Figures. Robertson's view of God seems to be that he's a nasty hoodlum called Vinny, who'll whack whoever Pat doesn't like.

What a waste of space.

Who cares! Pat is over the edge and Hugo is a little tin pot Fidel wannabee!

If we really wanted Hugo gone, he'd be dead already!

Only confirms what we know already about Robertson, the guy's a douche bag.

Just affirmed what most sane people have known all along- the guy is a senseless charlatan.

And we should all listen to Pat Robertson. He knows what he's talking about.

great idea......but some crack pot religious figure talking politics is really not much of an event

Was it a dumb thing to say? Sure it was. I would expect a man of God to put more faith in the power of prayer instead of the power of force. But geeeeeeeeeez, why the big deal? When senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997 we didn't hear a peep out of the leftstream media. Stephanopoulos devoted an entire Newsweek column to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein. The headline on his column was Why We Should Kill Saddam. Mr. Stephanopoulos said Assassination may be Clinton's best option. If we can kill Saddam, we should. Although war critics now argue that by 1997 the Iraqi dictator posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that justice for Hussein should be swift and lethal. He went on to say We have exhausted other efforts to stop him and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians. He even suggested a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations when he said If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national security advisor Sandy Berger and sign a National Security Decision Directive authorizing it. Stephanopoulos's plan was First, we could offer to provide money and material to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. The second option is a targeted airstrike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding. He went on to say that far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do because what's unlawful and unpopular with the allies is not necessarily immoral. So two points are made here. First, when a Democrat calls for the assassination of a foreign leader it is all but ignored by the lapdogs in the media. But let someone like Pat Robertson make a similar statement and (no pun intended) all hell breaks loose. I guess that is what my liberal friends mean by fair and balanced. Second, perhaps if Clinton had followed Stephanopoulos's advice we might not be in the same situation that we are in today.

A wealthy televangelist shoots off his mouth about something he has no clue about...nothing new there. Yet, I believe this twit still managed to hit a new low. Sadly however, regardless of the level of stupidity there is always a group of mentally challenged hangers on who will support whatever these so called men of God decide to blurt out. I think the time has come for Mr. Robertson to exercise his ability to NOT express every stupid thought that comes into his mind.

He's threatening democracy in the region. We have to kill him off and replace him with a right-wing dictator to make sure this never happens again. UPDATE: It's simply not true that poverty is increasing and the Venezualan economy is tanking. Not recently, at least. Chavez did inherit a bad economic situation which was exacerbated by industrial conflicts (caused chiefly by his belligerent opponents). This blunted the effects of many of his reforms and prevented him from being able to fight poverty effectively. In 2004 though, Venezuela's GDP grew by an astonishing 17.8%, the largest recorded yearly growth in Venezuelan history. According to most economic indicators, this looks set to continue as investment grows and unemployment falls. Now that the economy is back on track, Chavez is starting to make genuine inroads into poverty. Millions of Venezuela's poor are benefiting from new education opportunities, cheaper food and free healthcare already. Chavez has the cojones to stand up to the barbaric dictums of the IMF and the WTO. He is changing, albeit tentatively, Venezuela's economy from one that disproportionately benefits the wealthy elites and foreign investors, to one where the countries' great national wealth benefits everyone. I'm not surprised people like Robertson see that as a threat.

I wasn't aware that anyone took Pat Robertson seriously 10 years ago. His recent remark is akin to Jerry Falwell accusing the purple Teletubby of being an agent of homosexual indoctrination.

Look, Chavez hasn't exactly been good for Venezuela or the region at that. His policies can be best defined as piecemeal socialism. Rather than making sustained investments in education, roads, industry and social services, Chavez uses his position to play on class divisions. He hasn't done much to help those most in need, especially in the long term, which is what Venezuela needs. The poverty rate in Venezuela, despite his Bolivarian Revolution has actually increased, as investors are much more wary of putting capital in there. It's a shame, for it is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of resources. They are the 4th largest exporter of petroleum to the United States. Chavez indeed has not encouraged a truly pluralistic system, dominating most media outlets with programming that is pro-government. Human rights violations are also on the rise, especially with regards to treatment of dissenters. Surely, he has been taking some lessons from his mentor, Fidel Castro. Chavez is just another Latin American 'caudillo'. However, even though we have problems with Chavez, that does not mean that the United States has the right to go into a sovereign country and kill off its elected leader. Robertson sounded like a mob boss asking for the head of his competitor. Given that US relations with Latin America have not exactly been all that strong as of late, maybe we shouldn't resort back to those tactics, many of which lead to the rise of right wing dictatorships in the region, like Pinochet etc. Robertson asked for the Chavez's head because he has threatened to cut off those petroleum exports to the United States due to our policies in the region, which he claims are exploitative. He also says that he has an alternate client state lined up to buy their petroleum when he does decide to cut us off, which is China. Such a policy is inherently ridiculous. Sure, he can sell his oil to China, a rapidly expanding market, but if he decides to cut off the United States, that will surely lead to higher fuel prices here in the United States, which will slow down economic activity here and worldwide. Remember that China's economic growth is largely premised on their exports to the US and our investments in their country. If demand for consumer goods goes down here in the US, it will also negatively impact China's export policies, for their largest market, the US, isn't going to be buying their goods because of the slowdown caused by high petroleum costs. That means that China's growth is going to cool off, which means that they'll have less demand for petroleum, and thus Venezuela will no longer be able to sell them their primary good, thus causing their economy to tank even more. What is the object lesson here? The world economy is very interdependent, and taking retaliatory actions like this can end up having unintended consequences. In short, let Chavez play his game, it will backfire completely on him, and we won't even need to get the CIA to off him like Robertson wants. He argues that it is cheaper to kill him than go to war with Chavez's regime to reopen the spigot. I don't think either option is really on the table at this point. I predict that the people will wise up to his act and give him the boot once he is exposed among the lower classes for what he is. And speaking of Robertson, well, it doesn't really surprise me that he would say that. Recently, he prayed for one of the justices to resign due to old age/ill health so that they could be replaced with a good conservative judge. He must think that God is the ultimate mob boss. Someone should tell him that prayer does not really work that way!

Who cares? People have stopped listening to Robertson seriously 10 years ago. People stopped taking Robertson's fans seriously 15 years ago. Non-story- don't give this retard any more free press. . .which is what he needs.

If not for the influence-peddling attributes of this porcine yard gnome, this'd be yet another in a string of ill-advised squeals from the hog pen. However, the keen observer might do well to chart the patterns of Robberson's diatribes. Once you've tasted the wealth of poorly-defended countries (as Pat has done through alliances with Mobuto Sese Seko in Zaire, Jorge Serrano in Guatemala, and Freddie Chiluba in Zambia), you figure one more can only be one more. With added murderous merriment swirling around Chavez, the irreverend Pat might be able to waggle another sweetheart deal with the next tin-horn dictator (to paraphrase, in confusion, there is profit.). The White House should change the locks when this vitamin shill comes knockin'.

Once again this blowhard makes a fool of himself.Newsworthy if only to show how hypocritical this man is.

Oh wow. Pat Robertson said something stupid. He does that on occassion. The '88 presidential campaign, 9/11, probably around the house...

I guess we're rating the relative importance of these things, so I give it a generous, very exaggerated 2. As an American, he has every right to say this. I've probably said worse. As the leader (spiritual or otherwise) of a religious group, he should be much more careful, and maybe smarter. As a political operative, someone on TV who is familiar with the effects of videotape, he's like a guy who smells the strong odor of gas in a dark room, and lights a match. Guys who make tactical mistakes like this don't last very long as leaders of intelligent people and are quietly put out to pasture, ask Dan Rather. I've never considered him a spokesman or advocate for me or my views but somehow conservatives are called upon to answer for his stupid remark. The inappropriateness of his comments, or his views in general, do not make conservatives co-conspirators to murder any more than the comments of Howard Dean make every liberal whiny and pacifistic. He should apologize for saying something so stupid, and in such a stupid way, and keep his mouth shut for a few weeks.

Are you kidding me? Calling for the assassination of a democratically elected President? I don't care if Chavez is a disaster - as someone in a leadership position like Robertson, you can't say stuff like that. Can you imagine if a political and spiritual leader in another country called for the assassination of President Bush? That person would rightly and immediately be labeled a terrorist. My sense is that this is the case of guy who just doesn't matter anymore, trying to be provocative in order to stay relevant. Like a B list actress taking off her clothes for Playboy.