VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, only hours after he denied saying Chavez should be killed.
"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."
Chavez, whose country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush. He accuses the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club," Robertson had said: "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. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
He continued: "We have the ability to take him 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. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."
He later issued the apology on his Web site.
When the AP had called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. He also declined several interview requests Wednesday.,
On Tuesday, the State Department called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."
So there you have it, a right wing, christian, poster boy republican further instigating the stereotype that I have for all conservatives. let us hear it again he is supporting the "murder", isnt that against the christian law? On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club," Robertson had said: "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. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
He continued: "We have the ability to take him 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. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
And Id be willing to bet you he's pro life, against stem cell reseach. Contradictory MORON cant even be consistant with his own narrowminded, oppressive old world views
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Don't judge a whole party by what one person or a few ppl say. You'd like to say there hasn't been a liberal who has said something just as crazy. I don't think so. Everyone makes mistakes in what they say. End of story
I just say that he wasn't the one who should have been saying this. While our government has never publically advocated assasinations, we have supported them if done by other countries. It hasn't mattered if the reigning government was republican or democrat
For every consative jackass you can quote, I can quote a liberal jackass. You really should not take one persons statements to be indicative of the views of an entire political leaning.
I wish I could see how the political views of this group of people have changed in another 10 or 15 years from now. It seems to have a definite liberal bias here and maybe that's due to the prevalance of younger people on the board. I'm not saying that because I think younger people are stupid. I definitely was more of an idealist when I was younger. My views changed slowly over time such that I cannot say exactly when I became a conservative (jackass if you will).
I'd like to compare the percentage of people on this board under 25 who are liberals to the people over 25 who are liberals just to see if there is a difference.
im only 17 and am conservative and ik of many ppl who are conservative in my school. i think ppl realize that it lines up better with there personal views imo
Quote:
Rodimus Prime
yet another liberal dumbass...
I tend to hold the rights of the born higher than the unborn as well
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
nuke there ass and take there gas.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
EastCoastBeast II wrote:Quote:
Rodimus Prime
yet another liberal dumbass...
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
Labotomi wrote:
I just say that he wasn't the one who should have been saying this. While our government has never publically advocated assasinations, we have supported them if done by other countries. It hasn't mattered if the reigning government was republican or democrat
True enough, while you say this as though it's divided on party lines, the rest of the world (like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran">Iran</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein"> Iraq</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud">Saudi Arabia</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan">Afghanistan</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet">Chile</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama">Panama</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War">Vietnam</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia">Cambodia</a>, Laos, China, etc. etc.) sees a pre-eminently self-interested, meddling and oppressive nation. Some see the US as a lot of things, and most of them aren't endearing.
Personally, I think it would be a lot easier if the US hadn't gotten into a lot of these countries and skirmishes alone, but then again, you can't change history in the minds of the peasantry or the fanatical.
Quote:
For every consative jackass you can quote, I can quote a liberal jackass. You really should not take one persons statements to be indicative of the views of an entire political leaning.
No, but the fact remains that this preacher very publically and unambiguously made an utter mockery of his religion (what WOULD Jesus do?), and he trudged the Bush Administration through the mud. He's done 2 things that are very dangerous writ stupid (I don't like to use the word but in this case its warranted):
- He's probably given a lot of Bush supporters (read voters) a new thing to gripe about and in their minds a REAL target of opportunity.
- He's PROVEN to every paranoid foreign president, Crack-pot dictator and terrorist head that the US SHOULD and MUST be feared and attacked. If this sentiment is a popular one of PEOPLE, the president must have that ideal as well.
Quote:
I wish I could see how the political views of this group of people have changed in another 10 or 15 years from now. It seems to have a definite liberal bias here and maybe that's due to the prevalance of younger people on the board. I'm not saying that because I think younger people are stupid. I definitely was more of an idealist when I was younger. My views changed slowly over time such that I cannot say exactly when I became a conservative (jackass if you will).
No problem with being conservative, but, know thy enemy, know thyself. There are just as many Conservatives that are not happy with Dubya as there are Liberals, and other party alignments.
Being an idealist isn't bad, but following the ideals because they're right, and weakening the ideas because it's expedient... that's politics. The last real leader in that respect was Reagan, even though his administration set the US up for the fall it's in now.
Quote:
I'd like to compare the percentage of people on this board under 25 who are liberals to the people over 25 who are liberals just to see if there is a difference.
I'd like to see the number of people that actually know the way the electoral system works and voted anyways versus the number of people that don't and didn't, and are bitching either way. I think that would be more telling.
Regardless, the 2 party dominance is a fraud. Neither will do what YOU want because they have a bigger concern... towing the party line. The real George... Washington that is... was opposed to political parties. Maybe he was just as sage in things political as he was in things military.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
In regards to Roberton...from what he's come out as...he's not a christian. A Christian would not call a bloodhunt against someone else and totally forget "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I don't think it would be fair to equate people that are respectable like Mother Theresa to a hatemonger like him.
