Today on Blogcritics
Home » White House, Religious Right Fail To “Condemn” Robertson’s Fatwa

White House, Religious Right Fail To “Condemn” Robertson’s Fatwa

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.)

When has the administration used the word “condemn”? Following terrorist attacks worldwide and suicide bombings in Iraq, for sure. But it also has condemned assassinations, such as the 2001 assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi, or the 2002 assassination of Haji Abdul Qadir, a vice president of the Afghan Transitional Administration. Just this month, the administration condemned the assassination of Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar.

So, does that mean the world has to wait for a Chavez assassination before the Bush Administration will condemn it? Or is it just that the administration only uses the word condemnation when the victim is a friend of the U.S.? (Something Chavez, officially, is not.)

***

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.

It’s ironic. They have so much time to comment on other things, such as embryonic stem cell research or what videos are shown at the Lincoln Memorial.

***

In a separate reaction, liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America sent a letter urging the ABC Family network to stop carrying Robertson’s program. The network broadcasts The 700 Club three times each weekday.

In an Aug. 23 statement, ABC Family said the company was “contractually obligated to air The 700 Club and has no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests.”

But that’s a bogus statement — in 2003, MSNBC fired controversial conservative talk show host Michael Savage after he referred to an unidentified caller as a “sodomite” and said he should “get AIDS and die.”

“His comments were extremely inappropriate and the decision was an easy one,” MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said at the time.

And certainly declaring a fatwa is as serious as anything Savage has to say.

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush’s B.S.

Powered by

About David R. Mark

  • The Right

    Is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mixed into the drug cartel formula?

    If so; shoot.

  • http://pewview.mu.nu 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

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ 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).

  • 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

  • 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.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Here’s the whole thing, in context:

    “There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

    “You know, 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. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United … This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

    Concerning “blood-lust,” it seems to me that Reverend Robertson “chummed the waters” rather effectively.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://pewview.mu.nu 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • Liberal

    “Is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mixed into the drug cartel formula?

    If so; shoot.”

    But then where will W get his coke?

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.”

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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?

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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?

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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!

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Thank you, Steve. An earlier commenter agreed with you, also highlighting this bait-and-switch attempt to criticize my post.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Mark the Sane, are you so limited as to consider making fun of my name a valuable criticism?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Dave, still waiting for that apology for comment 8.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Your arrogance amazes me. I’m supposed to apologize for catching you lifting stuff wholesale from The Times? Come again?

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    LOL, Steve.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • 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.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.diablog.us 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

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    maybe we should define ‘condemn’?

  • 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.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    Most importantly, a “Fatwa” is a legal opinion ruling accepted and agreed by Muslim scholars. The fact (in parrot fashion) that you mirror the medias propanda techniques of equalling Fatwa with Murder, evidences your own objective here?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>In an Aug. 23 statement, ABC Family said the company was “contractually obligated to air The 700 Club and has no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests.”
    But that’s a bogus statement — in 2003, MSNBC fired controversial conservative talk show host Michael Savage after he referred to an unidentified caller as a “sodomite” and said he should “get AIDS and die.”<<

    I overlooked this whopper earlier. 700 Club is essentially a paid advertiser on ABC Family. They have a contract which says they control the content of their paid time. That’s completely different from the relationship of Michael Savage and MSNBC. Savage was a hired employee and could be fired at will.

    Dave

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    I’m skipping the weird personal dynamics going on here in the comments, because it seems clear to me that most of you are driven more by personal animosity than any particular issues related to whatever article it is on which you’re commenting.

    That said, I do think that there is a reasonable explanation of why the condemnation from “religious right” political organizations has not been as strong as some might like.

    Robertson said nothing that many other people haven’t said about various political figures. The airwaves were full of people from different political parties suggesting that “we” assassinate OBL, for example. So why the outrage over Robertson but not over others? Because Robertson purports to be a Christian leader, and we all know that Christians shouldn’t be advocating murder.

