Statement by Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez On Pat Robertson Declarations
August 23, 2005
We would like [to] thank the American people for the support they have offered us in the wake of the Reverend Pat Robertson´s call for the murder of our President, Hugo Chávez. The messages of support have flooded our Embassy´s electronic and voice mails.
We are very disappointed with Pat Robertson´s statements over the Christian Broadcast Network. Mr. Robertson is of course no ordinary private citizen. He was a candidate for the GOP´s Presidential nomination in 1992. The organization that Mr. Robertson leads, the Christian Coalition, claims nearly 2 million members and has a multi million dollar a year budget. In 2000 it was credited with helping George W. Bush win the important South Carolina primary and catapulting him to the nomination of his party for President. Mr. Robertson has been one of this President´s staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House.
Mr. Robertson´s call that U.S. government covert operatives murder President Hugo Chávez is a call to terrorism. His call that President Bush violently impose the outdated Monroe Doctrine on Venezuela is a call for American intervention in the sovereign affairs of our democratic country.
The United States may not permit its citizens to use its territory and airwaves to incite terrorism abroad and the murder of a democratically elected President. Venezuela demands that the U.S. abide by international and domestic law and respect our country and its President.
Pat Robertson´s statement must be condemned in the strongest terms by the Bush Administration, and we are concerned about the safety of our President. It´s essential that the U.S. government guarantee his safety when he visits this country in the future, including his scheduled visits to the United Nations in New York.
From the messages we have received, it´s clear that Pat Robertson does not speak for Christians in the United States, nor even for the Christian Coalition, when he calls for the assassination of our President.
I can’t begin to imagine what Pat Robertson was thinking. Not only is assassination obscene, immoral, and contrary to U.S. law, it is no way to win friends or influence people.
The sad and apalling thing is that by the U.S. goverment’s very own logic, Venezuela should now regard the US as a terrorist nation: The U.S. have WMD, they refuse to cooperate with the UN or to obey international law (like the Geneva Convention), they don’t have a democratically-elected government, they have a track record of military intervention in sovereign nations, and they pose an imminent threat to Venezuela.
Tax exemption isn’t based on having a positive ideology. That said, I strongly suspect there is more than enough grounds to get Robertson on tax evasion, especially in the matter of building a very profitable commercial television network (the Family Channel) on funds raised as a non-profit organization (CBN).
“At the very least, Robertson should be charged under hate-speech laws. But such laws are weak in the United States, and many Americans fear the idea of hate-speech laws. So radio and television broadcasters continue spewing hate and dishonest claims in the exalted name of free speech.”
I don’t think Pat’s organization is incorporated as a church, but as a religious nonprofit organization.
What about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King? Wasn’t he engaged in politics?
But it isn’t the individual that’s tax exempt, it’s the organization. Pat Robertson has several organizations, some political, some religious, some educational.
When people expect me to apologize, and I do, I say “I made a mistake. It was wrong.”
When Pat Robertson makes a jerk of himself, what does he do? Reinterpret his comment so it could possibly be construed as other than his real intention. That’s the act of a coward covering his ass but it is not an apology.
What about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King? Wasn’t he engaged in politics?
Sure, and like Robertson he’s entitled. However, when he did so, he wasn’t or shouldn’t have been fundraising for an organization which claimed tax-free status as a church, as Robertson does in his broadcasting operation.
But it isn’t the individual that’s tax exempt, it’s the organization. Pat Robertson has several organizations, some political, some religious, some educational.
It’s his TV show we’re talking about, and that’s ostensibly a gbroadcast ministry. If he’s writing tax receipts to the folks who send in their cash–and I’m sure he is, the operation would be much less profitable without it–then he’s bound by the rules against churches politicking on the government dime.
Probably. If Robertson had the holy leverage he’d like to have, the angels would have already taken care of things at his behest. Sad to say he’s bound to the world as much as he is.
Mr. Robertson has apologized. He says he was misinterpreted - he didn’t say “assassination.” He said “our special forces should ‘take him out.’”
Susan
Susan, you need to read the entire transcript. Robertson talked specifically about how there was a concern in Venezuela about the US potentially assassinating Chavez and he said maybe we ought to do it.
For Robertson to claim he didn’t mean assassination is an outright lie in the context of the complete quote. He knows it, but he’s trying to crawl out of a hole he dug..
here’s the actual quote, i think it is pretty clear he talked about assassination:
“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.”