Pat Robertson is getting a lot of flack over his statement that:
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one ... strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
The Christian Science Monitor said:
"So much for the respectand pro-life positions that Robertson has long espoused. How inconsistent to fight to protect the life of the unborn and then call for the assassination of a foreign leader who holds opposing political views. Not that Robertson or anybody else shouldn't defend the right to live. But it's difficult not to see the contradiction between his two positions."
Well, what I want to know is this: if assasinating Chavez IS immoral - then why isn't a multi-billion-dollar war...one that costs far more lives than one...immoral as well?
thanks!
timford
http://openletterstopundits.blogspot.com