    So the condemnation that Robertson deserves should come from Christians upset at his betrayal of their core beliefs, not from right-wingers, many of whom probably share his opinion that political assassination should be an option.

    People seem to keep getting the two groups mixed up, which Robertson should expect after a lifetime dedicated to screwing up Christianity’s reputation by dragging it into politics (or politics into it, whichever). But despite the understandable confusion, the outrage at his comments should come and is coming from Christians. Political organizations — such as the Traditional Values [sic] Coalition, the Family [sic] Research Council and the Christian [sic] Coalition — have nothing much to say in response to an expressed political opinion with which they might or might not agree.

    I hope that clears up some confusion.

    P.S. Robertson is an idiot, and a horrible representative of Christianity.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    If I said right wingers anywhere on this thread, I meant religious right.

    But in my political battles, the overlapping is probably 80% or greater.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    The demographics of the Republican party indicate that you pick your battles. :-)

    My point was that Robertson deserves condemnation because he has betrayed his Christian faith, and for no other reason. Therefore his repudiation should come from Christians — and it has.

  • http://www.rctv.net Sergio Jablon

    Chavez is a human being. Robertson asked for KILLING him, thus, it was the same than asking for the killing a human being. That´s not right if your business is bringing other people’s souls on God’s side. Period.

  • Mark the Sane and Sensible

    “Chavez is a human being.”

    Communist leaders are not human beings. They are totalitarian thugs who imprison and murder their fellow citizens who challenge their power base.
    They deny everyone but their ruling elite basic freedoms and liberties.

    Name one communist leader in history that didn’t resort to these tactics.

  • Anthony Grande

    “Chavez is a human being.”

    If Bush murdered his oponents like Michael Moore and Sheehan would you call him a “human being”???

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Sensibly put in #78, Phil.

    >>So the condemnation that Robertson deserves should come from Christians upset at his betrayal of their core beliefs, not from right-wingers, many of whom probably share his opinion that political assassination should be an option.<<

    Just for the record, assassination as a political tool appears to be a method preferred more by the left than the right. Historically the right tends to go for military solutions, while the left picks assassination because it solves problems without resorting to the military.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Regardless, the fact that the man still is on the airwaves, and has suffered NO repercussions, I would say that he has not been condemned by Christians at all.

    I would say world sentiment seems to see it the same way, and that according to the international editorials I’m reading, by default the conclusion is that Christians support Robertson because of no repercussions.

    So Christians that think this problem is solved, do so to their own detriment. This makes Christianity seem evil and nothing’s changed to indicate otherwise.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    If the main response to Robertson is to be condemnation of Christians I don’t think we’d see that immediately resulting in his disappearance from the airwaves. It would take a while for the 700 Club to lose significant revenues and the media certainly isn’t going to ignore him just because he’s become controversial – more likely the opposite.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Actually, Googletv is reporting that international communities are dropping the 700 club from their airwaves and are saying that the meshing of church and state that is happening here in America is foreign to them. Saw that on googletv.

    My point is this: Many Christians say they are unfairly demonized and ideologically attacked for their beliefs. Shit like this doesn’t help, and the fact that American Christians STILL don’t do anything about it, contributes to the fact.

    It’s kind of hypocritical to portray your faith as being assaulted while this stuff goes on without any condemnation from you, you know what I mean?

    (generic ‘you’ there).

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Steve, Robertson’s position on Chavez wasn’t a religious statement – like many of his other lunatic statements – it was purely political.

    Dave, I understand everything you are saying. That is not my point. My point is that he is a Reverend. He is not a Reverend only when he is behind the pulpit. A Man of God is supposed to be a Man of God 24/7, so it does not matter if it was a religious statement or a political one.

    Many Christians say their faith is under attack. Well, what I am saying is that quit bitching that your faith is under attack if you allow it to be corrupted this way WITH NO REPERCUSSIONS. Period.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Dave N, Pat Robertson made a political statement, sure, but he did so within the context of a religious broadcast.

