On the way to work today, I heard that Hugo Chavez (for the uninitiated, he's basically like Castro with oil money) is bitching that the U.S. has him in the assassination crosshairs. I wish! If we did business that way, we could have popped Saddam and the rest of the 'deck of cards.' Why do 'shock and awe' when you could do it with a few snipers?
Chavez is probably paranoid, like that asshole in charge of North Korea. Sure, we'd like him dead, but who wouldn't?
Do you hear any sign that the U.S. is going to invade Venezuela? I haven't even heard bullshit charges that they're buying nuclar weapons components.
So Chavez is having a fit that he just might have to hold his breath if his paranoia isn't cured, and Pat Robertson (no hero of mine) makes the offhand comment that if we really wanted to get rid of him, it'd be easy. Wouldn't it be?
Full disclosure: I believe the CIA finances its black budget overruns by trafficking heroin and cocaine. I also believe the real reason we invaded Iraq is because if we don't use up the bombs we've bought, we can't keep the bomb-makers in business. Iraq was an inventory clearance, MOABs on blue-light-special.
So Pat says this and next thing you know, less than twelve hours later, he's apologized to Hugo Chavez. What the fuck? Pat Robertson might be a legit assassination target in some people's mind, but compared to an OPEC dictator? What are you going to do, run your SUV on an Xtian cable network?
Basically, if someone is President or otherwise Maximum Leader of a country, that's proof enough that he's guilty of capital crimes. Hang him, let the crows eat his eyes, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein, all guilty.
Hugo Chavez too. But then, Pat has run for President, so hang him too. You want population control? Instead of murdering babies in the womb, start with politicians.
7 comments:
I think your missing some key „news“ elements here.
While I don’t care that (supposedly) assassination is “against the law” it’s a bit whacky when a “Christian” starts condoning it.
(not much of a stretch as Fallwell appeared on CNN saying that Iraq should be “blown away in the name of the lord”. Jesse Jackson, sitting right next to him, said, “that doesn’t sound very biblical”. Wolf Blitzer supposedly a journalist, cut the segment there.)
Robertson, after this made huge news, THEN stated he “never said assassination” and that “taking out can means many thing” (i.e. kidnapping). He claimed to be “misquoted”.
He said assassination.
(some say his misused the word “dictator”, as Chavez was indeed elected, but I’ll let this slide…)
Also, granted the US news is never really on-target, Chavez hasn’t been going nuts with paranoia, he pretty much asked for protection when his forthcoming UN trip arrives.
I find this all the more funny that now the UK (thank you Blair) is passing some laws where people can be deported/arrested for saying, well, such exact things as gawd’s right hand man there.
Interesting.
I happened to catch on to this pretty early, not having cable (when I did, I watched the 700 Club's news segment, despite my atheism, because as slanted as it is, they do a better job thant he New York Times).
The reporting was that Chavez has been worried that the CIA is going to off him. If that's not hwat he's been whining about, I misunderstood. But I heard the bit where the statement was made, and it was commentary, basically saying that Chavez needn't worry about being the next Hussein, because invading Venezueala is too dumb even for the Bush II Admin.
The comment was off-hand, and humorous, basically saying that if anyone thinks Venezuela could protect his Little Caesar from a U.S. coup, they're deluded. Even Castro, if he's honest, would admit that he's in power because we permit it. Toppling his horrible regime would be less rigorous than maneuvers the Army Reserve practices in Kansas. I guarantee you,t here woudl be no insurgency on Castro's behalf.
Chavez is mainly afraid of Venezuelans who see the opportunity of overpriced oil. If he were deposed by a faction that broke with OPEC, we'd get a huge advantage over anti-American oil interests like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Texas.
As far as Pat's Xtianity goes, that's between him and Whatever. The U.S. used to make a policy of offing assholes like Chavez, and maybe Pat's nostalgic for that. The same U.S., of course, that failed to engage in such expediencies when the oil in the Persian Gulf region was being nationalized by guys who make Hitler look like a Boy Scout.
Even Castro, if he's honest, would admit that he's in power because we permit it.
