Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez
(CNN) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson told viewers on his "The 700 Club" show Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
Robertson, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, called Chavez "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly."
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one 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."
Robertson accused Chavez, a left-wing populist with close ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, of trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."
"This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen," he said.
Chavez has said he believes the United States is trying to assassinate him, vowing that Venezuela, which accounts for more than 10 percent of U.S. oil imports, would shut off the flow of oil if that happens.
Robertson's comments Monday were the latest in a string of controversial remarks in recent years by the religious broadcaster and founder of the Christian Coalition.
Last October, during the heat of the presidential race, Robertson told CNN that during a meeting with President Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq, the president told him he did not believe there would be casualties. The White House strongly denied the claim.
In May, during an ABC interview, Robertson ignited a firestorm with his response to a question about whether activist judges were more of a threat to America than terrorists.
"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," he said.
Defending his remarks in a letter to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Robertson insisted he was not being cavalier about the 9/11 attacks. But he also refused to apologize, saying Supreme Court rulings on abortion, religious expression in the public square, pornography and same-sex marriage "are all of themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq."
In October 2003, Robertson, criticizing the State Department during an interview on "The 700 Club," said "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," referring to the nickname for the department's headquarters in Washington.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called the remark "despicable."
In July 2003, Robertson asked his audience to pray for three justices to retire from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced with more conservative jurists. "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition," he said.
Robertson insisted he was only calling for prayers for the justices to retire and was not asking his followers to pray for their demise.
In November 2002, Robertson charged that the Muslim holy book, the Quran, incites followers to kill people of other faiths and disputed Bush's characterization of Islam as a religion of peace.
"It's clear from the teachings of the Quran and also from the history of Islam that it's anything but peaceful," Robertson said in a subsequent interview with CNN. "Of course there are peace-loving Muslims. But at the same time, at the core of this religion ... is jihad, and it is to subject the unbelievers either to forced conversion or death. That's what it teaches."
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
We can't really be surprised? I mean, when we pre-emptively invaded Iraq, without any valid grounds to do so and deposed Saddam, we certanly set the precedent for removing leaders that we don't like (elected you say? pshaw.)
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "mousethief" Pat Robertson advocates the assassination of a democratically elected leader of another country and this is a Christian thing to do?
[bleep!], tell you what. You round up your lunatics on the right, we'll round up the ones on the left and we'll all be better for it.
Kalman
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "mousethief" Pat Robertson advocates the assassination of a democratically elected leader of another country and this is a Christian thing to do?
Honestly, I don't think the words "Christian" and "Pat Robinson" belong in the same zip code...
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
I don't know...I've seen the 700 club a few times...it's been a while but...
I would guess that he was laughing after he said that and really didn't
mean for people to take him seriously.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "arcecat" I don't know...I've seen the 700 club a few times...it's been a while but...
I would guess that he was laughing after he said that and really didn't
mean for people to take him seriously.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "arcecat" I don't know...I've seen the 700 club a few times...it's been a while but...
I would guess that he was laughing after he said that and really didn't
mean for people to take him seriously.
Guess again.
When you influence millions of people and you ask for the death of one man or violence against gays or abortion doctors, it doesn't matter if you're joking.
Here's a big fat Commandment Pat seems to have forgotten:
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
I agree that he should not have said that regardless of how he meant it due to the chance of crazy people watching the show and taking him
literally and possible doing something. It's his responsibility to make sure
he doesn't say something that could influence people to do something wrong.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "mousethief"
"It's clear from the teachings of the Quran and also from the history of Islam that it's anything but peaceful," Robertson said in a subsequent interview with CNN. "Of course there are peace-loving Muslims. But at the same time, at the core of this religion ... is jihad, and it is to subject the unbelievers either to forced conversion or death. That's what it teaches."
Actually, it's not clear at all. That's just what the Islamic fundamentalists have turned it into. The true meaning of "jihad" (Holy War) is the struggle between good and evil in your own heart.
Unfrotunately as "good Christians" like Mr. Robertson have demonstrated, it's a lot easier to try and force others into accepting what you believe than it is to actually practice it yourself.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quote "It's clear from the teachings of the Quran and also from the history of Islam that it's anything but peaceful," Robertson said in a subsequent interview with CNN.
Riiight. Because a similarly twisted and slanted view on the teachings of the Bible and the history of Christianity wouldn't make clear that Christianity's anything but peaceful.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "arcecat" I agree that he should not have said that regardless of how he meant it due to the chance of crazy people watching the show and taking him
literally and possible doing something. It's his responsibility to make sure
he doesn't say something that could influence people to do something wrong.
