Posted on 08/25/2005 7:54:45 AM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON - There's an old Southern saying that you dance with the one that brung ya, but as the Bush administration found out this week, sometimes you don't want to dance too closely.
The administration quickly distanced itself from the suggestion by religious broadcaster and Bush backer Pat Robertson that the United States assassinate a leftist Latin American head of state. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "inappropriate," but stopped short of condemning them.
"This is not the policy of the United States government," McCormack said Tuesday. "We do not share his views."
The Bush administration does share many of Robertson's views on other matters, such as stem-cell research, and Robertson's largely conservative, evangelical audience overlaps with the core of Bush's political base.
About nine of 10 white evangelicals voted for Bush in the 2004 election. This group also supported Bush overwhelmingly in the 2000 election.
McCormack tiptoed around the question of whether the rest of the world might assume that Robertson speaks, if not directly for Bush, at least for a sizable share of the Republican Party.
"I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are," McCormack said. "They're the expression of one citizen."
On Wednesday, Robertson initially denied he had called for Chavez to be assassinated, saying his comments were misinterpreted, even though a video of Monday's telecast shows Robertson's exact words were: "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."
But he reversed course a few hours later and apologized for his remarks.
"Is it right to call for assassination?" Robertson said. "No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 1988, supported Bush's re-election last year and said he believed Bush is blessed by God.
The fracas began with Robertson's remarks on the same program Monday, when he said that killing Chavez would be cheaper than starting a war to oust him. Getting rid of Chavez would stop Venezuela from becoming a "launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism," Robertson said.
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.
In response, Chavez likened Robertson to a rabid dog. Venezuela's ambassador to the U.S. said he is concerned for Chavez' safety when visiting New York United States next month Chavez for a special session of the U.N. General Assembly.
Democrats called the Bush administration's response tepid.
"It seems they are shuffling their feet when they should be running away from what Pat Robertson said," Democratic political consultant Steve McMahon said. "That this president, who projects himself as brave and bold, doesn't want to stand up to his own right wing is ironic."
The MSM is going to try to hang Robertson around W's neck while they ignored the VIP treatment the 'rats gave MM at last years convention.
Now the MSM tries to make Robertson a happenin' playa...
Fact that Bush does not say something directly about this makes me think the thought of assassination has crossed his mind too.
"It seems they are shuffling their feet when they should be running away from what Pat Robertson said," Democratic political consultant Steve McMahon said. "That this president, who projects himself as brave and bold, doesn't want to stand up to his own right wing is ironic."
Yes, that is such a contrast to how the leading democrats boldly respond to the lunatic ravings of Howard Dean?
It makes me think that he considers Pat Robertson pretty much irrelevant.
The MSM would rather produce that chart than show the one that has Atta on it.
That's because the President reports to Robertson. The MSM has an org chart somewhere that clearly shows this.
I disagree with what Robertson said. However, I have no idea why anyone expects the President to respond to it.
Not one Deomocrat or member of the MSM that I know of condemns the maniacs on the left who, in one way or another, encourage the assassination of Bush. Their hypocracy is stunning.
Can't blame Bush. Robertson is bonkers. Cal Thomas may be next.
CNN will make one up. President Bush should denounce Rev. Pat more forcefully. This assassination business is a t least as bad as the stuff that Congress-Mutant Cynthia McKinney used to go around accusing him off.
Pat should have stuck to his guns. The "apology" was weasily.
If I recall correctly, and I do, Robertson contended right before the elections that G.W.B. had told him there would be no casualties.
Robertson didn't bring this President to the 'dance'.
There has never been such a law. It's a policy, imposed by executive order -- i.e., the guy who has the power to lift the policy would be the one ordering the "hit" in the first place. The only real effect of the EO is that agencies that report to the President (such as the CIA) are prohibited from persuing such a course on their own; though it's hard to imagine the CIA "taking out" a head of state without executive approval.
If Robertson were to come out today and announce he no longer supports "this racist quagmire in Iraq", the media would instantly forget he ever mentioned Chavez
That's not to be confused with the one that shows how the President reports to Vincente Fox, is it?
My reaction: Manufactured News is all.
Robertson says many flaky things. So does Al Sharpton and a number of other public figures.
So what?
Meantime, it's not mentioned that Chavez has had dissidents killed, is a Castro wannabe and is a dangerous guy (helping narco-terrorists in Columbia etc), and who is bashing the US by making phony allegations and trying to be the 'bad boy' of South America'. Robertson, in his foolish and incorrect way, was trying to highlight that.
Yep, here we go. What Pat was up to right before the elections last year.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1251705/posts
Hardly a 'supportive' or credible source the President should draw near to his side. But the Left knows that, which is why they WANT Robertson identified with Bush so they can smear him by association.
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.