Posted on 08/27/2005 2:01:44 PM PDT by wagglebee
Just a ping to a few people on some extended thoughts I had on Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez.
Was Pat Right? Yes. Chavez needs to go--but Pat's advocacy of assassination is wrong--in my WorldNetDaily commentary
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45985 there is an alternative method that we might employ--but the bigger issue is that so many Americans do not want to deal with the threat of Chavez or China and the Chavez connection--we are sticking our heads in the sand. We are buying more trouble when we delay until the problem requires another engagement on another continent. Chavez is providing a new islamic training ground....
MJ Anderson
I agree, that at this point in time, there are probably more effective ways to remove Chavez. But I don't think it is improper for a television commentator to offer assassination as an option.
"I'm willing to at least consider the advantages and disadvantages of assassinating Chavez, but the problem is, once you give it any serious reflection the disadvantages so outweigh the possible positive outcomes, that only someone speaking on pure impulse would have come out with a statement so loaded with backfire potential. Loose lips sink ships indeed."
Very well said. I don't usually give new posters the benefit of the doubt, but that was well stated, and I couldn't agree with you more.
We'll obviously have PLENTY to disagree about, based upon your chosen Freeper name. ;)
I used Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an example of a well-respected Christian who not only agreed with killing a dictator, he participated.
Just as if I were to say "we ought to go ahead and assassinate Chavez if we're going to be blamed for attempting it anyways." Pat Robertson is entitled to say the same thing. The only difference is he has a platform and a soap box from which to pontificate. The President, the SoD, or the CIA have no need to respond to him, his supporters or his detractors. If there are covert ops underway, Robertson has no knowledge of any plans or particulars of them. He's merely another talking head with a microphone and something to say.
I agree with him by the way. Chavez is nothing less than a headache, he insults America, our President, our people, our military and most of all, Condi Rice:-) He was ushered into power by Jimmy Carter, an affirmed idiot and is allied with the enemies of freedom. For the sake of the Venezuelan people and peace on Earth, he should be unceremoniously removed from office.
I agree with you 100%.
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he (Chavez) thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Big deal! Hugo Chavez is a psychotic dictator, who calls Fidel Castro his mentor, funds Al-Qaeda and is now in possestion of Cuba's biological weapons program. Both men are a danger to US interests. Both men should be taken out. We ignore them at our own peril.
If we object to European courts trying extradite foreign dictators guilty of human rights violations, do we justify Americans killing or supporting the assassination of dictators who oppose the US or contract with our enemies? Or do we, by the same reasoning, support those European courts?
Is Chavez a dictator? He was popularly elected and won a recall election. I'm not saying he's a great guy. He certainly doesn't sound like one. But is he Hitler? Robertson's words brought up a lot of questions that political observers will have to spend a lot of time to solve. Shouldn't preachers and clergymen be more circumspect than journalists and commentators and political scientists?
The double standard is creepy. Of course, it's no surprise that the MSM and Hollywood have basically called for an internal jihad against America.
You think killing a dictator is wrong? Why?
So what if people in his own country don't want a socialist government and attempt a rebellion? Would that be wrong in your opinion? It's already happened there, btw.
not necessarily---yet we ought to be darn sure that assassination is the best most efficient method in the LONG run to neutalize him---better to insure his humiliation on the world stage--what we have at the moment is a sort of competition to see who can grab the most coverage for being a rogue...let's not play into that, but find a means to humiliate the man on the global stage by turning his own excesses against him.
if the people elected him and want his brand of government--that is their option. What we ought to do is curb his do-si-do with China and isalmic groups--an occult blockade of sorts, beginning in WTO with pressure on China.
MJ Anderson
Thanks for this.
I stand with what Pat says.He is a realist( although a lot of people will disagree)It would be a lot cleaner and cheaper. He is a real threat to the US and other freedom loving countries.
He also now has brought attention to this man, no news story could of. Chavez needs to worry.
It is in the best interests of our national security to have Chavez out of power. The ban against political assassination has never been a legislated law, it has only ever been in the form of an executive order. That means that Bush could (and for all we know he may already have) lift this ban with a simple signature, and there would be no requirement whatsoever that he make this information public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.