Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Why Not Assassinate Chavez?
By now, all Eternity Road readers have heard about Pat Robertson's breathtakingly direct suggestion concerning Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez. Fox News has opened the topic for discussion.
Your Curmudgeon can't see what all the foofaurauw is about. Chavez is a brutal dictator, he's steadily destroying the country he rules, and his minions have already shed the blood of innocents to protect his hold on power. Apart from sheer quantity, was worse ever claimed for Saddam Hussein?
No "right to life" nonsense, please. A man who willfully kills even one innocent has forfeited all his rights; his disposition is in the hands of whoever elects to see to it. And no "trial" nonsense, either. A trial is for the purpose of establishing guilt or innocence, or for pleas of extenuation. There's no doubt about Chavez's guilt, nor can there be any extenuation for murders committed so that he can hold onto political power. Your Curmudgeon anticipates that the United States will have to remove him within the next few years. As he's already earned his dirt nap, why not award it now, when it can be done reasonably cheaply in blood and treasure?
This is not a morally complex matter. Leftists dislike the idea because Chavez is a Communist, and because it implies that similar corrective measures might be applied to such as Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong-il, their current mascots. Statists dislike the idea because it demands that the same standards of justice be applied to ministers of State as to private parties. But none of that is relevant. Pat Robertson, a polarizing figure for many, has the right of it this time, whatever one might think of his other words or deeds.
UPDATE: Mark Alger weighs in most pithily with this:
SO A TELEVANGELIST SPOUTS OFF On a political matter in a very un-Christian mode and the whole country gets its panties in a bunch.What's missing, it seems to me, is the recognition of a calculus of international conflict, and that is this: no matter where you draw the line, those with inimical interests will attempt to waltz provocatively right up to the line, calibrating their provocation to your pronouncements of limits to your response.
[...snip...]
Therefore, a wise hegemon will assert -- as President Bush has done -- that nothing is off the table. Nor will he kowtow to the ridiculous notion of -- scorn quotes -- "proportionality." Any response will be overwhelming, designed to remove forever the threat presented. It will come from as unexpected a direction as we can manage. You won't like it.
[...snip...]
Nor should the public -- even in a putatively open society such as ours -- assume that what we see represents the whole of the facts on the ground.
Excellent.
UPDATE #2: The reactions of one's adversaries are often quite telling:
Speaking of spewing hate, why do rightwingers only turn the other cheek when one of their own goes batshit? Theusual suspectsright-wing bloggers had plenty of the same-old-same-old to say this week about Pat Robertson's fatwa against Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Eternity Road writes:Your Curmudgeon can't see what all the foofaurauw is about. Chavez is a brutal dictator, he's steadily destroying the country he rules, and his minions have already shed the blood of innocents to protect his hold on power. Apart from sheer quantity, was worse ever claimed for Saddam Hussein?Typical. All right-wing talking points all the time.
Thanks for the endorsement, guys. Your Curmudgeon never knew leftists considered the murder of innocents or the imposition of a dictatorship on a previously free country "right-wing talking points." No wonder we're so popular.
