtbags are nearly as bad in their hearts, they might likely be a little more amenable to reason.

Mr Nalle sez...
*Though it's interest to see that Chavez has taken a lesson from Kim Jong Il's book and put hired flacks out on the blogs to defend his budding dictatoriship.*

oh no..the Shrub started the practice..or should i say Rove..and you should know Mr Nalle...

Al sez...
*Plus, if we WHACK a couple of dirtbags, even if the next dirtbags are nearly as bad in their hearts, they might likely be a little more amenable to reason.*

please tell me yer not serious here...i mean, even if you started with the GOP, i don't think Soprano style diplomacy is any kind of answer...

Excelsior!

>>oh no..the Shrub started the practice..or should i say Rove..and you should know Mr Nalle...<<

No, that's not exactly the same. When moveon.org started paying partisan bloggers it was entirely for purposes of promoting their agenda within the US, and when Republicans picked up on the same thing - unpaid, I might add, but still partisan - it remained part of domestic political campaigns.

What Kim was doing and what Chavez might well be doing here, is trying to defend the negative reputation of their regimes throughout the world using the blogosphere and the web. Not exactly the same thing.

Dave

two words, Mr Nalle

Jeff Gannon

i just wonder if he gets paid more than you do

Excelsior!

I have yet to see any evidence that Gannon/Guckert was paid for his blogging, though I have no comment on the possibility that he was paid for 'other' services.

And believe me, the administration wouldn't pay me for the nasty stuff I've been saying about them.

Dave

but you two got your matching presidential kneepads!!!

i will say you have spoken in disappointment about the lack of progress on the domestic agenda you would like...but post after post, comments in torrents, you have been a staunch apologist for the WH as well as another good GOP shill that hits those talking points and follows the Rovian Way constantly...

so spare me any of the denial stuff cuz it ain't just a river in egypt

Excelsior!

I support em when they're right and abuse em when they're wrong, Gonzo. That's all I can honestly do.

Dave

In perusing the comments I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fundamental racism of Pat and his Christian ilk.

He has advocated killing a nonwhite SOB who has an oil-rich country south of the border. Did anyone advocate killing Chouchescou (sp) before his people killed him? Hmm, don't think so, don't recall Pat calling for the assassination of that Eastern European.

His people and other Europeans took care of him, his wife and the Berlin wall, all in one winter--without our help (oops forgot about Reagan).

Heloise

Tell me Heloise, why do you have a problem assassinating a communist dictator? Are you a communist sympathizer?

I don't know about Robertson, but I suspect Nick Jones is about to have a visit from the Secret Service.

Hee hee, they have to find me first!

"KA, what you describe is the classic scenario for a traditional south/central american dictatorship. They always seem to start out with the best of intentions, but then the cult of personality takes over, the leader starts to believe his own press, the praetorians close ranks and the people get forgotten along the way."

Actually, I should have made a distinction with my last comment about this quote (it had been a long day, I was tired). If it's done by a repressive, militaristic, "authoritarian" regime (e.g., the Somozas), then it's just ducky with the US gov; if it's a Marxist (Allende) or Socialist (Ortega, maybe Chavez), then the free world is going to hell in a handbasket and the Central American dominoes are severely atilt.

Anybody old enough to remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick's comment at the UN about how the US gov "sometimes" supports authoritarian regimes, but not totalitarian regimes? You know what distinguishes an authoritarian regime from a totalitarian one? An authoritarian regime pretends its death squads don't exist.

yes tell us Heloise - are you now or have you ever been a human being?

No, I am Nazi. What's your excuse.

Heloise

Mark, my friend I was supposed to have been complicit in having Castro assassinated but the SOB has outlived what 4 presidents? And the freaking irony is that the press showed a pic of Chavez with Castro--unbelievable.

These guys have 3 balls apiece obviously. They have more staying power than we do it seems. The people who follow them keep them propped up like the puppets they are--this is where we (U.S.) have miscalculated.

I think Pat should not say out loud what the powers that be are whispering, that's all.

Heloise

Write your Congressmen and Senators and request action against Pat Robertson. (You can email them quite easily.) His fundamental religious extremism is absolutely no different than the Muslim fundamental religious extremist. This is a criminal comment. He should be accountable for this words.

Yeah, bass, that's what we call- to use the technical term- "BULLSHIT." Robertson is NOTHING like the Muslim extremists. He did not claim that God sent him a special message, or issue a fatwa, or promise some idiot 72 white raisins.

