Robertson endorses assassinating Chavez

[Rojo]

If only members of the military — who are overwhelmingly conservative — were considered competent to decide the nation’s posture on matters of war and peace, we would have an even more forward-leaning foreign policy.

Or at least we would have gone in with enough forces to get the job done, as the military brass advocated. But it was the politicians who decided not to listen.

You don't get an automatic "chickenhawk" label from me for going to war without having served. You do get one, however, when you hide behind the troops to deflect criticism.

[GAC]

You don't get an automatic "chickenhawk" label from me for going to war without having served.

That's good. But go back and read the thread that was started that accused and placed that label on anyone who supports the war and hasn't grabbed their gun from the rack and headed to Iraq, and dropped their kids off at the recruiter's office..... http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ht=chickenhawk

What does the link posted at the bottom of RBA's threads imply?

On a separate thread from that one, I was accused of being one because I wasn't forcing my son to join (even though he's not even of age).

It's nothing more then a "talking point" (a nice catch phrase) picked up by the left/anti-war crowd.

Those Dems/liberals that supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and felt it was right - are they chickenhawks for not running right down to the induction centers and joining up?

You do get one, however, when you hide behind the troops to deflect criticism.

Who is hiding behind the troops? And how does that deflect criticism? And again - how does that make one a chickenhawk? Wouldn't that make almost every past President a chickenhawk then when their administration was involved in war, and they never possibly served themselves? How dare they send those young men off to war, when they themselves never served. Guys like Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton?

[RedsBaron]

For what it is worth, the August 29 issue of National Review had an article by Mark Falcoff on Chavez. In the September 12 issue, there is a letter to the editor, critical of the article apparently because Falcoff didn't advocate America taking action against Chavez. In response, Falcoff wrote:
"I fully share Mr. Halvorssen's opinion of Hugo Chavez--he is self-evidently a dangerous thug and a killer who 'befriends, equips, and cooperates with Columbian terrorists," among others. This and much more anyone could have learned from reading my article.
"With all due respect, however, for the 'freedom and dignity of the Venezuelan people," let's remember that Chavez has been chosen consistently, by the people, as their president-dictator. I regret this; someday they will too. Meanwhile, I believe that for the United States to care more about these values than the vast majority of Venezuelans seem to care would be futile and even counterproductive. If we were to follow the policy prescriptions Mr. Halvorssen has lately been retailing in other publications, we would be failing precisely into the trap Chavez continues to set for us."

[Rojo]

Who is hiding behind the troops? And how does that deflect criticism?

When the response of war supporters is "I support our troops", the implication is that I, or anyone who opposes the war, do not. Its a disengenous attempt to re-frame the argument by evoking the sacrifices endured by our men in women in the line of fire. And its doubly disgusting when it comes from men like Cheney and Bush who shirked when their number was called.

[ochre]

nothing a little Ajax wouldn't clean up.

[savafan]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_050829075736

CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has warned he will lodge a complaint against the United States at the
United Nations and other international bodies if the US government fails to act against television evangelist Pat Robertson, who has called for Chavez's assassination.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and Organization of American States to denounce the US government," the Venezuelan leader said Sunday as he addressed participants at talks on a social charter for the Americas.

He added he believed that by failing to act against Robertson, the United States was "giving protection to a terrorist, who is demanding the assassination of a legitimate president."

Robertson caused a diplomatic stir last Monday when he said on the air that if Chavez believed the United States was trying to kill him, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

Robertson apologized Wednesday, but then went on to compare Chavez to
Saddam Hussein and to suggest the United States could one day be at war with his oil-rich country.

Chavez, a twice-elected leftist and close ally of Cuban President
Fidel Castro, has often said Washington would like to assassinate him, and accuses the Bush administration of involvement in a coup d'etat that toppled him for 47 hours in April 2002.

US officials last week distanced themselves from Robertson's comments.

The Venezuela president said he had already instructed his foreign minister and the country's ambassador to Washington to begin the process in the international bodies.

He said Venezuela could use international treaties and conventions to demand the extradition of the television preacher.

Chavez pointed out he believed Robertson "should be sent to prison to serve as an example for the entire world."

Meanwhile, visiting US civil rights leader
Jesse Jackson lent his support to Chavez, saying Robertson's remarks were "repugnant, immoral, illegal."

Addressing the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jackson called for the US Justice Department to investigate the statement.

Jackson, on a three-day visit to Venezuela to meet Chavez, politicians and community leaders, also called on US
President George W. Bush to issue "a swift rejection" of Robertson's statement.

"It must be unequivocally clear that such a heinous act is not desirable nor designed nor planned. We must use power to reduce tensions, reduce the rhetoric of our threats," Jackson said.

The US State Department sought to distance itself from Robertson last week, calling his remarks "inappropriate but pointing out that the evangelist spoke as a "private citizen."

At the same time, the department said that US ambassador to Caracas William Brownfield had been in contact with a Venezuelan government official over the remarks.

