Discussion:
Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez
(too old to reply)
Eli Stephens
2005-08-22 22:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Link:
<http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_lefti_archive.html#112474925097988046>

Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
Austin, Andrew
2005-08-22 23:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Pat is such a true Christian. Rejoice!

________________________________

From: marxism-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu on behalf of Eli Stephens
Sent: Mon 8/22/2005 5:29 PM
To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: [Marxism] Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez



Link:
<http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_lefti_archive.html#112474925097988046>

Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Joaquín Bustelo
2005-08-23 02:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Firs, my congratulations to Eli. Well spotted!

Now, for the rest of the story.

I have learned that, before 7 PM Eastern, the head at that point of one
of the newsrooms of a famous 24-hour news organization was aware of the
report and had seen the video on the Media Matters web site; copy
editors and others responsible for editorial content of the
organizations "product" had been quickly brought in; everyone agreed it
was a great story, potentially quite explosive, and it would be awesome
to be the first major news organization to "break" it.

Hours later, there still had been no actual, concrete move to include
the story in the news "products" of this organization, although by then
several newsrooms at this very large news organization were aware of it,
and the entire functioning and workflow of the place is such that news
can be reported well-nigh instantaneously.

But this item was treated differently from a train wreck or an airplane
crash: it was immediately flagged as sensitive, invisible but very
binding "handle with care" stickers had been placed on it, and it had
been "kicked upstairs." Down the stairs came a decision to give
ROBERTSON a "reasonable opportunity" --I understand that was the phrase
that was used-- to respond; to seek *permission* from his organization
to use the video, instead of asserting a fair use right to the material;
to seek independent confirmation that the report from this "blog"
(mediamatters.org) wasn't a phony or fabrication; to pass everything
through a couple of layers of lawyers, executives and so on, and so
forth.

A journalist in the newsroom (yes, there are still a few left) was told
by the supervisors that, yes, it was a great story and yes, it probably
should have been put out in the news product right away and at any rate
certainly by now; but that given the corporate structure that this
once-well-regarded news organization was now under, that was impossible,
everyone (meaning the four or six people involved in that conversation)
had to remember that they were all *employees*. The term "wage slave"
was not used, but the fullness of its content was well communicated.

It is now nearly six hours after Media Matters placed the original post
on the Internet. Scores of emails have been flying around in this news
organization and I'm certain between people in this news organization
and others informing about this development, commenting on it,
discussing how to cover it and so on.

And not one word --NOT ONE!-- has yet been printed, posted or said by
any major news organization. Google News searches at 10:00 PM still
revealed exactly two stories on the matter, as it did around 7:00 PM:
the original Media Matters and a report mostly consisting of the direct
quote from Robertson on the Venezuelan web site Vheadlines.com.

The newsworthiness of this item, and the fairness of reporting it as is,
is beyond question: Pat Robertson is a major religious figure in the
United States, and also a major figure in the country's political life;
he was the founder of the "Christian Coalition" right-wing political
movement that is a major force in Republican politics. He has been an
advisor and confidant of various presidents, including the current
occupant of the White House. He is (at least by a large section of the
population) a well regarded religious and political leader, by any
conceivable standard an important public figure in this country, and,
moreover, has had decades of experience in this role.

His statement speaks for itself; the idea that "fairness" requires
reports on it to be spiked until he condescends to reply to inquiries is
preposterous.

It was made on his own TV show, at his own initiative, unpressured,
prepared, it must be assumed, as much as he cared to and as much as he
requires in making such statements in his own venue. It was not a
one-liner blurted out thoughtlessly or spontaneously in response to some
perceived provocation or an unexpected question or challenge, but a
clearly thought out line of argument, referring to recent Venezuelan and
world political events, statements by President Ch?vez, bringing in
economics, the Monroe Doctrine, his appreciation of the coup attempt two
and a half years ago, his judgment that the Bush administration failed
to support it vigorously enough and that is why it failed, the war
against terrorism and the struggle against Communism among other things.
And it is consistent with his overall political outlook and previous
stances.

We will see how long it takes the chicken-hearted, corporate-castrated
"journalists" of the major media to report it; and once the dam breaks,
then watch the flood as everyone rushes to air and print in the hopes of
fooling their viewers or readers into thinking they had the courage to
bring it to them first.

Joaqu?n

P.S. Some comrades will ask, is this any different than the bourgeois
press has ever been? I can answer unequivocally that, yes, this is
different, and in particular it was different in the news organization
that I refer to above a decade or more ago, which I can vouch for as I
was working there at the time, even though technology today makes
inclusion of the latest information in news products qualitatively
easier than it was in the first half of the 1990's.
Louis R Godena
2005-08-23 03:13:11 UTC
Permalink
From: "Joaqu?n Bustelo" <jbustelo at bellsouth.net>
To: "'Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition'"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Marxism] Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo
Chavez

Forgive me, but I don't think most people view Pat Robertson making asinine
statements as particularly "explosive" or even newsworthy. His comments
about gay people and the permissiveness of baby boomers leading directly to
the destruction of the twin towers were greeted with derisive contempt by
some but outright indifference by most. And major religious leaders making
major fools of themselves is old hat. Remember the revelations about Billy
Graham and his (secretly) taped opinions of Jews made while he was in the
Nixon white house? When did that come out? In 2002-3? It's like Don
Imus calling Mrs Arafat a "fat pig" or the Dixie Chicks with Bush. No one
really cares. I don't know where Joaquin works, but this is National
Enquirer stuff.

Louis G
Walter Lippmann
2005-08-23 03:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Hugo Chavez
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-22-robertson-_x.htm

VIRGINIA BEACH (AP) - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on
Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez,
calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

PHOTO CAPTION
We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time
has come that we exercise that ability,' Robertson said.

By Gene Puskar, AP

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former
presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United
States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad
for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President
Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his
government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S.
officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if
he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really
ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot
cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments
will stop."

