Pat Robertson calls for Chavez assasination

cal29

Former Republican presidential hopeful and founder and head of the Christian Broadcasting Network has called for the assasination of the democratically elected president of Venezuela

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-22-robertson-_x.htm


Doesn't this reveal the true nature of the right wing christian fanatics who are in power in the US at the moment
They are prepared to kill anyone who is an opponent of US interests around the world and they are open about it
It is a further demonstration if one was needed that the US is the biggest danger to the security of the world.

It is time Ireland distanced themselves from this US led war on "terror" which is a front for attacking anyone the US has a beef with.


And before anyone dismisses this as the rantings of a madman I dont see the difference between this religous lunatic calling for people to be murdered and muslim cleric lunatics calling for people to be murdered other than this particular lunatic has a lot more people listening to him and is much better connected to people who are capable of acting on his rantings

bonkey

cal29 wrote:

Doesn't this reveal the true nature of the right wing christian fanatics who are in power in the US at the moment

No. It doesn't. This guy isn't in power. He wanted to be, and didn't get there.

It is a further demonstration if one was needed that the US is the biggest danger to the security of the world.

No, its not. Every country and religion has its fervently misguided followers in high places.

And before anyone dismisses this as the rantings of a madman I dont see the difference between this religous lunatic calling for people to be murdered and muslim cleric lunatics calling for people to be murdered other than this particular lunatic has a lot more people listening to him and is much better connected to people who are capable of acting on his rantings

No, but you apparently don't see a difference between this religious lunatic and the elected decision-makers in US government either, so I'm not entirely sure why I still shouldn't dismiss this...

jc

athena 2000

cal29 wrote:

Doesn't this reveal the true nature of the right wing christian fanatics who are in power in the US at the moment

[sic]

No, this reveals the personal politics and opinion of Pat Robertson who is not in a position of political power as a public servant. He's expressed his opinion irresponsibly and has opened his mouth on his own daily television show to spout off. I'll be interested to see if he's invited on to one of the many Sunday morning political discussion programs to see if he's challenged for this episode. Shall we hold our breath for his response?

Meanwhile, would you list all the right wing Christian fanatics who are in power in the US at the moment? Not just in positions of influence. I'd like to update the list. (No need to include the U.S. president.) The last politically appointed person in Washington, D.C. who may have had fanatical leanings in the conservative Christian sense has gone into retirement. Free clue: He also bakes really delicious chocolate chip cookies.

And before anyone dismisses this as the rantings of a madman I dont see the difference between this religous lunatic calling for people to be murdered and muslim cleric lunatics calling for people to be murdered other than this particular lunatic has a lot more people listening to him and is much better connected to people who are capable of acting on his rantings

I wouldn't dismiss this as a madman ranting, but he's got fewer people listening to him than you think. There is no excuse for suggesting that Chavez should be "taken out". I don't see much difference either between extremist imams or Robertson calling for violence in this real life example.
Let's hope Rummy, Rove and the CIA don't listen to Robertson, someone could lose their promotion, or maybe their life. :cool:

Hobbes

The media is all fuked up in the US at the moment. I've only briefly been watching the "Camp Casey" situation but one reporter I saw claimed that *what she really said* when she made a comment about the pentagon was for the "Secret jewish leaders" or something like that. Then using that went off and explained how she was anti-sementic. Another reporter picks up on the last part as gospel then.

its just unreal.

Leading this to robinson is like the OP a lot of people will take what he says as official line.

.. Incidently there was a news story some months back where Chavez had said they had found evidence to a possible assination attempt and that if he was ever to be killed in such a way all oil would stop flowing to the US.

netwhizkid

cal29 wrote:

It is time Ireland distanced themselves from this US led war on "terror" which is a front for attacking anyone the US has a beef with.

I will be quite honest and say that as much as i agree with this statement i must disagree for the simple reason Ireland is well liked in the USA but our people over there are the most malignant sort of things going, all they do is drink until their liver explodes and pick fights with anyone of any sex. To be honest if for instance if polish or any other nationalites acted like our own do in the us i'd have to say i'd have them kicked out too and wouldn't but having us attacked but past thoses anti-catholic - anti everything fun zealots attacking us. Wouldn't we be a stepping stone to Europe anyway ?
The Venezuela thing will get nasty as they have oil (conincidence - I wonder :rolleyes: ) the media in the US was all about it and "their Human rights abuses" I think that bush is planning to try and ignite a civil war in Venezuela so the Oil barons can take control.

Flukey

Oil is the common thread here of course. There are far worse leaders and regimes out there than the ones the USA targets, many of which they even actively support, like Saudi Arabia. As for the war on terror, there isn't one. It is a war for terror as it is creating even more of it. Ask the people of London, Madrid, Bali, Baghdad and other places.

