After a brief hiatus, I have returned to my adoring fans (which, at this point, consists of one guy – the spammer who informed me of his company’s wonderful insurance rates. Thanks Bud, but I’m already in good hands).
My philosophical query is this: if a non-Muslim cleric advocates the killing of a national leader and there aren’t any moonbats around to hear him, is he still wrong? (For the duration of this article, I will refer to liberals as “moonbats,” a term stolen from littlegreenfootballs.com. It just seems to fit.)
All the little media moonbats seems to have their panties tightly wadded about Pat Robertson suggesting the U.S. knock off Hugo Chavez. Where is the blanket coverage about all the Islamic clerics who spew bile on a daily basis about killing Americans, Israelis, murdering W, etc.? If CNN were to start doing in-depth features 24-7 about clerics from the “Religion of Peace” who advocate violence against the U.S., it wouldn’t be two days before old Danny Rather would come out of retirement and show up at CNN HQ bearing an AK-47 and a list of democrat talking points, ready for whatever action was needed. I’m certain he would be in full stage make-up and have his hair properly coiffed, as well.
We need to ask ourselves, from a national security viewpoint, why shouldn’t the U.S. “take out” Chavez? He is using the billions of dollars accrued from Venezuelan oil sales to destabilize democratic countries in South America. He is funding terrorist organizations. Chavez is giving Castro bookoo $$ so he and his goons can get schooled by Casro’s best and brightest (I use the words loosely) on communist indoctrination and civil control techniques. Propping up Cuba alone is probably reason enough to consider a politically-minded “elimination.” Chavez is buying more than enough fighter jets, attack choppers, and AK-47s to provide his army with the tools it needs to deliver considerable violence on a large scale, should the occasion arise.
Oh, and Chavez threatened to stop all oil sales to the U.S. should we use military force to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Venezuela is our country’s third-largest source of foreign oil. I don’t have much sympathy for people who try to blackmail America so our enemies can acquire the means to kills hundreds of thousands of us. Call me archaic and narrow-minded, but I’m a big fan of the Bush doctrine. (I’m not sure if Bush has the stomach for it after his continued drubbing by the press over Iraq, though.)
So, if we need to choose between taking out Chavez now or taking on his army, after they have been armed to the teeth by our European “allies,” I would select the former. Who is to say Iran might not sell him a nuke for his role in trying to defend their reactors? A little pre-emption every few years is a good thing. Sorry, Hugo. Just don’t try to explain it to the moonbats. They’re surly when agitated.