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.
What do his testicles have to do with it?
> Is the death of innocent people due to collateral damage OK?
I have my own opinions, but in the Old Testament God had his chosen people wipe out entire cities, including children. Sometimes the children were spared. Sometimes only the girls were spared. I'm not sure what His reasons were, and I'm not sure how (or if) it is still valid in modern times, but that's what went down then.
Me personally I'd prefer we minimize loss of innocent life, but not to the point where you start losing the war. A shorter war by definition will spare more people. I wouldn't like to make these kinds of decisions but I pray every day for those that do.
I always wondered who the chosen people were, in wars between 2 non-Christian groups, or in places that had never heard of Jews or Christians? Were these wars ok, like the ones were in the bible?
True, very true. Other threats have turned out to be real (Bin Laden). If we were "taking out" a head of state, discretion would be advised. Anyway, the last I'll say about Robertson is this (and I saw it on another message board, I didn't come up with it, but it's pretty good):
T.V. evangelists should stick to preaching and collecting money and leave the politics to the real crooks.
Who would be the discrete expert? I certainly agree with your last.
I would like to take this opportunity to offer my services.
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.