http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html

""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 said on "The 700 Club" program."

Of course his actual comment was:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson on Monday's program. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

Way to back out. Not.

Not to be overly blunt, but so? All the people who were outraged by the original statement already know the backout is bogus. And all the people who didn't think it was such a bad idea are going to support him even if he uses six-year-olds as human shields in his one-man invasion of Venezuela.

Robertson is a shock jock of the Christian Right... he serves only to distract people with his offensiveness so they won't have as much energy for the real battles.

WWJK? WWJTO?

I think he really meant "let's Abu Graib" him.

Its abu great!

Ah, you don't understand AmericanRightWingHumor(TM). You can incite crowds to violate the 6th commandment, and claim it is only a joke. Pat follows in the hallowed footsteps of people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I suppose it helps to run a religous program that is shown in every market here in the US, and pretend to be a Christian, just so you can mock the bible, isn't that what AmericanRightWingHumor(TM) is all about?

So when Ann says "the only thing Tim McVeigh did wrong was that he didn't go to the New York Times building." Other wing nuts will be quite quick to point out that you don't understand AmericanRightWingHumor(TM). That she wasn't appologizing for one terrorist incident and insisting on more. They will be quick to point out that the AmeriTaliban would applaud such an action while publically claiming to denounce the deaths of BleedingHeartLiberals, even while they were busy calling their lawyers to see what they might have inherited.

Or when Rush says that all liberals should be killed except for 1 or 2 per campus, so they can be shown as examples. Well, you don't understand AmericanRightWingHumor(TM), because WingNuts will point out that was really commenting on how liberal college campuses are. And how hostile college campuses are to ignorant religous fanatics. Why, they might get edumacated and learn to think for themselves! Oh, the horror!

Calling for the assasination of the leader of a foreign country is a small step from calling for the assasination of the leader of your own country. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can "joke" about killing bush. Freedom of speech won't stop the Secret Service from taking you downtown for a little talk with a lead filled hose.

What part of "thou shalt not kill" does Pat Robertson not understand? Is he trying to upstage Eric Rudolph as the nations most killingest Christian?

Ann Coulter has a penis.

I'm just joshing!!!

The funny part to me was how CNN worded the article. To put his direct quote of what he really said underneath his current quote of what he said he said, that's good stuff.

If anyone was watching CNN yesterday, they read a letter a friend of mine sent in about the whole thing:

http://bradygaster.blogspot.com/2005/08/yo-pat-im-one-from-cnn.html

I think a lot of people are taking the wrong tack in arguing this on "Robertson's ground". You're not going to convince anyone by saying he's disregarding the sixth commandment. Longstanding precedent is that it means "thou shalt not murder" rather than "thou shalt not kill". If the death is the means of waging a holy crusade of one sort or another, such as against godless communism, then it's not hard to pretend it's justified.

If you *must* use the sixth commandment in your arguments, then you need to show that the murder isn't part of "god's work", which is of course impossible to prove. You would've been just as effective trying to tell the 9/11 hijackers that they were unjustified... they *were* justified, but by an entirely alien set of assumptions.

My favorite comment was on the radio today:
"Yesterday's headline was that a religious extremist had called for the assassination of an elected western head of state. Osama? No. Hamas? No. Pat Robertson..."

Awesome.

Philo

What's Christian for "fatwa"?

"Press release".

Well, actually, there is a proper term for a Papal declaration saying that God wants a particular person killed.

Excommunication?

Because, you know, once they're kicked out, they're going to Hell anyway, so it's ok to kill them.

At least that's how it used to work for the Jesuits.

Robertson, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al, preach mostly to idiots, which is an enormous tactical advantage when you want to deny having said something that's on tape.

Well the word for a Papal communication is a Papal Bull, everyone else gets to use the word bulletin.

Not that I think Popes get around to saying people should be killed much.

Not lately. I suspect the Medicis had no problem with it.

They certainly used to. A while back one put out a Plenary Indulgence for anyone killing Queen Elizabeth I.

> Well, actually, there is a proper term for a Papal declaration saying that God wants a particular person killed.

Bullshit.

"Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps!" Which film, folks? :)

South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut. From the "March of War" newsreel bit...

mmm...it would interesting to watch a discussion between Robertson and the Archbishop of Cantebury, like the Pullman one quoted in the "Dark Materials" thread.

Seriously, this actually sounds like one of the *least* retarded things Pat Robertson has said:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson