Pat Robertson, Smiling, Genial, Murderous Man of God

He smiles like a benevolent grandfather, the silver hair, the manicure, the expensive suit, and all you can do is feel great as he beams down at you, his eyes twinkling and his teeth showing just a little bit, a careworn visage of wisdom and quiet, helpful guidance. So very, very paternal. So very, very concerned. And caring. And solemn in his unshakable righteousness.

And then he turns genially to international politics, the southern hemisphere, US foreign policy with Venezuela, and specifically to their preening, headstrong, populist President Hugo Chavez. He smiles sagely, reeling in the open-mouthed, staring sheep of TV-addled America, rises up in his wrath-encrusted indignation, opens his black mouth and out spits, "...You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if (Chavez) thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it . . . It's a whole lot chpeaer than starting a war . . . and I don't think any oil shipments will stop . . . We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability . . . We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator . . . It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with . . ."

So this is a man of God? This is the guy who founded the Christian Coalition, after all, an organization with the stated mission of: representing pro-family points of view (not further defined); speaking out (on undefined issues); training leaders (on undefined issues); informing pro-family voters about (undefined) "timely issues and legislation;" protesting "anti-Christian bigotry," and; defending the rights of people of faith. Okay, let's back up a tad. Nowhere in there is God really mentioned, other than fighting that anti-Christian bigotry bit. So, at its very core, this is a Christian organization, albeit an openly and militantly political Christian organization. So where are those alleged core Christian values of peace, love, respect for others, tolerance, valuing life? I think the Ten Commandments stated something to the effect of "Thou shalt not kill," right? So where exactly is Pat coming from?

How does the raging little idiot Hugo Chavez, noisily touting himself and his teetering populist political surge threaten the United States of America and the Christian Coalition's view of the world order? Robertson didn't really elaborate on that, other than to mention that Venezuela under Chavez will become a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." Okay, let's break that down a bit.

"Communist infiltration?" Really, Pat, the commies are going to infiltrate the U-nited States and take us all down, rotting us from the inside? Hey, it's 2005 now. Communism died in 1989; I know, I was a commissioned officer in the US Army, in the field with my M1A1 Abrams main battle tank battalion, loaded out and ready, all of 10 km from the Czech border in November 1989, wondering what the next two weeks would hold. We won the Cold War, the wall came down, and lots of people were happy. The Iron Curtain fell, the Soviet Bloc dissolved, and now the former Soviet satellites are stepping all over each other to join NATO and the EU. We won that one, pretty convincingly, and at the same time traditional Marxist-Leninist communism as a basis for national political leadership and social organization was proven to be a complete and total failure.

So now it's commies from Venezuela? I think that's a reference to Chavez's relationship with Castro, right? Yeah, well Castro has got his ridiculous, failed little island republic down there in the Caribbean, and they all can't wait for him to die so they can have a country that works again. Chavez has tied himself with Castro because it gets him press. It gets him attention, and it builds and solidifies his outsider image with his domestic constituency. If anyone should know, Pat, it's all about publicity (isn't that just what you're doing here, huh?). Chavez is not a communist; if you took the time to learn anything about the situation in Venezuela, you'd know that. And if you studied it yourself, rather than read the one-paragraph summaries your toadying staffers shove at you, you'd realize to your own embarrassment that your remarks about communism reflect your own ignorance. But wait, I'll be that ignorance is self-imposed, in order to stay on message, in order to bend the communication to the theme. Kind of like the way George W. Bush conducts business.

And the bit about Muslim extremism. Now, this is a very fascinating little bit. So much going on in such a short space. First, there is the nake fear-mongering in this admission. You don't like him, so tie him to al Qaida and UBL, make him a lackey of the Global Jihad Conspiracy, and you've got the immediate attention of Ignorant America, and he's bad. Again, just like Bush and his lackeys, everything has to do with international terrorism, and the easiest way to immediately create support, or more correctly to immediately create hatred and intolerance, is to link it to 9/11 and Muslim extremism. It's not deft, it's not creative, it's not even original, but it works, right? So, Chavez=Osama bin Laden. Okay, got it. That's more than enough reason to

Second, are you aware that Venezuela is overall a Christian nation? They're over 96% Roman Catholic--no, wait, that's part of the problem with you Christian Coalition folks, too, isn't it? But that's for another time . . . They are a federal republic, a secular state. Of course, that in itself if insult and threat enough to you and your type, but not a cause for true national security concern.

So, Muslim extremism originating from an overwhelmingly Christian nation? You've provided no information to back that up, no supporting evidence. Illegal immigration, trafficking in persons? Yeah, maybe, but that's more of a border-state problem. Try Mexico if you're looking to link Muslim extremist exportation or infiltration, that's a better, more accurate target.