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not
immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of
oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb
almost 59% of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United
States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who
they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was
briefly overthrown in 2002.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come
that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know,
strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have
some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-22-robertson-_x.htm
Eli Stephens
2005-08-23 03:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Louis Godena wrote: "Forgive me, but I don't think most people view Pat
Robertson making asinine statements as particularly "explosive" or even
newsworthy."

Well, possibly they SHOULDN'T be newsworthy, but Joaquin is very definitely
right in saying that they ARE newsworthy in the current definition of the
word. The fact is that, just within the last week or so, I have seen on more
than one news show clips of Robertson "praying to the Lord for further
vacancies on the Supreme Court", after ludicrously claiming that his
previous prayers (from two years ago!) had been answered with the
resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. Gee, maybe I'll pray for Robertson to
die; I'm sure God will answer my prayers SOME day.

Anyway, the fact is that Robertson IS a frequent presence on the news,
making Joaquin's story all the more interesting and telling about the
current state of affairs.

Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
Eli Stephens
2005-08-23 04:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Here's one of the interesting aspects of this development. Read the AP story
that Walter posted which appears, among other places, in USA Today. What
you'll notice, in contrast to all other "political" stories of a similar
nature, is not a single counterpoint. No quote from a Venezuelan embassy
spokesman, or Democratic politician, or anyone denouncing Robertson's
proposal, nor any reference to international law or U.S. law which would
make the suggested action illegal.

Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
Eli Stephens
2005-08-23 04:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Sorry for posting repeatedly, but I just came across this rather telling
response to Robertson's statement on the blog of leading liberal David
Sirota. For those unfamiliar with him, here's a blurb from his blog:

"About David Sirota

I am the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN)
- a position I took after finishing a stint as a fellow at the Center for
American Progress. I am also a writer for Working Assets, and a twice-a-week
guest on the Al Franken Show. I am currently writing a book for Random
House's Crown Publishers. I also write a bi-weekly section for the Nation
Magazine called Permanent Minority vs. Towards the Majority about Democrats
failures and successes."

Now read what he has to say about Robertson, starting with the word
"unhelpful" in the headline:

"Pat Robertson's Unhelpful Call for Assassination

"Here's an interesting question: To an objective non-American looking at the
situation from an outside vantage point, is there really much of a
difference between a terrorist leader going on television and issuing a
fatwa against American political leaders, and Pat Robertson going on
television and essentially issuing a fatwa against democratically-elected
leaders in other countries?

"It's an interesting question - and one that bodes poorly for America's
image throughout the world. Here we are in Iraq, supposedly fighting against
the fatwa-issuing terrorists and for democracy in Iraq (though that was
never the reason for the war), and one of America's top conservative leaders
issues a fatwa against a democratically elected leader in a neighboring
country to the south.

"This isn't to say that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is a great guy - but he was
twice democratically elected in elections that were verified to be
legitimate. Additionally, America currently relies heavily on Venezuela for
oil.

"So, really, no matter how bad you think Hugo Chavez is, it's pretty fair to
say that Pat Robertson's latest bout of wild-eyed extremism (and it is just
one of many) is extraordinarily unhelpful almost any way you look at it."

Time for a chorus of "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" I should think. :-)

Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
Joaquín Bustelo
2005-08-23 05:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Well, only a minute or two after I sent my previous post reporting on
why the story wasn't being reported by the major news organization, I
got word that the damn had begun to crack.

The AP ran a brief, couple-of-paragraph item on it, shortly thereafter a
fuller story. (This is *normal* for the AP which provides both copy for
print and copy meant to be "rip and read" for radio and perhaps TV. Nor
is it abnormal for the shorter version to move first even though it was
derived from a longer version that moves on the wire a little later. A
service like AP has multiple circuits aimed at different kinds of
clients, and at this time of night when the stuff moved, getting
suitable copy out for a TV newscast "reader" would have been much more
urgent than moving the "newspaper" version.)

And I see from Google News [at around 11 PM Eastern] that a couple of
outlets have begun to pick it up: a U.S. TV station and a Japanese Daily
with an English web site.

Rerunning the google news search I see there are suddenly a whole series
of local TV stations with the exact same report and headline, posted at
the same time. I assume all are part of a chain that pretends to have
local, individually edited web sites but in fact 99% of the content
comes canned from a corporate newsroom and is put into the "local" web
site through the magic of PERL or some other scripting language.

Now it is time to wait and see how long it takes for the bigger players
to pick it up -- and especially which ones run their own story rather
than rely on wire service copy.

* * *

Robertson's statements come at a particularly unfortunate time for
enemies of Ch?vez. Just yesterday [Sunday], Chavez was in Cuba (he
visited the island to attend a graduation ceremony for medical students)
and he and Fidel had traveled to Sandino City, at the westernmost tip of
Cuba, to broadcast from there Ch?vez's weekly "Al? presidente" TV show.

For some reason CNN's Luc?a Newman decided to cover it and she
(mis)reported that Chavez and Fidel had called for Latin American unity
to counter US "influence" in the region, not terribly exact, as Cuba has
never objected to all sorts of U.S. "influences" in all sorts of fields
from sports to science to music, and I'm sure the Bolivarian revolution
won't either. What Ch?vez and Fidel actually denounced was U.S. economic
and political domination and meddling, in a word, imperialism, which was
precisely the word Ch?vez and Fidel used.

One of the things that Ch?vez announced was that Venezuela would "loan"
petroleum to Ecuador to allow it to meet its obligations since that
country stopped exporting crude on Thursday due to disruptive protests
in the Amazon region where the crude is extracted.

It may seem odd that Ch?vez would seek to blunt the impact of what at
first blush appear to have been popular protests, but actually things
are quite muddy. The current government is new and the result of the
previous president having been sent packing a month or two ago for
failing to live up to promises to be like Ch?vez, and instead accepting
every last outrageous imposition from the IMF.