[RedFanAlways1966]

CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has warned he will lodge a complaint against the United States at the
United Nations and other international bodies if the US government fails to act against television evangelist Pat Robertson, who has called for Chavez's assassination.

Uh, Hugo Chavez... we have something here called freedom of speech. It has been here a lot longer than you have been alive. It will be here (the United States) a lot longer than your sorry buttocks will grace the earth. Get over yourself.

Uh, Hugo Chavez... Pat Robertson DOES NOT work for our government. He is not a gov't employee, nor is he in the military. Frankly, he is loudmouth. We have lots of those in our country. And I'd venture to guess that you have them in yours. Take a good look in that mirror, tough-guy.

Uh, Hugo Chavez... no one really cares about you. Except some "looking for attention-type" named Jesse Jackson. You know Jesse. He was the married one who had a love-child and paid off his mistress with non-for-profit funds. You see... no one listens or cares what Jesse says. And most Americans feel the same about you. We also feel the same way about this Robertson idiot. We DO NOT care. Perhaps you and Jesse can get together. You can kiss and have a good old time. Oh... Jesse thinks he is an expert at voting recounts and irregularities. Maybe while you and him are frolicking, Jesse can conduct an investigation into your election win. How about it, Hugo? You care about justice? I am sure you wrote the book on it. I am sure you personally have never had anyone killed or threatened to have someone killed. I am sure of it. That is the way of S. American politics as we know it, right?

Now that we have had our talk, let's move on to more important things, Hugo. What time does the sun rise tomorrow?!?!

[GAC]

When the response of war supporters is "I support our troops", the implication is that I, or anyone who opposes the war, do not.

I understand where you're coming from Rojo. And I disagree vehemently with anyone who says that those who oppose this war do not support our troops - just as I disagree with anyone who implies that those who support the war are hiding behind the troops.

There have been some conservatives in the media (and organizations) who have opened themselves up for such criticism justifiable. There have also been some, who oppose the war, who have also opened themselves up for the same criticism by aligning themselves with, or agreeing with, certain far left anti-war movements such International ANSWER, Code Pink, the National Lawyers Guild, the International Socialist Organization, Socialist Organizer, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, who do express anti-American sentiment (and did so long before the invasion of Iraq). They now use and "hide" behind grieving mothers who have had sons killed in Iraq in order to further their own agenda.

Its a disengenous attempt to re-frame the argument by evoking the sacrifices endured by our men in women in the line of fire.

I don't think that has been done at all. But should we, as anti-war activist Tom Hayden and several other anti-war representatives suggested the other night on a nightly news interview - to cut our losses and get the hell out of both Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East all together? According to them, we should have never went into Afghanistan in the first place. When asked what we should have done in response to 9-ll then, their only response was "All we are doing is making the Muslims even madder at us". That's sound IMO. They murder our citizens, and we are suppose to do nothing because we don't want to upset them.

And what does that say about those soldiers who have died up to this point if we just cut and run? To me, that would be to dishonor their sacrifice and loss, and possibly cause civil war in Iraq. Is that logic "hiding behind the troops" then?

And its doubly disgusting when it comes from men like Cheney and Bush who shirked when their number was called.

When was their "number" called? Alot of young men avoided going to active service in Viet Nam by joining the National Guard, getting a student deferrment (Cheney and Clinton), or got cozy assignments because their family had a name/position...

Gore's Dad kept his son out of harm's way with a nice journalism assignment in Nam.

How many of John, Robert, or Ted Kennedy's kids (large family there) were ever drafted or served in the military? Strange? Ted Kennedy served a 2 year stint as a military police "honor" guard during the Korean War (1951-53).

John Edwards - never served.

Gephardt served in the Air National Guard during the Viet Nam War. Disqualified to run/serve as Prez?

Clinton sent U.S. troops into harm's way in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. Chickehawk?

Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and Bill Maher were some of the high profile people last year who led the charge of calling Bush a deserter, AWOL, and other derogatory terms. None ever served. Maher dodged the draft by filing as a conscientious objector.

To use this argument that one had to serve in the military in order to be somehow qualified to send troops into combat would disqualify a majority of our political leaders (on both sides of the spectrum) from ever being President or serving in a capacity where that judgment had to be made.

As far as I'm concerned - those on the left who love this chickenhawk attacks, are just as bad as the Swiftboat ads (and I strongly disagreed with them at the time for attacking Kerry's service record; but not his anti-war antics after returning home).

The fact is that neither political party has a monoploy on patriotism or on men/women who served. We can sight good/bad on both sides.

[registerthis]

Maher dodged the draft by filing as a conscientious objector.

I just wanted to fire off a quick reply to this point.

"Conscientious objector" can hardly be classified as "dodging" the draft. A conscientious objector is just that--someone who disagrees with the principle of war and doesn't want to fight in it. Maher would be hypocritical if he didn't fight in Vietnam due to being a conscientious objector of that war, and then turned around and pushed for a war in Iraq.

