Not-Quite Dictator Watch Three

Previously, on Dictator Watch: up-and-coming hopeful Hugo Chavez - as we're continually reminded - was democratically elected, and subsequently took the rather anti-democractic step of consolidating all government power in the executive branch (which we heard considerably less about). His highly-trained police then shot three students on a street in Caracas. Lately, he's taken to organising Youth Festivals for aficionados of Stalin and Kim Il-Sung, at which he pontificates on the various evils of America and pimps his new TV station. And now, the continuation.....

It's quite early here in Dublin and I must thank Brian Maloney (who's filling in for the irrepressible Ms. Malkin) for linking to us from her site. Would've been mentioned earlier, were it not for the time difference on this side of the Atlantic. I'd love to tell you how many orders of magnitude it's upped our readership by, but I keep losing count of the zeros.

I presume many of our readers have already encountered Pat Robertson's remarks on the radio, the internet, your dailies, the TV, and a mysterious bottle that showed up in your drainage pipe. Personally, having just turned off Sky News (which is a remarkable station considering its owner, a fact one of us will deal with in a later post) after colliding with the "hot" topic for the twelfth time, I'm already rather weary of the whole thing. It's not clear exactly why so much credence is being afforded to a man who, in the past, has stated that feminism "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians," and that he "know[s] one man who was impotent who gave AIDS to his wife and the only thing they did was kiss." Are his latest comments inflammatory and nonsensical? Yes. Is the person he's talking about a dictatorial, militant lunatic who's running Venezuela and her allies into the ground? Again, yes. The most fascinating aspect of this story is the scant coverage of Chavez's general comments, as compared to the hullabaloo over the words of a Christian evangelist with no affiliation to the Bush White House. They're jumping all over it here. The left loves Chavez the way they used to love Stalin, before all the "lies" about the tens of millions he slaughtered made him somewhat less cool. They admire Chavez's stance against Pax Americana whilst ignoring his own actual imperial ambitions. And as President Bush remains silent and dignified amidst the proliferation of Chavez's opinions, the left have little to rail against until now. Their argument goes something along the lines of: Mr Robertson is Christian. So is Bush. Ipso facto, Pat is definitive proof that President Bush is also deranged. Case closed. Or is it?

Many opponents to the Iraq war utilised the "can't you send in some Rambo-type figure to kill Saddam and spare the people?" argument; it seems rather disingenuous of them to slam Robertson for broaching a similar possibility. If Chavez continues along his inflammatory and ridiculous path, lightning may strike twice. Is there a case for assassination today? Certainly not, but one should not rule out the capture or imprisonment of Chavez in the future.

El Presidente's response to Robertson, while meeting the repeatedly-elected Castro today, was simply "I don't even know who that person is." Mark down this moment for posterity; this is the first time, and will likely be the last, that we agree with Chavez's attitude.

Meanwhile, democratic idealist Castro said the following:

"Only God can punish crimes of such magnitude."

Hilarious! Do you see how he flipped Robertson? The man is a legend. What do you mean he's a Communist with a history of religious repression and crimes of rather greater magnitude?

Chavez's vice president Rangel (about whom I admit to knowing little for now) spoke of a legal option, criticised the US for being hypocritical on the war on terror and once again made the inane analogy between Christians in America and Al Qaeda:

"[Robertson's comments] reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times."

Apparently, Mr. Rangel sees no hypocrisy in making such comments while his government are cosying up to Iran. Let me finish by quoting Chavez:

"Capitalism makes democracy impossible. Capitalism makes social justice impossible. If we don't change this system, the world is going to end. The eternal existence of our planet is not guaranteed. Look at other planets. In Mars there was water. It's possible they will soon find remains of living beings. Who knows how many years ago there was life on Mars. Mars is very similar to Earth. It rotates around the sun almost the same as Earth. It's very likely that there was life on Mars. It's possible that the Martians couldn't keep life going on their planet. Old Karl Marx was right. Capitalism, monopolies, the exploitation of man by man, Karl Marx's theory was correct. We have to break this model of domination."

It's not just Pat Robertson who's crazy.

UPDATE: ZOONPOLITICON | THURSDAY AUGUST 25th 2005

Brian Maloney points out the hypocrisy of railing against an overopinionated television host, while ignoring the somewhat more substantial issues of Chavez's human rights record. Publius Pundit has a good roundup of reaction from Venezuelan media and bloggers.

UPDATE: ZOONPOLITICON | THURSDAY AUGUST 25th 2005

The Televangelist has since apologised for his comments. Realising it wasn't very Christian of him upon consulting his PRO and of course the Bible, he made the following statement:

"Is it right to call for assassination?” Robertson said. “No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."

Reverend Jesse Jackson, a man who may also have happened to misinterpret certain elements of Christ's teachings, has seen another opportunity to remind people of his existence:

"These comments are morally reprehensible and dangerously suggestive. The international community repudiates Robertson’s remarks, and calls upon him to retract his remarks,Calling for the assassination of world leaders is inciteful and wildly provocative. It is just the latest of Robertson’s outrageous and intemperate declarations; President Bush and Secretary of State Rice should immediately rebuke and disassociate the administration from Robertson’s comments."

The Venezuelan ambassador in Washington has added:

"Mr. Robertson has been one of this president’s staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."

And Caracas are looking at legal options.

"This public call to assassinate a head of state, considered a crime by all modern legislation, is prosecutable by its very nature. That is what the civilized world is expecting of U.S. authorities."

So should Mr Robertson be arrested for his comments? Absolutely not. In America they have something called the First Amendment, and a lot of people utilise it for a whole host of unpleasant agendas without ever causing this much controversy. There is no difference. Should he be mocked and generally ignored? I presume that's what most of us were already doing.

And as for Mr Jackson - he is the quintessential modern Democrat, jumping on any and every bandwagon. Fifty milllion Christians voted for Bush. Therefore the administration needs to apologise for a Christian leader's comments. Preposterous, and exactly what I predicted would happen above.

The Venezuelan government should also keep quiet. With all the exponentially increased Google searches on Chavez, somebody's bound to find something incriminating.