clarification on robertson

in my earlier post, just to be clear, the point i was making is that to pretend that pat robertson represents a marginalized viewpoint, by calling him “crazy” is to overlook the fact that his opinion is shared by a lot of people in this administration, and in this country, who are now scrambling to distance themselves. saying “oh he’s INSANE” to discount his comments really is a denial of the truth contained in them, which is that chavez represents a threat to US control of strategic oil resources, and the current administration has shown itself willing to take drastic measures in similar situations. pat mentioned oil: venezuela is sitting on top of the #7 ranked oil reserves in the world; we’ve seen what happened to #4 (iraq), and bush is threatening to attack #3 (iran). whenever you see someone called a “strongman” in the press here, you can bet there are a lot of contingency plans being made in the pentagon and at langley to get rid of that leader. that includes assassination. if the canadian prime minister, sitting on top of #2, threatened to reduce oil exports to the US, you can be certain he would be called a strongman in the press here, and operation hip check would be in the planning stages.
also to be clear, i have no points of agreement with pat robertson or the white house agenda. they are pursuing policies that are taking this country straight into the shitter, and causing a lot of misery and suffering worldwide. however, calling them “crazy” or “insane” means you are not taking them seriously. and they are very very fucking serious about what they are doing. let’s call them insane and marginalized when they are out of office. once they are voted out for the third time, we can truthfully say that their views don’t represent ours.