[Note: Incorrect link removed; the latest update is that he "apologized" for making a statement that grew out of his desire somehow to deal with a desperate situation, but also brought up a German who said that he would have a moral need to kill Hitler if given the chance. Wink wink.]
Rev. (sic) Pat Robertson, like the Ministry of Information for Oceania, went on television today to say that he did not say what he said. The problem, apparently a regular one, is AP reports misquoting him. He really -- ignore the audio heard on Air America and so forth -- did not say we should assassinate the elected president of Venezuela. He only said we should "take him out," which could be done by kidnapping and the like. You know when he prayed that certain justices of the Supreme Court would retired with the help of God.
The only thing one can be amused about -- though I did tell someone recently this sort of thing does amuse me in a dark sort of way as does so much in the world these days -- is that his show at times is followed by the Gilmore Girls on the Family Channel. GG is a "family" show too, and it was a good addition to the network, but simply put the two girls reject most things this smuck stands for. I also hear that certain "family" groups (the sort that make it a four letter word) are "too busy" to respond to his remark. Now that we have learnt it was all a big understanding, maybe they will comment.
The comment did call to mind the administration's stance on Venezuela: they don't like the leader, who is a pal of Castro and not a big fan of this administration. One wonders why. Not really. During an attempted coup, one our own government might have been involved in some fashion (how early 1970s), the Bush Administration was announcing support of the new leaders while the old ones were still resisting. The resistance was portrayed (from the legitimate government's point of view) in The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, a pretty good documentary.
I also recommend The Take, concerning take over of failed businesses by the workers in Argentina. The two are connected, as readers of The Nation (and Norma Klein and her hubby) might know, by the fact that President Chavez is a resister of the so-called "neo-liberal" movement in which corporations and so forth are given loads of power vis-a-vis the people themselves. Poor nations, even those with a lot of potential oil wealth, require social welfare checks.
This is one of them, even though the outspoken elite class is (rightly) worried about the outspoken demands of the poor masses (further complicating things, there is also something of a color line between them). Chavez is a supporter of a strong and ideological style government, but this should not be a big turnoff for this administration. It also is nothing special in Latin America in recent years. The true difference is that the players have changed, including their willingness to blindly support the U.S. This is what Robertson et. al. is so afraid of.
But, his moronic anti-Christian words (something some Christian groups have noted) is useful not only to show what his sorts are made of, but also to recall 2002. The time when a democratically elected government was overturned by force and propaganda, and the United States supported the rebels, even before the dust settled. It was a disgusting, if little remembered, thing to do. But, given the sorts behind the coup, it was not THAT much different than supporting what PR said.