Pat Robertson Calls For Chavez To Die

[crazymf]

Calling for someones death is hardly free speech.  As the media owner of a chritian broadcasting network and a host of a tv show that reaches millions of people everyday, hardly qualifies one as a 'private citizen'.  Especially when said comments were not made in private but on the public airwaves. 

My question is where are the Media Regulators on this one???  Janet Jakson's boob is hardly as vile as calling for a national leader to be killed.  Im sensing hipocracy or at least some supremely misplaced priorities.

boobehs = bad

death threats = acceptable?

seems kindof odd...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well that was my query. Where is the line? Guys like Howard Stern insult people regularly.

[Black Dog]

Chavez is a nutbar. If Bush had called his detractors "mad dogs with rabies", the Lefties would be salivating like crazy.

Bush doesn't have to: he's got whole battalions of pundits and an entire "news" network to do that for him. Or have you not read anything by Malkin, Coulter, Horowitz, et al?

[Argus]

Chavez is a nutbar.  If Bush had called his detractors "mad dogs with rabies", the Lefties would be salivating like crazy.

That's really beside the point. Chavez is the elected leader of Venezuala, and we can't very well criticize Muslim crazies for issuing their "fatwas" calling for death while Robertson, the far-too-influential kook from the US is doing the same thing.

[Toro]

Chavez is a nutbar. If Bush had called his detractors "mad dogs with rabies", the Lefties would be salivating like crazy.

Bush doesn't have to: he's got whole battalions of pundits and an entire "news" network to do that for him. Or have you not read anything by Malkin, Coulter, Horowitz, et al?

Let me get this straight. What you are telling me is that there is no one else in Venezuela criticizing Bush besides Chavez? Chavez doesn't have any hatchet men doing the exact same thing in Venezuela?

Thank you for proving my point.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Toro,

Let me get this straight. What you are telling me is that there is no one else in Venezuela criticizing Bush besides Chavez? Chavez doesn't have any hatchet men doing the exact same thing in Venezuela?

Thank you for proving my point.

Noooo, that wasn't said at all.

If Bush had called his detractors "mad dogs with rabies", the Lefties would be salivating like crazy.

Bush doesn't have to: he's got whole battalions of pundits and an entire "news" network to do that for him.

Just to refresh your memory.

As Argus astutely points out,

Chavez is the elected leader of Venezuala, and we can't very well criticize Muslim crazies for issuing their "fatwas" calling for death while Robertson, the far-too-influential kook from the US is doing the same thing.

The UK has taken to expelling religious kooks who call for death sentences, but I'm not sure where Robertson could be deported to except the looney bin.

[Toro]

Dear Toro,

Let me get this straight. What you are telling me is that there is no one else in Venezuela criticizing Bush besides Chavez? Chavez doesn't have any hatchet men doing the exact same thing in Venezuela?

Thank you for proving my point.

Noooo, that wasn't said at all.

If Bush had called his detractors "mad dogs with rabies", the Lefties would be salivating like crazy.

Bush doesn't have to: he's got whole battalions of pundits and an entire "news" network to do that for him.

Just to refresh your memory.

As Argus astutely points out,

Chavez is the elected leader of Venezuala, and we can't very well criticize Muslim crazies for issuing their "fatwas" calling for death while Robertson, the far-too-influential kook from the US is doing the same thing.

The UK has taken to expelling religious kooks who call for death sentences, but I'm not sure where Robertson could be deported to except the looney bin.

If you go back and read what I posted, I have criticized Robertson because what he said was an asinine, not to mention un-Christian thing to say.