On the other hand, the protests are being led by local and provincial
government officials, of whom it is said they could have led such a
vigorous movement as part of the fight against the previous president
but failed to do so. At any rate, the regional and local officials were
today closeted in Quito with the current central government and a rasher
of grey-suited executives from the "transnational" (read: imperialist)
oil corporations, and the word being leaked was that the fix was in.

And we should remember that all this is taking place as Venezuela is
trying to forge what is in essence a Latin-America-wide anti-imperialist
united front with oil as its axis. And with a barrel of crude trading at
more than double the OPEC target price. I'm sure Chavez found a way to
communicate how much easier it was for him to comply with the Ecuador
government's request since unexpected resources exist to begin
satisfying what are undoubtedly legitimate aspirations of the people of
the oil-producing region in Ecuador.

But also today, at foggy bottom, the state department mouthpiece was
trying to twist Ch?vez's response to the request of the Ecuadorian
government as some sort of interference in
Ecuador's internal affairs. When the imperialists start posturing as if
they're taking the side of popular movements in a place like Ecuador, I
get *very* suspicious. No, I don't *automatically* put a minus where
they put a plus. But I try to be much more careful in making sure I take
into account all the different cross-currents at work.

Frankly, it looked messy and complicated and unfortunately, in my work
right now I'm forced to deal with these sorts of questions. And then
along comes doubleya confidant Pat Robertson, to place in sharp relief
what REAL interference in the internal affairs of another country looks
like. When I first heard his statement, I just smiled. It made my day.

For those who haven't yet had the opportunity to check it out, here is
what Robertson said, in all its white supremacist, imperialist, truly
Christian splendor:

* * *

There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the
United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a
result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in
power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan
economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist
infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he
thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to
go ahead and do it.

It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any
oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the
United ... this is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this
happen.

We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have
announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south,
controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.

We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that
we exercise that ability.

We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know,
strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert
operatives do the job and then get it over with.

* * *

I had to turn away from this post for an hour or more to deal with other
things so now it is quite a bit later than when I first intended to have
it out. That's o.k. too. I've included a couple of [bracketed]
indications of time frames to avoid confusion, but that's it.

In the meantime, though, the USA Today website picked up the AP story,
but it isn't featured on the home page. What would be significant is if
it's there or in the print edition. I don't know the US Today site well
enough to say, but a lot of sites will pick up anything that strikes any
staff members' fancy if it comes from AP or Reuters. Editors don't mind.
If they don't like the story, they just won't feature it and it will be
just one more item in the middle of a list of two dozen links, where
only hardened news junkies on a given subject will click on it. Been
there, done that.

There's 150 more versions of the story --mostly AP, the rest blog-type
comments, not original reporting that is out there now. It seems the
resistance to it has yet to collapse, although the AP having
"legitimized" the item makes that pretty much a foregone conclusion. One
thing is that, realistically, unless the Media Matters we post was noted
immediately, only a few outlets, like the 24-hour news nets and wire
services, would have had the staff on hand to work on this in the early
evening or later when it came to their attention.

Joaqu?n
Joaquín Bustelo
2005-08-23 16:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Godena: "this is National Enquirer stuff."

Par for the course for Godena to simply dismiss attacks on Latinos as
non-existent or unimportant.

It's the same racist attitude we saw in his statements about
undocumented immigrants.

Pat Robertson is not simply a religious figure. He's a political leader,
founder of the Christian Coalition, which is a major force in the
Republican Party; adviser and confidant of presidents, including the
current occupant of the White House; and former Republican candidate for
President. He is a major figure in U.S. public life.

His "700 Club" show on CBN is a major source of news and commentary on
current events for millions of people in the United States. His concerns
and those of CBN are overwhelming political, social and cultural, and
only incidentally religious.

That he targets Ch?vez now is not accidental. Just last week Rummy was
visiting several Latin American capitals trying to scare up a
counter-coalition to the anti-imperialist united front that Ch?vez is
putting together with the backing of Fidel and at least partial
cooperation from other regional leaders (as well as enthusiastic support
from virtually the entire Latin American Left). His statements reflect
the evolution of at least a wing of people in ruling class circles on
the Bolivarian Revolution.

Just yesterday, the state owned Venezuelan petroleum company opened
offices in Beijing. Deliveries this year are averaging 5 times what they
were last year, and Venezuelan officials talk hopefully that they can
get purchases increased to 300,000 barrels a day, which would mean
roughly a super tanker a week. At current world prices, that represents
an income to Venezuela of tens of billions of dollars a year.

Chavez has said that if the U.S. attacks Venezuela, Washington can just
forget about Venezuelan oil, which even at today's somewhat reduced
levels represent 10% of the country's overall supply, and a much larger
percentage of the regional markets Venezuela supplies, and which are not
so easily replaced, because refineries need to be adapted and fine-tuned
for the kind of petroleum they are processing. Through the alliances he
is fostering with other Latin American countries around creating an
integrated vertical Latin American petroleum industry that freezes out
the imperialist cartel and diversification of markets (China), he is
positioning the Bolivarian Revolution to be able to respond to an
aggression in that way.

Pat Robertson didn't go into details, but he undoubtedly knew what he
spoke of when he had his program lead with a headline saying that Chavez
represented a much greater threat than Fidel ever did and when he
personally said that Chavez has the capacity to do the U.S. great harm.
Robertson indicated as much by unexplained comment that he didn't think
the oil shipments to the U.S. would stop if the U.S. carried out the
covert assassination of the Venezuelan leader.

Joaqu?n
Louis R Godena
2005-08-23 18:55:15 UTC
Permalink
From: "Joaqu?n Bustelo" <jbustelo at bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: [Marxism] Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo
Chavez
Post by Joaquín Bustelo
Godena: "this is National Enquirer stuff."
Par for the course for Godena to simply dismiss attacks on Latinos as
non-existent or unimportant.
It's the same racist attitude we saw in his statements about
undocumented immigrants.
Joaquin;

Pat Robertson has about as much influence on US foreign policy as Jerry
Springer and Oprah Winfrey, two others with mass television followings.
When he ran for President in 1988, he rarely rose above 5% in the Republican
primaries. He has about as much credibility as a policy-maker as Alan
Keyes and Gary Bauer. These and other personalities on the Christian Right
are promoted by CNN and the New York chiefly for their value to the defense
of Israel. Their influence on foreign policy is nil. Domestic policy is
another matter, but even here the influence of the Christian Right is
limited; witness the compromise afoot in the US Senate over stem cell
research.

Joaquin, I don't know which medium you happen to work in, but it should not
take you eight paragraphs to lay out your case. American attempts to rid
itself of Chavez go back at least as far as the aborted coup of April 2002,
long before Venezuela proposed increase in oil sales to China (supposedly
five-fold by 2012).

The rest of your post is just crap.

Louis G
Walter Lippmann
2005-08-23 17:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Listen to and see Robertson call for the
assassination of Hugo Chavez.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/http://www.beathustler.com/radio.html>
(I found it did not work on Firefox, but did on Internet Explorer)

IMPORTANT: Here on MSNBC there is a poll asking
"Did Robertson go too far?" which everyone can answer.
Charles Brown
2005-08-23 19:03:55 UTC
Permalink
This statement by Robertson is fascist.

Charles
Joaquín Bustelo
2005-08-24 02:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Godena writes about Pat Robertson, "These and other personalities on the
Christian Right
are promoted by CNN and the New York chiefly for their value to the
defense of Israel."

Does anyone detect a whiff of anti-semitism in these parts? Wasn't
"Times," as in New York Times, official organ of the elders of Zion to
some, the missing word after New York in that sentence?

BTW, for the latest on the yellow peril, combined with a completely
muddleheaded and profoundly *ignorant* commentary on socalled
"intellectual property rights," check out Godena's blog, where he
succeeds in a) completely swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the lies of
the bourgeois imperialist monopolies b) making a complete hash of
distinctions between copyrights and trademarks, bourgeois patents and
feudal patens, all tacked together with toxic racism like "China's
civilization is in fact inseparable from its state" and "So China
steals, or copies.... the country still has a huge problem sustaining a
stream of innovations."

Ignorance, arrogance and stupidity in a single, tidy package. Admirable
economy.

* * *

On the substance of the point that Mr. Godena decided to attack me on,
his claim that Robertson was a nobody who should and would be ignored,
I'll adduce just one piece of evidence: the top of the state department
briefing today was devoted to denying that Robertson was speaking for
the administration.

Joaqu?n
Louis R Godena
2005-08-24 03:15:41 UTC
Permalink
It is people like Mr Bustelo who most eloquently recall Gore Vidal's dictum
that "journalism, like politics, has always been the choice of the ambitious
but lazy second-rater." If his posts here are an example of the kind of
journalism he produces, then Mr Bustelo has scant room to criticize the work
of others.

He assures us that the Pat Robertson story is significant because it
allegedly led off today's State Department briefing. I've seen State
Department briefings that led off with a discussion of Angelie Jolie's trip
to Cambodia or chuckling references to Jim Guckert/Jeff Gannon's all male
nude website when he was promoted as a bona fide blogger/journalist at the
White House. Where is this Pat Robertson story going to lead? Nowhere.
And that's all I was saying.

Mr Bustelo pretends to be the last word in what constitutes news of import
in our nation but can't even read and understand plain English. Yes, I did
in fact mean the New York *Times* in my post earlier, and any damn fool --
even Joaquin Bustelo -- can readily ascertain that I am rather fond of the
Chinese revolution, although somewhat perplexed at times by the always
fascinating, always unpredictable turns that revolution has always taken.
And I am quite proud of my blog
(http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/marxisminternational) though, like anything
else, it can stand improvement.

But what concerns me most about Mr Bustelo is this implicit assumption that
because he is a Latino intellectual he has some special insight into
politics that others lack. I am Native American (Passumoquoddy). As an
early "victim" of American malfeasance whose people still suffer the effects
of several hundred years of colonization, am I entitled to claim a special
insight that others must defer to in silence. Of course not. It is a
person's class position that matters. Mr Bustelo is no better than anyone
else. I am not sure he has told us where he works or what he has done, but
that is always helpful. My history, good and bad, is quite transparent.
Let people judge for themselves, without the name-calling and nit-picking
that seems to characterize so much of Mr Bustelo's efforts.

Louis G



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joaqu?n Bustelo" <jbustelo at bellsouth.net>
To: "'Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition'"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Marxism] Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo
Chavez
Post by Joaquín Bustelo
Godena writes about Pat Robertson, "These and other personalities on the
Christian Right
are promoted by CNN and the New York chiefly for their value to the
defense of Israel."
Does anyone detect a whiff of anti-semitism in these parts? Wasn't
"Times," as in New York Times, official organ of the elders of Zion to
some, the missing word after New York in that sentence?
BTW, for the latest on the yellow peril, combined with a completely
muddleheaded and profoundly *ignorant* commentary on socalled
"intellectual property rights," check out Godena's blog, where he
succeeds in a) completely swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the lies of
the bourgeois imperialist monopolies b) making a complete hash of
distinctions between copyrights and trademarks, bourgeois patents and
feudal patens, all tacked together with toxic racism like "China's
civilization is in fact inseparable from its state" and "So China
steals, or copies.... the country still has a huge problem sustaining a
stream of innovations."
Ignorance, arrogance and stupidity in a single, tidy package. Admirable
economy.
* * *
On the substance of the point that Mr. Godena decided to attack me on,
his claim that Robertson was a nobody who should and would be ignored,
I'll adduce just one piece of evidence: the top of the state department
briefing today was devoted to denying that Robertson was speaking for
the administration.
Joaqu?n
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Jon Flanders
2005-08-24 15:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis R Godena
He assures us that the Pat Robertson story is significant because it
allegedly led off today's State Department briefing. I've seen State
Department briefings that led off with a discussion of Angelie Jolie's
trip to Cambodia or chuckling references to Jim Guckert/Jeff Gannon's
all male nude website when he was promoted as a bona fide
blogger/journalist at the White House. Where is this Pat Robertson
story going to lead? Nowhere. And that's all I was saying.
Louis, I really think you ought to reassess your take on this. Pretty
much across the board the Robertson statement is regarded as
significant. "Democracy Now" spent most of it's time today discussing
it.

That State Department and Pentagon briefings have their lighter moments
is irrelevant in this case.

Its all about building a consensus at the rightist core for going after
Venezuela, which is rapidly becoming a huge problem for Washington. So
much so that the only countries Rumsfeld could visit in Latin America
were Paraguay and Peru.

And it is also about creating a political atmosphere in the US for
political violence against dissenters.

Like it or not, Robertson has a huge constituency that is key to the
Bush political base. You know as well as I do that in the more
conservative regions of the white working class where we spend our work
time, this sort of rhetoric is red meat for the dinosaurs of the break
room. We need to take them on directly, not duck the issue by dismissing
Robertson as a kook.

I would also like to remind the Godena bashers on the list that he
happens to be someone with some influence on his job site. I would hope
that we might seek to change his thinking, rather than simply try to
drive him off the list every time we have a disagreement.

Jon Flanders
Louis Proyect
2005-08-24 15:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Flanders
I would also like to remind the Godena bashers on the list that he
happens to be someone with some influence on his job site. I would hope
that we might seek to change his thinking, rather than simply try to
drive him off the list every time we have a disagreement.
Jon Flanders
I went back through the archives trying to figure out why things got so
nasty so fast. I am quite sure that when Louis threw this in--"I don't know
where Joaquin works, but this is National Enquirer stuff"--it was not
helpful. This didn't add anything of substance to his post, but merely
served as a way of needling Joaquin. My strong suggestion to Louis is to
lay off this kind of thing. His politics are heterodox enough to get people
on edge without throwing in this kind of taunt.



--

www.marxmail.org
Louis R Godena
2005-08-24 15:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Hi Lou;

So it's okay for Mr Bustelo to accuse me of anti-Semitism and having a
hard-on for hispanics and immigrants, but I mention the National Enquirer (a
purely apt analogy, to boot), and *I* need to lay off?

Louis G

*Christ, almost forgot to erase the superfluities!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo
Chavez
Post by Jon Flanders
I would also like to remind the Godena bashers on the list that he
happens to be someone with some influence on his job site. I would hope
that we might seek to change his thinking, rather than simply try to
drive him off the list every time we have a disagreement.
Louis R Godena
2005-08-24 15:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jon;

Actually, working nights gives me more time for this blogging and internet
business. I am finishing up a turbine job at a plant outside of Boston and
move on to Portland, Maine from there. How have you been?

I brought up the State Department briefings because Mr Bustelo implied that
whatever led them off provides irrefutable evidence of that story's
importance. This morning, I watched all of the cable news shows (Imus on
MSNBC, American Morning on CNN, Fox & [Fascist] Friends, etc). On each,
the Robertson thing was *mentioned* at the top of the hour, but stories like
Olivia Newton-John's missing boyfriend received in-depth treatment before
the looney evangelical, and even then his tenure was very very brief,
consisting mostly of the usual incredulity and fake outrage in which our
media specializes.

Moreover, Chavez himself says it's no big deal. He knows Bush, Reich,
Rumsfeld, Abrams, *et al* have said that much and worse on many, many
occasions, and in all probability have set in motion plans to get him out of
the way for real. For the life of me I can't see what the big deal is.

If anything, this story represents anything (I don't know if Mr Bustelo does
any actual reporting; like many rrrevolutionaries on this list, he is quite
circumspect about his real activities, other than to lay claim to some
special moral worth because of his ethnicity), but it could be written up as
an introduction to a story on the decline of American "soft power"
throughout the developing world. This is where the inaugaral stage of the
China/Us conflict is being played out, and it is a story that is grotesquely
under-reported.

Now, if we can tear Mr Bustelo away from Jerry Springer and Pat Robertson
and his "red meat" entourage, maybe we could get him to cover something
*really* important:-)

Louis G

Good to hear from you, Jon!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Flanders" <jonflanders at jflan.net>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo
Chavez
Post by Jon Flanders
Louis, I really think you ought to reassess your take on this. Pretty
much across the board the Robertson statement is regarded as
Jon Flanders
2005-08-24 16:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis R Godena
Moreover, Chavez himself says it's no big deal. He knows Bush,
Reich, Rumsfeld, Abrams, *et al* have said that much and worse on
many, many occasions, and in all probability have set in motion plans
to get him out of the way for real. For the life of me I can't see
what the big deal is.
Well yes, for Chavez its no big deal because he knows exactly what he is
up against. But it is a big deal for us because we should certainly know
by now that the ruling class is out to create a climate of fear and
violence that will let them get away with a Chavez assassination
without much political cost to them here. Not to mention using violence
against dissent here as well.

I'm fine, working days with weekdays off which is why you hear more from
me mid-week.

Oh, and as for Joaquin, he does indeed work for an important news
organization which is why he must be careful. I value his contributions
very much, hope everyone can stay cool. Please.

Jon
Louis Proyect
2005-08-24 17:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Flanders
Oh, and as for Joaquin, he does indeed work for an important news
organization which is why he must be careful. I value his contributions
very much, hope everyone can stay cool. Please.
Jon
Let me add one thing. I have enormous respect for Louis Godena as
communist, as I do for his colleague Adolfo Olaechea. When Adolfo was
arrested in Spain, I made sure to keep the list apprised of his situation.
However, we are in a new period of Marxism on the Internet. We have learned
to adopt a civil and measured tone, even when it goes against our grain. In
the lists that preceded this one, I was known as one of the worst
flame-artists around. But when I became moderator of Marxmail, I had to
rein myself in. Even Joaquin was removed from the list a few years ago when
he flamed somebody, a Morenoite I believe. Nobody is above the rules we
have established. One of the reasons I value Les as a co-moderator (this is
really what he is, despite his title of technical coordinator). He was
never trained in sectarian polemics, only astrophysics. He keeps an eye on
me as well as the stars.