    Steve S, when you say “I would say that he has not been condemned by Christians at all,” you are demonstrating that you haven’t been paying attention. The outcry from all quarters of Christianity has been deafening. Warren has outlined just a fraction of the negative response here at Blogcritics.org.

    However, Robertson pays for his airtime, and my guess is that the stations carrying his show are afraid to run into issues related to free expression.

    I’m a Christian, and I’ve condemned him. Warren is a Christian, and he’s condemened him. Warren also listed others, including card-carrying public figures who are members of the “religious right,” who have condemned him. So your statement is simply false.

    If you mean that he’s managed to stay on the air an entire week after making the statement, well, yeah. He’s 70-something. I think most of us are hoping he’ll retire sooner rather than later.

  • Mark the Sane and Sensible

    “and the fact that American Christians STILL don’t do anything about it, contributes to the fact.”

    Christians will do something when Muslims put a muzzle on their clerics to STFU about killing Jews and Christians.

    The double standard put forward by you libbie pukes is just sickening.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Phil, I understand that. Perhaps condemned was the wrong word. I did ask, in general – to no one in particular, what ‘condemn’ meant.

    When I say he wasn’t condemned, perhaps it’s better to say there are no visible repercussions.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Mark, your assumption that I don’t feel the same about Muslim clerics is erroneous.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Steve S, it’s difficult, because Protestant Christianity lacks a central authority. Were Robertson part of the Roman Catholic Church, it’s quite possible he’d be out of a job already. But Robertson is independent, and therefore under no authority whatsoever.

    All we Christians can do is not send the guy money or watch his show. But then, I’ve done that for years, since I’ve thought he shamed himself by getting involved in politics in the first place. I think we’ll find in the coming months and years that more and more Christians withhold support from him, which will eventually lead to him cutting back on airtime.

    Then again, Christians are (or should be) know for forgiveness, so maybe they’ll largely naively ‘forgive’ him and confuse that with sparing him repercussions. That would be a shame.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>and the fact that American Christians STILL don’t do anything about it, contributes to the fact.<<

    Perhaps an evangelical hit squad should snuff him?

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Are you calling for an assassination?

    I know not much will happen to hold Robertson accountable for his words. There’s not much that can be done there.

    Christianity though, seems to have sufferred a massive pr hit, throughout the world. And not much can be done there either.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Hmm is it time to condemn me?

    Dave

  • Zorro3

    Hugo Chavez
    (Democratically Elected President of Venezuela):

    2005 edition of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil:

    At the Forum, President Chavez listed attempts by the US to drive him out of power. “But we resisted, and now have gone on the offensive.

    For instance, we recovered our oil industry… In 2004, from the oil industry budget we utilized $4 billion in social investments, education, health, micro-credits, scholarships, and housing, aimed at the poorest of the poor, what neoliberals call waste of money. But that is not a waste of money because it is aimed at empowering the poor so that they can defeat poverty. He added that “that money before stayed out of Venezuela or just benefited the rich.”

    “Privatization is a neoliberal and imperialist plan. Health can’t be privatized because it is a fundamental human right, nor can education, water, electricity and other public services. They can’t be surrendered to private capital that denies the people their rights.”

    Chavez highlighted the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a proposal made by Venezuela in opposition to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), and which emphasizes social and cultural exchanges above profit-based economic deals. “We can’t wait for a sustained economic growth of 10 years in order to start reducing poverty through the trickledown effect, as the neoliberal economic theories propose.”

    He praised the cooperation with Cuba, which, along with several Central American countries, receives Venezuelan oil at below market prices, in exchange for assistance in healthcare, education, agriculture and other areas. He highlighted that about 20.000 Cuban doctors work in Venezuela at free medical clinics in poor neighborhoods, and that Venezuela has used a Cuban literacy method approved by UNESCO that has allowed more than 1.3 million Venezuelans learn how to read and write. He said Venezuela is using Cuban vaccines, which now allow poor children to be vaccinated against diseases such as hepatitis.”