However, I point out that Chavez is sounding like a looney himself, and you don't say, "yes, that's an undignified thing for a man representing an entire nation to say". Instead, you go after Bush's supporters. Chavez is the President of a country. If Bush had said his detractors were "mad dogs with rabbies", we would hear that from the Left forever. And rightfully so because its a stupid thing for a President to say. The fact that there are people supporting the President who say bad things about Chavez on Fox News or wherever is completely irrelevant to how Chavez rhetorically responds. The President of a country does not crawl into the gutter. And, unsurprisingly, when he does, a Bush critic (and I'll assume you are one) retorts. "Well, what about Anne Coulter!" Do you not see the difference between a President and a pundit?

[Argus]

If you go back and read what I posted, I have criticized Robertson because what he said was an asinine, not to mention un-Christian thing to say. 

However, I point out that Chavez is sounding like a looney himself, and you don't say, "yes, that's an undignified thing for a man representing an entire nation to say".  Instead, you go after Bush's supporters.  Chavez is the President of a country.

But this topic is not about Chavez. It's about Robertson. If you want to discuss Venezuala and Chavez I'm sure you'll get some insightful comments. Mirror might join in too.

But the point here was that Robertson, a far too influential wacko, basically was calling on the US to assasinate a democratically elected leader of another state who was, despite being kind of an idiot and demagogue, very clearly not the kind of murdering dictator (aka Sadam) where such calls could have the slightest moral basis.

And the White House has not criticised him or the remarks. The best anyone in the administration could come up with was Rumsfeld's lame "he's a private citizen." Yes, a private citizen who is a major supporter of the President and Republican party and variously guestimated to have the influence to send up to 1/3rd of the delegates to the last Republican convention.

Hell, at least Bob Dole had the honesty to label Robertson's comments "stupid" and "ludicrous".

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

But the point here was that Robertson, a far too influential wacko, basically was calling on the US to assasinate a democratically elected leader of another state who was, despite being kind of an idiot and demagogue, very clearly not the kind of murdering dictator (aka Sadam) where such calls could have the slightest moral basis.

And the White House has not criticised him or the remarks

Well said, and thanks for keeping the nature of a thread a priority.

If the US gov't (I hate using the vernacular term 'neo-cons') wishes to retain much needed credibility, and avoid more claims of hypocrisy, now is the time to act, and Robetson just bleated his own way into the role of sacrificial lamb. If, in the near future, a 'muslim cleric' from Albequerque, (or, say, a Muslim pro football player on National TV) openly calls for the assasination of Tony Blair, I should think that the gov't or the police should take measures to deter further such actions. Whatever those measures are, they should be shown to the general public now, so that they can say in the future, "Hey, we'll even punish one of our own for inciting hatred". As of now, they are not doing it.

Unfortunately for Bush, this only bolsters the belief of the left, because it only proves the double standard and the hypocricy of saying "It's ok, as long as it serves America".

[cybercoma]

Simply unacceptable. When did making death threats become legal in the United States? This is nothing more than the Christian version of the Muslim nutjobs.

[Shady]

This is nothing more than the Christian version of the Muslim nutjobs.

Freedom of speech isn't just for liberals. And, yes, he is a nutjob. But just be sure to include all of them. Including Ward Churchill and Cindy Sheehan.

[Black Dog]

Why is Sheehan a nutjob, exactly?

[B. Max]

Why is Sheehan a nutjob, exactly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I was just the spark the universe chose for some reason to spark this off,

Why don't all these traitors pack it up and go to iraq and parade it up and down the street in front of the terrorists if they want to end the war, that they the terrorists started.

Not only is she dishonoring her son, but everyone elses son who has been killed and putting at risk those still fighting and the security of the entire country.

I'm glad to see those that understand this are standing up and confronting her and the rest of the blame america first crowd.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=45826

[newbie]

Another perspective:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/...ticle_popular_2

[Black Dog]

"I was just the spark the universe chose for some reason to spark this off,

So? Compared to a president who talks to God, she seems perfectly sane.

Why don't all these traitors pack it up and go to iraq and parade it up and down the street in front of the terrorists if they want to end the war, that they the terrorists started.

I assume you're refering to 9-11, an event that had no connection to Iraq. The Iraq war was started by the U.S.A, who have completely botched the job.