--

www.marxmail.org
rrubinelli
2005-08-24 03:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Here's my bet-- I bet if you follow the money you will find that
Robertson has extensive ties with the shadow govt, and the bankrollers
of the shadow govt of religious/business right that are so important to
Bush... and I bet if you follow the money, you will find that Robertson
has considerable money ties into Latin America, maybe even energy
investments, maybe landholdings.

rr


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joaqu?n Bustelo" <jbustelo at bellsouth.net>
To: "'Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition'"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Marxism] Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo
Chavez
John Enyang
2005-08-24 08:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joaquín Bustelo
Ignorance, arrogance and stupidity in a single, tidy package. Admirable
economy.
Which is why I'm surprised that you read it at all.
JE
Wayne S. Rossi
2005-08-24 15:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis R Godena
Moreover, Chavez himself says it's no big deal. He knows Bush,
Reich, Rumsfeld, Abrams, *et al* have said that much and worse on
many, many occasions, and in all probability have set in motion plans
to get him out of the way for real. For the life of me I can't see
what the big deal is.
The Robertson story is important for two reasons, which are intimately
linked. On the one hand, it's bringing Venezuela into the overall
discourse in a way that provides a good chance for Marxists to defend
it (if not as an incipient workers' state, then at least as a
progressive state worth defending). On the other, it reveals the
transparently political and imperialist character of evangelical
Christianity, which is a strong propagandist weapon in American
culture. If Robertson can be played as an insane fundamentalist
issuing fatwas on foreign leaders he doesn't like, it is part of a
much-needed discrediting of many supposed religious figures who
cheerlead for imperialism and capitalism.

So the big deal is - Robertson, in trying to shore up anti-Venezuelan
sentiment for a future CIA or military action, overshot and gave
ammunition and an opening to fire back at him. It should be taken.

-Wayne S. Rossi

--------------------------------
Views and Commentary:
http://minitrue.info/blog/
Louis R Godena
2005-08-24 16:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Hi Wayne;

Well, yes, it does add another piece to the emerging portrait of an American
administration in disarray.

But, I don't think it necessarily subtracts from Robertson's stock among his
followers. They are, presumably, already familiar with his statements
about permissive parents, atheists and same-sex sexers being responsible for
911. And wasn't he the one who claimed that God had "ordained" GWB? I
mean, how can a statement extolling the violent demise of a "communist" and
oil baron hurt him among his followers? On the contrary, I am sure it has
enhanced his standing among the rank-and-file evangelical who hates, HATES
liberals and left-wing intellectuals.

And they have a point, as Dick Lewontin points out; there *is* a class
awareness that people on the Left talk the talk but won't walk the walk.
The lower middle class (which provide most of the foot soldiers for the
Christian Right) feels so disenfranchised and so alienated and so left out,
it is an easy matter to channel this resentment toward the people who look
down their nose at them. College-educated affluent liberals who enjoy
degrees of security quite foreign to the imagination of the average blue
collar worker or laborer can never hope to win allies among the latter until
they learn how to speak to them on their own terms. Shrill, hypocritical
denunciations issuing from a despised "elite" of someone these people look
upon as one of their own simply won't work and any political "victories" won
on this level will I believe prove to be pyrrhic ones.

Again, I think the real story here is the undermining of the shibboleth of
the "world's lone superpower", exposing as it does the deep fault lines in
American society and the Bush regime's relationship to the wider world.
*That's* the story I think we should be pursuing.

And that's about all I have to say on this thread.

Louis G




----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne S. Rossi" <felianan at yahoo.com
Post by Wayne S. Rossi
The Robertson story is important for two reasons, which are intimately
linked. On the one hand, it's bringing Venezuela into the overall
discourse in a way that provides a good chance for Marxists to defend
it (if not as an incipient workers' state, then at least as a
progressive state worth defending). On the other, it reveals the
transparently political and imperialist character of evangelical
Christianity, which is a strong propagandist weapon in American
culture. If Robertson can be played as an insane fundamentalist
issuing fatwas on foreign leaders he doesn't like, it is part of a
much-needed discrediting of many supposed religious figures who
cheerlead for imperialism and capitalism.
So the big deal is - Robertson, in trying to shore up anti-Venezuelan
sentiment for a future CIA or military action, overshot and gave
ammunition and an opening to fire back at him. It should be taken.
Jim Farmelant
2005-08-24 17:16:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:49:58 -0400 Jon Flanders <jonflanders at jflan.net>
Post by Jon Flanders
Post by Louis R Godena
Moreover, Chavez himself says it's no big deal. He knows Bush,
Reich, Rumsfeld, Abrams, *et al* have said that much and worse on
many, many occasions, and in all probability have set in motion
plans
Post by Louis R Godena
to get him out of the way for real. For the life of me I can't
see
Post by Louis R Godena
what the big deal is.
It's a big deal, in that Pat Robertson dared to talk openly
about killing Chavez on television. He certainly didn't
say anything that wasn't already on the minds of Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, but that's not the sort of
thing for them to talk about in public. For them,
the idea is to do the deed, without talking about
it, thereby preserving a modicum of deniability.
That way if Chavez were to be assassinated,
the Bushies can publicly express their regrets
while maintaining that he had it "coming to him"
for being a commie. Pat Robertson's loose
talk makes it harder for the Bushies to follow
such a scenario. Now,
if Chavez were to be assassinated, all eyes
would look to the US and the Bush Administration,
with considerable damage to US prestige.

