What a nutjob...here's what I found out about him last May...
More about Pat
I'm glad you have that way back machine. It sure proves that our admin is full of crazy bullshi*. They just BS their way around everything.
Alicia,
Great post. Nice work.
Robertson's kind of like the freak shows at the circus. He's painful to watch or listen to, but you can't look away because you never know what bat-shit crazy thing he's going to do next.
Advocating the assasination of a foreign, Democratically elected President doesn't strike me as either particularly Christian, pro-democracy , nor wise.
But, then again, it's a televangelist saying it, so it's got to be ok with God right?
I know I'm cynical. I just have very little respect for televangelists (you know, the people who say stuff like, "Send your money to God! Here's the address..." and "God will reward you a thousand-fold for the money you send me!")
I'm not seeing the connection with the Hussein assassination attempt and the Robertson comment. On the one hand, you have a leader who had millions of his own people slaughtered. On the other hand, you have a big mouth wannabe commie who, as far as I can gather, hasn't slaughtered millions of his people.
Your "feigned outrage" negates your previous claim that you are "not criticizing our elected officials for condemning Robertson." What???
Let's say the Bush team says, "Yes, we agree with Mr. Robertson's statement and we are hereby making plans to carry out the assassination of Hugo Chavez." Imagine the outrage over that! But, instead, the Bush team condems his statement, and you are STILL ticked at 'em. I believe this is a classic case of the old "damned if they do, damned if they don't" scenario, sprinkled on top with a little partisan bias.
WF -
The feigned outrage I'm referring to is when Bush administration spokesmen act as though this is a completely foriegn idea to them. We tried it at the beginning of the Iraq invasion.
The criticism isn't of the people who are condemning it, it's just for the people who are pretending they would never consider such a thing.
Keep in mind, the decapitation attempt was a Bush administration move, not the choice of the Senate or any other elected official. So for the White House to say that Robertson doesn't reflect their thinking is somewhat disingenuous (sp?) in my opinion.
Reagan went after Moamar Khadafi, for the Berlin disco bombings. So what? I can understand the context of what Robertson was saying, and all the up roar is just a bunch of blow hards trying to get some media attention.
Lots of people believe that we should have removed Saddam with a covert operation, assasinate him and be done with it. No need for invasion etc etc. Are you telling me that you have never heard that idea put forth? Gimme a break.
C.
Give you a break? You don't have to come here. You act all outraged like you can't believe what I'm saying. This is a partisan site and you know it. If you don't like it, surf on by.
Look, if you want to condone killing another human being, that's your issue. I'm not going to be a part of it. I will condemn anyone who advocates killing another individual. Call it appeasement, call it cowardly, call it whatever you want, I refuse to condone the killing of another human being. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. Killing is wrong. I would think that you as a conservative could understand that. Which commandment was that? Oh yeah, number six: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
How about "gimme a break?"
MMM very interesting, how do you stand on the issue of abortion?
C.
My point is your outrage is well, kinda hollow. Maybe not yours specifically but most of the people on the band wagons.
C.
Hmmmmm... on abortion I don't and won't advocate it unless the health of the mother is at risk. However, I believe that every woman should have the right to make the choice for herself.
Now, before you jump to any conclusions, let me clarify things. In my opinion, a woman choosing to have an abortion is a personal and private choice that reflects upon her, but our government or any elected official that advocates assassination does so in the name of every American citizen. But if you want to support Robertson's call for the assassination of a democratically elected leader, be my guest. After all, he has that right. He's free to make those kinds of statements. It makes him look like an un-Christian ass, but that's his right, too.
I am not supporting the idea of actually going and killing Hugo Chavez. On the flip side I don't think that saying that removing him that way is such the outrage that everyone wants it to be.
Because a woman becomes pregnant doesn't endow her with the right to kill a baby because she has that "choice". He choice is to get pregnant or not get pregnant.
C.
"I don't think that saying that removing him that way is such the outrage that everyone wants it to be."
I do. You believe what you want, though. It's your right.
Your use of the phrase "kill a baby" is where you and I differ. You believe that life begins at conception. I believe that life begins at birth. I'm not going to go into all the details of this, it's been argued a million times to no avail. But as I said, I don't and won't advocate for an abortion, but it is not my choice to make. And the last I checked, it wasn't your choice either.
How sad it is that Freepers have to troll around to support the likes of Patshit Robertson and help spew his hate then have us believe it is ok to advocate assassination as a viable means of regime change... ‘Oh yeah just like others suggested it for Sadam '
Right, just forget the utter hypocrisy of this pig who calls himself one of God's messengers. Now if he was an average monkey blogging away or gabbing in the street or at the water cooler – I’d give him his first amendment due and let him speak his mind knowing that it was just some silly rant. But with patshit, or any other public leader to go out on his ‘700 club’ and speak to his sheep about a policy of assassination is way over the line. What’s this little demon piglet up to? One wonder’s ? Is he trying to pave his driveway with oil future contracts now ? Did he get tired of the gold he stole from Liberia ?
kissfan:
"The feigned outrage I'm referring to is when Bush administration spokesmen act as though this is a completely foriegn idea to them. We tried it at the beginning of the Iraq invasion."
I understand what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time grasping it. In other words, because they have tried to assasinate tyrants in the past they are guilty by association anytime anyone "conservative" and famous advocates such an action?
I have my own opinions about leaders like Chavez (my brother's "girlfriend" is a native Venezuelan who is college-educated and desiring to move to the US, but since Chavez took over he is forbidding people that fit her description, namely college educated, to leave the country), but I will not stand behind Pat Robertson- not because of what he said, per se, but because I don't subscribe to his version of Christianity.
On a lighter note, happy 56th Birthday, Gene "The Demon" Simmons! (His new motto is: Rock And Roll All Nite, Take Alleve Everyday!)
Ha ha. Although I figured it would be Rock and Roll All Nite, Take VIAGRA everyday.
As for the assassination thing, I just see it as hypocritical for them to say it doesn't represent their views when they themselves tried to do something very similar.
Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 12:23 p.m. EDT
Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination
Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson prompted a firestorm of media outrage on Tuesday after he suggested that the Bush administration should assassinate a foreign leader who posed a threat to the U.S. - in this case, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.
Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.
His headline? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."
"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."
Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.
"We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.
Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:
"If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."
The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted air strike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."
The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."
Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."
Ahh the hypocrites strike again.
C.
Let me guess...Newsmax or Drudge, right?
Anyone who supported this and condemned Robertson is indeed a hypocrite. As I said before, though. I will not support this. Democrat or Republican, it's wrong. My conscience is clear.
I understand you personally have nothing on your conscience. However the MSM certainly should have something on theirs. I doubt they do as they see themselves as above such things but, one can always hope.
C.
Well, Chris, if George Stephanopolous was the Pope at the time he made those comments, you might have a point. My guess is Pat Robertson isn't the first person on the right or left to advocate assassinating someone in comments they made. He's only the first one who did so while running a Christian television network.
Commenting by HaloScan