Not only is she dishonoring her son, but everyone elses son who has been killed and putting at risk those still fighting and the security of the entire country.

How? Please explain. I'll tell you this: the Bush administration has done more to endanger the lives of its troops (through inadequate numbers, inadequate armour, cutting veteran's benefits etc.) than any band of anti-war advocates ever could.

I'm glad to see those that understand this are standing up and confronting her and the rest of the blame america first crowd.

The well-oiled and well-funded right-wing smear apparatus creaks into gear.

[B. Max]

"I was just the spark the universe chose for some reason to spark this off,

So? Compared to a president who talks to God, she seems perfectly sane.

Why don't all these traitors pack it up and go to iraq and parade it up and down the street in front of the terrorists if they want to end the war, that they the terrorists started.

I assume you're refering to 9-11, an event that had no connection to Iraq. The Iraq war was started by the U.S.A, who have completely botched the job.

Not only is she dishonoring her son, but everyone elses son who has been killed and putting at risk those still fighting and the security of the entire country.

How? Please explain. I'll tell you this: the Bush administration has done more to endanger the lives of its troops (through inadequate numbers, inadequate armour, cutting veteran's benefits etc.) than any band of anti-war advocates ever could.

I'm glad to see those that understand this are standing up and confronting her and the rest of the blame america first crowd.

The well-oiled and well-funded right-wing smear apparatus creaks into gear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Iraq is part of the war on terror, and iraq was up to its neck in terrorism, even having an Al-Qaeda base in the north east that the kurds had repeatedly tried to get rid of. Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers. The islamics started the war a long time ago that it is being fought in iraq is a matter of circumstances.

The only smear campain going on here is run by those that are with the terrorists and who are nothing short of traitors who sound be taken out and hanged.

Her actions and those of her like are dishonoring and nothing else can be conculded from them given the situation. Bush has done nothing to endanger the troops what soever. Could he have done more, sure, but that's a far cry from what she is doing and that is aiding and abbeting the enemy by urging on the terrorists. Her son went there on his own, twice, because he new it was the right thing to do and she is siding with those that killed him. I spit on her.

[Black Dog]

Iraq is part of the war on terror, and iraq was up to its neck in terrorism, even having an Al-Qaeda base in the north east that the kurds had repeatedly tried to get rid of.

So what does that have to do with Saddam Hussein? The Kurds, with the help of their U.S. and U.K patrons would have been able to get rid of such a base if they really wanted to.

The only smear campain going on here is run by those that are with the terrorists and who are nothing short of traitors who sound be taken out and hanged.

No its being run by Republican-backed PR firms, "think tanks", the right wing media and gullible chumps like you. Your hatred for everyone who disagrees with you puts you in the same moral camp as the terrorists you claim to despise.

Her actions and those of her like are dishonoring and nothing else can be conculded from them given the situation

Wow. Solid logic.

Bush has done nothing to endanger the troops what soever.

Um....sending them to die in a foreign war is pretty dangerous.

Could he have done more, sure, but that's a far cry from what she is doing and that is aiding and abbeting the enemy by urging on the terrorists.

Again: you repeat this crap over and over again, but fail to say how calling for the end of U.S. involvement is aiding terrorist or endangering lives. I expect that's simply because you're only capable of regurijitating whatever talking points you heard on Rush.

[Shady]

Why is Sheehan a nutjob, exactly?

It's evident in the ridiculous statements she's made.

The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!

We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now

They're a bunch of fucking hypocrites!

he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war

We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people

he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel

This particluar statement has earned her such allies as former KKK leader David Duke.

She want's an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which would be incomprehensibly irresponsible. She also want's to see an immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. She claims Israel should immediately withdraw from any "occupied" terrritories, not matter what the circumstances. Since when does losing a son in a war give her absolute authority and a PHD in political science and geo-political issues? She's been given a pedestal simply because of a slow news summer, an anti-Bush leftist media, her anti-Bush rhetoric, and her status as a grieving mother.

