Pat Robertson apologized for calling for the assassination of Venuezuela President Hugo Chavez Wednesday — after first doing an impressive Pinocchio imitation by denying he actually said it.
Robertson’s nose grew almost as long as part of Bob Dole on Viagra.
And what also grew was international publicity and possibly domestic sympathy for Chavez, who adeptly seized on Robertson’s call for the U.S. to kill him by milking it for all it’s worth. In fact, Chavez gained so much ink and broadcast time — and a perfect issue to appeal to Venezuelan nationalism — that you almost wonder if Robertson and him are best ‘buds…
But first, we point you to what we said in this post about Robertson’s outrageous and widely condemned call to whack Chavez:
Robertson is a disgrace. This isn’t a matter of left or right or Democrat or Republican.
Hopefully his comments will be universally repudiated so he can then do what every politician or talk show host does when they say something dumb, or extreme and there’s a major controversy: deny he ever made them.
And — lo and behold (words we learned from Pat) — earlier today, the AP reports, he did precisely that:
The televangelist had previously said Wednesday that his comments were “misinterpreted.”
“I didn’t say ‘assassination,'” Robertson clarified during a broadcast of his “The 700 Club” Wednesday morning. “I said our special forces should go ‘take him out,’ and ‘take him out’ could be a number of things, including kidnapping.”
He blamed The Associated Press for making him seem to advocate the assassination of a foreign leader.
“There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him,” Robertson said. “I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.”
However, during the original “700 Club” broadcast Monday night, Robertson clearly mentioned assassination.
So the question then became if “take him out” didn’t mean kill, what did it mean? Did it mean:
- Pat wanted to take Chavez out for a few beers? (Well, he is a man of the cloth. OK: Prayer sessions..)
- Have Donald Rumsfeld take Chavez out to a ball game?
- Have Condi Rice take him out for dinner (but if Pat was in the kitchen, Chavez might opt for a food-taster..)?
But, clearly, that didn’t end the firestorm, so he later issued this apology which — as we often see now with politicians — totally ignored his earlier denial and tried to put the whole thing behind him:
“Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement,” Robertson said. “I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.”
But he compared Chavez to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler and quoted German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “[That if a madman were] driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”
Robertson has faced a firestorm over his comments. The Star Tribune writes:”Given the absurdity of his more famous quotations, one can only hope that Pat Robertson’s television viewers don’t think he gets his ideas straight from the top, as it were.”
Arab News writes:
Calling for the assassination of anyone, let alone the head of a sovereign state, is an act of terrorism. What is the difference between Zarqawi or people like him demanding the murder of leaders who oppose them and a high-profile broadcaster whose message is beamed into millions of US homes, calling for the murder of Chavez? The answer is none. None at all.
And Chavez? The call has thrust him to center stage. And unless he dies a nice, natural death, Mr. Robertson has planted the seeds for conspiracy theories for years.
Meanwhile, the 21st century political double standard is as alive as ever, as a Washington Post editorial notes, also pointing to how it helps strengthen Chavez’s long-time claims that Washington is out to get him:
But Mr. Robertson’s slide from the mountain peak of evangelical pontification was not because of his politics but because of his mouth. When his words were not ill-advised, they were moronic; when not callow, downright loopy…..
Still, it is curious how some of Mr. Robertson’s fellow travelers have not been able to locate their tongues over this latest Robertson-inspired international disturbance. The Family Research Council and Traditional Values Coalition spare no moments in rushing forth to denounce irresponsibility on the part of those they dislike. Not so with Mr. Robertson, who only called for the United States to murder a foreign head of state. Even the Bush administration can’t bring itself to censure a fellow conservative who publicly calls for his country to break the law. “Inappropriate,” the State Department managed to say. The White House, embarrassed by Mr. Robertson yet again but too afraid to mix it up with his narrow but loyal base of support, simply averts its gaze. For all that, Mr. Chavez owes Mr. Robertson a thank-you note.
Chavez seems to be enjoying the spotlight:
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela hit back vigorously at calls by an ally of President George Bush for his assassination by offering cheap petrol to the poor of the US at a time of soaring fuel prices.
In a typically robust response to remarks by the US televangelist Pat Robertson, Mr Chávez compared his detractors to the “rather mad dogs with rabies” from Cervantes’ Don Quixote, and unveiled his plans to use Venezuela’s energy reserves as a political tool.
Indeed, Chavez gets high polling results in his country and there are predictions that Robertson’s call for his rub-out is going to nudge them higher.
Why? I personally saw the impact of negative comments from abroad while living and reporting overseas from South Asia and Europe during the 70s. In countries such as India, Bangladesh and Spain controversial foreign comments or policies against these countries sparked highly protective nationalistic domestic feelings.
And what could provoke more nationalism than hearing that a holy man from the United States has called for the elimination of your country’s leader? Robertson’s comments will only increase Chavez’s stature at home and abroad. As the Post wrote in the editorial quoted above:”For all that, Mr. Chavez owes Mr. Robertson a thank-you note.”
UPDATE:
— Sorry to use the word, Pat, but when Media Matters runs your denial yesterday alongside your original words it’s pretty damning. Perhaps you need this guy.
—Seattle Times editorial:”Let’s hope Pat Robertson does not practice what he preaches. If so, he could find himself on trial for the assassination of a head of state….Instead of suggesting breaking laws and making empty apologies, Robertson should consider a period of penitential silence.”
—NY Daily News:”‘Incredibly stupid.” That’s what Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota), the chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations subcommittee, accurately called Pat Robertson’s call for the murder of Hugo Chávez…. There are no two ways about it: President Bush, who has vowed to fight terror anywhere it shows its ugly head, needs to strongly condemn Robertson’s incredibly stupid remarks ASAP.”
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.