Robertson to Special Forces: Take Chavez Out—To Dinner

By assassination, Radical Cleric Pat Robertson didn't mean that kind of assassination. CNN reports:

"I didn't say 'assassination.'I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him."

CNN continues to report:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson on Monday's program. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

Video here.

More here and here.

Comments

[Jeff]

Take him out to a strip club, to Six Flags, to an IMAX film...

Also, did anyone notice if Robertson evoked the Monroe Doctrine?

[just wondering]

How about to a drive-in for some back-seat action?

[K. Toishi]

Wow... I just got flashbacks to Bill Clinton.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

[K. Toishi]

Also, did anyone notice if Robertson evoked the Monroe Doctrine?

Yes, he did.

[Sam]

Take...him out to a baaaaall gaame! 😀

[April]

"Also, did anyone notice if Robertson evoked the Monroe Doctrine?"

If I recall, he didn't invoke it by name, but mentioned that Venezuela is in our "sphere of influence." Doesn't take a rocket scientist--OR a political scientist--to figure his meaning there.

[isildur]

VINCENT
Well, Marsellus is leavin' for Florida and when he's gone, he wants me to take care of Mia.

JULES
Take care of her? [Making a gun out of his finger and placing it to his head.]

VINCENT
Not that! Take her out. Show her a good time. Don't let her get lonely.

JULES
You're gonna be takin' Mia Wallace out on a date?

VINCENT
It ain't a date. It's like when you and your buddy's wife go to a movie or somethin'. It's just... you know...good company.

[Jules just looks at him.]

VINCENT
It's not a date.

[sage]

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson on Monday's program. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

I like Jon Stewart's reaction to that: So he's advocating murder...for the savings.

[Eddy]

Take him out back to the shed for a little one on one to make sure he gets the daughter back before 11:00.

Or maybe Pat was expressing a secret homoerotic fantasy. After all, Chavez does have that raw mestizo allure about him.

[Eddy]

Take him out back to the shed for a little one on one to make sure he gets the daughter back before 11:00.

Or maybe Pat was expressing a secret homoerotic fantasy. After all, Chavez does have that raw mestizo allure about him.

[K. Toishi]

If I recall, he didn't invoke it by name

Ah, but indeed he did. His impeccable oral display of U.S. diplomatic history went like this...

"This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly."

[JonBuck]

I think I hear the sound of furious backpedaling...

[D Allen]

["Take Me Out" ... a fine tune by Franz Ferdinand]

Robertson is a kook, but doesn't dictate state policy nor does he have a legion of "martyrs" waiting to literally carry out his "fatwas". He has his bible-belt supporters, many of whom will nod accordingly in agreement with his rambles, but I don't think Chavez is in any danger of radical Nebraskans infiltrating the Venezuelan border with explosive belts any time soon.

In other words, his quotes are being hammered and repeated in the media as if they really matter. Yet, there have been greater threats from jihading zealots with a lot more influence (on public policy or otherwise) who get routinely ignored.

The Robertson quote is basically a non-issue and a non-story.

[SPD]

I read that Pat Robertson also wants to "take out" Palmeiro's career statistics.

Wait, that's Frank Robinson. Never mind.

[SPD]

I recall reading another article where Robertson calls for taking out Rafael Pameiro.

Oh wait, it was Palmeiro's stats. And it was Frank Robinson. Never mind, my mistake

[SPD]

That joke was not very funny in either version. Sorry for the double-posting, everyone.

[Shelby]

Patience, young SPD. Appear your posts will.

[wellfellow]

It is a bit of a non-story. A crazy guy, with a reputation of saying crazy things, just said something crazy. I don't get it.

[Ken Shultz]

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

[coarsetad]

It is interesting to note, that the excuse, "they support terrorists", is beginning to be used as a generic reason as to why we should confront anybody that isnt in agreement with United States policy. Robertson stated that Chavez was turning Venezuela to a "hot bed of terrorism," is there any evidence (or even rumors) that terrorists are doing anything there? Sounds like Robertson just pulled it straight out of his ass, just to get "the base" all fired up. (Of course, telling them that Venezuela was a mecca of gay marriage would have fired them up even more.)

[Shem]

coarsetad-just that Venezela could, possibly, some day, let in some swarthy A-rab who would then take a bus to the Mexico border and sneak in, they fly a plane into a building somewhere. Of course, this means that Paul Martin of Canada ought to be quite a bit higher on the ol' hit parade, since it's much easier to sneak from the north.

[cdunlea]

Remember that part of the Bible where Jesus and the disciples were talking about taking out Pilate, and going over whether they should assassinate him or just kidnap him?

Neither do I. Go fuck yourself, Pat.

[Evade]

I think I hear the sound of furious backpedaling...

More like world class backstroke.

It is a bit of a non-story. A crazy guy, with a reputation of saying crazy things, just said something crazy. I don't get it.

