He is friends with the people who surround the Presidency and is a firm supporter of Bush junior's vision of the world. He speaks for millions of conservative Christians around the United States, all of whom take his word as gospel.
His calling on the government to assassinate the leader of a foreign power is equivalent to any fatwa announced by the more radical Muslim clerics to their followers. It is an incitement to terror that must be answered by the Bush administration for them to retain any credibility in their supposed war on terrorism.
Simply calling his comments inappropriate is not enough. He must be publicly condemned in the same manner that all who advocate this type of action are condemned by the Bush administration. If not, than any pretence that this is not solely a war against people of the Muslim faith vanishes.
There are those who will claim that Robertson is a private individual entitled to his opinion. That is true, but how many private individuals own television stations that broadcast to 180 countries worldwide with millions of followers who hang on their every word? What do you think would happen if any private citizen would call for the assassination of George Bush? How long would they stay free, or at least free from investigation?
What would have been the media and public reaction if this had been a cleric of a different colour? Let's say an American Muslim leader called for the assassination of Tony Blair. How long would he be free? The situation is no different, a religious leader calling for the death of the leader of a foreign power.
Hugo Chavez has already withstood one right wing backed coup, and a general strike that were supported by business concerns that didn't like his nationalist policies. His accusations of America harbouring people attempting to overthrow his government and potential assassins may be farfetched, but Robertson's rhetoric does nothing to ease a tense situation.
Instead of offering reassurances to ensure the continued supply of oil from Venezuela to the United States, all that America offers is an open call for his death delivered by one of their most influential religious leaders. This is not behaviour designed to make anyone feel secure.
There is always the distinct possibility that the Bush administration is using Robertson as a trial balloon. By having Pat trying out potential scenarios in public they can gauge public reaction while maintaining complete deniability. It wouldn't be the first time that an administration has used an outsider to test the waters on a risky issue and it won't be the last.
Article comments
1 - KA
While I agree with most of our article there is one issue that is inaccurate Hugo Chavez was not removed from a right wing coup. In Venezuela even the most right wing people would be considered left wing based on US standards. Also Chavez was removed because he called on the military to repress with force (ie. killing if necessary) a peaceful opposition march. Thus the military did not obey this command and removed him. Also the general strike was not supported by just the business sector but also the labor sector and civil society.
While the US has done a good job in not metaling in south american goverments recently, one also has to realize that Chavez and Castro seem bent on having there influence on the region now. Well Castro has been doing it since the 60's actually (Chile, Venezuela, etc.). So do you think this is right?
But I do agree that Pat Robertson should be held liabel for his comments.
2 - Dave Nalle
I'm not sure that any liability applies to Robertson's comments except for more and more people continuing to revile him for the idiot he is.
Dave
3 - Luis
The idea of assesination is one not too alien to regarding America's foreing policy. It resembles more and more the israeli policy, frankly. In every terrible detail: no more fooling with democracy anymore, just showing how powerful you are.
We in Latin America are already very much aware of how things really are and what to expect. And how only greed and aipac rule its interest in the rest of the world, the rest of america included of course. Now it is time that americans wake up too. After all, the people in charge is certainly not planning to share with their connationals the loot. As it is already showing....
Luis
4 - Al Barger
This right here is just wrong: "His calling on the government to assassinate the leader of a foreign power is equivalent to any fatwa announced by the more radical Muslim clerics to their followers."
It is completely not the same thing. Robertson didn't say that GOD said to do it, nor give a suggestion that his followers independently kill the guy.
He suggested as a matter of policy that the US government should consider killing a foreign dictator. That may not be a good idea, but it's not terrorism and it's not a fatwa.
And I'm disappointed with you Gypsyman for jumping out with this authoritarian burst: "Sending him to Gitmo may not be possible, but he still has to be punished. Use the F.C.C. to suspend his licence to broadcast." It's really disheartening to see even a usually good sensible liberal type such as you calling for censorship, for squealching public debate like this.
5 - yezbok drahcir
Pat Robertson’s history as a preacher is the story of a man who always stood on the side of the status quo, and was always right in there like Jerry Falwell, furthering oppressive causes such as segregation and other inequities hidden by a veil of purity, and subjecting non-believers to illegal slander, provoked hatred, and violence.
How he digs for gold up Bush’s butt demonstrates his lack of reason.
Pat Robertson is guilty of hate speech, terrorism, and libel.
His actions are far more destructive to peace and security than those of the many thousands who have been incarcerated merely for using cannabis.
I nominate Pat Robertson for TROLL OF THE YEAR AWARD 2005
As for Chavez, polls indicate a strong popularity.
6 - yezbok drahcir
I thought I should do a rewrite. My initial anger overtook me. I really don't want to be like those I abhor.
My apologies...