[Rojo]

As far as I'm concerned - those on the left who love this chickenhawk attacks, are just as bad as the Swiftboat ads (and I strongly disagreed with them at the time for attacking Kerry's service record; but not his anti-war antics after returning home).

Baloney. Here's your post from October of last year.

Swiftboat

You've never read the book RBA. It gives hundreds of testimonies by former Viet Nam vets (Not just O'Nell) that are on file. And just because they allow his book to be advertised on their website, does not discredit what they have to say and report.

Disprove Steve Pitkin's sworm testimony, who is just one of thousands who sponsor this site.

These guys are are liars?

[GAC]

While I understand what you are saying Ben, and I cetainly have no qualms with those who use such a status due to their beliefs that killing another human being, bearing arms, even in war, is a deplorable act (such as the Quakers for instance). But Maher does not show consistency in those beliefs. Yet he has demonstrated alot of hypocrisy.

He says that he himself is a conscientious objector, and yet is on record many times as showing support for the Viet Nam War. It's a matter of record that he has stated that we, as a nation, needed to find a geographical spot to "take a stand" against the Russians and Communism. And Viet Nam was that spot. And he supported it.

In the past on his show, Maher has asserted that the many violence-based U.S. interventions in Central America during the late 1980's were necessary to "stop Communism" there.

Chickenhawk then? If he believed so firmly in those causes, then he could have served in the military as a conscientious objector and in a non-combatant capacity. Why didn't he?

Maher, when interviewed on Hardball last year during the Presidential election, and in reference to the Viet Nam War, said "you either went, or you were a draft dodger".

Vietnam veterans represented 9.7% of their generation. 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China sea waters). But, 9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era (Aug 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975). In other words, and according to no less an authority than Bill Maher, 90.3% of the generation eligible to serve in Vietnam were draft dodgers, as were the over five and a half million Americans who served during that time outside the Southeast Asia Theater ... and that latter group included ME.

Many seem to think that draftees made up a majority of those who fought in Viet Nam, or if you were drafted back then, you ended up in Viet Nam. Wrong. Two-thirds of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. One-third, or approximately 1.1 million of all those who served in the Southeast Asia Theater during the Vietnam War were drafted.

Maher has made some very distasteful and demeaning remarks about our men serving in the miltary in the past that as a veteran myself, I'd be tempted to deck him if he said them to my face.

As fas as I'm concerned, he has the right to say what he wants - and also receive the criticism he gets.

[GAC]

Baloney. Here's your post from October of last year.

Swiftboat

Wow! You found one post where I state that those men who served with Kerry on those swift boats dispute some of Kerry's statements/claims. All I stated was that their testimony should not be so easily discounted.

What did I state in my responses on the rest of that thread Rojo? Care to not be so selective and show everyone here where my focus was? - on his post Viet Nam anti-war activities with folks like VVAW and Jane Fonda.

Or how about where I stated that Kerry's service during the war should not be an issue? Care to find that post on that thread?

[Rojo]

Wow! You found one post where I state that those men who served with Kerry on those swift boats dispute some of Kerry's statements/claims. All I stated was that their testimony should not be so easily discounted.

You "disagree" with that tactic yet you took the time to vouch for swiftboats veracity. Can you not understand my confusion?

What did I state in my responses on the rest of that thread Rojo? Care to not be so selective and show everyone here where my focus was? - on his post Viet Nam anti-war activities with folks like VVAW and Jane Fonda.

Yes, you levelled criticism about his post-war activities. I'm withholding my applause.

Or how about where I stated that Kerry's service during the war should not be an issue? Care to find that post on that thread?

Oh I'm sure you said that. If I was supporting Bush/Cheney, I'd be none to eager to bring up war heroics either.

[Falls City Beer]

The thing is, calling Bush and Cheney chickenhawks is the truth.

The swiftboaters were/are liars and smear-artists.

I see a difference there.

You may not think the term "chickenhawks" is "fitting" or "appropriate" or "up to your standards" but it does its job; it accurately portrays both men as hawks who dodged the draft. I'm not sure what your beef with the truth is.

[Falls City Beer]

Gore's Dad kept his son out of harm's way with a nice journalism assignment in Nam.

How many of John, Robert, or Ted Kennedy's kids (large family there) were ever drafted or served in the military? Strange? Ted Kennedy served a 2 year stint as a military police "honor" guard during the Korean War (1951-53).

John Edwards - never served.

A couple of points. Gore at least was in country. None of the Kennedy kids was old enough to serve in 'Nam and well, you know John served doubly honorably in WWII, so pick on another family besides the Kennedy's. Edwards: too young for Viet Nam.

But here's the kicker (and I hate to rain on your hunt for hypocrisy): None of the above mentioned men started a pre-emptive war. Takes the whole "hawk" out of chickenhawk.

(Just an FYI about journalists in Viet Nam--they got killed too; no, maybe not as much as infantry, but they did).