Robertson is a weasel

*for my initial reaction, see the comments below this entry

While listening to radio coverage of Robertson's plea this morning, I was reminded that this isn't the first insane thing he's said. In 2003, he stated that the State Department ought to be nuked. In Sept. 2001, he agreed with Jerry Falwell that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were really an act of punishment inflicted by God.

As his words were replayed, I was shocked by the tone in his voice, the calm, the complete lack of emotion. And then I heard him say, "We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly." As he spoke those words, I realized what he was referring to by "other doctrines we have announced:" he means, of course, the 'Bush doctrine.' This so-called doctrine is Bush's claim to have the right to make a military strike any time, any where, at any strength and for any length for any reason. Obviously, the President wouldn't publicly state that he has the right to attack willy nilly; in fact, he gives plenty of so-called reasons for 'pre-emptive' strikes. When one reason fails, he comes up with another. In regards to Iraq, all his pre-war reasoning boiled down to Iraq having amassed certain weapons, to Iraq having ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11, and to Iraq having the capability to attack the United States. However, each of those reasons has been shown false and the grounds on which he made those claims seriously questioned. It also appears that Bush knew these were shaky arguments, but he was ready with others as those fell: to defend liberty, to spread freedom, to respond to a genocidal leader. This is why his doctrine allows him to attack for any reason; because if the reason he wants to attack won't hold up to public approval then he'll just use any other reason that can be passed off as valid for the time being.

Why am I particularly offended by this, and what does it have to do with Robertson? They're dancing in circles. Without actually naming the Bush doctrine, Robertson has cited it as legitimating an assassination of a foreign president. Previously, Bush may well have wanted to go after Chavez but, as in Iraq, his reasons wouldn't hold up to public support. Robertson's credentials sadly now give religious weight to this desire and could be used as a false legitimation of that desire to attack. Robertson 'cites' the Bush doctrine as a reason for attacking; Bush, as President, cannot actually endorse an assassination himself - but others (read: lower level administration officials, radio personalities, talking heads, and bloggers) can now cite Robertson's appeal as reason to consider implementing the Bush doctrine. And so the circle goes, the dance continues, and all around the mulberry bush, well you know how the song goes...

By the way, even if the Bush administration has no plans to go after Chavez or Venezuela, the argument still holds that this is dangerously circular and we should watch to see if the loop is completed: for legitimation of his crack-pot (and anti-Christian) idea, Robertson cites Bush-doctrine without naming it; will Bush-doctrine supporters now cite Robertson for legitimation of themselves? Imagine if they actually spoke clearly: Look - Pat said that our doctrine allows us to assassinate the guy; therefore, we're gonna do it. Oh, and with Jesus' blessing, too.