A Dub in Glasgo

Chavez is due to visit New York next month and the US has not even condemned this!! I can imagine that a high profile person who advocates the assassination of Bush from any country would be carted off to Guantanamo Bay pretty sharpish

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Chavez is due to visit New York next month and the US has not even condemned this!!

Ah yes...the age old tactic of saying "we don't agree with his views", but stopping short of condemning it....which is interesting considering the various people they have condemned for making statements of far lesser offensiveness.

I like the response Chavez has given. As one paper put it:

Chavez, speaking to reporters at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Montego Bay, Jamaica, compared Robertson and other vocal critics of his government to the "rather mad dogs with rabies" that chased after the main characters in "Don Quixote" the classic novel by Miguel de Cervantes.

I can imagine that a high profile person who advocates the assassination of Bush from any country would be carted off to Guantanamo Bay pretty sharpish

Only if they're arabic or Muslim, or have friends who are same

Nuttzz

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Chavez is due to visit New York next month and the US has not even condemned this!!

nothing would get done if governments condemned or supported everything that appeared in the press.

Perhaps they will arrest him when he sets foot in JFK

Orizio

netwhizkid wrote:

The Venezuela thing will get nasty as they have oil (conincidence - I wonder :rolleyes: ) the media in the US was all about it and "their Human rights abuses"

Except that Venzuela has one of the worst human right's records in South and Latin America,Chavez has had 7 years to significantly minimize these abuses but apparently he feel's paranoid ranting about a supposed US invasion is more worthy of his time then stopping the Venezuelan police's practices of extrajudicial killing's and extortion on a large scale.

Wheely

I wouldnt put much stock in to this sort of thing...WOW PAt Robertson's an ass and he said something stupid that he shouldnt have said. Jerry Falwell,and Ann Coulter do it all the time. And the fact is that if the US wanted to get rid of Chavez they would, with or without Robertsons suggestion. Sure he shouldnt have said it, but he's a goon, what did you expects and i dont really thiink anyone sgonna take that much notice

DadaKopf

Normally I wouldn't care what a lowlife like Robertson says about anyone. The problem is millions of Americans do. That creates a groundswell of opinion - manufactured or not - which gives effective permission on part of Washington to intervene in Venezuela again. Or, at least, Washington sees it this way.

Orizio wrote:

Except that Venzuela has one of the worst human right's records in South and Latin America,Chavez has had 7 years to significantly minimize these abuses but apparently he feel's paranoid ranting about a supposed US invasion is more worthy of his time then stopping the Venezuelan police's practices of extrajudicial killing's and extortion on a large scale.

Corruption and human rights abuses in police force is an extremely intractable problem in nearly every country in the world, and Venezuela's problems stretch back probably a hundred years. Populism is also a difficult thing to excise from South American politics. The polarised nature of Venezuelan politics, and commitments to tight fiscal control make tackling this difficult (as do various potentially dangerous developments in the state's judiciary).

Since coming to power in 1998, the Chavez administration has faced numerous difficulties from the police force, which like most of Latin America's police forces is rife with corruption and links to organised crime. The Caracas metropolitan police force, which was under the control of an opposition mayor until late last year, has been repeatedly used to repress supporters of Chavez. During the 2002 coup against Chavez, the police viciously attacked the uprising that eventually restored Chavez to power. Dozens of Chavez supporters were killed. After a pro-Chavez mayor was elected in October 2004, the police force was restructured, but recent events show still it has a long way to go.

Chavez insisted: 'We need to clean up this police force, if we need to eliminate it all, then eliminate it ... I would prefer to be left without any police before continuing with a police without humanism, without consciousness ... because then the people will be the police.'

The Venezuelan government has announced plans for a widespread restructure of the nation's law enforcement agencies following a series of scandals. [...] According to a July 5 VHeadline article, the government has ordered the abolition of the DIM and its replacement with a new institution directly under the command of President Hugo Chavez's office.

[Quotes from here.]

As for judicial reform, and the judiciary's politicisation, it was just as bad before Chavez came to power as after. The problems predate Chavez, and while he has technically reformed the judiciary and Supreme Court, it's become more openly politicised, rather than behind closed doors.

But Gregory Wilpert (a Venezuela expert) has plenty of reason to question HRW's 2004 report on the judiciary and Supreme Court:

the Supreme Court law allows the Chavez government to “pack” the court by increasing its members from 20 to 32. Here it is important to note that the number of judges is slightly arbitrary. That is, the constitution does not specify how many judges should preside over the Supreme Court. The ability of the legislature to specify the number of judges is something that is completely within the realm of the legislative power, just as it is in the U.S.[1] While it certainly will tip the balance of power towards the government in terms of the judges’ sympathies, this, by itself, is not an undermining of judicial independence, as the report suggests. [...] HRW should have focused only on how this “packing” is being done merely because the legislature has the power to do so, not because there is an objective need for more justices. In other words, on moral grounds this practice is questionable because its basis appears to be Machiavellian.

the executive plays no role in accusing judges of wrong-doing and it also plays no role in adjudicating the issue, since this task belongs to the legislature. So, instead of criticizing the government for endangering the independence of state powers, HRW should be congratulating Venezuela for having just about the only constitution in the world where the public prosecutor’s office is a wholly independent position.

This article suggests it was illegal for Robertson to threaten Chavez (if that's what he did), although I'm pretty sure this article is just reactionism. Anyone know if there really are US laws or treaties making investigation obligatory?

DadaKopf

Also, Venezuela abolished the death penalty in the 19th century. That's one thing they've got on Texas.

MrJoeSoap

Oil fat cats vs. Hugo Chavez

I pulled into the Mobil gas station on 11th Ave. in Manhattan yesterday for my weekly stickup from the oil companies.

Their take this time was an astonishing $3.05 per gallon for premium unleaded.

"Every three or four days the price goes up," said Patel, the man in charge of the station. "Lots of complaints from my customers."

Complaints from everyone except oil executives.

Last year, Exxon/Mobil, the world's largest corporation, posted the highest profits of any company in history - more than $25 billion. The oil giant, based in Irving, Tex., is on track to shatter that mark this year, with revenues that now approach $1 billion per day.

Which brings me to Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez.

Robertson, the right-wing evangelist and friend of the Bush family, publicly called this week for the U.S. government to kill - or at least kidnap - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"This is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly," Robertson said. His less-than-Christian remarks ignited an outcry and forced him to issue an apology of sorts, though he still insisted that he had at least "focused our government's attention on a growing problem."

That "problem," quite simply, is that Chavez, a radical populist who has been voted into office repeatedly by huge majorities in his own country, controls the largest reserve of petroleum outside the Middle East.

Neither Robertson, nor former oil executives George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, nor their buddies at Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, etc., are happy about all this.

Even more scandalous for Big Oil, Chavez is using Venezuela's windfall not to fatten his own country's oligarchy but to benefit the Venezuelan poor and help neighboring countries.

Yesterday, while Robertson was issuing his half-baked Chavez clarification, the Venezuelan president was in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where he announced a new oil agreement with that country's prime minister, P.J. Patterson.

Under the agreement, Venezuela will supply 22,000 barrels of oil a day to Jamaica for a mere $40 a barrel. That's far lower than the current world price of about $65 a barrel. With the price of gasoline in that destitute nation already more than $3.50 a gallon, the Chavez plan means more than half a million dollars a day in savings for Jamaica on oil imports.

Chavez also announced his government will provide $60 million in foreign aid to Jamaica and finance the upgrading of that country's oil refineries.

The agreement is part of a broader Chavez plan called Petrocaribe, which he unveiled at a Caribbean summit in Venezuela last June.

At that conference, Chavez offered the same kind of deal to the leaders of more than a dozen other neighboring nations, including Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Fernandez jumped at the offer because his government is nearly bankrupt from oil prices. Last year, the Dominican Republic spent $1.2 billion on oil imports; this year, it expects to fork out more than $3 billion. The price of gasoline in Santo Domingo has zoomed past $4 a gallon in recent days.

Pat Robertson looks at Chavez and sees a devilish danger. He wants our government to "take him out." Over at the White House, Bush and his aides may use more restrained language, but their goals are not much different.

But there's a whole different view down in Latin America, where a half-dozen nations have seen liberal and populist governments swept into office in recent years.

Down there, Chavez has become the new miracle man of oil. Unlike Exxon/Mobil and the Big Oil fat cats, who wallow in their record profits while the rest of us pay, Chavez is spreading the wealth around.

A dangerous man, indeed.

Robertsons initial quotes:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it,"

"It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

"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 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."

Robertsons Retraction:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should '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 [Associated Press], but that happens all the time,"

---

Some Background

---

The 2002 coup showed the United States' desperation to remove this man from power. For years and years at the beginning and middle part of the 20th century the country was run by what the US described as a "benevolent despot", solely because Gomez had no trouble in providing the States with a large chunk of its vast oil supply. The spread and distribution of oil wealth in Venezuela was minimal, and for up to 70 years profits soared and a minimal segment of the population benefitted from such profits. In essence, a small number of people got more, a larger number of people got less.

Currently, the Venezuelan oil industry is the fifth largest in the world and provides the US with 14% of its oil. Petroleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA), in the decades before Chavez gained power, had made the dramatic shift from taking 20% of the oil wealth for itself to a massive %80. The profits continued to solely benifit those most empowered in Venezuelan society.

