HOME	Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News and Views About the United States

By Frank Martin

August 25, 2005

Original Article (Spanish)

The assassination request against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, made by powerful American ultra-conservative politician and evangelical pastor Pat Robertson, has brought to light a most-likely scenario: that his comments are in line with if not the exact thoughts of the government of the United States, headed by the Republican and the extreme rightwing George W. Bush.

On the Same Page?

Threats against the life of the Venezuelan Chief Executive had multiplied long before Robertson, a friend of Bush, founder of the Christian Coalition and ex-presidential candidate, said on his daily program "The 700 Club" that Chávez should be assassinated by "American covert operatives" because, by his reasoning, "this is much cheaper than initiating a war."

In previous statements as indiscreet as Robertson’s, CIA Director Porter Gross in March told lawmakers in Washington that the prohibition against assassinating presidents and foreign leaders, instituted during the government of Gerald Ford in 1976, would not prohibit "the killing the terrorist enemies of the United States."

Only a little later the same month, Gross put Chavez on top of an American blacklist made up of "actors that are clearly causing problems for us." Next he mentioned his preoccupation with President Chavez’ friendship with Cuban ruler Fidel Castro.

A Prohibition On Assassination - With a Few Loopholes, According to Goss.

Fair-minded analysts can clearly see that Robertson was in agreement with both of Goss’s assertions, when that most-unusual pastor charged that the leader of the Bolivarian process [Chavez] wants to turn Venezuela into an "airdrop platform for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism," which is the equivalent of accusing him of being a "terrorist."

[Editor’s Note: The ‘Bolivarian process’ is the series of reforms instituted in Venezuela by Chavez. It is generally a left-leaning, socialist philosophy. One commentator described it as a struggle for participative democracy, a multi-polar world, and resistance against economic empire.]

It is worth the trouble of remembering that in one of his more eloquent speeches on the "anti-terror fight" and the war in Iraq, Bush indirectly admitted that American "agents," whose services Robertson just referred to, have gunned down "a number" of people  in the world. "There are others that are no longer a worry to us," the President explained to his followers, who responded with delirious applause.

The reaction of the United States government to Robertson’s declarations has also left open some disquieting "black holes” through which many types of assassinations could occur.

'Our Department Doesn't Do That:' Rumsfeld.

"Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It is against the law," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has been most critical of Chavez of late. One might ponder why he didn’t speak in the name of other "departments."

On the other hand, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack had been a regular critic of Venezuela before ending up saying that Robertson’s declarations were "unsuitable."

"This is not the policy of the United States government. We don’t share his position," said McCormack, referring with singular respect to the violent pastor.

Bernardine Alvarez, Venezuelan ambassador to Washington, criticized Washington’s mild official reaction when he indicated that "Mr. Robertson’s statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House.”

He emphasized that "they must issue an official condemnation ... If all of us are together in the war against terrorism, we cannot promote this type of attitude. Pat Robertson’s statements are a clear invitation to terrorist acts.”