On Monday August 22, 2005 religious broadcaster Pat Robertson made terrorist statements by suggesting that American agents assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
There was no immediate comment from Chavez, but Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel called Robertson ''a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country”.
Vice President Rangel said the comments ''reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times”.
Pat Robertson has a history as a preacher always standing on the side of the status quo, and was always right in there with people like Jerry Falwell, furthering oppressive causes such as segregation, censorship and other inequities hidden by a veil of purity " not to mention subjecting non-believers to illegal slander, provoked hatred, and violence.
Pat Robertson is far more destructive to peace and security on the national level than those of the many thousands of individuals - not owning broadcast networks - who have been incarcerated merely for using cannabis.
Whether or not Pat Robertson claims divine inspiration for his violent suggestion, he damned well knows the power of mass communication. Is he setting a precedent for everyone to freely ignore FCC standards?
If a fundamentalist Moslem leader is a terrorist for condoning violence in the name of Allah, then so is a fundamentalist Christian leader for condoning violence in the name of God. Again, Venezuela's Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel said, “religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times”.
As for Chavez, polls indicate a strong popularity.
Thank you. yezbok drahcir
7 - Pastor M.H.S.J.D. Ching
Dear Sirs,
We at Landover Baptist Church fully support Pat Robertson's God given right to express his divinely inspired views. I don't know why everyone is so surprised by his comments. Rev. Robertson has simply suggested the correct course of action to protect American ideals of God, Country and the American way. After all, our treasured friend and ally, Israel, has been assassinating potentially radical Palestinians for years and no one has spoken a word against them. Just as President Bush has followed Israeli advise in the conduct of the righteously inspired Iraq war, why not use more of their highly successful killing techniques to rid America of two bit oil rich latin American communist dictators even if they're not Muslim maniacs. Furthermore and best of all, this type of assassination is the only method of late term abortion that is 100% sanctified by Landover Baptist. Now, that should make the liberals happy!
Your in the dripping blood of Jesus,
Pastor M.H.S.J.D. Ching
link
8 - Dr Allan Healy
This is from Australia, where most people remain astonished at the influence of religion generally, and evangelists such as Robertson in particular, on public discussion and policy-making in the United States. Though our government fawns on Washington, most electors here have serious misgivings about the state of American society and the direction of US foreign policy. What a pity Al Gore was robbed five years ago.
9 - James McGill
The difference of course, is that it's actually a crime to threaten the President or any other elected US official, but it appears *not* to be a crime to do what Robertson did. Even the Virginia statute that would make it a Class 6 felony seems not to apply for two reasons: one, that President Chavez is not entitled to the protections offered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and two, it makes a difficult case to say that President Chavez would have a reasonable apprehension of this threat being carried out.
Robertson stopped short of actually naming a price for Chavez' head, or personally threatening to carry out the execution himself. Unless there is some specific FCC violation or similar, the most surprising thing about this case is the realization that it may in fact be legal to broadcast death threats against foreign heads of state!
I don't mean to come across as being in support of Robertson, only pointing out that if a law has been broken, nobody has thus far indicated precisely what law that would be. If it falls under the category of a merely inappropriate comment, it's not really news.
Is it a crime? If so, then under what law is it a crime?
10 - Steve Savage
Pat Robertson has now become a qualitatively greater embarassment to Christians than before (if that is possible). As a Christian, my only encouragement comes from the fact that almost everyone from every faith that has reacted to these outrageous statements recognizes that what this man says bears abosolutely no similarity to the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Would that Dante was here to describe a suitable eternal place for such distorters of the gospel.
11 - Titus
What is free speech and what is inciting violence? If I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and no one gets hurt, then I can't get into trouble, right?
12 - Al Barger
I've seen the yelling-fire-in-a-theater thing invoked at least a couple of times already regarding Robertson's Chavez comments. But I don't see how it is in any way similar.
13 - gypsyman
Advocating and calling for someone's death when you are a person in a position of authority is dangerous.
"Will someone not rid me of this meddelsome priest" may not have been a direct demand upon his people to kill the archbishop of Canteberry by Henry the 2nd of England, but his loyal followers interpreted it as such.
Pat Robertson saying that someone should be killed amounts to the same thing. Millions of people who take every word he says as the word of God.
It is not censorship to stop someone inciting or calling for an illegal act. If I were to go on my web site tomorrow and suggest that George Bush needed to be assassinated, how long do you think it would take before the Mounties showed up at my door?
All I'm saying if that exposure of one little nipple accidently is worth how ever much money C. B. S. was fined, what's incitment to murder worth. Or has human life been so devalued that it doesn't matter any more?
Put aside politics for a second people, this man called for another human being to be killed. That's the issue, nothing else.
