James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Pat Robertson's apology

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Pat Robertson apparently said of Hugo Chavez.

Apparently he has apologised and apparently claimed his comments have been misinterpreted. He now says, "I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping."

Well I haven't seen the transcripts so I'm only reading what has been reported but if he did say this, it's hardly much of an improvement.

Update: see also Cafe Apocalypsis for strong criticisms of Robertson from a biblical perspective (as it were).


Anonymous steph said...

when Ghandi was asked what was wrong with Christianity, he replied 'Christians'.

Robertson is pathetic

(Man Utd going strong...)

August 25, 2005

Anonymous steph said...

and he can't go to England or heaven (if that's not tautology) - you can't talk like that in England anymore and according to matt, you must 'love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you that you may be children of God in heaven.

August 25, 2005

Blogger James Crossley said...

Oh, yes, I never thought how this might tie in with the latest stuff on foreign nationals preaching hate!

August 25, 2005

Anonymous Christopher Shell said...

I beg to disagree! When asked about the Iraq War, PR suggested we should 'make war on Saddam Hussein' rather than on the innocent Iraqi people. That is a very tenable point of view, and his latest supposed gaffe was just an airing of the same theory.

August 25, 2005

Blogger James Crossley said...

Theoretically the same but in practice... Even if there was no connection between Saddam and Islamic extremists at least there were significant numbers of Muslims in Iraq! What are the chances of finding them in cahoots with Chavez?! If Robertson's justification was used then what does that say about international practice? But it's nothing new. The US have had a history of intervention in dealing with democratically elected leaders and supporting monsters in South America (cf. Chile). Robertson is saying nothing out of place in traditional high up political circles. Furthermore, if Chavez, with the poor on his side, were to be killed, do you think people will sit back and accept it? Or would they take up arms leading to a civil war (some Venezuelans threatened this if he's killed)? Robertson may be theoretically consistent but if his suggestion were carried out it would highly dangerous (for countless Venezuelans and not Robertson, that is) to say the least. And it can hardly be said that it would do anything to prevent Muslim extremists!

August 25, 2005

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree.

August 28, 2005


Post a Comment

<< Home