Religious Right leader and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson declared a fatwa on Aug. 22, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Surprisingly, the Bush Administration and major Religious Right organizations have failed to condemn the comments.
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said of Chávez on his show, The 700 Club. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Robertson, on his show today, backtracked, claiming he was misinterpreted:
ROBERTSON: Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "take him out," and "take him out" can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.
Maybe those who should be condemning Robertston choose to live in the alternate universe that allows Robertson's lie to replace the truth. How else can you explain the lack of an appropriate response from Republican and Religious Right leaders?
***
The tame response from the administration focused on the idea that assassination was not administration policy.
"Certainly, it's against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the top administration official to remark. "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
Of course, most private citizens don't have their own nationally broadcast television shows, reaching about 1 million people per broadcast. Most private citizens don't have a voice in national politics, either.
Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, called Robertson's comments "inappropriate." He said the U.S. government "does not share his view" and is not plotting to kill Chavez.
And that was about it. No strong words. No condemnation. Please ignore the crazy man on television, and oh by the way, make sure his viewers continue to vote for the GOP.
Robertson has often used his show and the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush.)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - The Right
Is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mixed into the drug cartel formula?
If so; shoot.
2 - Warren
You are a total tool who hasn't been paying any attention to what has actually been said. The evangelical community has been VERY vocal in it's condemnation of Pat Robertson -- unfortunately nobody cares, because it isn't news.
This article at Christianity Today would be a good start if you are actually interested infacts. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/134/33.0.html
3 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I believe Mr. Mark was referring to the Religious Right, not the evangelical community. As you probably already well know, Warren, there is a huge difference between the two -- as evidenced by the context of that most enlightening Christianity Today article (thank you for the link).
4 - airin
the problem is this: Media has always taken Public Figures comments out of context, only this time because of the figure being a "religious" figure head, is there more clamor... and “blood-lust” the desire to bring him down.
no, murder/assassination is not right, and if you asked pat him self he'd say the same thing, however he does have an opinion, and all truth be told, his opinion is probably shared with 70% of amerika. This is one case where we need to shoot the messenger, and not the sender...
i put my faith in the same God as pat before i’d put my faith in the Media
5 - Luther
Thank you, Warren, for the informative link. I note the article makes no reference to Billy Graham or Jerry Fallwell. Perhaps they were among those religious leaders whom journalists found "too busy" for interviews yesterday and today?
Also, the article fails to admit Pat's close friendships with Karl Rove and other leaders of the Republican Party to balance their list.
I believe every citizen, not just the evangelical community, should speak out against Robertson's comments and the comments of every "religious" leader who ignores the principle of separation of church and State.
6 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Here's the whole thing, in context:
Concerning "blood-lust," it seems to me that Reverend Robertson "chummed the waters" rather effectively.
7 - David R. Mark
Robertson (sort of) apologized for his comments, but only after first trying to deny he made them. What a joke he's become.
8 - Dave Nalle
Another fine smear job, David.
I'm not sure it's good for the reputation of BC that this article is showing up in the top 3 on google news when the title and the second paragraph contain obvious lies.
A full day before you posted this the White House clearly disavowed and rejected Pat Robertson's statement in the strongest terms.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's [Mr. Robertson] a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
Acknowledging differences with the Caracas government and saying it should be promoting democracy in the region, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Mr. Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."
"I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are," Mr. McCormack said. "They are the expression of one citizen."
You can read the full article at the Dallas Morning News.
I thought you were supposed to be some sort of journalist. Have you ever considered checking for facts, or do you just ignore those which would weaken your propaganda?
I notice that several extreme left wing propaganda sites made this same erroneous accusation, with similar wording to yours. Perhaps you just pick up your talking points from them.
BTW, many of them have already corrected their articles to acknowledge the white house statements and call them 'weak'. Better get on it.
Dave
9 - Warren
Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell have both had some health problems -- I know that Jerry has only recently had some surgery. They've both probably been quiet on this one for health reasons -- though I expect Jerry is just as happy to let Robertson twist in the wind for this one.
10 - Dave Nalle
Falwell's probably just happy he didn't say something stupid for once and that someone else is taking the heat.
Interesting how David Mark has nothing to say about the lies that form the core of this post... He's usually so eager to defend his attack articles.
Dave
11 - David R. Mark
Dave, I included both quotes that you mention. Maybe you didn't read my post before you criticized it.
My point was that no one in the administration condemned or denounced Robertson's statement. Rumsfeld said assassination was not government policy -- accurate, but not a denouncement. McCormack was a little stronger, calling Robertson's words "inappropriate." Again, not a very strong statement.
And, in the other half of the post, I point out that the Religous Right was too busy to comment about one of their own.
So you essentially call me a liar by pointing out things that I have in my post. Good analysis, Dave.
12 - David R. Mark
I notice that several extreme left wing propaganda sites made this same erroneous accusation, with similar wording to yours. Perhaps you just pick up your talking points from them.>>
I don't take kindly to accusations of plagiarism, Dave. Perhaps other people read my post. Or maybe we just came to the same conclusion -- because it's so obviously true.
Speaking of smear campaigns ... there you go again, Dave.
13 - Dave Nalle
The problem is your title and your opening statement, where you clearly suggest that there was no appropriate negative response to Robertson's statement, when the fact is that the White House made exactly the right level of response. You have a pattern of using inflamatory titles in these attack posts and then not being able to back them up.
Your hypocrisy is so enormous that I hardly know where to begin, but let's look at the rest of the article.
First off, you can't compare condemnations of actual assassinations that happened and someone's off-hand comment that someone ought to be assassinated. The response from the administration to the actual death OUGHT to be stronger than their response to the comment from Robertson. Calling it 'inappropriate' and pointing out that Robertson doesn't speak for anyone but himself is the absolute perfect response. If they said any more it would be an overreaction.