A lot of serious people take what he says as the gospel (or close to it). That's a story.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall in Robertson's sphere of influence for the last couple of days just to get a better idea of where the internal spanking came from.

[madpad]

Interesting.

When they help get a president elected, kooky right-wing religious zealots like Pat Robinson are important mobilizers of a significant and important segment of the republican party.

When they advocate loony ideas like assassination (and other plainly un-Christian thoughts) they not only aren't called on their hypocrisy, they're identified as (let's see...how did D Allen put it) "basically a non-issue and a non-story"

Sorry, when a moron like Robinson - who's got the ear of millions of people, BTW (many of whom don't know Chavez from Charro) - calls for assassinating a head of state, it is an issue AND a story.

[D Allen]

If someone (be it government official or private citizen) attempts to assassinate the Venezuelan head of state based on a largely-discredited washed-up televangelist's fantasy, then I'll be back to eat crow.

In the meantime, it's a non-issue and a non-story being run ad nauseum, only surpassed by the round-the-clock Sheehan coverage.

[It's interesting how we heard next to nothing when a Guardian writer openly desired for the assassination of Bush last October]

[Dave]

Reminds me of a question Ali G asked about the "meedja": If newspapers is trying to get loads of customers, why doesn't they make like a huge headline that says 'War Begins...', and then on the second page it could say 'with a W'".

[a]

If someone (be it government official or private citizen) attempts to assassinate the Venezuelan head of state based on a largely-discredited washed-up televangelist's fantasy, then I'll be back to eat crow.

By the same logic, the Rushdie fatwa should have never garnered any news coverage since Rushdie is still a live.

[D Allen]

a,

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Robertson or his ilk and I'm certainly not defending them.

But to actually equate the US christian right's "threat level" of blowing people up to that of the jihadists is beyond laughable.

I know the obligatory references to abortion clinic bombings are coming, but even with those isolated cases there's still no comparison in danger levels. Not even close.

[madpad]

If someone (be it government official or private citizen) attempts to assassinate the Venezuelan head of state based on a largely-discredited washed-up televangelist's fantasy, then I'll be back to eat crow.

to actually equate the US christian right's "threat level" of blowing people up to that of the jihadists is beyond laughable.

Hold on a sec there, D. You're defending your rant with a non-event and adding up the "extremist angle" to make a logically unsound point.

Yes, I agree that it's unlikely that Pat Robertson's remark will actually lead to an assassination.

But that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy.

With all due respect, the writer for the Guardian is probably not a widely-regarded influential mobilizer or opinion-shaper in the same fashion that Robertson obviously is.

And the Guardian writer is most likely not a central figure in a religious group that claims - as a central tenent - such themes as "though shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor."

And the Guardian writer is probably not an influential leader in the very theo-political group to which our dear President belongs whereas Robertson is.

The potential threat posed by Robertson was never the news item here.

His open hypocrisy, level of influence and proximity to the president is.

[joe]

D Allen, as the president has said repeatedly, it is the state sponsorship of the violent fundamentalist extremists that make them so dangerous.

[D Allen]

madpad,

>> "But that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy."

I didn't mean to imply that Robertson's quote shouldn't have been covered at all. It just seems that he's getting far more attention and analysis (coverage he's likely relishing) than necessary. I get weary that the entire Republican Party or the Christian faith are going to suffer from the rambles of this one known loon, and that people of certain political persuasians are going to try to lump everyone into one large group.

Lest anyone things I'm playing a partisan game here, I cringed when conservatives tried to tie the most vile ANSWER/MoveOn protestor with Kerry or the Democratic Party last year.

And I respectfully disagree with all these claims of Robertson's influence *as it pertains to foreign policy*.

Sure, he generally gets mileage on "mainstream", Domestic issues like abortion, gay marriage, T&A on TV, and the like.

No one, not even the Bush White House, is going to consider his ideas on how to handle Latin American heads of state.

FWIW, your points are well-taken, and I actually do agree with you more than what comes across here.

[Don]

is there any evidence (or even rumors) that terrorists are doing anything there?

Chavez has supported FARC.

[madpad]

D Allen,

I share many of your concerns as well, though to be fair, the religious right pretty much competes neck and neck (if not effectively outpacing them much of the time) with extreme liberals in the area of 'lumping everyone (who doesn't agree with them) into one large group.'

As for Robertson's influence on U.S. foreign policy, again your point is well-taken as far as it goes. Influence doesn't have to be direct...nor does it have to be helpful. It's probably safe to assume that Bush himself called up P.R. with a "whatthehellareyoudoingyafuckinmoron?"

[joe]

Somebody remind me, how many votes did the most vile ANSWER/MoveOn protester get in a Democratic primary? How many visits has the most vile ANSWER/MoveOn protester made to the White House?

Pat Whozzatagain? Never heard of 'im. I'll ask around, see if any of the interns knows who you're talking about.