My final straw with CBN was the assigned campaign to convince the poor to donate on credit. The sick influence affects his viewship by the millions. It is not just the crazy people who respond to him literally. Many hard working Christians make faith based decisions based on that show, and it is really sad.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "RubyMae" We can't really be surprised? I mean, when we pre-emptively invaded Iraq, without any valid grounds to do so and deposed Saddam, we certanly set the precedent for removing leaders that we don't like (elected you say? pshaw.)
I think the precedent was set long ago. It hasn't been that long since we invaded Panama to get Noriega. And we've been doing it, or trying to do it in other ways since at least the end of WW2.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "arcecat" I agree that he should not have said that regardless of how he meant it due to the chance of crazy people watching the show and taking him
literally and possible doing something. It's his responsibility to make sure
he doesn't say something that could influence people to do something wrong.
Second, I think that you cannot really say "he should not have said that..." because apparently, he really believes that is the right thing to do. What do you want him to do -- zip up his lips, and wait until it is too late?
My impression is that Pat is predicting that if we do not assassinate this leader...there will be another war. Venezuela will attack US.
However, what I don't understand is...if we kill their leader, wouldn't they be more motivated to invade us? Wouldn't they find another leader to take Hugo's place?
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
We've already aided a coup that didn't take, and Chavez was restored (I still can't believe nobody called the US on their support for the overthrow of a democratically elected, and re-elected government).
As for this:
Quote Robertson accused Chavez, a left-wing populist with close ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, of trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."
Chavez's close ties to Castro and the American right's desire to remove him from power are closely related, but one is not the reason for the other. Chavez is a vocal opponent of his country's wealth leaving the country via huge multinational corporations, and has refused to play ball with big (largely American) corporations (incl. oil). This was the genesis of Castro's becoming anathema to the American way, too. and he was systematically cut off for his "communist" (wealth shared by all, not held by few) views. I know that Castro (as other communist regimes) veered far, far from that ideology with time and increased power, I'm not trying to take the argument there. I'm just educating those who may not know much about Chavez about the history behind US opposition to his democratically elected administration.
Of puns it has been said that those who most dislike them are those who are least able to utter them.
Edgar Allan Poe
Originally posted Tuesday, August 23, 2005 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "jlyertv" My impression is that Pat is predicting that if we do not assassinate this leader...there will be another war. Venezuela will attack US.
However, what I don't understand is...if we kill their leader, wouldn't they be more motivated to invade us? Wouldn't they find another leader to take Hugo's place?
Wha? In the wha wha?
Seriously, are you suggesting that Venezuela would somehow invade the United States? Or attack this country directly?
Listen 24 hours a day! Weekly updated shows
God Commands You to Kill Hugo Chavez
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html
Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez
(CNN) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson told viewers on his "The 700 Club" show Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
Robertson, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, called Chavez "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly."
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one 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."
Robertson accused Chavez, a left-wing populist with close ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, of trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."
"This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen," he said.
Chavez has said he believes the United States is trying to assassinate him, vowing that Venezuela, which accounts for more than 10 percent of U.S. oil imports, would shut off the flow of oil if that happens.
Robertson's comments Monday were the latest in a string of controversial remarks in recent years by the religious broadcaster and founder of the Christian Coalition.
Last October, during the heat of the presidential race, Robertson told CNN that during a meeting with President Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq, the president told him he did not believe there would be casualties. The White House strongly denied the claim.
In May, during an ABC interview, Robertson ignited a firestorm with his response to a question about whether activist judges were more of a threat to America than terrorists.
"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," he said.
Defending his remarks in a letter to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Robertson insisted he was not being cavalier about the 9/11 attacks. But he also refused to apologize, saying Supreme Court rulings on abortion, religious expression in the public square, pornography and same-sex marriage "are all of themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq."
In October 2003, Robertson, criticizing the State Department during an interview on "The 700 Club," said "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," referring to the nickname for the department's headquarters in Washington.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called the remark "despicable."
In July 2003, Robertson asked his audience to pray for three justices to retire from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced with more conservative jurists. "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition," he said.
Robertson insisted he was only calling for prayers for the justices to retire and was not asking his followers to pray for their demise.
In November 2002, Robertson charged that the Muslim holy book, the Quran, incites followers to kill people of other faiths and disputed Bush's characterization of Islam as a religion of peace.
"It's clear from the teachings of the Quran and also from the history of Islam that it's anything but peaceful," Robertson said in a subsequent interview with CNN. "Of course there are peace-loving Muslims. But at the same time, at the core of this religion ... is jihad, and it is to subject the unbelievers either to forced conversion or death. That's what it teaches."
Yehoodi Featured Topics
Page(s): 1 2 3 4 Next > (98 items total, 30 per page)
Pat Robertson advocates the assassination of a democratically elected leader of another country and this is a Christian thing to do?
[bleep!], tell you what. You round up your lunatics on the right, we'll round up the ones on the left and we'll all be better for it.
