Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Bush disses Robertson

BREITBART.COM - Just The News: "The Bush administration swiftly and unequivocally distanced itself Tuesday from a suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a frequent target of U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: 'Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.'

Acknowledging differences with the Caracas government, and saying it should be promoting democracy in the Western Hemisphere, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks 'inappropriate.'

'This is not the policy of the United States government. We do not share his views,' McCormack said in a flat refutation of Robertson's suggestion that the United States 'take out' Chavez to stop Venezuela from becoming a 'launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism.'"


And in a related story, top Democratic Party leaders distanced themselves from Micheal Moore saying...

O wait a minute. Actually, Moore got to sit in the Presidential Box and the Democratic National Convention.

Both parties have nuts. It's just that one is led by them, the other endures them.

4 comments:

steve said...

G. Gordon Liddy was also critical of Robertson's remarks. When Liddy represents the voice of moderation, you know that something has gone seriously askew! :-)

Robertson has always been something of a flake.

chris said...

"Both parties have nuts. It's just that one is led by them, the other endures them."

Nicely put. Don't know if it's true, but it sounds clever.

02bunced said...

"Our departement doesn't that sort of thing. It's against the law."

Last time I looked, invading Iraq with no just cause and against the UN was against the war too!

McRyanMac said...

Of course, he was talking about the laws of the United States. I guess you're right. The Iraq war doesn't pass John Kerry's "Global Test" but I thought Americans were subject to the Constitution, not the UN Charter.

Perhaps you think the UN was right to funnel money from hungry Iraqi's to the coffers of UN Diplomats. I'd probably be against the Iraq War too if I was profiting from Saddam Hussein. But then that would be evil.

It's fine for you to support the UN over the US Constitution, you just shouldn't be surprised when your political soul mates lose elections in the US.

As for "no just cause", how many UN Resolutions does a violent dictator have to ignore before the UN moves beyond angry letters to some kind of action. I suppose you were against the first Iraq war as well.

Interesting Stuff