    President Chavez criticized media distortions of alleged plans by him Castro to “spread Communism” in the Americas, “overthrow governments” and set up guerrillas’, he said “after 10 years it seems like we haven’t been very successful.”

    “Cuba has its own profile and Venezuela has its own, and we have respect for each other, but we celebrate accords and advance together for the interest of our peoples.” He said that any aggression from the U.S. against either country will have to confront all the Latin American countries, “because we are united in spirit from Mexico down to the Patagonia.”

    Chavez said U.S.-Venezuela political relations are unhealthy because of “permanent aggressions from there”. He criticized U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice who recently asserted that Chavez was “a negative force in the region.” He said those relations will stay unhealthy as long as the U.S. continues its policies of aggression. “The most negative force in the world today is the government of the United States,” he said.
    Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq and Cuba resisting, and now look at Venezuela.” In reference to the recommendations of some of his close advisors, he said that “some people say that we cannot say nor do anything that can irritate those in Washington.” He repeated the words of Argentine independence hero José de San Martin “let’s be free without caring about anyone else says.”

    “When imperialism feels weak, it resorts to brute force. The attacks on Venezuela are a sign of weakness, ideological weakness. Nowadays almost nobody defends neoliberalism.”

    “Just look at the internal repression inside the United States, the Patriot Act, which is a repressive law against U.S. citizens. They have put in jail a group of journalists for not revealing their sources. They won’t allow them to take pictures of the bodies of the dead soldiers, many of them Latinos, coming from Iraq. Those are signs of Goliath’s weaknesses.”

    “The south also exists… the future of the north depends on the south. If we don’t make that better world possible, if we fail, and through the rifles of the U.S. Marines, and through Mr. Bush’s murderous bombs, if there is no coincidence and organization necessary in the south to resist the offensive of neo-imperialism, and the Bush doctrine is imposed upon the world, the world will be destroyed,” he said.

    Chavez warned of drastic global weather changes that would bring catastrophic events if no action is taken soon, in reference to uncontrolled or little regulated industrial activity. Chavez added that perhaps before those drastic changes take place, there will be rebellions everywhere “because the peoples are not going to accept in peace impositions such as neoliberalism or such as colonialism.”

    He said all empires come to an end. “One day the decay inside U.S. imperialism will end up toppling it, and the great people of Martin Luther King will be set free. The great people of the United States are our brothers, my salute to them.” “We must start talking again about equality. The U.S. government talks about freedom and liberty, but never about equality. “They are not interested in equality. This is a distorted concept of liberty. The U.S. people, with whom we share dreams and ideals, must free themselves… A country of heroes, dreamers, and fighters, the people of Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez.”

    “Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington,” he said.

  • Zorro3

    On October 10, 2003, Pat Robertson suggested that the State Department be incinerated with a nuclear weapon. He said this in an interview with Joel Mowbray, regarding his book, ‘Dangerous Diplomacy. How the State Department Threatens American Security.’

    The evangelist said after he read Mowbray’s book, he thought, “If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom [Washington neighborhood where the State Department’s building is located], I think that’s the answer,” Robertson declared. “I mean, you get through this, and you say, ‘We’ve got to blow that thing up.'”

    (Rumor has it that Pat Robinson conspired to have a prostitute with AIDS bump off George Bush. The conspiracy involved luring Bush to the streetwalker using a toy monkey stuffed with cocaine and a case of beer as bait)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Thanks for the quotes from Chavez. Nothing points out what a paranoid lunatic he is better thann his own words.

    Dave

  • John

    Gee, I can see what it really shows is the depth of compassion that Hugo Chavez has for others and what a rational mind he has compared to the pathetic stupid excuse for a human being you appear to be.

    Thanks for pointing how what a sorry case you are :0

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    You must have been reading a different set of quotes from the self-serving pack of transparent lies I was reading.

    Dave