This, this is helpful...Pat Robertson and Chavez sitting in a tree...
Posted by Prof. Goose on August 23, 2005 - 6:35am
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.
Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.
Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.
Robertson accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
(2) John Perkins' book CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN refers to the resistance of Ecuadorean and Panamanian presidents (Roldos and Torrijos)to US domination and their subsequent "accidental" deaths, and so I have been watching the press about Chavez. Robertson may be cooperating with the government in preparing a phony and unofficial rationale for some forthcoming accident. I hope, out of some sense of justice (a foolish and futile goal), that Iraq plus Chavez' popularity will keep him safe.
Killing one lowsy dictator now might be a good alternative.
Chavez is an authoritarian president, but he was elected, so the dictator contention seems out, at least for now.
And this is an alternative strategy? How, exactly, does it prevent peak oil?
Meanwhile, we (the west) support real dictators elsewhere.
Bottom line: Venezuelan oil resources belong to them and their people - they can do what they want with them. In a tight supply environment there will be plenty of buyers willing to pay the price - its capitalism at its finest, no?
As for Robertson, his recent comments just go to show how little he follows his own professed faith. Disgusting!
If you think that US elections are immune to such tampering, think again.
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005/05/candor-from-petkoff.html
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005_07_10_oilwars_archive.html
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005/07/yet-more-poll-numbers.html
If Chávez is so committed to democracy, pluralism and separation of powers, why does he sound like Castro and why did he try to pack the Supreme Court (and succeed) to make it totally subservient to him?
Chávez runs a democracy like any other autocrat: One man, one vote, one time.
As far as the court being subservient - it said the coup against him wasn't a coup and let everyone go. Definitely subservient.
And it is not one vote one time. Chavez himself has stood for election 3 times. There were local elections just recently. Congressional ones are in December and Presidential in 2006. Sorry but Venezuela has more elections than just about anyplace I can think of
Whether one agrees with him or not you have to admire how he's playing the politics of the situation - using the country's oil to gain influence (we call that a bad thing yet we do the same thing ourselves in reverse fashion - we seek to gain influence over oil) and spending plans have dramatically raised his popularity inside the country and outside since.
No doubt there will be a showdown of sorts.
In contrast to Robertson and his ilk, I commend to you the following sign / graffiti painted on a cement bridge abutment in October, 2001:
"America has been blessed. Let God bless someone else." This sign alone, and people's often delighted reaction to it when I describe it, encourages me to be optimistic for our future. After all, it's how we treat each other that really matters.
There will be a considerable disruption in our future, although we do not know whether it will be quick and sharp or slow enough to adapt fairly easily. We gleefully consume so much in this country that it seems to me we could cut our consumption by half and barely notice it. Let's not start shooting madly in all directions just yet. And Americans love to have problems to solve.
Of course he is a pain in the ass for you because he is getting better deals to explore and sell its oil benefiting his people.
So, at least be honest! Don´t get moral excuses!
If there's anyone more apt to be called a "lowsy dictator" I can certainly think of one sitting right here in our own backyard.
I read in the news that the Saudis had booby trapped their own oil infrastructure - basically as a deterrent to prevent a hostile takeover. I presume that Chavez will have taken similar precautions.
http://theoildrum.blogspot.com/2005/05/formative-piece-of-peak-oil-picture-or.html
Too much Tom Clancy? Or not enough?
Plus he sure does good things with the money - lots of good social and educational programs have been implemented by him.
if americans do not want to change, alter the way they live, then Chavez must be removed. he destabilizes oil prices. and Americans need to stop questioning American's hawkish policy to acquire oil, i.e. Iraq war & Failed assassination attempt on Chavez in 2004. people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
And the thing is, Robertson isn't even trotting out the old "just war" canard, but rather calling for the assassination of the leader of a Christian nation only because Chavez endangers cheap oil prices.
Forgive for using this space also as an excuse for bringing up my favorite Biblical quote as relates to Man's responsibility for the planet.
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth"
(Genesis 1:27-28).
Many simplistic interpretations are basically: Do whatever you want to the environment because Man is the dominant species. My interpretation is that God has basically yielded his power over the natural environment to Man following the fall from Eden. This is an enormous responsibility, in particular because he instructs Man to "replenish" the Earth. I could not imagine a clearer statement of Man's responsibility to care for his environment. I love the word replenish.
Ianqui - you have some religious training don't you? Any comments?
on a 2nd note, the amreican economy runs on cheap oil. our american lifestyle feeds on cheap oil. high priced oil endangers our way of life.
are Americans ready to make sacrifices to our suburban, SUV driving, dishwashing machine powered, drive-thru fastfood lifestye? if not, then, Hugo Chavez is America's enemy #1 because he puts stable oil prices in jeopardy.
Proof? Why look no further than the recently passed "energy" bill.
Imagine, an energy bill that does nothing to promote conservation. An energy bill that doesn't mandate improved mileage and improvements in mass (people and goods) transportation infrastructure.
Chavez is a democratically elected leader of a country that has relatively free and open elections. Their people have spoken, its not up to us to change their leadership.
Lets put a finer point on this: Anyone agitating for the forcible removal or assassination of Chavez must also be logically ok with the same happening to our leaders.
No?
Until the american public educates and snaps out of sleepy addiction of wasteful consumption, American Politicians must act forcefully when global oil supply is in question.
Chavez has threatened to cut US off of Venezuelan oil. Despite the fact that he is a legit leader,a nice guy, implements social reforms in venezuela, he is a threat to US because Americans refuses to change. If americans don't change, the only thing to do is force Venezuela to change, i.e. remove Chavez. By the way, i like Chavez and the social programs that he's implemented in S.America. But he endangers US's oil supply and has gots to go.
i am not ok with assassination of our leaders, because they act on our behalf. (you and i). it's the same as the assassination of ourselves, and i'm not ok with that.
