Bush is a hypocrite.
He and his coterie denounced Democrat Senator Dick Durbin when the latter compared the Guantánamo military prison to the Gulag. And what do you think he would do if a Jordanian mullah had gone on an Arab TV station and passed a fatwa for the assassination of the U.S. President. Already Britain and Australia are getting tough on such mullah-ish pronouncements.
But two days after evangelist Pat Robertson proposed the assassination of the president of a sovereign nation, Venezuela, President Bush and his senior officials had done f***all
All the State Department had said so far has been that Robertson was inappropriate in his remark and it is not American policy to kill the head of state of a foreign country.
Inappropriate? But nothing bloody more appropriate, decent or statesman-like came forth from Bush, Cheney or any of the leaders of their allies.
Why Bush has been so evasive about coming out and doing the decent presidential and lawful thing, has been his reliance on Robertson and his church-based right wing constituency. It has been such support that re-elected Bush. The support of those Christian Talibans will be sorely needed by the Republican Congressmen in 2006.
So, what’s the difference between Robertson and his pal Bush and those fiery mullahs who preach the death of Westerners.
Though Pat Robertson apologised much latter, it was a very much reserved apology, meaning he wasn't really sorry but did so to minimise Bush's embarrasment. He claimed he uttered that killing call out of frustration with Chavez.
As political observers mentioned, was he frustrated because socialist Chavez chose to reform land ownership in Venezuala? Was it because Chavez chose to use the oil income to improve health, education and other community projects? Was it because the US engineered coup against Chavez failed miserably due to the Venezuelan people's support for Chavez?
Political observers also mentioned the parallel between the US treatment of Ho Chi Minh and Hugo Chavez, of how the American administration chose to support unpopular dictatorships of feudal land owners (or oil barons) against popular reformist leaders who wanted to improve the lot of their people.