Kalman
WWJS?
Who Would Jesus Shoot?
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
HUGO CHAVEZ!
kalman
We can't really be surprised? I mean, when we pre-emptively invaded Iraq, without any valid grounds to do so and deposed Saddam, we certanly set the precedent for removing leaders that we don't like (elected you say? pshaw.)
They misspelled "The Crusades".
I agree. The planes used on 9/11 may have had Venezuelan oil in them. Chavez knew about the attacks and now he's driving up the cost of gas.
We should send in Splinter Cell. Solid Snake at the very least.
Kalman
Amen.
Honestly, I don't think the words "Christian" and "Pat Robinson" belong in the same zip code...
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
Amen.
Kalman
I don't know...I've seen the 700 club a few times...it's been a while but... I would guess that he was laughing after he said that and really didn't mean for people to take him seriously.
Nope.
:crash: :pukeymae: :fight: :thumbdown: :sayno: :pukeymae: :pukeymae: :pukeymae: :crash: :crash: :crash:
Guess again.
When you influence millions of people and you ask for the death of one man or violence against gays or abortion doctors, it doesn't matter if you're joking.
Here's a big fat Commandment Pat seems to have forgotten:
Thou shalt not kill.
Kalman
I agree that he should not have said that regardless of how he meant it due to the chance of crazy people watching the show and taking him literally and possible doing something. It's his responsibility to make sure he doesn't say something that could influence people to do something wrong.
It makes me wonder what ol' Pat would say if he found out (hypothetically) that Chavez' mother tried to get an abortion....
Every religion has its fundamentalists, it is just that it is culturally unacceptable for some of them to resort to violence.
Pat? Is he the guy who makes faces like he's farting?
Freaking extremists. Is there any public figures that aren't on the edge? Any middle ground people we can expect to do something sane?
Danny Boy
Tom Cruise, duh.
:o
So that's what Osama would sound like if he was an old white man. Interesting.
I just watched the clip - he's joking like Al Gore invented the internet.
Kalman
Ah smote yo commie ass!
Aggh!
Actually, it's not clear at all. That's just what the Islamic fundamentalists have turned it into. The true meaning of "jihad" (Holy War) is the struggle between good and evil in your own heart.
Unfrotunately as "good Christians" like Mr. Robertson have demonstrated, it's a lot easier to try and force others into accepting what you believe than it is to actually practice it yourself.
Martinis do not contain vodka. —Rachel Maddow
Killing a foetus is bad. Only independantly living beings are expendable.
Martinis do not contain vodka. —Rachel Maddow
Riiight. Because a similarly twisted and slanted view on the teachings of the Bible and the history of Christianity wouldn't make clear that Christianity's anything but peaceful.
My final straw with CBN was the assigned campaign to convince the poor to donate on credit. The sick influence affects his viewship by the millions. It is not just the crazy people who respond to him literally. Many hard working Christians make faith based decisions based on that show, and it is really sad.
I think the precedent was set long ago. It hasn't been that long since we invaded Panama to get Noriega. And we've been doing it, or trying to do it in other ways since at least the end of WW2.
Well, for a starter, Pat Roberson was dead serious: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.asp. That's from the CBN website -- where 700 club is based.
Second, I think that you cannot really say "he should not have said that..." because apparently, he really believes that is the right thing to do. What do you want him to do -- zip up his lips, and wait until it is too late?
My impression is that Pat is predicting that if we do not assassinate this leader...there will be another war. Venezuela will attack US.
However, what I don't understand is...if we kill their leader, wouldn't they be more motivated to invade us? Wouldn't they find another leader to take Hugo's place?
Sigh...
We've already aided a coup that didn't take, and Chavez was restored (I still can't believe nobody called the US on their support for the overthrow of a democratically elected, and re-elected government).
As for this:
Chavez's close ties to Castro and the American right's desire to remove him from power are closely related, but one is not the reason for the other. Chavez is a vocal opponent of his country's wealth leaving the country via huge multinational corporations, and has refused to play ball with big (largely American) corporations (incl. oil). This was the genesis of Castro's becoming anathema to the American way, too. and he was systematically cut off for his "communist" (wealth shared by all, not held by few) views. I know that Castro (as other communist regimes) veered far, far from that ideology with time and increased power, I'm not trying to take the argument there. I'm just educating those who may not know much about Chavez about the history behind US opposition to his democratically elected administration.
Of puns it has been said that those who most dislike them are those who are least able to utter them. Edgar Allan Poe
So much for the early Church's adminshment to avoid moneylending... :roll:
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
Wha? In the wha wha?
Seriously, are you suggesting that Venezuela would somehow invade the United States? Or attack this country directly?
Page(s): 1 2 3 4 Next > (98 items total, 30 per page)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: