News Chavez's Fiery Speech at U.N. Summit Sparks Controversy

[one_raven]

He openly and angrily lambasted Bush and his policies at the U.N. Summit.
He even went as far as saying the U.N. should be moved out of the U.S.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050916/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/un_chavez
Overall, it's not really that interesting of an article, but this part really stood out to me...

World leaders at the summit had been asked to speak for five minutes but Chavez ran long and when the presiding diplomat passed him a note saying his time was up, he threw it on the floor. He said if Bush could speak for 20 minutes, so could he.

When he finally stopped, he got what observers said was the loudest applause of the summit.

 

[Art]

President Hugo Chavez has warned that he may lodge a complaint against the US at the United Nations and other international bodies if the US fails to act against Pat Robertson, who called for Chavez's assassination.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and Organisation of American States to denounce the US government," the Venezuelan leader said on Sunday as he addressed participants at talks on a social charter for the Americas.

He added he believed that by failing to act against Robertson, the United States was "giving protection to a terrorist, who is demanding the assassination of a legitimate president".

source AFP

He has a valid point.

 

[Smurf]

I always liked Chavez

 

[MaxS]

source AFP

He has a valid point.

I agree. These televangelists are the U.S. counter-parts to the "religious leaders" we're waging war with.

 

[Pengwuino]

He has a valid point.

Yes, freedom of speech is only valid for left-wing rhetoric. Because as we all know, when a leftie speaks of assassination against Bush... oh well, Freedom of Speech!

 

[kyleb]

I really don't know much about the man, but I respect his cojones.

 

[Smurf]

Yes, freedom of speech is only valid for left-wing rhetoric. Because as we all know, when a leftie speaks of assassination against Bush... oh well, Freedom of Speech!

also a valid point...

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, freedom of speech is only valid for left-wing rhetoric. Because as we all know, when a leftie speaks of assassination against Bush... oh well, Freedom of Speech!

You are wrong about that. If you know of anyone publicly calling for the assassination of the president you should let the Secret Service know. They take threats like that very seriously.

 

[Pengwuino]

You are wrong about that. If you know of anyone publicly calling for the assassination of the president you should let the Secret Service know. They take threats like that very seriously.

Yes, all calls, public or private to be exact, are investigated by the Secret Service. Unless of course you cry political protest roughly around the primaries. Say.. for example, a certain off-broadway play called "I'm going to kill the president". Defense: "It's art"... might also want to checkout some book called Checkpoint and a comedian called Rick Hall.

A bit off topic but my father told me a few years ago about a funny little incident. Some drunk came off the street into their office (social services office) and yelled out that he wanted to kill the president and then he stumbled off. Next day, Secret Service comes out and interviews everyone in the office! And my father said they looked even more intimidating then they look in movies.

 

[Manchot]

Yes, freedom of speech is only valid for left-wing rhetoric. Because as we all know, when a leftie speaks of assassination against Bush... oh well, Freedom of Speech!

No prominent "leftie" has ever talked about assassinating President Bush, and you know that very well. Why, then, must you insist on lyng like this?

(Mods, aren't there rules about trolling?)

 

[TRCSF]

Say.. for example, a certain off-broadway play called "I'm going to kill the president". Defense: "It's art"... might also want to checkout some book called Checkpoint and a comedian called Rick Hall.

If Pat Robertson were a character in a play, a book, or a standup comedian; then it'd be perfectly acceptable.

But he wasn't. He was a private citizen directly calling for the literal assasination of Hugo Chavez.

Oh, and I agree with Smurf.

 

[Smurf]

Oh, and I agree with Smurf.

I havn't even said anything.


Edit: Well, while I'm here I mine as well say something:
I think it's perfectly acceptable for Hugo to demand a diplomatic apology from the US. However, will the US condemn Pat's words? Unlikely.

 

[TRCSF]

I havn't even said anything.

And I didn't agree with nothing.