Hugo Chavez: Pat Robertson was Right
By Erik Rush (10/23/06)
On August 23, 2005, Christian broadcaster and one-time presidential hopeful Pat Robertson called for United States intelligence operatives to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas. This was all true; Chavez, who has also made no secret of his desire to trade in nuclear technology with Iran, routinely made accusations that the U.S. was trying to kill him or planned to do so.
“If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson on a broadcast of “The 700 Club” on August 22, 2005. “It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.”
Hard to find an argument there – but I digress.
Our invertebrate State Department called Robertson’s comments “inappropriate”; Robertson was later compelled to publicly apologize for his statements.
On October 17, 2006, the House Committee on Homeland Security Sub-committee on Investigations released a lengthy report entitled: A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border. Citing numerous thoroughly-investigated confrontations between Border Patrol agents and Mexican drug gangs, and other border-focused nefarious activity, two (of many) menacing facts which surfaced included:
1. Our border Patrol is significantly outgunned by “soldiers” of Mexican drug cartels operating on the border.
2. Individuals from terrorist-sponsoring nations have been freely using this porous border to infiltrate the United States. A program initiated by Venezuela’s proto-human dictator Hugo Chavez trains visitors from terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern and Asian nations to speak Spanish and “pose as Latinos” as they enter the U.S., equipped with Venezuelan passports.
We are at war with an enemy that flies no flag and has no borders. This fact has redefined modern warfare and has been the boilerplate argument for the American Left: “There’s no war unless Congress declares it.” This is like saying no rape occurred because the victim wouldn’t admit it.
Hugo Chavez’s actions are an act of war. He can say what he likes about the United States; he can call President Bush any variety of demon he likes (although it really irks me that U.S. citizens tolerated him doing so while actually on our soil without firebombing his motorcade), but when he became a facilitator for our enemies, providing them real opportunities to strike within the continental United States, he became a clear and present danger to the United States – one who should be eliminated with all speed and via any means necessary.
Sure, sure – we don’t assassinate foreign leaders. Well, we’d better get prepared to start. Venezuela isn’t Iraq; it’s a homogenous nation, so the likelihood is we’ll be able to ferret out a leader much easier to live with.
I would not go so far as to say that we’re at war with the Venezuelan people yet – but only given those recent changes that define modern warfare. In truth, they have little power at home, but the less time Chavez is given to pour excrement into their ears, the better. I suggest that the Bush administration take the cheapest and most expeditious route toward his neutralization possible.
Like Israel often did when Mossad neutralized a terrorist hiding out in France or blew up a prominent Hamas leader’s motorcade in the occupied territories, I think we ought to own up to it publicly as well. I’d love to see Tony Snow (whose charisma and attitude I really enjoy) in front of the microphones: “Yes, U.S. operatives assassinated Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez today at 4:13 PM, Eastern Standard Time. By direct provision of the means for Islamic terrorists to enter the United States, he posed a clear and present danger to our national security. Questions?”
During the October 18, 2006 edition of FoxNews “The O’Reilly Factor,” Geraldo Rivera hearkened back to last year’s comments by Robertson, whom he referred to as “an insane person who wants to assassinate Hugo Chavez” – as though he were talking about Robertson wanting to bump off Richard Gere. Seasoned journalist though Rivera may be, we can’t discount that broadcast footage of him with a stick, drawing upcoming coalition troop advancements in the sand of southern Iraq for all the world (including Saddam Hussein) to see as those forces advanced on Baghdad.
One thing that puzzled me: Although O’Reilly had flashed a fresh copy of the House Committee’s report the previous evening, he didn’t call Rivera on it. Perhaps it’s because they’re pals or something; it doesn’t much matter in the long run. Since Fox is the only television news organization I’m aware of that addressed the report at all, I’m inclined to let it slide. I’m sure Bill O’Reilly will be tremendously relieved.
I know a lot of people – even a lot of Christians – who think Pat Robertson is a wack job. Why? Because they’ve heard it said – over and over and over again. It’s simply more propaganda. As Fox’s O’Reilly often points out: Many of his worst critics have never watched his show. I’d wager Robertson’s worst critics have never watched his show either, and know next to nothing about him. Those who do and would still criticize his frankness need to wake up.
The writing is on the wall – or, rather – on fraudulent Venezuelan passports.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
