Posted on 08/24/2005 10:35:22 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said on Wednesday he was misinterpreted and there were a number of ways to "take him out" including kidnapping.
"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.
"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson added.
Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a presidential candidate in 1988, said on Monday of Chavez, one of Bush's most vocal critics: "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." He made the comments during his "The 700 Club" television program.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday dismissed Robertson's remarks, but the White House remained silent despite calls for repudiation from Venezuela and religious leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called "without fact and baseless" any ideas of hostile action against Chavez or Venezuela.
The leftist Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. Alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana on Sunday, Chavez scoffed at the idea that he and Castro were destabilizing troublemakers.
Chavez survived a short-lived coup in 2002 that he says was backed by the United States. Washington denies involvement.
Venezuelan officials said Robertson's remarks, while those of a private citizen, took on more significance given his ties to President George W. Bush's Christian-right supporters.
"Mr Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House," Venezuela's ambassador to the United States Bernardo Alvarez said.
Well! You couldn't just disagree either could you? Your last post to me was NOT nice..it was a personal attack as most of your posts to me are. From the first to the last..you never try to understand where I am "coming from" you seem more interested in one-ups-manship.
Expressing thoughts in writing is difficult enough for me without being slandered by the likes of you..do you expect me to believe you were only giving an update for my benefit? That is highly unlikely.
Diatribe done.
If you truly are a Christian..your posts would suggest so..than I say we get this out of our system and start over. I've formed some good friendships in real life that have had rockier beginnings..
If Mr. Robertson can do it, so can we.
My heartfelt apologies for the misunderstanding.
Okay... fair enough. I guess your saying I support Chavez ticked me off some. That's just not the case, I assure you. I appreciate the considerate words and I do not want to attack or slander you. I'm also not interested in one-upsmanship.
I'll take responsibility for the argument going bad between us as it was me who responded to your comment first. Okay?
I think I do understand somewhat where you are coming from -- at least I'm trying to do so. I'm not as self-righteous as you might think. My problem with Pat is that he is supposed to represent Christians. He chose this as his vocation. So, from my perspective, he has a responsibility. Pastors in his church (from which he resigned before his presidential run) are just as aghast as I am that he said what he did.
That's my only argument. I understand you disagree. That's fine. I'll tone it down and hope you do the same.
You're right about seeing things in print. Emotions can be misconstrued. I was posting the link because it was an update to the story. It wasn't for your benefit but... everyone's. I was just too lazy to got to the original poster's name on the previous page.
Good for you, Mr. "Since 2005-08-18."
Hey Frank! We don't like or respect you and you will be Zotted!!
Who determines when a threat requires assassination?
In the case of Chavez, what has he actually done, that is deserving of assassination?
I guess though, that if abortion is legal, then there certainly can't be anything illegal with having our own 007s.
It appears that the taking of a human life is relative....along with almost everything else that many consider to be wrong.
If people can't agree on religions, how can they determine if God's law has been broken?
It seems that killing is pretty relative.
When there are sometimes justifications, then they become relative to the situation.
Why do people dislike relativism so much? It appears to be all around us...
So, Pat is saying it all depends on the meaning of "it".
We can argue semantics until doomsday. The fact is that the commandment means don't kill your fellow man, either physically or as Christ was speaking, even emotionally. Now is state sponsored killing through war, assassination, foreign policy, etc. a form of murder? I wouldn't want to stand before God and try to argue that it's not. There's enough evidence to present the contrary view that it may be. All you've done is justify murder as killing because it was done for a 'patriotic' cause. Only self-defensive killing would be just. And killing off, or suggesting that world leaders should be killed off is not much short of arguing state sponsored murder, not self defense.
Chavez is building arms against us..has threatened us.
Sure he is. I bet that's where Saddam secreted the WMDs to isn't it....
Come on, everybody sing along..."
True. He should stand up and be proud of what he said, or apologize. This mealy-mouthedness is distressingly liberalesque.
> Now is state sponsored killing through war, assassination, foreign policy, etc. a form of murder? I wouldn't want to stand before God and try to argue that it's not.
Wow, have you even READ the Old Testament?
A nation that upheld God certainly was within its rights to defend itself and kill if necessary. You better go back and read Numbers.
Wow, I believe I have READ the Old Testament. And I wouldn't want to try to argue that any war this nation has been involved in for at least the past 40 years was in any way self-defensive (because except perhaps Afghanistan they weren't). Nor would I want to stand before God Almighty and argue that killing Chavez was somehow self-defensive either.
I would suggest you go back and reread the entire Bible.
Is the death of innocent people due to collateral damage OK?
It has occured to me, that when the bible was written, the idea of self-defense, and even war, was pretty much a man-to-man situation. Do you think God meant, by self-defense, that it should only be individuals...or is modern warfare, with carpet-bombing, and lots of collateral damage to civilians, OK with God?
If I've heard correctly, he was babbling about nukes at some point recently. I dunno..., all I can tell you is what I'd do if I were Prez. People start talking nukes against the U.S., they move up on the list of people who might have a plane or automobile crash. I think it's time America started listening when people tell us they want to kill us. But I'm old fashioned that way.
Lots of people babble, and lots of people are full of hot air, but it doesn't mean they deserve a death penalty. Just think if we would have taken that approach with Russia back when Kruschev was pounding the table....that threat turned out to be hollow.
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.