Blogged

Pat Robertson, from both sides of his mouth

Two loose canons

In the grand media tradition of self-dissociation, radical Christian cleric Pat Robertson tries backpedaling from his own murderous comments regarding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He fails, of course.

Robertson today:

I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time.

Robertson on Monday:

If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it…It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

Yeah, you see how someone might misinterpret a fatwa like that.

In the meantime, the Miami Herald - no ally of Chavez - wonders aloud about sanctions for Robertson:

The Federal Communications Commission should find this wretched episode of interest, as well. If Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” merits a $550,000 fine, what about an open appeal to commit murder?

UPDATE: And now Robertson apologizes for the call for assassination that he claimed he never made. American mullahs are all milquetoasts. You’d never see a militant Islamic cleric back down like that. Anyway, here’s Robertson, part trois:

Robertson apologizes

Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during Monday’s broadcast of his “700 Club” program.

“Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement,” he said in a written statement.

Earlier, Robertson said that his remarks about Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.

I can hardly wait to hear what he says tomorrow.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson, Religion, Christofascism

© 2005 Philip Barron.  Log in  Monitored by SiteUptime