Pat Robertson Does It Again

Copyright© 2005 Jordan White


            Good ol’ Pat Robertson.  We can always call on him to be totally consistent—consistent as in”racist”, “anti-self-determination”, “anti-nationalist” and “totally out of touch with reality”.


            You see, Robertson would like to see Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez conveniently assassinated.  Never mind that he is the legally elected, choice-of-the people leader of that South American state, and never mind that he has never been in the American government’s pocket, and especially never mind that he has made noises about taking control of Venezuela’s oil industry, the fifth largest in the world.  No, I’m sure none of these things ever crossed Robertson’s mind.


            Hugo Chavez, said Robertson, is a “terrific danger”.  Venezuela, he said, is “in our sphere of influence”.  (“Sphere of influence?”  I don’t think I’ve heard that expression used as a sincere manifestation of foreign policy in my lifetime.  I associate it with the British Empire, back in Rudyard Kipling days.)


            In other words, whether or not an elected leader of another state gets to live or not has to do with whether or not such pundits as Robertson approve of him, or not.  Now, Robertson is not an expert on foreign policy.  He is not an expert on South America.  I have read some of his books, and, clearly, he is not an expert on anything.


            He only gets press because he has enough money and support to run his own TV empire and has a certain number of easily-manipulated “followers” who do not know how, or care to, think for themselves. 


            Where all of these factors are reasons to totally disregard everything said by this unqualified and uninformed blind leader of the blind, it’s another thing he said in the same statement that really shows him for what he is.


            He said, “…I think that we really ought to go ahead and [assassinate Chavez].  It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.”


            So that’s Robertson’s idea of the purpose of war?  To take control of our “sphere of influence” and make sure those areas bow down to the Empire of America?  To sacrifice young lives for oil and money?  And to decide the fate of another country’s legally elected president based on, well, “it’s cheaper than a war”?


            What if the numbers don’t crunch, and war, especially if it gains the US control of Venezuela’s oil resources, becomes the “cheaper” option?  Or would it be just the “smarter” option?


            Hugo Chavez has been quoted as saying, “What my rivals don’t understand…is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela.”


            And the people of Venezuela have spoken.  Not religious pundits from the US, nor the US government, and no one, no one but the people of Venezuela.


            The voice, the will of the people, can be thought of as a dull axe.  A dull axe, but a persistent one.  An axe that will continue to chop, and chop, and chop, until the mighty tree of the empire topples, and falls to the ground, at last. 



                                                                                                August 23, 2005



To see my thoughts on Robertson’s opinion that the Palestinian homeland belongs to the interlopers, go to an open letter to Robertson.