As others have already pointed out, your tactic of picking a few religious right organizations that didn't speak out against Robertson and then using their innaction to accuse the entire religious right of being indifferent to the statement is incredibly deceptive. Far more have criticized Robertson than have ignored him and you totally ignore that fact because it doesn't serve your agenda.
Why does the truth mean so little to you? Do you hate Bush so much and so irrationally that you'll literally say anything if you think it will discredit him just a little bit?
Dave
14 - David R. Mark
I know this will lead the conversation astray, but ...
Buzzflash linked to my story, and I'm guessing that led to several other blogs re-posting it, perhaps with their own introductions.
The same thing happened last week, when Daily Kos linked to one of my articles, and about 15 blogs posted their own versions of it, with their own introductions.
15 - Liberal
"Is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mixed into the drug cartel formula?
If so; shoot."
But then where will W get his coke?
16 - David R. Mark
Calling it 'inappropriate' and pointing out that Robertson doesn't speak for anyone but himself is the absolute perfect response. If they said any more it would be an overreaction.
>>
Fine, we disagree.
That doesn't mean I smeared or lied or plagiarized. It just means we disagree.
17 - David R. Mark
What Dave Nalle said I said:
"using their innaction to accuse the entire religious right of being indifferent to the statement is incredibly deceptive"
What I actually said: "Also silent were many conservative Christian organizations. Leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition ...
I never accused "the entire religious right." I accused some of the largest, best-known, most powerful elements of the Religious Right, for not condemning one of their own.
I know it's easier for you to twist my argument in order to make yours, but I don't think what I did was the least bit deceptive. It would have been deceptive to say the religious right ignored the issue, and not back it up with any examples.
As for the other column to which you refer, I think comment 3 covers the nuance between "religious right" and "evangelical community."
18 - David R. Mark
Do you hate Bush so much and so irrationally that you'll literally say anything if you think it will discredit him just a little bit?
>>
That's the sort of bullying sentence I'd expect on a schoolyard. The sort of immature, leading commentary that has 10-year-old bullies ask the wimpy kid "when did you realize you were a loser and start screwing the dog?"
>>>
Dave, it's simple. I thought that the Bush Administration should have denounced or condemned Robertson, who is a major Bush backer, has been around Republican Party and Religious Right politics for more than two decades, and who is a regular conservative pundit (including on Hannity & Colmes on 8/15). He's not some nobody.
I thought the comments from Rumsfeld and McCormack were tame, as I said in my piece.
19 - David R. Mark
Dave, why don't you admit that you read my headline and a couple of graphs, and failed to read any more, before you accused me of lying, not fact checking, and possibly plagiarizing liberal talking points?
As it stands, your initial commentary looks woefully silly.
20 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, why don't you admit that you read my headline and a couple of graphs,<<
Apparently you didn't read your article, since there don't appear to actually BE any graphs.
>>I thought the comments from Rumsfeld and McCormack were tame, as I said in my piece. <<
Compare what they said here to what they said in response to actual assassinations. It's exactly appropriate in proportion.
You're giving Robertson's statement way too much significance, and the White House put it in proportion exactly right. I assume you want to inflate its importance to pin some blame on Bush, but it just doesn't fly.
If you admit you massively overinflated the significance of Robertson's comment I'll admit to reacting too quickly to the ridiculousness of your title and first few paragraphs.
Dave
21 - David R. Mark
>>Dave, why don't you admit that you read my headline and a couple of graphs,<<
Sorry, Dave. You boasted in an earlier post of your experience in the journalism business. I assumed you knew the journalist lingo "graphs" -- short for "paragraphs."
My fault for assuming your earlier comment was honest.
22 - David R. Mark
If you admit you massively overinflated the significance of Robertson's comment >>
Dave, like I said, we disagree on the importance of the comment, and whether the administration's reaction was appropriate.
Disagreements are healthy, Dave.
So no, I'm not going to retract my argument. You however should be honest and admit you jumped the gun, because, as I said before, your initial attack against me is woefully silly.
23 - David R. Mark
The sad thing is that you can lie about my original post and imply that I plagiarized -- and when you are caught with your pants down on both accusations, you simply move on to the next hyperbolic personal attack.
You don't really bring a lot to the table, Dave.
24 - Dave Nalle
True, my later argument was much more comprehensive. You have such a track record of distorting the truth on anything which comes out of the white house that I reacted too quickly.
I just wish you'd admit for once that your arguments are tailored to serve your agenda of harming the administration rather than actually trying to expose the truth.
I find nothing more despicable than those who try to mask irrationality in the false trappings of objectivity.
Dave
25 - David R. Mark
Dave Nalle: "The problem is your title and your opening statement, where you clearly suggest that there was no appropriate negative response to Robertson's statement"
What I actually wrote;
White House, Religious Right Fail To "Condemn" Robertson's Fatwa
Religious Right leader and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson declared a fatwa on Aug. 22, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Surprisingly, the Bush Administration and major Religious Right organizations have failed to condemn the comments.
***
There is nothing inaccurate, deceptive or misleading about the title or opening paragraphs. The only way you can claim what I wrote to be inaccurate, deceptive or misleading is if you can find someone in the Bush Administration who used the word "condemn" (note the quotation marks in the headline) in talking about Robertson's comments about Chavez.
I'll even give this one to you if you can find a Bush Administration official using something similar to "condemn," such as "denounce." But I checked a slew of news stories as well as whitehouse.gov, and couldn't find anything beyond the published comments from Rumsfeld and McCormack.
So, Dave, even when you defend your initial, woefully silly and poorly reserched comments, this follow-up is equally woefully silly and poorly researched.