Pat Robertson's Disingenuous, Hollow, Insincere Apology

And the beaming man of God realizes the error of his ways, and poots forth a deep, heartfelt apology for stating unequivovally that the Government of the United States of America should kill the president of Venezuela.

Yeah, right.

First Pat says he never uttered the word "assassination." He tempered this by offering the much less offensive, much less inflammatory, much more diplomatic, "I said our Special Forces should 'take him out,' and 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping." Well, that's so much better, so much more clear, and clearly much less direct than what he did in fact say earlier. Sorry, Pat, but you did say "assassinate," and there is no arguing that. Maybe you're just too old to remember. Maybe you're just too old to keep adequate and responsible control over the neural linkage between your brain and your mouth--you know, that might just be the kind of excuse you're looking for.

But then Pat did admit that he said "assassination," but that it was immediately mitigated as well, by implying that it was not really that bad, because he'd just ad-libbed that portion of the 700 Club broadcast. Kind of like how he ad-libbed his mid-September 2001 concurrence with fellow rabid Christian soldier Jerry Falwell that the US deserved the 9/11 attacks because of feminism, tolerance of homosexuality, and liberalism (with consequent hollow apology). So it's excusable to say these kinds of things extemporaneously, without thinking, while by implication it's not okay to actually put them into a script and then speak the prepared words. I guess that's the message. So by Pat's definition, anything anyone says off the cuff is excusable, since it's not rehearsed and prepared ahead of time. So much for taking personal responsibility for one's actions and speech, eh?

But Pat did then utter the word "apologize," to his credit, but then tempered it immediately as well, in the same sentence, conditioning it by saying, "I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him." So what the hell does this mean? Is Pat frustrated that Chavez is saying the US is out to kill him? Or is he frustrated at Chavez's politics, a specific action or statement by Chavez? None of this is clear given this (likely intentionally) awful and confusing statement, but it certainly calls into question the sincerity of Pat's apology. A true apology is direct and unequivocal. It stands on its own, and is clear to all who read or hear it. I'm not seeing that hear, not even the whisper of an attempt to produce something of that caliber.

Pat went on to quote and cite a Protestant theologian, murdered by the Nazis for conspiring to kill Hitler, referring indirectly to a Christian's unstated duty to recognize threats and act decisively to counter them. The core of this argument is sound, and I agree completely that clear threats must be acted upon quickly and by anyone in the power to do so, but I don't think Chavez's political and populist antics in northern South America and the Caribbean equate to an immediate threat to the national security of the USofA, or equate to Hitler and the Nazis. This further erodes Pat's apology.

So is Pat sorry? No, of course he's not. He spoke his call for Chavez's death out loud, and he did it on purpose. He put it out there, directly into the sponge-like brains of his gawping 1 million-odd 700 Club viewers, and that was precisely his intent. He put it out there on TV, knowing it would be recorded and replayed, knowing the publicity it would generate. He put it out there, knowing that he was planting a seed, sacrificing himself temporarily in the court of public opinion as another persecuted Christian putting out the one and true word of truth. He put it out there, knowing the message of hate and intolerance would continue after he set it free, and anticipating the (hollow) apology he would have to make. Hey, if only 1% of them 700 Clubbers write a letter to their Senator, congressman, or the President, that's 10,000 letters. If only 1% of them send $20 apiece to the 700 Club, that's a tidy $200,000. So, it pays off actually, in many ways.

And this yutz ran for President. And had hundreds of thousands of people supporting him, clamoring to vote for him.

But wait, who's running the country now? Oh yeah, right. Peas in a pod, and all that.

Fidel Castro's fascinating reply was, "I think only God can punish crimes of such magnitude." Okay, that's diplomatic, restrained, and yet at the same points a very wrinkled old commie finger at Pat's ridiculous ruminations. But wait a minute. How is it the second greatest living commie (second only to Kim "I'm So Rone-Ry" Jong Il, North Korea's Dear, Dear Leader) is citing God as an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, and imposer of attendant punishment? Whatever happened to Marx and his "Religion is the opiate of the masses" spiel? Is Fidel getting all mushy and sentimental now, maybe worried now that his time is nigh, hedging his bets for all eternity. Very interesting that the Cuban super-commie would cite God in a rejoinder of this nature, other than to shove God right back in Pat's smirking face.