IN DEFENSE OF PAT ROBERTSON ...

Let me first start this blog entry by saying that I believe what Pat Robertson said in advocating the assassination of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was unwise. Pat Robertson should not have publicly called for that action.

Having said that … were I advising President Bush on what to do about the Venezuelan situation – my position might be a little different. Feel free to read between the lines.

Liberal pundits are screaming to high heavens this morning about Pat Robertson and claiming that he’s just a “Christian version” of the radical Islamofascist clerics who advocate violence against “infidels”. We must, therefore, condemn Pat Robertson for saying these things or we are no better than the Islamofascists who are waging war against us.

First, let me say that I wish the Main Stream Media (MSM) was as concerned about Islamofascist hate speech as they appear to be about Pat Robertson’s one comment the other day. But the fact is, Pat Robertson’s comments have gotten far more attention from the MSM than all of the hateful comments that Islamofascists have made in the last four years. And that’s just a fact.

But if they wish to compare Pat Robertson to the Islamofascists – I’ll play.

First, Islamofascist hate speech is peppered with endorsement of violence against men, women, and children. Islamofascists routinely defend the killing of the innocent in their Jihad to bring about a one-world Caliphate under Islamic rule. A Caliphate that proudly places the rule of Islam not only over Baghdad – but over Boise, Idaho as well. They vocally endorse any act of violence, in fact all acts of violence, to achieve these ends. No action, no matter how despicable it may be to civilized conscience, is off limits in achieving this goal.

So what about Pat Robertson? Did he advocate likewise? Absolutely not. Robertson simply advocated the assassination of a Venezuelan dictator who is in cahoots with the Islamofascists that seek to bring about the downfall of the United States. Robertson merely advocated violence against a man who is – far from an innocent bystander – in the Global War on Terror. Robertson advocated violence against a man who has blood on his own hands. Robertson advocated a single act of violence aimed at a man who calls Saddam Hussein a “brother” and wants to help Iranians develop nuclear weapons.

So there is NO comparison between Pat Robertson and the Islamofascists.

Even so, how could Pat Robertson – a Christian – advocate killing a foreign head of state?

Very simple – Pat Robertson is one of the growing numbers of people in this nation that recognize that we are in a global struggle against forces that would destroy us. He recognizes that if we don’t get aboard to fight these forces – then we, as a nation, are doomed.

It amazes me today, even after 9-11, most Americans are still plugged into the “Matrix”. Most of us go about our day to day lives in complete oblivion that we are in a fight for our lives here – and the situation is growing more and more desperate everyday.

Most of us realize we are at war – but we still cling to the notion that we can win this war without compromising ANY of our principles. And to that end – even things like “light” torture of a terrorist to gain information about an impending attack – are off limits. And certainly, we maintain that violence against a foriegn head of state is off limits - even if that head of state is a dictator committed to our destruction.

But ...

Ask any cancer surgeon and he or she will tell you … if the cancer is caught early, there is a very good prognosis even using very simple, benign treatment methods and non-invasive techniques.

But as the cancer spreads, as the patient’s condition becomes more and more desperate, radical, invasive techniques suddenly become an option – indeed, the ONLY option.

Now I’ve said this before – we are in a global fight for our right to exist. The Islamofascists are a cancer that, if allowed to spread – will consume us whole. This cancer is NOT in an early stage – it has metastasized – and it may be well beyond “non-invasive” techniques to destroy it.

And that is what Pat Robertson was trying to say the other night.

Of course, the Cindy Al Sheehani’s out there will claim that Hugo Chavez didn’t attack us on 9-11. And of course – they’d be right.

However, Hugo Chavez is a part of the Global War on Terror – and **News Flash!** -- he’s not on our side. Quite the contrary, he’s thrown his chips in with the Islamofascists who seek to destroy us.

He also controls a large amount of oil down there in Venezuela folks – oil that he’s threatened to cut off from the United States.

Now, I’m sure that everyone has noticed gas prices lately – so you know we have a problem with supply. I don’t care about gas prices though – not in the least.

I DO care about our armed forces though. The fact is, our armed forces consume so much oil that it’s practically pornographic. We **MIGHT** not have had to consume as much today if, in the early stages of this cancer – the government had been allowed to expand nuclear power programs for it’s shipbuilding without being molested by the “Greens”. That didn’t happen though – so our ships must now consume tremendous amounts of oil just to fight the GWOT. And the lack of oil has already impacted our forces. Ships returning from deployment are now foregoing some critical training at sea in order to save gas for our fighting forces. However, that’s grinding up our “seed corn” – because eventually those ships and crews have to deploy again into the GWOT and they have to do so at a lower level of training.

The same is happening with our AIR FORCES and our LAND FORCES. Training missions are being scrubbed in order to conserve fuel. This hasn’t impacted our fighting forces as much – just yet. But if the oil supply is “pinched” – it soon will. You think we are losing Soldiers and Marines in Iraq right now – you haven’t seen anything even resembling the losses we’ll take if we have to start grounding their air support and shutting down armored cavalry due to lack of fuel.

This is an “organic” war we’re fighting here folks – a malfunction in one organ impacts the function of another organ – and the result is a chain reaction of grave consequences for the patient.

So, it’s fine I guess, to insist that we will not compromise even a single one of our principles while we fight this GWOT. It’s not, in my opinion, very smart to do that though. We will not stop this cancer by using “non-invasive”, “benign” procedures – it’s too advanced. We may slow it’s growth – but in the end we will simply be passing the real dirty work off to our children who, when faced with complete annihilation – will have to make a choice between survival and even more drastic compromises of principle than we are faced with today.

It’s our choice. We can make the decision to commit to fighting this war with the knowledge that we may have to get our hands dirty and compromise some of our “lightly” held principles. Or we can punt the decision down to our children – who by then will have to compromise MUCH more in order to survive.

This is what Pat Robertson realizes.

Again, I don’t advocate violence against Hugo Chavez – even as dirty as his hands are. However, again – were I an advisor to President Bush, my position on that might be different if it appeared that Chavez was beyond negotiations and was a clear and present danger to our ability to fight the Global War on Terror. I’m not convinced that he is just yet – but I’m not privy to all the information and realities of the situation. Pat Robertson is convinced that he’s seen enough though – and is convinced that we can’t negotiate with Chavez. He might be right.

Now, I’m a peaceful guy – really. And maybe I’m wrong on this – you decide. However, in a chess game – you have to think more than one move in advance. This “game” won’t be over when the Israeli’s evacuate the West Bank. It won’t be over when we install a Democratic government in Iraq and our troops leave. The Islamofascists aren’t going to let us off that easy because their goal is to destroy us. So some amongst us would be wise to consider what our move will be when that happens. Will we have the ability to even make a move then? We need to think about these things and have a plan. Perhaps we can play through this game “clean” – or perhaps we need to commit to the fact that we might have to get a little “dirty”. In either case, losing is not an option here. I think we can all agree on that.

With that said - if and when Chavez cuts the oil off - what move do YOU think we should make?