[B. Max]

All you're doing is spewing the leftwing crap the leftist traitors have been ranting about for years.

[Black Dog]

This particluar statement has earned her such allies as former KKK leader David Duke.

Which doesn't itself mean her comments are untrue or indefensible.

She want's an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which would be incomprehensibly irresponsible

Why, because it would lead to a civil war and more bloodshed yadda yadda yadda? I got news for you: the civil war is already on.

As for the rest, well, since when is someone not allowed to express their opinion? People like B. Max and Bill O'Reilly, who would threaten, persecute and pillory people for disagreeing with the government are the real enemies of freedom, the ideaolgical bedfellows of folks like Saddam Hussein.

[B. Max]

This particluar statement has earned her such allies as former KKK leader David Duke.

Which doesn't itself mean her comments are untrue or indefensible.

She want's an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which would be incomprehensibly irresponsible

Why, because it would lead to a civil war and more bloodshed yadda yadda yadda? I got news for you: the civil war is already on.

As for the rest, well, since when is someone not allowed to express their opinion? People like B. Max and Bill O'Reilly, who would threaten, persecute and pillory people for disagreeing with the government are the real enemies of freedom, the ideaolgical bedfellows of folks like Saddam Hussein.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ridiculous.

There is no civil war in iraq as much as the butchers you obvilously support would like to, and have tried to start. These people are the killers left over from saddams army, and foreign Al-Qaeda murders and the like.

The opinion they are expressing is traitorous, like those opinions have always been. O'Reilly understands that and so do the rest of us that are not traitors.

[Black Dog]

There is no civil war in iraq as much as the butchers you obvilously support would like to, and have tried to start. These people are the killers left over from saddams army, and foreign Al-Qaeda murders and the like.

Tell that to the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigade, the Wolf Brigade, the peshmerga, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance Front, Al-Awdah, the Al-Haqq Army, and teh rest of the groups fighting amongst themselves for control of their destiny and that of post-Saddam Iraq. Tell it to Iyad Allawi and the experts who are proclaiming that civil war is a fact of life in Iraq. But I suppose considering that reality would require looking outside of Newsmax and WingNut Daily...

The opinion they are expressing is traitorous, like those opinions have always been. O'Reilly understands that and so do the rest of us that are not traitors.

Again, you fail to explain why their views are traitorous and how the expression of such dissenting opinions actually harms the U.S. cause in Iraq.

No, they are not traitorous by any stretch of the imagination. They are not calling for the overthrow of the government of destruction of the state. they are calling for an end to a ill-conceived, poorly planned and shoddily executed foreign entanglement, a view shared by an ever-increasing number of Americans (or haven't you noticed the poll numbers lately?)

I'll say this much though: I don't believe for a second that support for the war would be so low if the U.S. was winning.

[B. Max]

There is no civil war in iraq as much as the butchers you obvilously support would like to, and have tried to start. These people are the killers left over from saddams army, and foreign Al-Qaeda murders and the like.

Tell that to the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigade, the Wolf Brigade, the peshmerga, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance Front, Al-Awdah, the Al-Haqq Army, and teh rest of the groups fighting amongst themselves for control of their destiny and that of post-Saddam Iraq. Tell it to Iyad Allawi and the experts who are proclaiming that civil war is a fact of life in Iraq. But I suppose considering that reality would require looking outside of Newsmax and WingNut Daily...

The opinion they are expressing is traitorous, like those opinions have always been. O'Reilly understands that and so do the rest of us that are not traitors.

Again, you fail to explain why their views are traitorous and how the expression of such dissenting opinions actually harms the U.S. cause in Iraq.

