August 28, 2005

Jesse Jackson and Hugo Chavez: Good buddies

Here's a surprise: Rev. Jackson lends support to Chavez. Jesse didn't have very nice things to say about Pat Robertson:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson offered support for President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, saying a call for his assassination by a U.S. religious broadcaster was a criminal act and that Washington and Venezuela should work out their differences through diplomacy.

The U.S. civil rights leader condemned last week's suggestion by Pat Robertson that American agents should kill the leftist Venezuelan leader, calling the conservative commentator's statements "immoral" and "illegal."

Jackson urged U.S. authorities to take action, and said the U.S. government must choose "diplomacy over any threats of sabotage or isolation or assassination."

Robertson's comments, as we've noted, were reprehensible, and indeed may warrant further [legal] action. But the funny thing is, Jackson's always conspicuously absent regarding instances such as these Ward Churchill comments, or this city council candidate's advocacy of assassinating President Bush. Or when an Air America personality does same. Likewise The Guardian's Charlie Brooker.

And then there's stuff like this and this. Oh, and don't forget this "winner."

Those must be all "rightful dissent."

UPDATE (8/29 at 3:30pm): The American Thinker notes that as Jackson arrived in Caracas (er, that's the capital of Venezuela), Chavez's thugs pounced on a legal demonstration that was protesting Chavez's holding of political prisoners. Reuters dubs it "the most serious violence [there] in months."

UPDATE 2: Chavez now wants Robertson extradited!

Posted by Rhodey at August 28, 2005 04:55 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Although I think Robertson was an idiot for saying what he said pubicly, I would be amazed if there was a basis for "further(??) legal action". What exactly could he be charged with?
He is advocating a course of action. An executive order against what he advocated is only that, not a ban on citizens calling on the government to change its course and do otherwise. (Like other presidents have actually done.)
If his speech is proscribed, then why aren't thousands of Palestinian and Islamist supporters on US campuses and on internet forums in prison for pubicly advocating the killing of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, et al?

Posted by: mikem at August 28, 2005 08:57 PM

Of course, that is publicly, not pubicly. (Save the snickers.)

Posted by: mikem at August 28, 2005 08:58 PM

mike: I read somewhere there may be some FCC violations. I'll see if I can track it down. I got an e-mail into Rhodey, too.

Posted by: Hube at August 28, 2005 09:13 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?