Pat Robertson is a Private Citizen!

I've been getting a kick out of the coverage of Pat Robertson's remarks concerning assassinating Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez. Lost in all of this is the fact that Pat Robertson is a private citizen, and has no sway in any foreign policy or military decision making at all. And he didn't exactly say "please Mr. President assassinate Chavez now" - as the media would like you to think. Here's what he said:

"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...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."

As far as I can tell, he was offering his personal opinion. And it's still ok to do that in the United States, I think. As to the propriety of a religious leader suggesting assassination, it's probably not the greatest idea. But if you think that any of the criticism in the media today is coming from an overwhelming sense of religious motivation, you've got another thought coming.

Soon I'll do a major post on Chavez, but let's just say the American public has not been given a real good look at Chavez by our media. This guy is a murderer and a thug. He 'won' re-election last year under questionable circumstances (although Jimmy Carter blessed it, of course). Immediately after his win, Chavez sent his minions out to systematically kill his opponent's organizers and supporters in various cities and towns across Venezuela. After which, guess what happened? Several Senators, including my own Lincoln Chafee, met with him to make nice. In fact, Chafee asked Secretary of State Rice, during her confirmation hearing, why we weren't being nicer to Chavez. Rice, to her credit, didn't rip Chafee to shreds at that cring-inducing moment.

And speaking of assassination, guess who was advocating assassination of another thug in 1997. None other than George Stephanopoulos. Jonah Goldberg has this tidbit over at NRO's The Corner:

"ASSASSINATION [Jonah Goldberg]

Pat Robertson? No....George Stephanopoulos, in the December 1, 1997 Newsweek, explaining why Bill Clinton should have Saddam Hussein offed:

But what's unlawful -- and unpopular with the allies -- is not necessarily immoral. So now that I'm not in the White House, I can say what I couldn't say then: we should seriously explore the assassination option. Even though the current crisis may be subsiding temporarily, we don't know what the future holds. A direct attack on Saddam would no doubt be politically risky -- the president, concerned about his place in history, would be torn between the desire to get rid of a bully and the worry that an assassination plan gone awry would embarrass him late in his term. But the president should think about it: the gulf-war coalition is teetering and we have not eliminated Saddam's capacity to inflict mass destruction. That's why killing him may be the more sensible -- and moral -- course over the long run."

So stop with the righteous indignation. If assassination isn't being considered against our enemies, it should be. It shouldn't be just willy-nilly, and must be part of a larger plan that includes regional stabilization, but it should be considered.