Let not a left-wing president live . . .

Well now, this one was just too good to pass up. It seems the ever enlightened Pat Robertson, creater of the super-right-wing conservative power hour show The 700 Club, has made some social faux pas recently. It would appear that, un-beknownst to most of the world, portions of the Old Testament and New Testament of the Christian Bible have been edited. How so? Well, according to what Mr. Robertson has said it would appear that it's now perfectly legitimate to kill (assassinate, take out) a political leader because he / she is non-Conservative.

So, let's get the background on this interesting issue. All direct quotes here have been taken from these articles:
"Thou Shalt Kill the Venezuelan President"
"Venezuela Curbs Missionaries Over Threat"
"Robertson Apologises for Assassination Call"
"Evangelist Backs Off Chavez Assassination Call"
"Robertson Suggests U.S. Kill Venezuela's Leader"
My thanks to these good journalists for providing the information on this . . .

Anyway, let's do a quote by quote analysis of what Mr. Robertson actually said while on his television show

"We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability . . ."
-I don't think Robertson is suggesting that he or anyone else take Mr. Chavez out on a date. This almost sounds like a bad line from a bad gangster movie, doesn't it? Also, what's with this "we" business? Is Robertson a member of the U.S. Government or military? Nope. So, is this "we" an enigmatic allusion to some crack team of SWAT missionaries or Bible commandoes no one knows about? Hmm . . .

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it . . ."
-Well, Chavez certainly thinks he's in danger now, after Robertson ran his pie-hole committing US forces to killing the man. This line here doesn't really leave much for the imagination or varied interpretations, does it? It's pretty damn clear what Robertson meant. Keep that in mind, especially when you read "back-peddle" #1.

"It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
-Robertson is ever the pragmatic with this line and his "cost-benefit" analysis of the situation. How heart-warming and reassuring that a religious leader can think like that in terms of dollars, blood and oil. You might be able to draw your own conclusions about connections between the Iraq dilemma and oil based on this comment as well.

So now, you can imagine that this caused a bit of a stir when it aired. Imagine being the person receiving the phone calls at the Venezuelan embassy in D.C. "No, we haven't received any direct threats to our nation or our president . . . yes, aside from comments by Mr. Robertson . . ."

Also, Robertson (the expert on South American politics, economics and sociology that he is) claims good ol' Venezuela is "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism . . ."
-Really now? Well, let's just dig up the corpse of Senator Joe McCarthy because I'm sure he wants in on this new Red Scare. That bit about Islam at the end of the quote has the feel of a second-thought add on, as if Robertson realised that communism isn't scary anymore so he threw in the Muslim extremism bogey man for good measure.

So now, enter "back-peddle" #1 Robertson's Quasi-Apology
"I didn't say 'assassination' . . ."
-Well, that's true . . . he just said "assassinate" . . . that makes it all better, doesn't it?

"I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping . . ."
-Oh, so now Robertson is just endorsing the illegal capture and re-location of an elected official. Well, that's a sort of "warm and fuzzy" sentiment isn't it?

". . . there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him . . ."
-Well folks, be on the look out for the new book "101 NEW Ways to Dispose of an Un-Wanted Dictator" by Pat Robertson.

In his "back-peddle" #2 Robertson goes on to apologise but firmly places the blame on the AP for misinterpreting him.

So . . . could he have been misinterpreted? You decide.