Chavez goal when he gained control of the nation was a popular one. He aimed to redistribute the countrys vast oil wealth equally amongst the most empoverished aspects of the nation, including ambitious social programmes, particularly with regard to health and education.

This PDVSA/Chavez rift was the instigating factor in the 2002 coup, captured on film by an Irish crew in Venezuela at the time was backed by the United States government, despite their denied involvement.

[QUOTE= Here
Chavez is overthrown in a military coup reminiscent of previous CIA-coups in Guatemala, Chile, Brazil etc. The US welcomes the coup and congratulates the military, while denying involvement. The coup collapses after two days, however, and Chavez returns to power. The BBC notes: “Since his election, President Chavez has been a thorn in the side of the United States—which gets much of its oil from Venezuela. In particular, US officials were angered because Mr Chavez was selling cheap oil to Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mr. Chavez had also condemned US bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.” [BBC, 4/14/2002] Otto J. Reich, the US' assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, is in contact with Mr. Chavez's successor on the very day he takes over. The Bush administration claims Reich was pleading with him not to dissolve the National Assembly. [New York Times, 4/17/02] The Pentagon also admits that Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, the Defense Department official responsible for Latin America, discussed the proposed coup in Washington with Gen. Lucas Romero Rincon, chief of the Venezuelan military command. Maurer spent the 1980s working in Washington as the chief spokesman for the Nicaraguan Contras. [World Policy Institute, 4/9/2001; The Guardian, 11/28/2001; Columbian Journal, 6/10/2002; National Catholic Reporter, 8/10/2001; Yellow Times, 5/7/2002] It is revealed that senior Bush administration aides, including assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich and White House advisor Elliott Abrams (both key players in the Reagan administrations covert network for supporting the contra terrorist war on Nicaragua in the 1980s), had met repeatedly in Washington with the coup's organizers. [The Observer, 4/21/2002] Elliott Abrams is also known for his role in the 1973 coup in Chile, as well as his sponsorship of death squads in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. [Yellow Times, 5/7/2002] The Washington Post reports: “Members of the country's diverse opposition had been visiting the U.S. Embassy here in recent weeks, hoping to enlist U.S. help in toppling Chavez. The visitors included active and retired members of the military, media leaders and opposition politicians.” Administration spokesmen insist however that these officials repeatedly urged the coup plotters not to take extra-constitutional action. [The Washington Post, 4/13/2002; Monthly Review, 9/2002; CounterPunch, 4/14/2002] A Defense Department official claims the administration's message was less categorical.“We were not discouraging people,” the official said. “We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy. We didn't say, ‘No, don't you dare,’ and we weren't advocates saying, ‘Here's some arms; we'll help you overthrow this guy.’ We were not doing that.” [BBC, 4/16/2002; Foreign Policy in Focus, 6/2002][/QUOTE]

The coup failed, and Chavez has survived numerous threats on his positions since.

NOTE: For anyone interested in Chavez, the soulless unrelenting US quest for oil, or corruption in general, I wholeheartedly rate the "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Inside the Coup" documentary as the best I have ever seen. It's available on some P2P networks, just search for "Revolution Televised". I also think there is a Torrent of it doing the rounds.

Nuttzz

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I also think there is a Torrent of it doing the rounds.

tut tut tut, the T word is unspeakable in these parts...

A Dub in Glasgo

Just downloaded the documentary

cal29

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Robertsons initial quotes:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it,"

"It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

"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 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."

Robertsons Retraction:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should '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 [Associated Press], but that happens all the time,"

.

Apart from the fact that he says "we should go ahead and do it" in relation to chavezs belief that the US want to assasinate him
Kidnapping democratically elected heads of state s hardly much better

Or perhaps he meant "take him out" to see the sights and for dinner when he is in the US next time

cal29

Wheely wrote:

I wouldnt put much stock in to this sort of thing...WOW PAt Robertson's an ass and he said something stupid that he shouldnt have said. Jerry Falwell,and Ann Coulter do it all the time. And the fact is that if the US wanted to get rid of Chavez they would, with or without Robertsons suggestion. Sure he shouldnt have said it, but he's a goon, what did you expects and i dont really thiink anyone sgonna take that much notice

So when some christian nutcase opens his mouth and spouts support for murder and kidnapping he is just a goon but when some islamic nutcase does the same thing he is a threat to international security and needs to be sent to guantamano bay pronto

The problem is that there are probably as many christian nutcases that will listen to robertson as there are islamic nutcases that listen to the nutcase islamic clerics

MrJoeSoap

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Just downloaded the documentary

What did you think of it?