September
09 , 2005
Pat Robertson
- a Loose Canon?
The millionaire preacher, Pat
Robertson, has done it again. True to his proclivity
for outlandish and shocking statements, he has this
time called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez,
the Venezuelan head of state, fueling the media
fear that he is suffering another “bout with
foot-in-mouth disease”.
He had famously blamed gays and abortionists for
the September 11 attacks! He once argued that feminism
makes women into lesbians, kill their children,
and practice witchcraft. On another occasion he
attacked the US State Department for being so far
to the left that it ought to be blown up with a
nuclear device.
This time he said matter-of-factly: “If he
(Chavez) thinks we are trying to assassinate him,
I think that we really ought to go ahead and do
it”. His logic: “It is whole lot cheaper
than starting a war. 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
to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It is a whole
lot easier to have some of the covert operatives
do the job.”
He charged Chavez of turning Venezuela into “a
launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim
extremism all over the continent”.
President Chavez, a buddy of Fidel Castro of Cuba,
makes no bones about his socialist agenda, but he
is not known for contacts with Osama bin Laden or
Al Qaeda. But then Robertson, a loose canon, feels
free to shoot anyone in any direction and he has
been for years denigrating Muslims on some pretext
or another. Yet he enjoys enormous media power in
this country as well as a clout with the White House.
This time, however, his chilling statement emanating
evidently from a disturbed, if not a highly prejudiced,
mind has been condemned by almost all sectors of
the society. Although President Bush has not yet
come out himself with any comment, his spokesperson
has categorically called the statement “inappropriate”.
It is no secret that Robertson was instrumental
in corralling millions of voters for Bush during
the last Presidential election. And, President Bush
stands by his benefactors through thick and thin.
Realizing the counter-productive nature of Robertson’s
statement, the General Secretary of the National
Council of Churches, Bob Edgar, pointed out, “It
defies logic that this so-called evangelist is using
his media power not to win people to faith but to
encourage them to support the murder of a foreign
leader”.
It was pointed out that there was little difference
between Osama, Zarqawi or people like them who demand
the murder of leaders who oppose them and a high-profile
broadcaster whose message is beamed into millions
of US homes and who had even run for Presidency
in 1988, openly calling for the murder of President
Chavez.
There was such widespread and strong reaction to
his call to kill Chavez, that Pat Robertson had
to reappear on TV, but he did not, as was expected,
withdraw and apologize for what he had said, and
went on to assert that he did not say what millions
had heard him say. “I didn’t say assassination
(of course, you did Pat); I said our special forces
should take him out”. Or, he should be kidnapped
a little.
Was the good Rev. thinking of taking Chavez out
to lunch, or to the bar for a drink? And, how can
someone be kidnapped a little? You can’t give
a woman a “little pregnancy”. A little
kidnapping too often winds up at Guantanamo Bay
or the graveyard.
An excuse is worse than a lie, says an old adage,
as it is nothing but a lie guarded.
The tape recording of Robertson’s ‘sermon’
might have been played back to him. So, he was probably
compelled to change his mind again and come out
with some sort of an apology.
Doesn’t this remind you of the drama surrounding
the Clinton-Lewinsky affair - emphatic denial, followed
by hedging and then acceptance, and apology? The
difference is that Clinton had no religious pretensions,
and he had Kenneth Starr and his Republican backers
going after him with full force. The considerations
here are quite different.
The ruling Republican team might be embarrassed
by Robertson’s tendentious call, but its own
heartfelt desire might not be too far away from
what Robertson has blurted out. The position of
the Democrats is also not much different. Venezuela
is in the sphere of US influence and any leader
of that country, even if elected like Chavez, who
is pursuing policies not in line with American interest,
is unacceptable to the US.
More pertinent is the fact that Venezuela is the
fifth largest producer and exporter of oil, and
the US is the biggest importer of that oil. Chavez
has threatened to cut off supplies. He has also
demanded back taxes from foreign oil companies –
most of them American-based. If they failed to comply,
Chavez made it clear, they would be required to
wind up and go.
He is an outspoken critic of Bush, an admirer of
Castro, a sympathizer of Columbian guerillas and
the anti-globalization policy of Bolivia.
Rumsfeld has called him a “menace”,
CIA Director, Porter Gross, testified last March
that Chavez was “very clearly causing mischief
for us”. A senior Pentagon official accused
him of “downright subversion”.
In all probability, the noose was already tightening
around his neck, when Robertson gave the call “Thou
Shall Kill”. Chavez had already made it known
that Bush administration was working to eliminate
him physically if not politically. A coup against
him was attempted in 2002 but it did not succeed
owing to the massive support that Chavez enjoyed.
Bush and Cheney were said to have lent covert support
to the rebels at that time.
Robertson’s statement has thrown, on the one
hand, a spanner in the works and enhanced, on the
other, the popularity of Chavez in his own country.
It has been counter-productive on both counts.
Then, one wonders if Robertson’s call of “Thou
Shall Kill” or “Go, Get him” is
not a terrorist call, and is it covered by the First
Amendment despite the nature of its contents. One
wonders also if an identical call by a foreigner
could also be similarly condoned. Or, would it invite
executive or judicial action on grounds of being
a call to an act of terror. What invites action
against a foreign goose, ought also to invite action
against a local gander!
- arifhussaini@hotmail.com August 31, 2005
