Saying that the U.S. should assassinate Chavez, Robertson was quickly criticized by both the communist government of Venezuela and the U.S. State Department. That's the serious part.
Venezuela also says that the U.S. should punish Robertson for his remarks. That's the amusing part.
Let's examine that demand.
Robertson's remarks are indeed at the very heart of the matter. But there's more important issues than the occasional rantings of an off-the-charts religious leader/speaker.
Unlike Chavez's Venezuela, we do not lock up people for expressing their (at times misguided) opinions about national or international leaders.
Venezuela should get its own house into order and restore freedom of speech to the Venezuelan people instead of telling the U.S. to lock up American citizens for expressing the same type of free speech that is now banned by Chavez's regime.
On the other side of the coin, Robertson's assassination comment flies in the face of his religious background. It doesn't make any sense. Is he encouraging evil to stop evil?
Here's his comments on the 700 Club:
"We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
"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."
Robertson suggesting blowing up the State Department in October 2003 with a nuclear device. He does have a reputation for saying off-the-wall kinds of things. He should be chastized as he has been; murder is wrong, no matter what.This is not a case of the U.S. vs. Venezuela. This is Pat Robertson vs. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Venezuela is making this bigger than it is. If they're worried about Chavez's safety if he were to come here, then perhaps he should stay home. Or in Cuba with his friend Castro.
And if Pat Robertson is encouraging evil to stop evil, then he's really losing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment