Pat Robertson shows again why the Christian Right is such a laughingstock

I really don’t understand why Robertson would make such statements. It flies in the face of a preacher’s mentality and it does not further his cause as a televangelists, (moral ground). He is not part of the State department so why promulgate absurd foreign policy statements like that? OTOH, he has done it before with similar foot-in-mouth comments and it doesn’t seem to hurt his popularity, (or donations). And he is entitled to foment any kind of opinion. We’ve certainly seen similar extreme statements from the far left. That’s what’s great about America, every lunatic can have their say.Besides, from a strictly monetary standpoint he is correct. It certainly is cheaper to send in covert ops to take out those opposed to the US. And yes, we could have saved billions of $ and thousands of lives if we could have done the same to Hussein. (I think we tried at least once).But the consequences of adopting that kind of imperialism as routine foreign policy are obvious. You can’t expect to maintain credible relations with our allies by simply taking out all those opposed to the US. (Please, no Bush comparisons in reply)I don’t know if Robertson was serious about his comments or if it was just rhetoric in response to similar ridiculous statements made by Chavez who said:If someday they {US}, get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we’ll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land.Now I don’t think for one minute that Chavez is serious about this statement. It’s just rhetoric. Certainly the administration has not threatened to invade Venezuela nor are they under any sanctions imposed by the US. Chavez is just another dictator who is beating the drums to rally anti-American sentiment among his followers, (subjects).It seems to me the only thing Robertson accomplishes with these comments is to push the Christian right a little further to the right.

Thanks berb Well, I think he may get a pass because, after all, as a preacher it is expected for him to be concerned with advocating human rights, its the christian thing to do. So I think when he is involved with those type of orgs, conservatives tend to think of it as a humanitarian cause and not a "liberal" cause.Now when it comes to Sheehan. The criticism is founded in her far left vitriole. Sure, left leaning orgs like MoveOn.org have supported and promoted her and they have received criticism from the right for it. But those orgs would receive criticism regardless of who they supported, (of course it would rarely be a conservative cause). So in the case of Sheehan, its a two-fold situation. There is her statements which are off the deep end + her affiliations which are far left. Its the combination that has brought on the more critical attacks.I doubt that the criticism would be as severe if she was a quietly greiving mother supported by left leaning orgs. I'm not saying she should be quiet, I'm just explaining the reaction. I don't like statements like that either. I find it distasteful for someone to publicly announce they know why God does or does not do certain things. It feeds the sterotype of righteous Christian superiority. I'm guessing here, but I think that you don't hear a lot of conservative outcry in situations like this mainly because those in the media who lean left do such a fine job of attacking that it hardly seems worthwhile to throw gas on the fire. I might add that the same holds for the left when one of your own is spouting nonesense. The voices of the rightous right are loud enough to drown the concerned objections from the rank and file on the left.

BTW, I was running some errands a while ago this morning and I heard on the radio a sound bite from Robertson where he said the quote by the AP was incorrect. He said he never advocated assasination, he said Chavez should not be their leader. The implication I got from him is that it's up to the people of Venezeula to do something about it, not the US.Sugar coating the heat?

Hey vossy, you weren't late. You did add to the thread. You quoted his exact words regarding his attempted retraction. I was just going by memory from what I heard this morning.

Hi FliesOnlyI don't think his comments were ambiguous either. He's going to pay a price for those comments and his attempted retractions are going to dig a deeper hole.Regarding Fox coverage, its all over their website and I'm sure it will be all over the network coverage tonight if it isn't already there right now.Looks like Venezuela is responding already to Robertson Here .Ya gotta love the digital age!

It may be a "tempest in a teapot" but what else would you want? Should he be prosecuted as Vice President Rangel has suggested? I don't think so. The left should simply enjoy this little tidbit while it lasts.I do think you are right in that this will not cost him many of his followers. If they have stuck with him through some of his previous statements, they will continue to do so.