No, they are not traitorous by any stretch of the imagination. They are not calling for the overthrow of the government of destruction of the state. they are calling for an end to a ill-conceived, poorly planned and shoddily executed foreign entanglement, a view shared by an ever-increasing number of Americans (or haven't you noticed the poll numbers lately?)

I'll say this much though: I don't believe for a second that support for the war would be so low if the U.S. was winning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you even read what you post. It says facing civil war, it doesn't say there is a civil war. The ones who are behind all the trouble are again saddams bunch.

They are traitors. What they are calling for is for the US to surrender to the killer islamics who, they, we, are at war with who want to kill us all for christ sakes. What hell is wrong people. That is treason. They are saying to the terrorists just wait we'll do in the streets of america what you haven't been able to do on the battle field. Hang about four or five of these traitors and that will be the end of them.

[Black Dog]

Don't you even read what you post. It says facing civil war, it doesn't say there is a civil war. The ones who are behind all the trouble are again saddams bunch.

Did you even read the articles? Ethnic/sectarian violence is widespread (Kurd versus Sunni, Sunni versus Shiite, Shiite versus Shiite), with even Iraqi police and army forces getting in on the act.

"It's not a threat. It's not a potential. Civil war is a fact of life there now."

...

"We are living in an undeclared civil war among Iraq's political groups,'' says Nabil Yunos, the head of political affairs for the Dignity Party, a Sunni party. "It's not just Sunnis that are the problem. It's the Shiites, the Kurds, it's everyone. The violence has gotten worse, and we're entering a very dangerous period."

...

In Baghdad, "soft cleansing" is taking place in a number of mixed neighborhoods, with targeted assassinations scaring Sunnis out of some, and Shiites out of others. In the south, Shiite militias, not the new army and police, are the major power.

...

In the Sunni and Shiite neighborhood of Horriya, on the western edge of Baghdad, three Shiite barbers have been killed this month by Sunni religious extremists who think it's sinful to cut men's beards. After notes were slipped under their doors that they could be next, at least half a dozen barber shops have closed, and the rest have prominently posted signs that will no longer shave beards.

In largely Sunni neighborhoods like Dora and Al Ghaziliya, Shiite residents have received written death threats to leave the area. Sunnis in Shiite neighborhoods say they've received similar threats from the Badr Brigade, a militia loyal to the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the two big Shiite parties that now dominate the government.

A Shiite doctor in Dora, who asked that his name not be used, says he's looking for a new home since a note was slipped under his door last month. "All the dirty Shiites out of Iraq, or face death!" it warned, which brought back memories of his brother, killed for political activity by the Hussein regime in the early 1990s.

He says at least 15 Shiites in Dora have been killed in the last month. "We wake up with hope every day, but when the sun goes down, things are worse for us. I walk with death just because I'm a Shiite."

A Sunni women in the Latifiyah neighborhood, whose husband was a government official under Hussein and was assassinated earlier this year, points to the cluster of bullet holes in her front gate and the front window of her living room. "We know the Badr Brigade has a list of Sunnis they want to kill and we're on it. They want us out of this house. And the police are working with them."

...

At the moment, the major powers in much of Iraq are Shiite militias like the Badr Brigade, and the Peshmerga militias of the Kurds in the North. While Kurdish areas are much more peaceful than the rest of the country, residents of Kirkuk - an oil rich and ethnically mixed city that the Kurd's are claiming as a future capitol, allege they've been involved in systematically driving Arabs from their homes.

"I'm amazed Kirkuk hasn't flared up yet,'' says a Western diplomat in Baghdad. "I hate to say this - but the only solution might be to simply let the people of Iraq fight it out and get so fatigued from the fighting, that they eventually reach some sort of compromise."

Kurdish leaders, who see the current constitutional debate as a potential stepping stone to autonomy, occasionally threaten pulling out of Iraq entirely if they're not satisfied by negotiations soon. "If the constitution doesn't settle the issue of Kirkuk, we could just back up and go back to the north. We know these other parties, they're just stalling until they get stronger than us in the future,'' says says Faraj al-Haydari, a senior official in the Baghdad offices of the Kurdish Democratic Party.

