Pat Robertson Still Stirring Controversy
Robertson Over-Kill?
Media Thrilled To Have Conservative Target
The same liberal media outlets that took weeks, if ever, to report on a sleazy scandal at Air America now can't get enough of Pat Robertson-bashing.
That's after he seemed to call for Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez's extermination on his 700 Club television program:
"...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."
Robertson's general philosophy is correct, this can occasionally be the answer, it's just not clear Chavez is anywhere near this territory. Leaders of North Korea, Zimbabwe and several other countries are a better fit for this kind of rare, drastic action.
If you can save thousands, even millions, of innocent lives by taking out a depraved dictator, why wouldn't you do it?
My piece for Michelle Malkin's site generated a significant response, it's here if you missed it.
Meanwhile, the media feeding frenzy continues over what is simply one man's opinion, take a look:
From the Virginian-Pilot:
Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of Venezuela’s president set off a global media frenzy Tuesday, as religious and political leaders heaped scorn on the Virginia Beach-based Christian broadcaster.
The Bush administration quickly distanced itself from Robertson’s remarks, but Venezuela’s vice president said Robertson should be investigated for his “terrorist statements.”
Tim Cuprisin of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ties Robertson to Michael Graham:
The Rev. Pat Robertson may get away with his on-air call for the assassination of Venezuela's president, but the firing of a Washington, D.C., radio talker shows there are limits to what you can say.
Michael Graham was the midday guy at ABC-owned WMAL-AM in the nation's capital. It's a conservative talk station that carries Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, along with some local voices.
From the New York Times:
In Caracas, he was criticized by the vice president of Venezuela, and in Cuba, by President Fidel Castro.
Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel of Venezuela said: "This is a huge hypocrisy to maintain an anti-terrorist line and at the same time have such terrorist statements as these made by Christian preacher Pat Robertson coming from the same country."
Rumsfeld dismissed Robertson's assassination remark, saying: "Certainly, it's against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing."
He added, "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, called Robertson's comments "inappropriate." Robertson ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988.
He has often used his show and the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush. Bernardo Alvarez, the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, said: "Mr. Robertson has been one of the president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."
Until I see the same level of outrage directed at the everyday human rights abuses of thugs like Chavez, Castro and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in denouncing TV host Pat Robertson.
Update: Robertson backing off under pressure? Here's the latest, he says comments were misinterpreted.
Evening update: Robertson apologizes, he's been all over the map on this issue today.
Your Amazon orders help to support these efforts. Thanks!
Media Thrilled To Have Conservative Target
The same liberal media outlets that took weeks, if ever, to report on a sleazy scandal at Air America now can't get enough of Pat Robertson-bashing.
That's after he seemed to call for Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez's extermination on his 700 Club television program:
"...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."
Robertson's general philosophy is correct, this can occasionally be the answer, it's just not clear Chavez is anywhere near this territory. Leaders of North Korea, Zimbabwe and several other countries are a better fit for this kind of rare, drastic action.
If you can save thousands, even millions, of innocent lives by taking out a depraved dictator, why wouldn't you do it?
My piece for Michelle Malkin's site generated a significant response, it's here if you missed it.
Meanwhile, the media feeding frenzy continues over what is simply one man's opinion, take a look:
From the Virginian-Pilot:
Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of Venezuela’s president set off a global media frenzy Tuesday, as religious and political leaders heaped scorn on the Virginia Beach-based Christian broadcaster.
The Bush administration quickly distanced itself from Robertson’s remarks, but Venezuela’s vice president said Robertson should be investigated for his “terrorist statements.”
Tim Cuprisin of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ties Robertson to Michael Graham:
The Rev. Pat Robertson may get away with his on-air call for the assassination of Venezuela's president, but the firing of a Washington, D.C., radio talker shows there are limits to what you can say.
Michael Graham was the midday guy at ABC-owned WMAL-AM in the nation's capital. It's a conservative talk station that carries Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, along with some local voices.
From the New York Times:
In Caracas, he was criticized by the vice president of Venezuela, and in Cuba, by President Fidel Castro.
Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel of Venezuela said: "This is a huge hypocrisy to maintain an anti-terrorist line and at the same time have such terrorist statements as these made by Christian preacher Pat Robertson coming from the same country."
Rumsfeld dismissed Robertson's assassination remark, saying: "Certainly, it's against the law. Our department doesn't do that type of thing."
He added, "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, called Robertson's comments "inappropriate." Robertson ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988.
He has often used his show and the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush. Bernardo Alvarez, the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, said: "Mr. Robertson has been one of the president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."
Until I see the same level of outrage directed at the everyday human rights abuses of thugs like Chavez, Castro and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in denouncing TV host Pat Robertson.
Update: Robertson backing off under pressure? Here's the latest, he says comments were misinterpreted.
Evening update: Robertson apologizes, he's been all over the map on this issue today.
Your Amazon orders help to support these efforts. Thanks!
published by Brian Maloney at
21:15
13 Comments:
OK - Robertson is a nutcase, granted ... but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We would have been far better off if instead of tearing the shit out of Afganistan and/or Iraq, had we simply put some operatives into place to "86" Osama and Saddam. Pat the Rat is correct; it's far cheaper than fighting a war (or two, or three). If we had real balls, we would simply OFF the problem-people. Remember when Dan Blather interviewed Saddam on 60 Minutes? He could have done the job then .... whoops, wrong guy.
By
Don, at 24 August, 2005 15:16
Good idea, Mitchell. Let's start with Randi Rhoades. She suggested the same "solution" for the "GWB problem".