And of course, just the mention of Islam to the open-mouthed gapers at the 700 Club broadcast is enough to generate movement. For you, Islam is an enemy, The Other, what with their unshaved faces, long hair, different language, culture, customs, just so very, very foreign, right? And they're unbelievers, deniers of the principal Christian tenets. They acknowledge and even teach many Christian themes and issues, but diverge on the biggies, right? So that makes them heretics, unbelievers, followers of a false God, and rightly they should be banished and despised and actively thwarted at every turn. They have no claim to legitimacy, so have no right to be tolerated. In fact, it can be easily argued, and just as easily justified biblically that they have as heretics earned active opposition, right down to direct action. That means war, right? So, why not attack them and drive them out, put them down, end their lives? That was what the Crusades were about, right? That's that Iraq's about, right? No, wait, Iraq is about personal vengeance and US oil dependency--I keep forgetting.

And Venezuela under Chavez is actively supportin Muslim extremism? Is this a government effort, a program of the state? If so, why haven't I heard about it, that Chavez is using his administration to support Muslim extremism? And how does he do this again, since he was after all, popularly elected, in an overwhelmingly Christian nation? And aren't extremist Islam and Marxist-Leninist communism mutually exclusive? I can't recall any states, organizations, or groups that have ever been rabidly Muslim and also hard-core commies. The two don't mix well. Just ask the Indonesians, particularly those on Java, Sumatra, and Bali, who got to watch conservative Islam and Red-Chinese communism go at it in 1965-66. The result was a loss for the commies and other assorted "godless," to the tune of about 800,000 dead, likely more.

So, Pat has put the communist infiltration and Muslim extremism together syntactically and conceptually, again demonstrating fundamental weakness in his understanding of either communism or conservative/extremist Islam, and his simple inability to construct a cohesive, logical argument.

And then there's the comment about oil shipments. What does a God-fearing Christian care about oil shipments to the USofA? Is this a nod to Big Oil, the stalwart supporters of the idiot cabal running our nation, those whom arguably have benefitted the most from Bush/Republican "leadership?" Why the comment about oil? What does Pat Robertson care about oil? What would an examination of his stock holdings reveal?

And then there's the bit about a "$200 billion war." I love this. What is Pat saying? Is that a hint of criticism in the air? Against Afghanistan or Iraq? Either? Both? So, war is okay, but spending a lot on it is not? Hell, I'm pretty much with him on this matter, at least on his economic arguments. If we could've changed the tide in Iraq by just offing Saddam a few years back, why didn't we just pay the Israelis to do what they do best? But, you'd better watch out, Pat, throwing out what looks like criticism of the war, and by extension Bush/Republican "leadership." Next thing you know, you'll find your patriotism and loyalty to the nation in question.

So in conclusion, thanks, smiling and paternal Pat Robertson, for giving us the real 411 on Chavez and his Muslimo-communistical conspiracy with Castro and UBL for Caribbean subjugation, ultimately leading to the most critical US national security threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Without your foresight and analytical insights we'd never had seen it coming. And what better way to deal with the threat than to simply kill the leader? That's always worked, right? It worked so well in the times of the Roman Caesars (Caesar Chavez? Wasn't he the grape guy, or was he the guy who played The Joker on the original Batman--hey, Ignorant America gets so easily confused by all of these strange, foreign, suspicious and threatening names, with their hissing "s" sounds and all of those subversive "z" and "v" sounds). Killing the leader, especially a popular one, always works out, right? Yeah, just ask People Power Philippines about how killing Aquino put them in their place.

What an ignorant, knee-jerk, escapist statement to make, Pat. Your alternative is the coward's way out, the choice of the despot. Your offer is that of the unquestionably strong over the weak. Your answer is that of the desperate, desparate to regain lost power, control, and credibility, desparate to restore perceived lost prestige and reputation, desparate to instill pride and direction to a constituent rabble (Ignorant America) who are unfocused, uninformed, and out of touch with your and Bush's grand global imperatives. A leader who lashes out quickly and violently at a threat, whether large or small, is not a leader. A leader, especially a historically powerful and respected one, takes time to explore options and craft a solid plan, a long-term strategic plan which shows respect for both the enemy and those who are being led. Your ridiculous path, Pat, shows none of this. Your idea reflects cowardice, and contempt for those with whom you interact. It shows disdain for all others, and expected deference from others rather than a desire to earn it. It shows no leadership, no vision, and holds no future.

I just love this photo. It looks doctored to me, but it sure says a lot, even if doctored.

Now that being said, I'm all for state-sanctioned murder when the time and target are right. Osama bin Laden, yeah, that guy needs to be shot in the face, as so Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Milosevic, Mladic, Charles Taylor, and others. But this is not the right option in this case, not with Chavez. And if you had thought for more than two minutes about this issue before you opened your big, uninformed, agenda-forging, political, and influential mouth, Pat Robertson, you probably would have come to the same conclusion.