He did NOT call for individuals to take it into their own hands to kill Chavez. He very clearly was making a political argument, that as a matter of public policy the US should consider killing this thug dictator. That might not be a good idea, however it is absolutely not even vaguely a criminal incitement. Surely you can see that.

Again, I'm really appalled when supposed good liberals go reaching for censorship and repression of our First Amendment right to openly debate public issues.

Let's have another Bay of Pigs Invasion! And I'm not talking about the shores of Cuba. Let's clean up the Bay of Pigs hanging out on K Street in Washington, DC.

>>Write your Congressmen and Senators and request action against Pat Robertson. <<

What, EXACTLY is your Congressman going to do? Robertson from a position of no official power at all, expressed his opinion. Last time I checked that was legal in the US, no matter how dumb your opinion is.

Are you suggesting a lynching?

Dave

"No, Hahnemann, I think your mind is "closed" not "close"" You don't even recognize a typing mistake.


"I also think you're a flack for the Chavez government and not to be taken seriously in any way. Though it's interest to see that Chavez has taken a lesson from Kim Jong Il's book and put hired flacks out on the blogs to defend his budding dictatoriship"

Are this all your arguments? Have you ever think about a choise? Why everybody that disagree with your oppinions have to be paid by Chavez? Are you repeating the same propaganda venezuelan opposition repeat?
Do your homework...

Do I have to think you are paid by your government to say stupidities in a blog?

From Wikipedia:

"Since he was elected in 1998 on promises of helping the poor, Chávez's influence over Venezuelan politics has grown. One year after a majority of Venezuelans voted to keep him in office, the populist leader consolidated his power, striking a harsh anti-USA tone. He is up for re-election in 2006, and recent polls suggest he has about 70 percent popularity.
Chávez and his administration have been opposed through confrontational methods by some established sectors in Venezuela, including the business federation Fedecámaras and union federation CTV, resulting in a coup d'état, general strike/lockout, and recall referendum, all of which failed to remove him from office. Although the opposition charged that there was widespread fraud in the recall vote, international observers said the official results matched their counts at polling sites. Subsequently Chávez and his allies have won consistent political victories, occupying the vast majority of elected municipal, state, and national posts, as well as majorities in the supreme court, national electoral council and national assembly."

Maybe Chavez' anti-sedition acts were inspired by President John Adams, who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 - maybe it's a stage a young democracy goes through, or maybe Chavez is just a wee bit paranoid after all the actions that have been taken against him. And if he actually shuts down any news media that opposes him, he might have gotten that idea from Abraham Lincoln.

And for those who don't see Chavez as a propped-up Stalinist boogeyman, see this.

I agree Chavez has the support of his people, the failed coup proved that. It's his interest in building a military that wouldn't deter ours, when his neighbors obviously aren't going to invade, that worries me.

On the subject of Robertson, he's a goon and a christian terrorist, no different than the Muslim enciters Blair wants to kick out of England.

They can both be bad guys, people, it's been known to happen in politics.

If your governments in their infinite wisdom are deporting and/or confining radical religious leaders for preaching hate and violence, when is the Coalition of the Willing going to send Pat Robertson packing to Gitmo for demanding the assassination of a democratically elected leader?

re: post 153

"On the subject of Robertson, he's a goon and a christian terrorist, no different than the Muslim enciters Blair wants to kick out of England."

Right, Robertson is calling for the death of all Christians and Jews around the world. If you equate that with calling for the assassination of a Marxist dictator, then you are fucked in the head, ss, and most likely, a Communist puke-o yourself.

Mark the Red-assed Babbling Monkey:

Although I am not a 'communist puke-o',
I am going to order one of those t-shirts that replaces the 'C' in ACLU with the hammer and sickle.
And says 'ENEMY OF THE STATE' underneath.
I think it's funny to.
Just not for the same reasons you do.

"Although I am not a 'communist puke-o',"

Oh really, ss? Then why are you bothered by a fellow countryman calling for the head of a Marxist dictator?

What the matter, afraid of a little pinko blood being spilled?

BTW- I'm one of the few lefists on this thread who sees Chavez is on his way to dictatorship, and I'm not defending him. The main problem in Venezuala is the 40% rate of poverty that creates enough desperation there people still defend a man who is begining to turn on them. One bullet won't fix it.
Nice fantasy, won't work.

And Pat Robertson is a religious extremist who rellies on fear and encites violence. Sounds like a terrorist to me.

A "communist puke-o"??? Regressed to our childhoods, have we? Surely you all can come up with better insults than t