"Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remark" reads the Fox News [2] headline Aug. 24. Actually, what he did was lie about what he said. From Blog for America [3], Aug. 25:
Pat Robertson announced yesterday that his comments on last weekend's "700 Club" were misinterpreted and that his use of the phrase "take him out" did not mean killing:
"I didn't say assassination," Robertson, 75, said today on his "700 Club" program. "I said our special forces should 'take him out.' Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping."
I don't know about that, Pat. This is what we heard [emphasis added]:
"I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," he said.
I think I saw the word "assassinate" in there somewhere. Not to mention the continuing hypocrisy of now claiming to advocate kidnapping. In the words of DFA's very own David A. Stevenson: "Who would Jesus kidnap?" Your calves must be looking mighty shapely from all of the backpedaling you're doing, Pat.
Fox News did point out the discrepancy, but buried it pretty deep in the text. And in other quoted comments, Pat did come a little closer to apologizing—but even these were full of weasily equivocation. To wit:
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."
Accomodate? How are "we" (meaning, presumably, the government) accomodating Chavez? By demonizing [4] him, threatening sanctions [5], and supporting right-wing coup attempts [6] that stop short of assassination? How generous!
Another gem of obfuscation:
"There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions. There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action. In any event, the incredible publicity surrounding my remarks has focused our government's attention on a growing problem which has been largely ignored."
In other words, supporting assassinations is just another legitimate point of view. And he still (if you will) pats himself on the back for "focusing attention" on the Chavista menace through his outrageous comments. Sounds like a pretty half-assed apology to us.
See our last post [7] on the Robertson-Chavez affair.