14 - Joe America
The writer of this blog actually compares Hugo Chavez with Tony Blair and Goerge Bush!?
This blogger asks, "what if a private citizen called for the assasination of Tony Blair or George Bush!?"
Here, let me answer this question so that you may understand...(Now, wipe the latte froth off your uber goatee and listen carefully)
Not only private citizens(mostly drug lords), but off-the-record government officials(also, mostly drug lords) call for their(Bush & Blair's) assasination all the time in Venezuela, not to mention their corruption of association with drug cartels and kidnapping murderers all across Latin America. Hugo Chavez needs to know that America isn't just going to stand by. Good people can put bad people on the spot. Bad people just can't do that because there will allways be more good people in this world that won't tolerate people like Mr. Chavez.
Hugo Chavez, nor his countrymen are the targets, or have been the targets of CRazy-ass, sacreligious Muslim terrorists!
Here's the deal, you idiot: George Bush and Tony Blair are the good guys. ///You might want to run that through your head the next time you get on a bus, train, plane, or some other public setting that is packed with alot of people where also a terrorist might decide to show up with explosives.\
Bush and Blair are Tough and Fair. You would have to be some kinda twisted communist to think otherwise.
By the way, Hugo Chavez(dictating commmie-bastard) was "democratically" elected by "slaves", not by patriotic citizens who are proud of their vast freedoms and independence. Mr. Chavez is simply another tyrant that TRUE democracies will have to deal with some day.
Pat Robertson is right, and You need to step away from the froth and switch to decafe, comrad.
15 - Victor Plenty
Robertson didn't vaguely suggest "somebody" ought to kill Chavez. That makes his statement quite different from King Henry's remark. Robertson didn't say it was a Christian duty to kill Chavez. That makes it quite different from a fatwa.
He suggested the United States government ought to change its laws and then deploy covert forces to kill Chavez. That's a whole different kind of crazy talk, one that is and should be a constitutionally protected political opinion about government policy. Even if it's completely wrong and morally indefensible.
I can't agree with his statement, but in a sense I'm glad he said it. This type of idea appeals to a certain segment of people who support the war on terrorism. It's important for the American people and government to reach a strong consensus on the principle in question.
I think most of us don't want our homeland to become the kind of country that tries to assassinate the leaders of other countries. It's a good time for us to reaffirm that decision of principle.
As a bonus, it may permanently catapult Robertson into the same category as Dean and Perot: people who sound too crazy to ever be elected President.
16 - Dave Nalle
I missed this earlier:
>>There is always the distinct possibility that the Bush administration is using Robertson as a trial balloon. By having Pat trying out potential scenarios in public they can gauge public reaction while maintaining complete deniability.<<
Bit paranoid are we? If they were going to suggest something like this why would they pick Chavez who no one much cares about instead of Kim Jong Il where plenty of people might think it was a pretty good idea?
Dave
17 - Jay
Hmmmm
"If they were going to suggest something like this why would they pick Chavez who no one much cares about ..."
Hi, Dave:
I think someone does care about Chavez.
"I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said of Chavez. "This is a dangerous enemy to our south controlling a huge pool of oil."
The elder Bush played golf with Chavez.
Could it be about OIL? Like [O]peration [I]raqi [L]iberation
Nahh ... Just another coincidence.
LOL
That's our oil! How dare they keep it for themselves!
Is the Christian Demolition now issuing fatwas too ? Calling for the calculated killing of someone they disagree with ?
How is that any different than a Muslim fatwa ?
Osama bin Robertson probably owns oil stock too!
He's going to get splattered with a lot of flying poop over that remark!
18 - Bb
Mullah Robberson be dammned!
19 - Religion has killled more people than anything else in this world
Robertson is whats setting this country back we arn't moving forward anymore. We cant just rely on WW2 anymore to have popularity in the world.Look at how well FDR handled his four terms in office i mean could you imagine Bush four terms in office. (jesus that would be hell, oh look i said jesus so call me a sinner). I can't belive people who buy into religion being Atheist is a bit to dark for me but religion is just such gardbage look at how many people it's killed. Sorry for getting off topic but Robertson needs to be removed
immediately.
20 - yezbok drahcir
.
Dear Honorable Prime Minister Paul Martin,
Please accept my sincere apologies for submitting such an offensive post earlier in this thread.
Forgive me for my gross lack of emotional restraint. I think I could quite possibly imagine the seemingly impossible issues that you face.
Issues like softwood lumber penalties, which should not exist when two parties have ratified an agreement in which one party secretly had no intentions of honoring in the first place, would be quite contentious indeed.
Loophole Hell - I guess…
Do well
God bless you sir...
Your citizen in service,
~yezbok dracir
21 - yezbok drahcir
.
Thank you blobcritics for granting me the priviledge to return here and clean up my messy message.