By
Don, at 24 August, 2005 15:29
I had never before realized that this thug Chavez was such a holy man to liberals. I know that liberals tend to turn a blind eye to human rights violations when they are perpetrated by leftist governments, but I didn't know they worship the ground Chavez walks on. Personally, if I heard this South American strongman got whacked, my response would be, "Uh, ok. Wanna go for coffee?" And to be brutally honest, what would the history of the world be if someone had assassinated Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Hirohito, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc., while they were still only tinhorn dictators?
Who is Pat Robertson? He is a private citizen. He is an evangelist. He founded the Christian Coalition. He appears daily on the 700 Club TV show. He has no connection with the government, he has no influence, so far as I can tell, with top government officials. Therefore, under our basic right of free speech -- the very right liberals routinely use to defend sedition, treason and pornography -- he should be allowed to say anything he wants. Nope. Not when Pat Robertson says it. Louis Farrakhan can call for the extermination of Jews and you won't hear a whimper of protest from the left. But when Pat Robertson says something stupid and non-Christian (and he did), it works thousands of left-wing drama queens into a hysterical frenzy. I spent several hours cruising liberal blogs last night (shudder) and the bile, the vitriol, the almost demonic hatred being aimed at this man was totally out of proportion with anything he has ever said.
Why does the left hate Pat Robertson at such a reptilian level? Take a look at the 700 Club Website. Click on the CBN Outreach tab and take a look at the good this organization does. They feed the hungry, they clothe people, they bring medical help to those in need, they help millions of poverty-stricken people all over the world. They actually DO what liberals only TALK about doing. Now, take a look at that annoying Make Poverty History site. Can you find ANY projects for the poor there? You can wear white wristbands to help the impoverished. You can send a postcard to vote for trade justice. You can put wallpapers and screen savers on your computer to end suffering. GASP! Why, you can even wear skimpy briefs to make poverty history!!!! WHAT CRAP! Liberals should be donating their time and money to CBN, not throwing it at this phony baloney Make Poverty History scam!
Pat Robertson is helping MILLIONS, while Make Poverty History is substituting symbolism for substance and is no doubt paying their board members six-figure salaries. Liberals should LOVE Pat Robertson. But they don't.
The left hates Pat Robertson because he is a man of God and they hate God. The left hates Pat Robertson because he is a Christian and liberals hate Christians. If the devil engaged in politics, he'd no doubt be a.......hmmmm. HMMMM.
By
Lone Ranger, at 24 August, 2005 15:45
And what millions of lives sre we looking to save by removing Chavez?
Who's we kimo sabe?
The "Randi Rhodes" incident was an obvious JOKE to anyone listening.
And I'm sure both of them laughed their fool heads off at the time.
By
eLarson, at 24 August, 2005 21:25
Other than saying it publicly, I see nothing wrong with Pat Robertson's comments. Hugo Chavez is scum that the world could do without.
By
Brian, at 24 August, 2005 22:49
Nice one, Brian, but I am saddened that you would be so flippant with Pat’s comments. WE may not think he has much power or influence, but I’m sure out of the many thousands of ardent followers there are a dozen or two who would take up his challenge.
He really is no better than the multitude of iman who profess the same thing against Bush. We may not like Chavez and he may be an ‘elected’ despot, but we’ve got to keep it above board otherwise we can only expect the same from some other country.
But the best on this was from a talking head – ‘If Pat Robertson is a man of God, than God must be a practical joker!’
By
MacBoar, at 25 August, 2005 01:23
Since Brian no longer reports on ratings:
Air America:
Up from 1.2 to 1.4 in San Fran
Up from 0.0 to 0.5 in Philly.
By
Justin, at 25 August, 2005 09:34
Yes, you are correct that many leftists, even liberals, seem to fawn over the dictator Chavez. Many of my friends, to my dismay, seem to put much of their hopes for the future in Chavez and (gulp) Castro. To the extent that they are that stupid politically, there are real limits to the friendships. No religion, no politics. A pretty good rule for casual friendships and also for family.
By
al fin, at 25 August, 2005 10:28
Justin, you're forgetting:
Down 0.4 to 0.3 in DC
Down 1.4 to 1.3 in Nassau
Stagnant at 0.4 & 0.2 in Boston
Stagnant at 0.4 in Chicago
Stagnant at 0.4 in Detroit
Stagnant at 0.4 in Akron
Stagnant at 1.0 in New York City
Stagnant at 1.7 in San Diego
Off the chart in Monterrey (and not in the good way)
Off the chart in Riverside
For a growing network they sure aren't ... growing.
By
BF, at 25 August, 2005 11:03
I'm curious about one thing.
Robertson made a stupid, counterproductive remark, and has been - well - crucified for it.
Where are all the demands for a public apology from Louis Farrakhan? Does he gat a pass because he is a Man of Allah instead of God?
By
Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 11:52
Mitchell -
Farrakhan spoke in Dorchester last night. His characterization of the city and government wasn't flattering.
So - why isn't Menino or DiMasi decrying his remarks?
BTW - I agree that Farrakhan would not be invited to speak at the GOP convention, as Jackson routinely does at the Democrat one.
By
Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 12:54
Here's a link to the boston Herald coverage, Mitch.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=99551
Full transcript isn't yet up on the NOI web site.
So - think the Big Dig was done to facilitate tanks being moved on Roxbury? Or Revere?
And is THAT wy the legislature was so intent on changing the name from the Freedom Tunnell to the Tip O'Neill tunnel?
Hmmm...
By
Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 15:32
Mitch - I don't think you do, any more than I think you believe that I endorse Robertson's remarks (you don't, do you?).
MY QUESTION REMAINS - where's the outrage? where's the hand wringing? Why the double standard?
I still contend Farrakahn is still more of a political leader than Robertson - and he's talking about HERE, not Venezuela.
By
Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 16:03
Post a Comment
<< Home