Comments on: Freedom Plant With Assasinations Global

By: Marq

Marq — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:34:24 +0000

Of course, Robertson's adopted standard wingnut protocol when they utter something so stupid that even the MSM starts calling them out on it-he's lying and denying ever having said it at all. It seems the concept of audio/video tape is lost on these morons. Of course, a significant portion of their followers watch nothing but the christian stations and Fox news, so if Fox doesn't push the story, the denial strategy can work. Robertson now claims that he said we should "take out" Chavez, and that "take out" doesn't necessarily mean assassinate-it could refer to something innocuous like kidnapping (!). But, for the sake of accuracy, let's go to the videotape:

"If he [Hugo Ch?vez] 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." -- Pat Robertson

Busted!

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:09:34 +0000

Six years ago, Robertson said the U.S. could send agents to kill Osama bin Laden, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein.

“Isn’t it better to do something like that … to take out Saddam Hussein, rather than to spend billions of dollars on a war that harms innocent civilians and destroys the infrastructure of a country?”

Evangelical analysts question how much influence Robertson retains.

A 2004 poll for PBS’s “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly” and U.S. News & World Report found that only half of white evangelicals viewed Robertson favorably, compared with 75 percent for Focus on the Family leader James Dobson.

By: Marq

Marq — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:41:37 +0000

Unless, by 'do it', he meant 'go and exercise at the gym in order to work out our frustrations - like in a Nike commercial'.
Nah. He actually meant that we should all get laid, a sentiment with which I can heartily agree-mainly because the very thought gives the Virgin Ben cold sweats and uncontrollable shivers. And projectile vomiting. So I hope Pat clarifies this while he appears on a panel with VBen. And that VBen is standing directly behind Pat.

By: d

Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:30:59 +0000

So I wonder if Swank’s head is going to explode now that Robertson says that he didn’t say what he said about assassinating Chavez.

By: yagi

yagi — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:12:41 +0000

Nevermind, he was simply lying when he said he didn’t say it:

“[I]f he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Unless, by ‘do it’, he meant ‘go and exercise at the gym in order to work out our frustrations – like in a Nike commercial’.

By: yagi

yagi — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:37:03 +0000

Oh, and then there’s that little detail about Chavez being the democratically-elected President of a sovereign nation. We really can’t legally go and ‘take him out’, unless Robertson was implying that we take him out for dinner, or to a ball game. But his clarification seems to indicate otherwise.

By: yagi

yagi — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:14 +0000

Misinterpreted? Yeah, they thought he was speaking American English, when he was really speaking in Robertson English. In Robertson English, everything means what he means it to mean when he says it means what he says it means. See? It’s so obvious.

By: melior

melior — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:30:27 +0000

See, what’d I say?
“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. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time,” Robertson said on “The 700 Club” program.

By: melior

melior — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:50:33 +0000

Pastor Swank should be very careful when helping out like this to leave a path for the probable backpedalling. There’s a decent chance that enough stink will be made by the Christian-hating PC Liberal Media that Robertson will be forced to “apologize” and “retract” or more likely “clarify” his remarks later this week, with some lame sheepish explanation that his words were “taken out of context”, and of course he was only speaking “metaphorically” of the Sniper’s Bullet of Baby Jesus swooping over and rescuing the poor soul of Mr. Chavez, fine man that he his.

Hate to see ol’ Paster Swank left out there twisting in the wind, holding that stinky defending-assassination bag without having his own mealy-mouthed non-retraction ready to whip out.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:44:34 +0000

You have to remember that Marie Jon’ (who has been around the block a couple of times, and definitely knows where the fire hydrant is, and also knows that she has big brown eyes and is very aware of it, but syntax forbids stretching this bracket much further) converted from “cafeteria catholicism” to “seventh day adventism”. So maybe she knows something that Chavez doesn’t.

By: Ed Marshall

Ed Marshall — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:56:15 +0000

And finally, why has this become some religious controversy? It is an economic one! What Pat Robertson said was that it would be cheaper than waging war, which seem inevitable if he remains in power.

Listen Pinochet, you are going to wind up with your ass back in the dock if you keep going off story with that “vascular dementia” thing that you claimed back in 2002.

I mean, yeah, you sound demented, but you did it way too lucidly to keep you out of jail.