It’s statements like these that, quite frankly, scare the fuck out of me.
I’m sorry to tell you: Cuba is not a part of the United States. Therefore the US has very little authority in the matter.
They/you may THINK you do, but you don’t.
And you wonder why other countries are occasionally making comments deemed as paranoia about being invaded/assassinated/whatevered.
You’ve got a big land there, next time try to elect someone that will tend to IT and not the world.
As far as Pat's Xtianity goes, that's between him and Whatever.
Well, and his some billion viewers.
And you were saying atheism is running rampart in the US? Please. Anyone else BUT a religious whacko (and a BIG, BIG Bush supported (financially, etc)) makes such a statement and it would certainly be “condemned” by the white house, and there would be repercussions or some sort.
The U.S. used to make a policy of offing assholes like Chavez, and maybe Pat's nostalgic for that.
Pat’s a screwball that is holding prayer meeting that Roberts gets the supreme court spot AND that gawd opens up more vacancies (which is very funny, since it’s an appointment for life, so this could pretty much be seen as, “kill the non fanatically Right justices!”)
Plus I love the way these guys work their rules. Now I’m not the most religious guy around but I know the Big 10. Maybe I missed something in the fine print (reading off ancient rock _can_ be difficult) but I don’t recall a “though shall not kill…unless it impedes the flow of oil”
This must also be the special amendments like, “thou shall not commit adultery…unless your wife wears entirely too much makeup (Jim Bakker)…and/or diddlin’ little boys is ok though!” (you name it)
I’m sorry to tell you: Cuba is not a part of the United States. Therefore the US has very little authority in the matter.
No, Cuba is not part of the United States. But Castro got into power thanks to our backing, and every President for 45 years has been outright hostile to him. Jimmy Carter was probably the least hostile, but he didn't lift the embargo. Which is another interesting point: aside from the fact that Cuba would be an easy mark for revolution (the economic and human rights conditions are inexcusable and are the direct fault of the Castro regime), the embargo makes Castro more powerful. Saddam was able to exploit similar benefits from the oil embargo against Iraq, letting infrastructure deteriorate while maximizing profits from a dribble of oil 'for food.' Oil for palaces is more like it, with the assistance of an incredibly corrupt United Nations, and the greasy political figures running France, Germany, and Russia. China may have backed him out of sheer anti-U.S. bias, but they were probably profiting from illegal oil deals too.
So when I say Castro is in power because we allow it, I'm not being a gingoist. We don't even need the military to topple his regime: cheap consumer goods would probably do it. That, and instead of trying to thwart boat-people, we should probably run a 24-hour shuttle right outside Cuba's national waters to pick them up and bring them to Florida.
I'm not a big fan of Pat Robertson, but I wouldn't put him in a class with Jim Baker or Oral Roberts. Of the Xtian 'Right' he's one of the saner ones, and the only thing I was saying is I'd respect him more if he'd stand by what was an off-hand comment that Hugo Chavez could be taken out without bothering to invade Venezuela. Not only is this true, but such non-Superpowers as Grenada could probably pull it off if they put their minds to it.
It strikes me as a bit of a double standard in the press: A Muslim cleric who outright calls for acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, well you've got to be tolerant of his views. Even Team Bush spouts this bullshit under the 'multi-cultural' banner. But if the guy talking makes a half-serious comment about how easy it would be to kill a bloodthirsty dictator, he's a menace to the world? Sorry, but Hugo Chavez is not an innocent civilian, and if someone kills him, they've done a public service.
shall not kill…unless it impedes the flow of oil
This brings up an excellent point. We seem to 'care' (by care, I mean we're willing to drop bombs and send troops) if there's oil or something else obviously valuable involved. Maybe Chavez sees himself as being more like Saddam than like Castro because unlike Castro, Chavez is sitting on petroleum.
So when I say Castro is in power because we allow it, I'm not being a gingoist.
Ok, cool. I didn’t think so, necessarily. But needless to say you and I, while agreeing on a lot, have completely opposite poles on some things. But not necessarily politics.
