Pat Robertson's out of his tree- which is why you have to love him. I mean, this is riDONKulous, m'kay?
On the 700 Club Monday, Pat Robertson appeared to be advocating the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has become known as one of President Bush's harshest critics. AP STORY…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - kA
sorry "condonded" should be "condemned"
sorry for the mistake
77 - Dave Nalle
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
78 - Silas Kain
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.
79 - Bill B
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.
80 - Bill B
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.
81 - Silas Kain
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.
82 - KA
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.
83 - Dave Nalle
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
84 - gonzo marx
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!
85 - Michael J. West
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....
86 - Matt Maltese
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?
87 - troll
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
88 - Dave Nalle
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
89 - Nick Jones
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...
90 - Lee Richards
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.
91 - Dave Nalle
I don't know about Robertson, but I suspect Nick Jones is about to have a visit from the Secret Service.
Dave
92 - Nick Jones
"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"!
93 - Dave Nalle
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
94 - KA
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.
95 - Dave Nalle
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
96 - Al Barger
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.
97 - troll
nothing like a justified fear of being murdered to make an egomaniac rational...
98 - Dave Nalle
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
99 - Al Barger
You know, for a "troll" you speak surprisingly reasonably: "nothing like a justified fear of being murdered to make an egomaniac rational..."
100 - Bob A. Booey
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.
101 - Bob A. Booey
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.
102 - Michael J. West
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.
103 - todd
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.
104 - Nancy
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?
105 - Nancy
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.
106 - Al Barger
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.
107 - Nancy
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!
108 - Hahnemann
"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.
109 - adam
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.
110 - ss
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?
111 - Nancy
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?
112 - Al Barger
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.
113 - Nancy
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?
114 - KA
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.
115 - Dave Nalle
>>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
116 - KA
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?
117 - JR
Yeah, using the media for propoganda and throwing reporters in jail is definitely a bad thing.
118 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
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?
119 - gonzo marx
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!
120 - todd
Whats worse, having the Govt force the media to spit out the party line, or the press doing it voluntarily like in the US?
121 - Warren
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
122 - Hahnemann
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.
123 - STaylor
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?
124 - Silas Kain
Jesus or Barrabas? I would vote for Lucifer.
125 - Dave Nalle
I'm going with Simon Magus.
Dave