Commentary

'Thou shall not kill'

PAT ROBERTSON, ONE of those American televangelists, who has a show called 'The 700 Club' on one of those religious channels where people wear extraordinarily big hair and dress like it's still the 1970s, on Monday attracted a bit more attention than he bargained for when he suggested that US Special Forces assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Maybe the Christian Coalition founder was sending a not too subliminal message to US president George Bush. Whatever the reason, his comments created a firestorm of controversy and even more importantly, had the White House hurrying to distance itself from his remarks.

Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, kind of spoiled it for the US Government, though, when he said that the US does not engage in that sort of thing. Yeah, like nobody knows about Iraq and the multitude of attempts on the life of Cuban president Fidel Castro since 1958, not to mention past situations in Panama, Chile, and Somalia. If you ask me, Rumsfeld would have served his boss better had he just kept his mouth shut.

My primary concern with Robertson's comments was that they were made the day before Chavez arrived here in Jamaica. There was a time when those comments would mean very little to us, but in the context of sniper boy Lee Boyd Malvo and the recent suicide bomber guy in London whom they say is Jamaican, it would be a dark day for us if Chavez arrived here and somehow got killed, probably from the hail of bullets that of late seem to be constantly flying through our air.

That aside, on Wednesday Robertson made himself look like an even bigger fool when he said his comments were taken out of context. According to him; "I didn't say assassination. I said our special forces should 'take him out' and 'take him out' can mean a number of things..." Yeah Pat, like taking him out to dinner perhaps, maybe even to a ball game where he and the members of the Special Forces can drink beer, eat hot dogs and hold hands?

Whatever he meant, you really can't accuse Robertson of not being frugal. He did mention that 'taking out Chavez' would be a lot cheaper than going to war. It would certainly be a lot cheaper than the more than 200 billion dollars the US has so far sunk into the war in Iraq, eh Pat? I can see your point.

But why would the US want to kill...sorry, take out Chavez? Oh yeah, how could I forget? Robertson is of the view that Chavez is promoting both communism and Islam in the region. Those are the buzz words these days - communism and Islam. If you want to kill someone all you have to do is suggest that they are communist or that they are Islamic, or as Robertson has suggested, both and everything will be alright. Everybody will say "Oh, he was Islamic" or "Oh, he was communist, he deserved to be killed."

Plus, there is this whole pesky business of spiralling oil prices which was obviously a bone of contention for the ardent Bush supporter. Venezuela provides about 10 per cent of US crude oil imports and Chavez recently threatened to cut that supply off. If that happens, Robertson I presume assumes that he and his church buddies may have trouble affording the gasolene for their expensive SUVs and limousines that the Lord hath provided for them.

And we can't have that now, can we?

And just in case you're asking yourself what about the commandment "Thou shall not kill', Robertson being a man of God and everything, if you read the small print you will see that that commandment does not apply unless oil flows to the US have been put at risk. Check your bibles, or better yet, check Robertson's.

Editor's note: Pat Robertson on Wednesday apologised for his comments made about President Chavez claiming they were made out of frustration. Send comments to shearer39@gmail.com