Well, insane is certainly the correct answer, although that doesn't mean other explanations are not also true.

Seems to me that the right wing of the GOP -- sorry, was that redundant? -- always has to have a bogeyman out there to vilify and thereby unite against.  Now that Saddam Hussein can no longer serve that purpose (and Osama has been forgotten for some reason), I think they're putting out trial balloons for other possibilites.  

It's alternate reality, different space-time continuum... Robertson's universe is just very different-- And he deals with cognitive dissonance in the usual way (cf. social-psychology classic  'When Prophecy Fails') by proselytizing.

The real question is -- why does the Bush Administration have its BVDs all in a knot over Chavez?   What has he done?   He is hardly a dictator, and the Administration has hardly raised a stir about much more powerful Brazil in the hands of Lula.

    Several hypotheses.   First, Chavez embarassed the Bush Administration because of an exposed failed attempt to oust him by a putsch -- exposed in the sense that the Bush Administration was caught with their pants down.  Then Chavez even magnified the embarassment by winning a recall referendum handily, in an election that was generally recognized as fair.   So he is a POPULAR enemy of Bush which makes him doubly damned.   Popularity can really be a problem from the standpoint of those in power -- it's the main reason that John Lennon was offed.

Second, oil.   What exactly about oil?  Venezuela is a relatively stable source of oil so the oil companies have little reason to get hot and bothered about Chavez.

Third, the danger of the positive example (a central issue in the overall worldview of Chomsky).   There is definitely at least something to this.   Unlike Lula, Chavez is popular and has really delivered on much of his promise of social reform, if only to keep himself in power.   But that's no excuse.   The Sandinistas had to be liquidated from the standpoint of imperialism for the reason that, more than Castro, they posed the danger of a positive, left-leaning, example.

Genuine belief in a security threat.   PULEEEZ.   If they are so worried about Venezuela becoming a base for Islamic extremism in the Western hemisphere (very far fetched) why not Colombia, or some of the really looser controlled countries in the region?  After all, Al Qaeda has been more successful in establishing bases in places like France and Spain, allies of the west, than in South America, let alone Venezuela.   The terrorism rationale is the all-purpose excuse when the real reasons (like an oil grab) won't sell. The issue here is not whether there IS such a security threat, but whether the Administration and its allies really believe the pap being fed out to the public.   I would say it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY not.  Remember Iraq anyone?

   My own guess, and I'd like to hear other theories, is that it is a mix of the first and third reasons.   It is possible that an oil grab underlay the support for the attempt to oust him, making that an indirect factor.   But now it is about the danger of a popular positive example of populism -- not Castroism -- and a nation ready to challenge the international economic order, not to join with Al Qaeda (note how popular the downplaying of Al Qaeda is still on the right, as it is among many ostensible leftists, by the way, and was with the Bush Administration.  But that kind of problem, like a geopolitical/oil grab in Iraq, is the use of terrorism as an excuse to fulfill a wish list.   And the wish list's real  bases aren't pretty. 

     Robertson is just being a yelping-for-kudos hardcop of this agenda, making the Bush Administration seem more reasonable by comparison.  The extremity of his rhetoric, as noted elsewhere, is hardly bizarre for the mainstream RW in US politics. See my comments in response to Josh Marshall, 'Shocked! Shocked!' at http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/8/25/113353/141/3#3

At any rate, that's my take on Venezuela.   I am not a great fan of Chavez, but really, as leaders in Latin America and Africa go, he's considerably better than most, and hardly much of an intrinsic threat to any head OUT of ass realpolitik approach by the US.   But "OUT of ass"  is not, as the popular expression goes, where this Administration's head is at.

Are you saying that John Lennon was assassinated because he was too popular and too powerful?

I hate to self-promote (ok, I really don't), but over at my blog I take a stab at some of the questions about Islamic terrorists in Venezuela, basically concluding from the start that it's an issue of Venezuelan government negligence, not active support, and that we should find a way to cooperate to deal with the problem rather than try to destabilize the government.

However, in many ways, it's about the oil (both Republicans and Democrats should care about where our energy comes from, at least until we get smart and start thinking about alternative sources of energy) and partially about the old cold war divide (which is a dumb reason, but plays in the media).

Also, Chavez thrives on conflict in the media with the US, it boosts his poll numbers domestically, and the Republicans are dumb enough to take the bait.