Welcome to the home of the very worst of the meretricious poetasters!
number 33 for 8-23-05:
Pat Robertson is...Not A Douche?
What I am about to say, I say with the utmost loathing, and yet, humilty. I have been humbled by a voice of reason from a man who I thought pushed soft-serve shit from his mouth in an unending stream.
Ladies and gentlemen, gentlemen in ladies, today Pat Robertson made a point that was sensible and intelligent.
Yes, yes, I know. Put down the pitchforks until I at least explain.
Pat Robertson suggested that if Hugo Chavez is going to continue to berate the United States and ally itself with Cuba and accuse us of usurping his power and threatening to kill him, we might as well just kill him. It won't stop the oil, and it's cheaper than a war to remove him would be.
NOW, examination.
The above, most of it, is patent bullshit. We shouldn't kill Chavez (though I have CLOSE personal friends who the man has made life a hell for), we shouldn't kill people who call us names, and we shouldn't kill someone just for allying with Cuba. I mean, Russia nearly allied with Iraq, and we can't hardly go to war with them, can we?
The NUGGET, though, the kernel, the part of that statement that just made me say, "Wow, someone admits it!" is the fact that he suggests that it's easier to assassinate a figurehead than to invade a country.
Imagine, for instance, that we had spent a million dollars sending in the most elite group of snipers we have into Iraq. They shoot Saddam in the head, destabilizing the region, and then move to kill the "playing card deck". Afterward, Iraq is in chaos. The UN steps in to restore order, Saddam is gone, the people elect a new president, and we are in and out for less than a billion in foreign aid over ten years.
More Iraqis would die that way Neal! Not fucking hardly. Invasion kills much more than a coup.
We could do that to Kim Jong Il right now and save the world a shitload of suffering.
Why don't we? Well, the simple answer is that Carter made a law against the assassinations of foreign heads of state. Never mind that we still do that anyway, but the law is there. The other reason is that a president can't be a WAR PRESIDENT if he quickly and efficiently prosecutes a war, and he won't get re-elected, even if he does insurmountable good in this respect. Look at how clean Afghanistan was (a few wedding murders aside), and look at how little people credit him for it as opposed to Iraq.
So get this...Chavez starts to THREATEN the United States. Chavez tries to take away the oil and cripple world economy.
In this case, is Robertson so wrong? I don't know that we should kill Chavez, but I DO sure as shit see the idea and point behind killing one man to save war with many. Imagine killing the Emperor instead of dropping the atomic bomb. It's the risk of the job as a head of state, and you know what?
That law can very easily be changed. Especially in an administration SO bent on getting its own way that it has rearranged the whole fucking bill of rights.
And so, perhaps expectedly, the Bush administration's response?
Robertson was out of line for suggesting assassination.
This from a group of people who invaded a peaceful nation over a concept.
Yeah, fuck you.
Citation
Citation
Citation
Citation