Go back and read Machiavelli.
I would also say that he has as much right to rile up the peasants against the business elites just as much as a right winger would have to do the opposite. If you dislike him that much, please urge President Bush and Cheney to stop buying his oil. But killing him will only cause the world to hate us more.
Personally I prefer Kant to Machiavelli, but there are times for each. Sun Tzu had some good ideas as well.
I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if a right-wing dictator rounded up the poor in the shantytowns, destroyed their property and removed them to sex-segregated internment camps. Not genocide, just controlling a lawless part of the population you see.
That would be a repulsive thing to do and violate a host of recognized human rights; Chávez' doings are no better for all that his rhetoric plays well with the Marxist left in the USA.
Are you (engineer poet) in favour of Pat Robertson's "remedy"?
Is killing political leaders of countries we do not agree with a justifyable strategy?
And what do you think OPEC's reaction would be to the assassination of one of its member's leaders? Muted? Symbolic? or a reminder of the 1970's?
It would seem to me highly unlikely that the US would be the major importer of Venzuelan oil if Chavez is bumped off.
Unfortunately its impossible to avoid linking politics to oil since all major powers, except for Russia, are net oil importers, the issue is doomed to remain highly politicized or worse until a real energy future is mapped out.
And as far as what he is doing for people:
I would say improving the poors standard of living by 30% in one year isn't bad.
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005/06/how-does-he-do-it.html
They definitely like all the new health clinics:
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005/06/by-way-of-contrast.html
And they like the booming economy:
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2005/08/picking-up-speed.html
I'm a conservative by nature and by political affiliation, but tend to a more open view of social programs. The ability of land to sustain people is a key determinant of poverty; in this case, Venezuela is using the "land" (the resource wealth below it) to improve its people's standard of living.
That's not so different than Alberta, Canada, spending money on programs with its immense oil fueled surpluses. Its the only province in Canada which is debt free and has billions in surplusses to spend now.
The key difference is that Alberta doesn't have far more people living in the land mass than the land mass, and its associated businesses and agriculture, can support. Shove another 50 million people into Alberta and it would look like Venezuela economically!
The Venezuela experience doesn't work everywhere. Being able to sustain this means increasing nationalization of resources to keep profits in the country. This may well reduce the ultimate output of the country, which may also lead to poor resource management practices.
However if they take the long view and invest in expertise and education, and manage the resource propertly, ultimately the nation is likely to benefit.
And, if "peak oil" really is around the corner, what they are doing could be considered a brilliant stroke and absolutely neccessary to protect its people over the intermediate future.
IF/when peak oil is widely recognized, and IF there have not been adequate mitigation efforts put in place, you will see a lot more exporting countries start to nationalize or otherwise protect a key resource.
After all what country will rush over the cliff if they know where the cliff resides...
what do you think will happen when you try to fill up at the gas station? how much will groceries cost? do you like walking to work? that is, if your employer hasn't laid you off yet due to high overhead.
you've depended on your public utility companies to provide you electricity for years, in exchange for a monthly fee. What if that company decides to cut you off? from your post, you're basically telling me that you don't mind as long as the power company isn't committing genocide.
by the way, We buy 1.5 million barrels a day of oil from Venezuela. good luck trying to get that from someone else. Chavez knows that if he cuts US off, he will die. this administration will pull out of Iraq and invade Venezuela.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4177664.stm
snip...
LOL great excuse.
Lack of proper submission from those nations lower on the dominance hierarchy usually elicits aversive consequences: always programs of propaganda and political destabilization, embargoes at other times, the support of domestic coups, and occasionally war. Such is the nature of the dominant male. (Of course, women can be good at this game, too.)
Partly because of oil and partly because he--Chavez--has not been sufficiently submissive, he has proved to be an annoyance to dominant American institutions: military, political, economic, class, or any combination. There's nothing worse to those on top than the threat of a successful alternative. After all, didn't Monroe and JQ Adams, sometime ago, proclaim our right to guide and oversee these poor, inferior, misguided souls? And what right do they have to challenge our benevolence and instruction? Mr. Chavez stands in the way of our manifest destiny...it's downright un-American!
Oh, I wonder whether Robertson ,and ilk, are acquainted with the sermons of the Prince of Peace, the Author of Love, the Golden Rule?
Cheers, mch
- Venezuela's problems have been caused by Chavez's totalitarian mismanagement of the government.
- Chavez is a dangerous thug trying to export the Red dogma through force and arms throughout the Americas.
- Without US help, they're wouldn't be any oil being produced in Venezuela.
- The vote in Venezuela was rigged. Carter and the OAS monitoring this election? HA! That's like the Jellyfish and Fox watching the chicken coop.
- I'm tired of all the links to how "fair, honest and good" Chavez's unjust rule of Communist Venezuela. Anyone and a good share of everyone has generated thousands of left-wing articles concerning the virtues of socialist dictators. Those fawning articles are similar to the ones written by wacko Western lefties who threw themselves at one of Chavez's heroes: Joseph Stalin.
Maybe it is time to give Tony Soprano a call.Think of it as asymmetrical combat: the US has lawyers, guns and money. Venezuela has only what the Saudis called "the oil sword." Wielding the oil weapon can cause great damage to a larger, more powerful adversary.
Iraq has re-proven that the US can topple almost any government in the world. It's also shown that toppling a government is insufficient to make the oil flow.
With demand equal to supply, any oil exporting country, large or small, now has disproportionate power over oil importing countries. Because the US has the biggest thirst, it is the most vulnerable. The only solution is less oil dependency.