I'm not a big fan of Pat Robertson, but I wouldn't put him in a class with Jim Baker or Oral Roberts. Of the Xtian 'Right' he's one of the saner ones
Robertson is a fucking loon. Watch him pray for the appointment of Roberts, etc.
There’re patients right down the road (in the mental facility that James Joyce’s daughter was a…guest) a whole shitlot more “saner” than he.
and the only thing I was saying is I'd respect him more if he'd stand by what was an off-hand comment that Hugo Chavez could be taken out without bothering to invade Venezuela.
It wasn’t off-hand. It was a turn into camera declaration of around 1.5 minutes long. Pretty obviously premeditated.
While I’d really have to dig in the dirt to “respect” any such cretin, yes, I agree, not standing up, being accountable for what one says, let alone LYING (a sin, tis not?) about it is chicken shit. And his billion viewers should call him on this.
Instead, they’ll call with their credit card number.
But if the guy talking makes a half-serious comment about how easy it would be to kill a bloodthirsty dictator, he's a menace to the world?
They were totally serious comments, and no, I don’t think anyone thinks he’s a “menace”. Just an asshole.
The benefits of owning the network, apparently.
Sorry, but Hugo Chavez is not an innocent civilian, and if someone kills him, they've done a public service.
Not the US’s call. And this could obviously be said for just about every other politician. Every day Bush, for example, breathes air is a disservice to the species.
In the illusion of democracy, the only vote that counts is a hollow-tipped one.
This brings up an excellent point. We seem to 'care' (by care, I mean we're willing to drop bombs and send troops) if there's oil or something else obviously valuable involved.
It’s clearly the only reason it’s on Robertson’s mind, as he even so stated. ‘We could do it [“take him out”] no problem and the oil would not stop’ (paraphrase) - all one sentence.
I don't have cable, and as far as I know (so rarely do I watch the boob tube), I don't get Robertson's show these days. Ten years ago, when I had cable, I ocassionally watched the news portion of the 700 Club because it was interesting to see what they were covering that other press outlets were just ignoring. CNN was being scooped in places like Zaire all the time because they had no one on the ground there.
But I did hear the soundbyte of his quip, and it sounded to me like he was responding to Chavez's comments about how he figures we'll come and invade Venezuela. And stating a simple fact that if the United States wanted to, Hugo Chavez could be taken off the calendar without a single soldier wandering in Venezuela's direction. It might be an immoral thing to do, but the reality is that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined and that doesn't count the money we spend on spooks at the CIA who don't have Commies to occupy them anymore.
And because Chavez is a fucking monster, it'd be a snap to destabilize his regime. For that matter, there was a coup attempt a few years ago that depending on who you believe was engineered by the CIA or was thwarted by the same. Either is possible: Texas oil benefits if Venezuela doesn't produce; by the same token, if we could get a regime in there that breaks with OPEC and over-supplies the market, we get cheap gas to run bigger SUVs with.
And I do say that for every politician by the way. I'll generally cut Ron Paul a bit of slack, but for the most part holding public office is defacto evidence of sociopathic behavior and probably of capital crimes. Open season in my book. You mentioned that you don't see abortion as a crime, though I do. I'd so much rather see politicans getting .45 caliber retroactive abortions.
Yes, we’re both working off of an edited video clip, so no use nit-picking.
But either way, I still think Robertson’s statement was fucking foolish. Mind you, not world news foolish. No more foolish than Puff Diddlers “no more P” statement. Generally I get more aghast that these people are given any credible camera time…
You mentioned that you don't see abortion as a crime, though I do. I'd so much rather see politicans getting .45 caliber retroactive abortions.
I don’t see it as only one can be had. I’m all up for the “death penalty” (I’m lost at such convictions as “three consecutive life sentences” – am I missing something here?), assassinations and whatnot.
The way I see it, the less babies; the less people; the less people; the less politicians and/or at least a lesser amount of stupid people that will vote for them.
We’re way past the days of “genius”. There will be no modern day Leonard da Vinci. Every child is not precious.
On top of that, a wad of sticky dough is NOT bread until it comes out of the oven…
Post a Comment