Robertson says something ugly, and the right's reaction? Inadequate.
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.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - David R. Mark
Dave Nalle: "You have such a track record of distorting the truth on anything which comes out of the white house that I reacted too quickly."
.>>
Is this your latest, third defense of your woefully silly and false accusations?
That's as bad as Robertson's apology.
&&&
The sad thing, of course, is that for all your bluster and hyperbole, you have never been able to prove a factual innaccuracy on my part. You interpret things (spin points, statements by the administration, etc.) differently than I do, and use that difference of opinion as a basis for personal attacks against me, my blog, my ethics, etc.
It's awful stale, Dave.
27 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
my god, are all the bloggers on this website flaming anti-American left wingers?
Robertson issued a what? A fatwa? Are you bloody kidding? A real fatwa is a Muslim cleric saying something like this:
"O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists are the Jews, who have butchered our children, orphaned them, widowed our women and desecrated our holy places and sacred sites. They are the terrorists. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them: Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers...."
---OR----
"O brothers in belief, this is the case of the Jews and their habitual conduct, and what happened yesterday, and has been going on for two weeks, and before that for many years, and which will be repeated in future years unless we stand up like men and unless we have the known Muslim position, [the position] of those who wage Jihad in the path of Allah, those who defend their rights and who sacrifice all that is dear to them."
David Mark, get a grip on reality. You Christian haters have been gunning for this guy for years. Like Margaret Romao Toigo, you ignore the steady litany of anti-Jewish and anti-American hate from Muslim mosques and instead focus on one innocent Christian cleric exercising his free speech liberty.
Admit it, you despise any Western religion and fear Islam because you know Christians and Jews won't put you on a hit list for writing negative things against them. The murder of Dutch filmmaker vanGogh probably still lingers in your mind, am I right?
28 - Dave Nalle
You miss the point, David. Their response is the reasonable and correct response. They don't condemn people for their speech - unlike the intolerant extremists. They identified it for what it was, inappropriate. Murder and atrocities you condemn. Condemnation is an extreme reaction for inappropriate speech.
You consistently condemn the administration for things which they say which are inappropriate. You ought to understand the difference. Or maybe you don't and that's the entire source of the problem here. But that would mean you're an unreasoning extremist.
Dave
29 - David R. Mark
Dave, again, all you are saying is that we disagree. That's a far cry from your earlier, woefully silly statements that I was a liar, had not fact checked, had been deceptive and misleading in my headline, and possibly plagiarized.
You think they did the right thing. Fine. That's your opinion. I think they should have reacted more strongly, which is what I wrote.
I fully understand your opinion, but I choose to disagree. How about you show me the same consideration, rather than turning our disagreement into a starting point for a personal attack?
30 - Dave Nalle
We do disagree.
I think that people should be judged on what they do and say and that it should be an ongoing, adaptive process with each action taken in context.
You think it's fine to judge people on one action or statement and permanently condemn all their actions based on that, and then never given a second chance and never reassess them, and that then you should do everything you can to punish them based on your inflexible and myopic vision of them.
That's a pretty fundamental disagreement.
Sorry to keep going after you, but I honestly think that what you do is as close to evil as anything in politics today. It's indistinguishable from the behavior of the religious right - the names and motivations have just been changed. I'm not a big fan of that kind of hypocrisy from either political extreme.
Your brand of partisan extremism is what's destroying our country. But take heart. I wouldn't even bother with you if I thought you were just another Pat Robertson. I still think you might see the harm you're doing some day if you can put ego aside and actually look at the harm you do.
Dave
31 - David R. Mark
You think it's fine to judge people on one action or statement and permanently condemn all their actions based on that, and then never given a second chance and never reassess them, and that then you should do everything you can to punish them based on your inflexible and myopic vision of them.
>>>
That certainly isn't a smear, Dave.
You're hilarious Dave. You accuse me of lying, failing to fact-check, misleading, deceiving, and possibly plagiarizing, yet fail to actually show any inaccurate statements in my post.
Then you use that as a platform for personal attack after personal attack.
You should go work for Ken Mehlman, or maybe Karl Rove!
32 - David R. Mark
Sorry to keep going after you, but I honestly think that what you do is as close to evil as anything in politics today.
>>>
Writing factually accurate and well-researched opinion pieces is "evil"?
You sound more woefully silly with each personal attack, Dave. You must be polishing up your resume for a career with the RNC.
***
Anytime you want to apologize for suggesting I lied, deceived, misled, failed to fact-check and possibly plagiarized, I'm here for you. Maybe someday you will understand that the "politics of personal destruction" doesn't help anyone.
Otherwise, I again fail to see what value you bring to blogcritics.
33 - Dave Nalle
Why do you always write two responses? Seems unnecessary.
>>Writing factually accurate and well-researched opinion pieces is "evil"? <<
They're not opinion pieces, they're attack pieces. And that you include some facts doesn't mean that you don't misrepresent them and twist them to serve your purposes.
>>Anytime you want to apologize for suggesting I lied, deceived, misled, failed to fact-check and possibly plagiarized, I'm here for you.<<
Plagiarized? I said you were using similar terminology to other left-wing bloggers. And you are. The 'fatwa' term is popping up all over in reference to Robertson. And the deception is obvious, because you're pushing the idea that Bush should have 'condemned' Robertson, when there's no logical basis for that - it's just your opinion.
>> Maybe someday you will understand that the "politics of personal destruction" doesn't help anyone. <<
I do. It's what you're engaged in and it's not helping.
>>Otherwise, I again fail to see what value you bring to blogcritics.<<
Honesty, David. You should try some - at least with yourself - sometime.
Dave
34 - Dave Nalle
Oh, regarding the whole plagiarism thing:
David Mark 8/24 on Blogcritics:
"Also silent were many conservative Christian organizations. Leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying through spokesmen that they were too busy to comment."
Laurie Goodstein 8/23 The New York Times:
"But other conservative Christian organizations remained silent, with leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying through spokesmen that they were too busy to comment."
You might want to attribute those quotes from The Times or at least mention that they're doing your research for you. Your incomplete sentence at the end shows that you just cut and pasted, adding a period but forgetting to fix the verb from 'saying' to 'said'.
Of course, Goodstein's article is much more balanced than yours, because she does mention that most religious groups immediately condemned Robertson.
Dave
35 - David R. Mark
Dave Nalle: "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."
What Dave actually meant was that I included a fact reported by the New York Times.
Yes, those two accusations are very similar.
***
Dave, if it makes you happy, I'll agree I could have attributed this fact to the Times. I could also have attributed the various references to Bush condeming things to their sources, such as Yahoo News or whitehouse.gov.
If that makes you feel better, fine. You still haven't shown one instance when I was factually inaccurate.
The basis of your argument remains, "I disagree with you, therefore you are evil."
And you still resort to personal attacks as a starting point for your woefully silly and partisan commentary.
Like I said, it's very stale. If you don't like my writing, don't read it. Lots of people agree with the points I make. I'm not concerned if you choose to disagree.
36 - Dave Nalle
David, the other sites I saw had similarities to your TITLE and the use of the term Fatwa, which is apparently in the current talking points you're all working from. it's an entirely separate issue from your lifting text directly from the Times article.
>>If that makes you feel better, fine. You still haven't shown one instance when I was factually inaccurate. <<
As I've said before, your practice is to cherrypick facts, look only at the ones which support your position and ignore the rest of the body of facts which contradict your position. The christian groups not condemning Robertson is a perfect example. When almost every Christian group does condemn him, you single out three which don't and make no mention of the fact that they're a tiny minority. It's a deceptive tactic, and while it may contain facts, it doesn't add up to the truth.
>>The basis of your argument remains, "I disagree with you, therefore you are evil." <<
Wrong. The basis of my argument remains that you are a partisan extremist who is motivated by hate and therefore you are evil. If you were just pointing out mistakes the administration has made I could accept it - but you go out of your way to misrepresent facts to manufacture bogus offenses, and that's propaganda and disinformation, not journalism.
>>And you still resort to personal attacks as a starting point for your woefully silly and partisan commentary. <<
You can say this all you like, but the fact remains I'm only attacking what you say, and only on its own merits or lack thereof.
>>Like I said, it's very stale. If you don't like my writing, don't read it. Lots of people agree with the points I make. I'm not concerned if you choose to disagree.<<
You should be concerned, because it's not that I disagree with you, it's that I am pointing out the fundamental wrongness of your campaign of hate.
Dave
37 - Steve S
The christian groups not condemning Robertson is a perfect example. When almost every Christian group does condemn him, you single out three which don't and make no mention of the fact that they're a tiny minority.
are you talking about when he said "Leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying through spokesmen that they were too busy to comment."
The title of the post says the Religious Right. Wouldn't you say those three groups comprise a large part of the Religious Right? It might not be a large part of 'Christian groups' or Christianity, but it's a bigger percentage of the Religious Right, I think.
38 - David R. Mark
Thank you, Steve. An earlier commenter agreed with you, also highlighting this bait-and-switch attempt to criticize my post.
39 - Dave Nalle
Steve, the other groups that did condemn him are just as large as or as a group much larger than the three that David Mark mentioned. And they are certainly more numerous. Scores of Christian and Evangelical groups have condemned Robertson. Their constituencies also probably overlap with the groups that did not condemn him.
>>An earlier commenter agreed with you, also highlighting this bait-and-switch attempt to criticize my post.<<
Talk about spin. I'd like to see the comment you're referring to. No one has spoken out in support of you since I first started pointing out your bias.
Dave
40 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Otherwise, I again fail to see what value you bring to blogcritics."
It's funny, David R. Mark (or is it Mark R. David?), but I often think the same of you.
41 - David R. Mark
Dave, I was referring to Margaret's comment (#3).
No one has spoken out in support of you since I first started pointing out your bias.
>>
So you're not counting Steve?
Basically, this has been an argument of you vs. me. I don't see people lining up to defend you, either.
42 - David R. Mark
Mark the Sane, are you so limited as to consider making fun of my name a valuable criticism?
43 - Dave Nalle
As for that last comment, the answer is yes, Mark thinks making fun of your name is a valuable criticism - he's funny (or not) that way.
Dave
44 - Dave Nalle
Ok, you can have Steve and I'll reluctantly accept Mark as supporting me. I think you came out ahead on that one, but we're tied numerically anyway.
Dave
45 - David R. Mark
Dave, still waiting for that apology for comment 8.
46 - Dave Nalle
Your arrogance amazes me. I'm supposed to apologize for catching you lifting stuff wholesale from The Times? Come again?
Dave
47 - David R. Mark
I used it as background. I'm sorry if that offended you.
It doesn't change your assessment that I lied, falied to fact-check, misled and deceived. You have failed to prove any of that. You just smear, and then when you are caught with your pants down, move on to the next smear.
It's sad, actually.
48 - Dave Nalle
I believe I said you 'cherrypicked' your facts, not that you failed to check them. There's a world of difference. And the misleading and deceiving is at the heart of everything you post.
Dave
49 - Steve S
Hey, wow, I think I was complimented there. Thanks. Both of you are good, talented writers.
If Dave considers you worthy of his time, that says somethin.
50 - David R. Mark
Dave Nalle (comment #8): "Have you ever considered checking for facts, or do you just ignore those which would weaken your propaganda?"
Dave Nalle (comment #48): "I believe I said you 'cherrypicked' your facts, not that you failed to check them."
>>>
This is as bad as Robertson claiming that the AP misinterpreted him, in his initial denial that he used the word "assassination" or its derivatives.
51 - David R. Mark
LOL, Steve.
52 - Dave Nalle
Ignoring facts which don't agree with you is the DEFINITION of cherry picking, David. Sorry not to have used the exact word, though I did use it in a later comment.
Ooh, Steve returned the love. I'm all warm and glowy. Your daughter can play with mine any time you're in Austin. I think they're within a month or two in age.
Dave
53 - David R. Mark
Dave, once again you have been caught with your pants down, but rather than admit it, you move on to the next smear.
You have failed to back up your argument that I ignored facts. It's just an empty argument -- the sort of thing I'd expect from the Fox News All-Stars.
54 - Dave Nalle
Deny and decry all you want, one-trick-pony, the facts remain what they are and no matter how you spin them those who can see will see through to the truth.
Dave
55 - David R. Mark
So, you can claim that I ignore certain facts, but when questioned, don't back up that claim?
Real strong arguing, Dave.
56 - Steve S
For what it's worth, I completely agree that the Religious Right has failed to condemn Robertson. Releasing a post-it note to the press saying 'we condemn' isn't enough, if you ask me. This man demonizes innocent people on television daily, of course you already know what I think of him. The Religious Right needs to condemn Robertson by not listening to him anymore. By not giving him weight anymore. I don't see any condemnation going on.
57 - Dave Nalle
David, I already went over your selective omissions in detail and have done it on other threads as well.
Steve, the question for me is still whether they really need to condemn Robertson at all, much though we'd like them to.
These groups aren't in the habig of condemning much except for abortionists and homosexuals. They don't spend a lot of time condemning anything that happens in foreign policy. Why should they start now and start with Robertson?
Dave
58 - Steve S
Why should they start now and start with Robertson?
because Robertson is a member of the Religious Right. How bad was the condemning when he had a 'vote for ill will for Supreme Court Justices pledge drive' on his homepage?
I don't see the religious community punishing him or at least distancing themselves from his outrageous and unChristian behavior and comments. I've never seen any negative consequences for the hate speech he spouts and no accountability for statements like gay people are to blame for possible meteors.
The religious community has never really condemned him.
59 - Dave Nalle
I agree that Robertson ought to be condemned by a lot of people for a lot of things, but I don't see why he should be condemned for this particular statement. It's actually a hell of a lot more sensible than most of the stuff he's said. Many other people have advocated assassination and done so seriously and not just in an off-hand comment, and no one has asked for them to be condemned.
Dave
60 - Anthony Grande
Chavez should be killed and dragged through the streets by his own people, just like what the Italians did to Il Duce.
I am ashamed that Robertson was forced to apoligize for that bold and brave comment.
61 - Steve S
I understand all that Dave, and if there's anyone who's advocated assassination at all, they should be condemned. When we brought about the possibility of war with Iraq, we didn't seriously debate assassination, did we? I mean on a widespread scale like Robertson speaking to millions, I don't mean some nameless pseudonym on a blog somewhere.
People elsewhere in the world are sensitive to Christianity becoming so politically militant in this country. He certainly didn't help in improving our lot in the world, people think we are hypocrites for not punishing him. They are convinced we, via our government, practice favoritism in our religions.
Also, he is supposed to have built an empire on being a Christian. He is so far removed from Christianity now, it is a joke. People see the hypocrisy of that, and the fact that he still has power within the Christian realm. You know, if a mullah or a cleric advocates assassination openly, the Right would be having a field day labeling him a terrorist instead of defending him.
62 - David R. Mark
You know, if a mullah or a cleric advocates assassination openly, the Right would be having a field day labeling him a terrorist instead of defending him.
<<
Excellent point, Steve.
63 - Dave Nalle
Well, let's see. At one point prior to the invasion of Iraq George Stephanopolous advocated assassinating Saddam Hussein. Should he have been condemned? If not, should Pat Robertson be condemned if he honestly believes that Chavez is the next Hitler or Saddam?
Perhaps the question here is really what the appropriate response to a private citizen saying something like this is. It's not the same as when a government leader who could possibly act on it says it. It's not even the same as when a terrorist or a mullah leading murderous fanatics says it. Robertson has no covert operatives and no army - and don't give me crap about his right to life terroris goons. They aren't interested in Chavez.
So I agree that if a head of state or someone with power to get people killed says something like this you condemn him - but when a private citizen with no official status at all says it, it seems to me that a disavowel is exactly appropriate. You can't condemn a private citizen for having an opinion which is extreme, but not criminal - because it's not criminal to merely think that assassination might solve a problem.
Dave
64 - Steve S
I understand all that Dave. I don't want to dispute that. When I say he should be condemned, I don't mean criminally by the government. I mean his followers should not give him so much weight.
Yes, he's a private citizen, but he has followers. Followers shrugging their shoulders, disavowing him, but still giving him power and putting money in his coffers is not condemning what he says, sorry. And it displays hypocrisy in the Christian realm that the rest of the world sees. I guess it's more important to stand behind the moonbat than it is to show respect to one's religion, I dunno.
65 - Dave Nalle
I agree with you there, Steve. There's no question that any sensible Christian should stop taking Robertson seriously - he's proven again and again that he's a nutjob. But his followers aren't necessarily much more rational than he is. Plus Chavez is a catholic and more than a few of Robertson's homies are Birchers and would just as soon see Catholics put in camps anyway.
