Pat Robertson Calls for Assassination of Hugo Chavez!!!

CoastalRat wrote:

I get it. So we are talking degrees of statements and actions. Some statements/actions, those deemed worse than others, open an individual to criticism, name-calling, motive questioning and such, while other less offending speech/actions should not be questioned?

So who decides where the line is drawn? I am not attempting to defend what Mr. Robertson said, just trying to understand the hypocrisy of those who believe it is justified to call him names, etc while saying people have no right at all to question the motives of Ms. Sheehan.

Out of curiosity who is saying we have no rights to question the motives of Ms. Sheehan?

Another Bush Coup? America's Dirty Hands in Venezuela
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | April 19, 2002

News of the abortive coup attempt in Venezuela against the government of President Hugo Chavez has been coming fast and furious in recent days. No mainstream reports have managed to reveal the story in its entirety to date, but an amazing picture has begun to coalesce. Venezuela's democracy, emerging as a beacon of progressive leadership in South America, was attacked by business interests that wished to wrestle control of that nation away from a legitimately elected leader. It is an old story in that part of the world, but this time around the ending was different. Democracy in Venezuela survived its attempted murder, essentially because the people took to the streets and saved it.

The details in brief: Hugo Chavez won two Presidential elections in Venezuela, in 1998 and in 2000, by the largest margins in forty years. Upon his rise, he instituted a number of socially progressive programs, based upon a concept called Bolivarianism, aimed at elevating the standard of living for his people. Chavez ratified a new Constitution guaranteeing new rights for women and indigenous peoples. He cleared out the plague of graft and corruption in Venezuelan government by restructuring the legislative and judicial branches. He instituted a government-funded breakfast and lunch program for schoolchildren that has helped increase enrollment by over a million students. He provided free health care and public education up to the university level.

How, you ask, did he pay for all these programs? This is the $64,000 question...or to be more accurate, the multi-billion dollar question. The answer lies in the small word that has so dominated American foreign policy: oil. Venezuela is a major source of petroleum, historically providing between 15% to 40% of America's imported supply. Canada and Iraq, by comparison, make up only 26% of our imported oil. Chavez's country is, without doubt, the most important nation to America on this side of the planet because of this.

Chavez redirected vast sums of money from Venezuela's petroleum production away from the multinationals, which had been profiting wildly, towards his progressive government programs. That alone was enough to draw the ire of the American petroleum industry and the IMF. But Chavez also became deeply involved with OPEC when Venezuela took over the leadership of that entity, giving it a burst of new influence that caused a spike in the price of a barrel of oil. Once drawing only $8, the price of a barrel of oil went as high as $27 on the international market after Chavez got involved. Not long after Bush took office, the decision was made: Chavez had to go.

It began with propaganda, as it always does. After Chavez won for the first time in 1998, he was labeled a demagogue and an authoritarian by members of the mainstream American media. The drumbeat of criticism from 'journalists,' whose fealty to the truth apparently came second to their support of business, continues to this day. George W. himself chimed in at one point, making the claim that Chavez's earning of a majority of the vote in two separate elections did not necessarily confer legitimacy upon his administration.

Yes, he actually said that. Go figure.

Kinda like Ms. Sheehan.

CoastalRat wrote:

Kinda like Ms. Sheehan.

i don't see what sheehan has to do with this topic. she wasn't mentioned in any of the reports on the subject.

the story is, that you have a christian minister; head of very influential religious media machine and a powerful political organization called the christian coalition, calling for the assassination of another country's democratically elected president. and disregarding one of the most important of the very ten commandments that he propounds so vociferously.

that is the story.

bringing sheehan into it is only an attempt make an irrelevant dig at "the left". who, as i mentioned have no part in the news reported.

so the only value of bringing up sheehan is to, as usual, spin the discussion off into anything other than the report of robertson's outlandish behavior.

A spokeswoman for the Christian Broadcasting Network told the BBC: "We are at a time of war and Pat had war on his mind when he made the comments."

woiyo wrote:

Why are you concerned about what this radical nutcase has to say?

He is in no position of influence and not involved in legislation . He is just a private citizen with an opinion.

Kinda like Ms. Sheehan. Oh wait, but we can't question her because....why was that again? Oh yeah, because the left says so.

EDITED NOTE: I am not a big fan of Mr. Robertson simply because he says things such as this without thinking about what he is saying.

We're at war with VENEZUELA??? When did this happen? Where have I been?

So, in conclusion, let me state for the record that Pat Robertson is a delusional pinhead.