As a rich and powerful religious leader, Pat
Robertson is a figure that the ruling class
has to take seriously, but from their perspective,
he is very much a loose cannon, who hurts
them as much as he helps them.
Post by Jon Flanders
Well yes, for Chavez its no big deal because he knows exactly what
he is
up against. But it is a big deal for us because we should certainly
know
by now that the ruling class is out to create a climate of fear and
violence that will let them get away with a Chavez assassination
without much political cost to them here. Not to mention using
violence
against dissent here as well.
I would agree that the US ruling class is seeking to
create a climate of fear. But Robertson's sort of loose
talk is counterproductive from the standpoint of
the ruling class, since it would make it harder
for the US to get away with assassinating Chavez.
The idea is that they would prefer to have him
assassinated in such a way so that the US can
maintain deniability. For the US to be openly
linked and implicated in such a crime can
only do damage to US diplomatic interests.
Post by Jon Flanders
I'm fine, working days with weekdays off which is why you hear more
from
me mid-week.
Oh, and as for Joaquin, he does indeed work for an important news
organization which is why he must be careful. I value his
contributions
very much, hope everyone can stay cool. Please.
Jon
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Eli Stephens
2005-08-24 17:25:41 UTC
Permalink
It is also a big deal because, despite calls from the Venezuelan government,
the U.S. government has yet to denounce Robertson's remarks (contrary to the
impression one gets from some media reports and headlines, as I discuss at
length here:
<http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_lefti_archive.html#112485368106634690>).

Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
Steven L. Robinson
2005-08-24 17:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Technically you are wrong on that. The State Department, I understand, did. Rumsfeld dismissed it (denounce is certainly too strong on that). The White House, however, has been silent on the subject. SR
-------------- Original message --------------
Post by Eli Stephens
It is also a big deal because, despite calls from the Venezuelan government,
the U.S. government has yet to denounce Robertson's remarks (contrary to the
impression one gets from some media reports and headlines, as I discuss at
).
Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
Eli Stephens
2005-08-24 17:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Steven L. Robinson wrote:

"Technically you are wrong on that. The State Department, I understand,
did."

No, you fell for it, I'm afraid. Don't take my word for it, take AP's word
(the one news outlet who reported the story correctly: "State Department
spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks about Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez 'inappropriate,' but stopped short of condemning
them."

As I wrote on my blog, "inappropriate" is wearing a light suit to a
"black-tie optional" affair; calling something "inappropriate" doesn't
remotely qualify as a "denunciation."

Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
xxxx
2005-08-24 17:53:38 UTC
Permalink
While the US government says that Pat Robertson's inability to hold is tongue is "inappropriate", the Old Testament of the Bible has more to tell us about the conduct of the pious preacher. So, because it is important to also read the ideology of the enemy, comrades ought to borrow a copy and read James chapter 3 verses 5-10.

Best,

Moses




---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Charles Brown
2005-08-24 21:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Jim Farmelant
-clip-

I would agree that the US ruling class is seeking to
create a climate of fear. But Robertson's sort of loose
talk is counterproductive from the standpoint of
the ruling class, since it would make it harder
for the US to get away with assassinating Chavez.
The idea is that they would prefer to have him
assassinated in such a way so that the US can
maintain deniability. For the US to be openly
linked and implicated in such a crime can
only do damage to US diplomatic interests.

^^^^^

CB: My vote is for us to pay some attention to the Robertson thing, and put
some effort into keeping it a public story. Our audience is those U.S.ers
who are in formative stages of development of political consciousness, and
may be significant in impacting U.S. foreign policy in the future.

As someone pointed out elsewhere, the Venezuelan revolution and the
Bolivarian movement cannot be easily characterized as undemocratic in the
way that socialist revolutions and liberations of the past have. Chavez and
his comrades have won elections (certified by Jimmy Carter and partners),
have no political prisoners, have not closed hostile media. Robertson does
us a favor by jamming Venezuela of today into the U.S. public conscious,
which otherwise would be as ignorant of it as it is of most foreign
countries. It is a favor he does us, because Venezuela is so "clean" in
terms of the standard U.S. demogogy about democracy vs. dicatorship.
Roberston has actually exposed himself as a fascist for anyone who is at all
honest in looking at Venezuela and Chavez, because such a person would have
to say, what's undemocratic or wrong about what they are doing ?

I notice that just about all the official U.S. responses are distancing
themselves from Robertson's statement. There was a CIA agent on CNN. He had
me convinced (almost) that such is against CIA policy, he was so definite in
criticizing Robertson. There were three people interviewed, the CIA agent,
Robert Barr , a rightwing ex-Congressman, and some liberal. Only Barr said,
the President should have the option of assassinations,but even Barr said it
was not ok to call for the assassination of Chavez. Basically, all three
opposed Robertson's statement.
Rumsfeld said something like "no this would be against our policy."

I think this is big screwup by Robertson , and we want it to stay alive in
the news. It should be used to get as many people as possible to take a
closer look at the Venezuela of today.
Jon Flanders
2005-08-24 21:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Brown
I think this is big screwup by Robertson , and we want it to stay
alive in the news. It should be used to get as many people as possible
to take a closer look at the Venezuela of today.
I don't agree that this was simply a"big screwup" by Robertson. Notice
that it was timed to come out when Chavez was in Cuba visiting Castro.
So the Chavez reaction brought this visit and the close relationship
into the limelight.

Just because the mainstream media tut-tuts about Robertson doesn't mean
that the right wing Bush base does. They are being deliberately revved
up for what is to come.