But the point of this article is that the White House should condemn Robertson and it doesn't seem appropriate for them to condemn a private citizen for expressing his opinion, however vile that opinion may be.
Dave
66 - Steve S
maybe we should define 'condemn'?
67 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Dave:
"he's proven again and again that he's a nutjob."
It's refreshing and heartening to hear an American figurehead not thinking in terms of political correctness when commenting on a communist dictator and how he is interfering with our ability to secure oil. People that radically interfere with our business deserve to be taken out. This isn't some garden club, this is real life, life and death.
Just think, if the tree huggers would let us drill in ANWR, this would be a moot issue.
68 - Steve S
So Mark, what you are saying is that America should just drop all pretenses, and advocate the assassination of those globally who interfere with OUR right to secure the oil underneath THEIR lands.
It's sentiment like this that causes people 'over there' to think we are self-centered and to then hate us. So this type of sentiment is responsible for terrorism in a way, I would say.
69 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
" and advocate the assassination of those globally who interfere with OUR right to secure the oil underneath THEIR lands."
Chavez is interfering with our ability to PURCHASE oil by cutting production. This is not how you conduct business on a worldwide scale. You are in business to meet customer demands.
It's all described here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2003/venezuelan/vzimpacts.htm
"It's sentiment like this that causes people 'over there' to think we are self-centered and to then hate us. So this type of sentiment is responsible for terrorism in a way, I would say."
Terrorism is caused by resentment for our the freedom and liberty we represent. Islam is a totalitarian system that does not ensure complete freedom and liberty for all their people. So to show their resentment, they attack the "infidels."
But you "Blame America First"-ers don't get that.
70 - Dave Nalle
>>It's refreshing and heartening to hear an American figurehead not thinking in terms of political correctness when commenting on a communist dictator and how he is interfering with our ability to secure oil. People that radically interfere with our business deserve to be taken out. This isn't some garden club, this is real life, life and death. <<
I'm not saying he's a nutjob because of this statement, but have you seen some of the other ridiculous things the man has said? He really is nuts.
>>Just think, if the tree huggers would let us drill in ANWR, this would be a moot issue.<<
I'm all for drilling in ANWR, but it's mostly symbolic. The volume and the time delay don't make it any kind of immediate or total solution.
Dave
71 - David R. Mark
There's no question that any sensible Christian should stop taking Robertson seriously >>
Dave, nice to see you having a rational discussion, rather than what you were doing earlier.
I agree with this sentiment, however, just a week before his Chavez comments, Robertson was featured on Hannity & Colmes. As long as conservative media trots Robertson out there as a pundit, he will be taken seriously by a segment of the population.
And let's not forget that The 700 Club has 1 million viewers, three times a day, five days a week, on ABC Family. That's not chump change.
72 - Dave Nalle
They bring Robertson out for the same reason they bring out Harry Belafonte - there's always a chance that those sorts of people will say something completely insane which gets picked up by the larger media like this story has been and thus becomes free advertising for their show. It has nothing to do with liking or supporting Robertson and everything to do with stirring things up and getting attention.
Dave
73 - David R. Mark
They may trot out Robertson for the sake of ratings, but that doesn't change the fact that they nonetheless trot out Robertson. As long as he's a player in the conservative media, and as long as he has a show, he's a factor. He has influence. He has followers. He has defenders.
If he had a public access show in Des Moines, we wouldn't be talking about him.
74 - Dave Nalle
But who outside of the true believers takes the 700 club seriously? It's a religious broadcast, not a news channel and certainly not part of the mainstream media.
Plus, he's not a player in the conservative media - there is no conservative or liberal media - he's a player in religious broadcasting. Media, even Fox News is about making money first and ideology a distant second. Hell, the highest rated show on Fox News is that abrasive leftist O'Reilly.
Dave
75 - Steve S
by painting O'Reilly as leftist, you then get to paint liberals as extremists. Not an accurate selling point in a conversation here. Try again.
Who outside of the 700 club takes it seriously? Look at foreign reports of this incident, they believe and are portraying that it is an accurate reflection of American sentiment, that it is about killing those who get in our way. A lack of condemnation, and validation of Robertson as a source of news confirms that.