By: Bandera Negra

Bandera Negra — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:26:28 +0000

Three little observations:

1. The oil fields in venzuela have already been nationalized. This happened sometime around 1973. And no, don’t worry mate. The oil companies are doing dandy with Chavez since the ineptitude of the revolutinary bureaucracy has reverted the oil business to pre-nationalization days, and oil companies now import even more crude than refined products than ever. Of course, now we are importing refined products, even gasoline, from neighboring countries, and even the US. Sweet deal!

2. Second. When you say that assassinating Chavez only would only benefit him, well, I thing Chavez may have a different opinion.

3. And finally, why has this become some religious controversy? It is an economic one! What Pat Robertson said was that it would be cheaper than waging war, which seem inevitable if he remains in power.

By: mdhatter

mdhatter — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:45:45 +0000

Isn’t it a crime to threaten the president?

that sentiment is only for U.S. of Americans then?

Why does Pat Robertson hate (South) America?

By: D. Sidhe

D. Sidhe — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:34:19 +0000

Maybe we could send exploding Coca Cola cans or something.

You know, the guy on the downtown streetcorner who wears the golf pants and no shirt has a sign that says, among other things, that Bill Gates is a space alien who wants to eat our brains. If that is reality, then I personally thank him for warning the nation (and should give him some change so he can buy some “good” beer, which is one of the other things the sign says).

By: Marq

Marq — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:37:13 +0000

After hearing that Pat Robertson had called for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's assassination, my first thought was, "Who in their right mind is wingnutty enough to justify this?" Happily, Pastor Swank stepped right up to the plate:

Brad-dude!-unless I'm reading that section wrong, you just called Swanky sane! Sadly, NO! 'Course. neither is Pat. It's funny-right now on CNN's website, there's a story about how the Bushies are having to denounce Pat's wacky suggestion. If he hadn't floated this idea, the administration probably could have bumped-off Chavez, but now if anything bad happens to him, they'll be the prime suspects. Priceless-ol' 700 Club has actually wound up protecting Hugo Chavez!

By: Yosef

Yosef — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:24:40 +0000

Well, Basharov, as I said before, Pat Robertson seems to think that Chavez is a violent Muslim extremist. So you can see how the Swanksta would be confused.

By: Basharov

Basharov — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:41:17 +0000

I would assume then that Robertson has already prayed for Chavez, particularly for the latter’s conversion to the Light of God.

As far as I know, Chavez is a practicing Catholic, i.e. he was converted to the Light of God when but a mere infant. Of course, Swank most likely doesn’t think that Catholics are actually Christians, especially that one in Rome who wears the funny hats and the dress.

By: Hemlock Echo

Hemlock Echo — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:22:54 +0000

I heard Chavez was smuggling sleeper cells of activist judges into the US. When need to assinate him before his judges have a chance to start inventing rights that don’t exist.

By: teh l4m3

teh l4m3 — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:07:32 +0000

Dude, every day I pray for a photo montage. But Swank is Brad's bitch. You mean like a sort of separated-at-birth spot, such as I recently did for Malkin and a certain Betazoid? (Yes, I'm a whore.)

By: Lucy

Lucy — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:54:13 +0000

Robertson believes that Chavez is a “terrific danger” to America, according to the AP. If that is reality, then I personally thank Robertson for warning the nation.This says it all, doesn’t it? Chavez wasn’t on Swank’s radar until this moment, but now that Pat Robertson’s mentioned him, Chavez is clearly seen to be a threat to the order established by Creator God and his global armies holy. If Pat wants him assassinated, then Pat must have a darn good reason for saying so! After all, he’s a fellow Christian, and the old bogus “separation of church and state” harangue makes no American freedom sense. So let all pastors fall in line and warn of the threat posed by this man who won’t share his oil and thus is the new evil-dictator-of-the-week. Not tolerating the idea of killing Chavez now = betraying God’s plan for America.Grant, btw, starts out saying how all the usual liberal suspects–Hillary, Ted Kennedy, er, John McCain, and Cindy Sheehan–are “media covered 24/7,” so this is a freedom of speech issue. And so when he says that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated, so be it. It may sound extreme to some. Yet again many remarks from Kennedy, Pelosi, McCain, Clinton and Sheehan sound extreme. However, the news feeds give them wide spread. And so the freedoms continue. Same with Robertson.Yes, all the above-named are well known for calling for covert assassination ops, and where is the liberal media whenever they do? It’s simply not fair. Let Robertson have a turn.