Political Crossfire Forums

Kindred

Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, only hours after he denied saying Chavez should be killed.

"Is it right to call for assassination?" Robertson said. "No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050825/ap_on_re_us/robertson_assassination

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

I bet he thought he could get away with it!

anselfir · Joined: 16 Apr 2005 Posts: 23046 Location: ZzZzZzZz

I don't see what the big deal is. The US certainly should screw chavez every opportunity we get.

W.C. Emerson · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 117

Robertson also claimed that he had never said assassination- he claimed later that he only said that special forces should take [Chavez] out.

I'm glad to see his formal apology, rather than denying he had said anything.

Doesn't he realize that if America assassinates Chaves we will be faced with another "200 billion dollar war" rather than avoiding one?

gprime · Joined: 27 Aug 2005 Posts: 25 Location: Michigan

It sickens me to see him retract his statement. If you've got an opinion and you're going to express it, you have to be willing to stand by it. And he cowered like some many before him (ex: Trent Lott). It was nice to see someone finally advocating it. And then, as if tp spit in the face of everyone who agreed with him on the issue, he flip flopped like John Kerry.

plutonium210 · Joined: 03 Aug 2005 Posts: 141

Robertson is an idiot. You can't call for the assassination of a Head of State and expect there not be repercussions. Not even Pres. Bush was daring enough to call for the assassination of Saddam Hussein. If you have any understanding of International Law, you would know that if it was found out that the United States in anyway if condoned the assassination of a Head of State, we would lose all credibility in the international community. Not to mention the oil would stop coming into the United States from Venezuela and probably nearly every other OPEC country, you can't keep going after oil countries and not expect other oil countries to get nervous.

Indiana Jones · Joined: 04 Sep 2005 Posts: 15

gprime wrote: It sickens me to see him retract his statement. If you've got an opinion and you're going to express it, you have to be willing to stand by it. And he cowered like some many before him (ex: Trent Lott). It was nice to see someone finally advocating it. And then, as if tp spit in the face of everyone who agreed with him on the issue, he flip flopped like John Kerry.

So you agree with Trent Lott that having Strom Thurmond in the White House (with Segregation) would be a good thing today?

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

http://encarta.msn.com/quote_701612756/Innuendo_When_Strom_Thurmond_ran_for.html

Or, as I hope you are, simply advocating free speech in any and all forms?

May I ask, do you believe that the United States should have a policy of assassination? If so, who do we apply it to? Do you have any qualms about the United States, a peaceloving republic, pursuing assassination like, for example, the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein or do you believe that the principles of the United States makes us above that? I think I made clear that I'm not for assassination in a political context.

Criminals or others trying to destroy our country like Osama Bin Laden, sure assassination would work great on him. Chavez though just has a big mouth. He hasn't earned assassination unlike Bin Laden. Though I guess you are a liberal on assassination hmmm? :lol:

juggernaut · Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 147 Location: NEW JERSEY

accomodating the man who thinks we'll kill him is the same statement but merely paraphrased... wtf?

is everyone that dumb to think that was even close to an apology? or perhaps the left couldnt understand his vocabulary lol

CADster · Joined: 13 Sep 2005 Posts: 4

it was a statement that was taken out of context.

if i was to say - if I'm going to be blamed for being a crook, then i should go steal something.

this does not mean I'm a crook or that i steal. it means that if I'm going to be accused of doing something no matter what, i should just go ahead and do it - if I'm going to be blamed for it anyway.

this is what he meant when he said what he said... its very simple.