Jon Flanders
Jim Farmelant
2005-08-24 21:38:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:14:28 -0400 Jon Flanders <jonflanders at jflan.net>
Post by Joaquín Bustelo
Post by Charles Brown
I think this is big screwup by Robertson , and we want it to stay
alive in the news. It should be used to get as many people as
possible
Post by Charles Brown
to take a closer look at the Venezuela of today.
I don't agree that this was simply a"big screwup" by Robertson.
Notice
that it was timed to come out when Chavez was in Cuba visiting
Castro.
So the Chavez reaction brought this visit and the close relationship
into the limelight.
Just because the mainstream media tut-tuts about Robertson doesn't
mean
that the right wing Bush base does. They are being deliberately
revved
up for what is to come.
If that's the case, then they miscalculated. Robertson's
remarks make it harder for the US government to take the kind
of action against Chavez that they would clearly
love to take. Right now, it's Robertson's remarks
that are the big story, not Chavez's visit to Cuba.
His remarks, I think, have made it less likely
that Chavez will suffer direct harm from the US.
Post by Joaquín Bustelo
Jon Flanders
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
xxxx
2005-08-25 01:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Correction:
I am sorry to refer you to the Old Testament on the Pat Robertson's story. It should have been the "New Testament" and not the "Old", where you can find the passage in James 3.5-10.

Regards.

Moses


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Eric Johnson
2005-08-25 15:32:06 UTC
Permalink
I would say this plays well for bot the US government and Venezuela, The Us government can say "oh that Robertson is a little nutty, but who is this Chavez?" Why would he say this? well he is a dangerous dictator who sits on a lot of our oil that we have to take care of."
If the whole statement by Robertson is played in Latin America, which i am sure it is. It will do nothing but help Chavez, with all the talk of sphere of influence, natural resources and the monroe doctrine. As an aside, once again Hitchens has made unbelievable thing about chavez calling him a dangerous demagoge populist who cozies up to islamists!

Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:


On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:49:58 -0400 Jon Flanders
Post by Jon Flanders
Moreover, Chavez himself says it's no big deal. He knows Bush,
Reich, Rumsfeld, Abrams, *et al* have said that much and worse on
many, many occasions, and in all probability have set in motion
plans
to get him out of the way for real. For the life of me I can't
see
what the big deal is.
It's a big deal, in that Pat Robertson dared to talk openly
about killing Chavez on television. He certainly didn't
say anything that wasn't already on the minds of Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, but that's not the sort of
thing for them to talk about in public. For them,
the idea is to do the deed, without talking about
it, thereby preserving a modicum of deniability.
That way if Chavez were to be assassinated,
the Bushies can publicly express their regrets
while maintaining that he had it "coming to him"
for being a commie. Pat Robertson's loose
talk makes it harder for the Bushies to follow
such a scenario. Now,
if Chavez were to be assassinated, all eyes
would look to the US and the Bush Administration,
with considerable damage to US prestige.

As a rich and powerful religious leader, Pat
Robertson is a figure that the ruling class
has to take seriously, but from their perspective,
he is very much a loose cannon, who hurts
them as much as he helps them.
Post by Jon Flanders
Well yes, for Chavez its no big deal because he knows exactly what
he is
up against. But it is a big deal for us because we should certainly
know
by now that the ruling class is out to create a climate of fear and
violence that will let them get away with a Chavez assassination
without much political cost to them here. Not to mention using
violence
against dissent here as well.
I would agree that the US ruling class is seeking to
create a climate of fear. But Robertson's sort of loose
talk is counterproductive from the standpoint of
the ruling class, since it would make it harder
for the US to get away with assassinating Chavez.
The idea is that they would prefer to have him
assassinated in such a way so that the US can
maintain deniability. For the US to be openly
linked and implicated in such a crime can
only do damage to US diplomatic interests.
Post by Jon Flanders
I'm fine, working days with weekdays off which is why you hear more
from
me mid-week.
Oh, and as for Joaquin, he does indeed work for an important news
organization which is why he must be careful. I value his
contributions
very much, hope everyone can stay cool. Please.
Jon
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Charles Brown
2005-08-25 18:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Eric Johnson :
I would say this plays well for bot the US government and Venezuela, The Us
government can say "oh that Robertson is a little nutty, but who is this
Chavez?" Why would he say this? well he is a dangerous dictator who sits on
a lot of our oil that we have to take care of."

^^^^
CB: Of course, the U.S. lie-machine has and will call Chavez a dictator. But
at least some people (USers) will pay attention and learn that Chavez has
won about three legit. elections, that there are no media shutdowns or
political prisoners; and ask, "how is he a dictator ? "

Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez' (newsgroups and mailing lists)
17
replies
From the Messiah to the 144,000 and the 200 million of the 12 tribes of Israel. On Jewish science.On the Global Holocaust of the Gentiles (Idolaters / Usuryists / Christians). The secrets of dephypotising humanity (Jewish science). To the Seven Servants of war. On the end of the Matrix (hypnotist's confusion). The Breaking of the Seven Seals. The Triumph of Free Will. Revelation: All Egyptian Ritualists (Freemasons / Usuryists) must be executed immediately or nuclear guerrilla war against the First World is inevitable. On the Final Jewish War. VER II
started 2005-08-27 08:49:20 UTC
alt.religion.unification
17
replies
From the Messiah to the 144,000 and the 200 million of the 12 tribes of Israel. On Jewish science.On the Global Holocaust of the Gentiles (Idolaters / Usuryists / Christians). The secrets of dephypotising humanity (Jewish science). To the Seven Servants of war. On the end of the Matrix (hypnotist's confusion). The Breaking of the Seven Seals. The Triumph of Free Will. Revelation: All Egyptian Ritualists (Freemasons / Usuryists) must be executed immediately or nuclear guerrilla war against the First World is inevitable. On the Final Jewish War. VER II
started 2005-08-27 08:49:20 UTC
alt.psychology.personality
64
replies
Televangelist Calls for Venezuelan President's Assassination
started 2005-08-23 12:40:32 UTC
alt.politics.liberalism
8
replies
Muslims must have the right to incite violence: A Pagan Anarchist response.
started 2006-02-07 14:05:37 UTC
us.military
8
replies
Muslims must have the right to incite violence: A Pagan Anarchist response.
started 2006-02-07 14:05:37 UTC
alt.religion.unification
Loading...