...

Though there has been extensive training and equipment programs for the new Iraqi army and police, few Iraqis seem to be putting much faith in them. While Sunnis complain that new forces are infiltrated by the militias of the major Shiite parties, even many Shiites prefer to rely on sectarian militias for their own protection.

Majid Jabr Faihod, for example, sits in his family's spare home in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, and describes how the death of his father in May turned into a family tragedy. He stayed behind as eight family members - including three of his four brothers - took their father to be buried near the holy Shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf, a centuries-old Shiite practice.

On the way there, the minibus transporting them was waylaid in Latifiyah, a Sunni insurgent stronghold. The eight men were separated from the women in the bus, and driven away, along with their father's coffin. Mr. Faihod says that all of the men were mutilated, then killed and dragged through the streets of Latifiyah, along with their father's body.

"This is entirely because we're Shiite, and they hate us," says Faihod. "The armed forces are weak and can't protect us. Here in Sadr City, thank God, we can rely on the Mahdi Army."

The Mahdi Army is the militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and while it's been out of the headlines since fighting pitched battles with US forces last year for control of Najaf, it appears as strong as ever in Sadr City, an almost completely Shiite section of Baghdad with 2 million people.

In recent weeks, Islamic vigilantes believed to be aligned with the Mahdi Army have killed a number of Sadr City residents for the crime of "immorality." In Faihod's case, the Mahdi Army paid for the family's mass funeral and provided security on the second trip to Najaf.

"We believe in the old law, blood for blood,'' says Raad Faihod, the other surviving brother. "The truth has to come out, and the truth is that all of these terrorists are Sunnis and their political parties. They have to be dealt with."

Oh, and simply repeating something over and over and over again (to wit:)

Why don't all these traitors pack it up

those that are with the terrorists and who are nothing short of traitors

All you're doing is spewing the leftwing crap the leftist traitors have been ranting about for years.

The opinion they are expressing is traitorous, like those opinions have always been. O'Reilly understands that and so do the rest of us that are not traitors.

They are traitors

...is not the same as providing evidence, or making an argument. Please find me a citation where any antiwar activist has made such a statement.

What hell is wrong people. That is treason. They are saying to the terrorists just wait we'll do in the streets of america what you haven't been able to do on the battle field. Hang about four or five of these traitors and that will be the end of them.

Just as I thought: you're incapable of any kind of coherent thought or analysis. you can't even answer a simple question like "how does calling for the U.S. wihdrawl from Iraq constitute treason?"

I'd hate to see the state of your monitor, what with all the spittle and bile that you spill out.

Incidentally, almost 60 per cent of American disagree with the handling of the war. More than half consider the act of going into Iraq a mistake. That's a lot of "traitors".

[B. Max]

If you can't understand the most basic of basics then i can't help you.

Looks like whatever polls you're talking about can be tossed out the window as a result of these traitors actions. As most people now see them for what they are.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/20/222659.shtml

[Black Dog]

If you can't understand the most basic of basics then i can't help you.

Nice dodge. Oh wait: I meant "pathetic". Again: "how does calling for the U.S. wihdrawl from Iraq constitute treason?"

(I also note you provided NO evidence to support your slur that the anti-war faction is "calling for is for the US to surrender to the killer islamics")

And what's this? An artilce from NewsMax: seriously, do you have any sources other than this and WorldNet?

Oh and by the way, the polls I cited are by reputable, scientific pollsters such as Gallup and PEW research. Your online poll is unscientific, its results easily falsifiable and, quite frankly, worthless. I could single handedly bump the results the other way by voting, clearing my cookies, voting agains, clearing cookies, and so on...

(what's even funnier, though is that the margin of the "poll" is so small!)

What other polls are saying:

Nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it’s OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.

Bush approval rating continues to drop