Further, I think any decent Christian (hahaha comes to mind) would most likely be pissed off at the mockery he's made at their dogma.
As for the rest, i find it bull@!#$ political rhetoric. it's the same old @!#$--some crusty pwerson with a political agenda (just about any politician, pundit, or whatever) beats the drum of war to further their agenda and unless you're a total chumpstain, you realize that there are no party lines on this.
Honestly, i think the people that label people or themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" are the the ones that need to go outside and play hide-and-go-@!#$-yourself.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Pat Robertson Is nothing more than a religious nutjob.
[QUOTE=Keeper of the Light™] Honestly, i think the people that label people or themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" are the the ones that need to go outside and play hide-and-go-@!#$-yourself.
Bingo
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Quote:
For every consative jackass you can quote, I can quote a liberal jackass. You really should not take one persons statements to be indicative of the views of an entire political leaning.
No, but the fact remains that this preacher very publically and unambiguously made an utter mockery of his religion (what WOULD Jesus do?)
If the original post hadn't tried to tar all conservatives with the same brush, I wouldn't have taken issue. Point out that he's a jackass and leave the other soapbox crap out.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Labotomi wrote:I'll just say that he wasn't the one who should have been saying this. While our government has never publically advocated assasinations, we have supported them if done by other countries. It hasn't mattered if the reigning government was republican or democrat
True enough, while you say this as though it's divided on party lines, the rest of the world (like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Chile, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, etc. etc.) sees a pre-eminently self-interested, meddling and oppressive nation. Some see the US as a lot of things, and most of them aren't endearing.
Personally, I think it would be a lot easier if the US hadn't gotten into a lot of these countries and skirmishes alone, but then again, you can't change history in the minds of the peasantry or the fanatical.
I'm saying it isn't along party lines. And while we may be looked at as a"pre-eminently self-interested, meddling and oppressive nation" and you say that you think things would have been better if the we hadn't been involved in those things, you cannot say for certain if things would have been better if we hadn't. Why is it that when we don't get involved people get mad and say that we're ignoring the plight of suffering people and beg us to interviene (see Liberia), but when we take it upon ourselves to act before we're asked we're meddling where we don't belong?
Because when you do take interest (ie outside of the UN) it's because you're cleaning up a mess that you made in the first place.
Also, I didn't say things would have been
better, I did however say
easier. The Difference: you can do the right thing for everyone once and be thought of as a bastard for all your misdeeds previous, or keep doing the right thing for everyone, and those old sins be forgotten.
It's not a catch 22...
I'll put it in simple terms: You go to a friend's place because they're moving and you know it, you help them move in, but you place things as you think they oughtta be because that's just the way it is. You get ticked when your friend moves things to the way they want it because they live there and it's their furniture. Here's where you ask yourself the big question: do you either tell them why you did that, or do you get pissed? If a friend asks you to help move, and then asks you to offer up an opinion as to how to place things, then you can say whatever you like.
Going in and helping before you're asked or before there's a problem is called being nosey. Giving help when there is a problem that is evident is good concience. Giving help when asked is being decent.
When you up the ante to invasion of a country, you're making the whole precept a lot more complex, but the root issue is the same.
Here's the kicker: there's been a problem in North Uganda for the last 20 years, In Cote d'Ivore for 30+, Sierra Leone for at least 30 years. Where is the USA? Picking its battles I suppose is the line, or starting somewhere... The USA can exert a lot of humanitarian pressure on the UN, and should, but under the current administration, hasn't. I realise there are bigger issues, but putting the screws to a particular issue in the name of the people as opposed to "security" is more noble, and IMHO will brooch greater security. There's nothing quite like the opiate of having the basics (ie food, clothing, and shelter) sated to deter terrorism.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Going in and helping before you're asked or before there's a problem is called being nosey. Giving help when there is a problem that is evident is good concience. Giving help when asked is being decent.
There are no absolute points where the problem is evident and needs attention. Someone will say either you jumped the gun or you should have acted sooner. No matter what someone will complain.
Regardless, Robertson is a Jackass and Robertson is a Conservative. This does not mean that all Conservatives are Jackasses, so don't label us as such.
I didn't label anyone other than Robertson as such (actually I didn't even so much as say that, but I guess you could construe me agreeing with the original post as such).
And I don't make blanket statements that I can't back up.
It's true, an administration will catch hell one way or the other, but the statement you quoted still stands.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I didn't label anyone other than Robertson as such (actually I didn't even so much as say that, but I guess you could construe me agreeing with the original post as such).
The statement was directed at the original poster and not you. I should have indicated the intended target.
