Is there a double standard regarding Pat Robertson's advocating assasinating Hugo Chavez? During the Clinton Administration, George Stephanopoulos, Clinton's press secretary and confidante, advocated the killing of Saddam Hussein in a Newsweek article. I didn't hear the kind of outrage Robertson is getting and Roberston is a private citizen while Stephanopoulos was a government official. Double standard? You bet! After the 9/11 attack, old George continued his advocating of political assasination, again with little or no response from the left. Read this in The Progressive, a leftist magazine, as they talk about Stephanopoulos' advocating Saddam's assasination and that of others.
Jimmy, I know I'm not representative of all leftists, but I'm for killin' that Chavez guy too..... in addition to the others that Stephanopoulos identified..... Back in Texas, where our great befuddled president claims to hail from, I hear they have a legal perspective titled the "he NEEDED killin'" defense.... So, if you can point out the obvious reasons why someone or something needs a killin', then it is OK to do it. The case is obvious with Chavez and other miscreants in charge of third world nations that support terror, crime, and dictatorship. There is one, and only one, solution - physical elimination. Carl
There have been recently reports here in Europe in reliable media that the Clinton administration negotiated with the Taliban to assassinate Osama bin Laden after the masacres of the American Embassies in East Africa. Looking at it retrospectively, wouldn´t you wish they had been successful at it? And yes, it is doble standards, but Robertson should have never ever said something like that.
Re: Re: Double standard? You don't seem to know the difference between "according to" and facts. Stephanopoulos is on record as having said this and he did in fact write an article in Newsweek supporting the advocating the assasination of Hussein. The fact of the matter, since you mentioned JFK here, is that there was a time when a number of presidents--Demorcrat and Republican--advocated, contemplated, or authorized political assasinations. Neither party has clean hands regarding this matter.
The difference is that one is a government official (bad enough) while the other is a religious leader (worse). Robertson has made statements about how Islam is bad because it's a religion of violence while Christianity is a religion of love and forgiveness - then he says something that generally advocate violence or bringing down the wrath of God on someone for some offense. Plus, he has such a great track record for saying something stupid then backtracking immediately. Remember his agreement with Jerry Falwell over the cause of 9/11? Now there was a classic bad statement, bad excuse and bad apology. You also never get the idea that the man is sorry for things he said, just that he is sorry he got caught saying them.
"Double Standard" or Apples v. Oranges Saddam Hussein was an unelected dictator (who was responsible for decades of domestic oppression as well as foreign aggression) while Hugo Chavez was popularly elected by the voters in Venezuela in a democratic election that apparently met some international minimum standard. Venezuela, BTW, does not have a strong democratic tradition and elections of any sort are a fairly recent phenomenon. Now, you may not like Hugo Chavez or his politics but it is quite a stretch to compare him to Saddam Hussein. The fact that he was elected and ostensibly represents the will of the people of Venezuela should be given appropriate consideration before American leaders, public or private, call for his ouster or ... well, whatever.
Jimmy, you know how it pains me to agree with you in these political discussions... but I think you're right to point out that neither party, generally, has clean hands in this matter. That said, I do think it was right to take Robertson to task for his remarks... for, in largest measure, some of the reasons so deftly put forth by Deb herein. As nosborne48 has pointed out in various threads here, the U.S. has a long history of assassination plots. An argument can be made that at certain points in our history, it was nearly the CIA's only mission... and under presidents from both parties. It's a complex issue... and is just one of the reasons why I've said here and elsewhere, many times, that while the stars-and-stripes may bring a tear to the eye for us Americans, it is the object of scorn in many parts of the world. When I say it, those who perceive themselves as patriots (and me not one) jump on my sh_t about it, but the facts are what they are. We are despised in many, many places. In some cases it's just ideological ignorance or mistake; but in many cases it's because, rightly or wrongly, we have a long history of living by a completely different code when we're in or dealing with other countries.
That's a bit of a stretch! Why is it worse for a religious leader to make this statement? Robertson is just a private citizen who has no influence on public policy. He can say anything he wants and it will change the life of no one. (except maybe his followers) He may be a hypocrite, an idiot, or just a misguided old man. Believe what you want. Agree or disagree with him. It makes no difference. If he doesn't represent your views on the world, then don't watch his TV show. Jimmy's right about the double standard. The only reason this is a story is because Robertson is a conservative and media sees an opportunity to link him to Bush.
As evidenced by the fact televangelist Robert Schuller--not exactly a religious conservative--advocated similar tactics and hardly anyone raised an eyebrow.
Another reason is exposure. It's my opinion that if you ask a hundred people on the street who George Stephanopoulos is, 2 will know. Ask about Pat and 98 will know.
I disagree. You have spent too much time with the yahoos in Plant City and it's beginning to show. Stephanopoulos has national weekly show on ABC, is a former close Clinton aide and is quite photogenic. Unless you are a conservative Christian evangelical or a student of the history of Republican primaries, or alternatively, have absolutely nothing else to do with your time but watch his tedious cable show, Pat Robertson is a largely unknown figure.
The double standard here is not one of Democrat vs. Republican. The opeartive double standard (not necessarily a bad one) is that we've come to accept in the past quarter-century (since Tricky Dick, anyway) that it's okay for politicians to be our county's resident sleaze-buckets while we still expect our preachers to have some morality about them (at least they should be moral, even if they sometimes are immoral and go on sprees of sleeping with prostitutes and raping church secretaries like they did in the late 1980s).
