Posted on 08/22/2005 8:42:04 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
"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," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.
Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.
Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.
Robertson accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
No, you "gotcha" yourself. You're not bold enough to admit you're in the wrong.
What's "in the wrong"? I agreed with what he said, and still do...no amount of bullying by you lecturing ninnys is going to change anything.
I stated I did not directly call for it...which I did not, again, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that agreeing with someone's statement is not a direct call.
I haven't seen this much parsing of words since Monicagate. Deny all you want, what you said is in post #3 for the whole forum to read.
"I haven't seen this much parsing of words since Monicagate"
Apparently you can't take the fact that an agreement is not itself a direct call. Nice try to associate this with Bill Clinton.
What is it with you lecturing ninnys? Are you offfeeeennnnnded because someone wants to see a muderous commie who threatens american security done away with?
"Well, I'm glad you can be so flippant as to compare Jesus' crusade against the moneychangers to a special ops invasion."
You don't think He has a sense of humor?
I'm offended that you're so dense.
"I'm offended that you're so dense"
LOL, are you looking in the mirror and talking to yourself?
BTW, Good to see you've finally backed off your previous assertion that I made a direct call.
Stop wasting my time with your BS pings.
Still not bold enough eh? Ah well. I'm not pinging you. This IS an open forum in case you had forgotten.
I gather you were a follower or "tag-along" or "hanger-on", and not a leader.
"When Saul asked David for 100 Philistine foreskins, David brought back 200 Philistine foreskins"
Can you imagine being the guy that Saul commanded to actually COUNT those foreskins to verify the number....?
Perhaps a Eunuch wouldn't have minded!
Heed your own advice, and just "go away".
"Heed your own advice, and just "go away"."
Still not bold enough eh? Ah well. .... This IS an open forum in case you had forgotten.
I read it. And I disagree with you and others for attacking him, instead of discussing the article. He voiced his opinion in #3. So what's the big deal? I think we should attack Saudi Arabia and seize their oil fields, since they are the biggest supports of terrorism in the World. If the Royal terrorist family gets in the way, too bad for them.
Is this too offensive? Is this too much opinion for you?
I'm not ashamed to admit I went into Special Ed, unlike you, who doesn't have the balls to admit you're wrong.
Fine, you disagree, and no, nobody was attacking him.
It is unfortunate that I allowed you to pull me off topic, everything in this so called "debate" started to degrade after #166.
Your original assertion was that I directly called for the murder of Chavez, which was proven false. In order to save face, you tried to associate my reasoning with Clinton.
Your reasons for such attacks are quite curious though, I can't figure out why anyone would want a communist dictator to remain alive and in control of 25 million.
You mean not even YOU can invoke the ol' "you're-stalking-me" clause?
Lol, I'm book-marking this thread.
Wow. Well if you're serious, my apologies...I didn't actually believe you went to special ed.
and BTW, no Im still not admitting I was wrong regarding "agreement is the same thing as a direct call"
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.