On the subject of Pat Robertson's bizarro remarks
about Venezuela, here is what National Review Online
editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg has to say
Look I don't like Robertson. But I think some things are getting jumbled. I really have no problem with an American saying that it would be good foreign policy to assasinate a leader. In the abstract I think assasination can be good policy. Killing Saddam a long time ago would be looking pretty smart right now. Morality aside, offing Chavez would almost certainly be a bad idea given the political consequences. But raising the issue doesn't horrify me in the slightest. The problem with this statement -- as opposed to some others -- is not that it's batty. It's that Robertson claims to be a religious leader and, call me crazy, religious leaders have better things to do than talking about wet work in Venezeuala. Tend to your flock Mr. Robertson.
In Goldberg we have a leading writer at one of the nation's pre-eminent conservative publications who regards killing elected foreign leaders as a reasonable option for U.S. foreign policy. He is troubled only because the guy who suggested it purports to be a religious leader -- in other words, the messenger, not the message. In Goldberg's conservative universe there is nothing horrific about state-sponsored assasination, which "can be good policy," as long as it's advanced in secular contexts? And conservatives think liberals are moral relativists?