You know, the Bush administration has invaded countries, killed noncombatants, and deposed legitimate rulers for less than this. What I'm talking about, of course, is Pat Robertson's televised suggestion that the United States of America should assassinate the legally elected president of another sovereign nation because he doesn't like the man's politics. Although Mr Robertson is now backpedalling like crazy, saying: "There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him.... I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time."

In fact, what he said was: "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we are trying to assassinate him, we should go ahead and do it.... It's a whole lot easier than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." And: "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Now, that's pretty hard to misinterpret. But you have to give the guy credit, thinking no one will go back one whole day and quote his exact words to show that he is flat-out lying when he denies what he said. But he isn't just a liar. He is also either stupid or thinks his listeners are stupid—and I'm not ruling out either possibility. He actually said that unless American agents acted decisively, Venezuela would become "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

Okay, the whole domino theory of communist infiltration was effectively disproved when South Vietnam fell and communisim didn't sweep unchecked throughout southeast Asia and the Pacific. You can still make the argument, but you have pretty much been proven incorrect before you start by, well, Actual Events in The Real World. And where in the WORLD does Robertson get Muslim extremism in South America? He just made that one up, in my opinion, because he feels (and probably correctly) that his listeners are too stupid to know any better, following along in Robertson's misguided and bent interpretation of Christianity.

And another thing—Hugo Chavez is NOT a dictator. He was elected and has been reaffirmed in office by a majority of Venezuelans, which is more that George W. Bush managed during the 2000 presidential election. Pat Robertson is such a liar. But again, I doubt his listeners much care about the facts, which invariably get in the way of Robertson's unique take on "the truth."

Answer me this. If some well-known Muslim had gone on a televised broadcast and advocated the assassination of George W. Bush because he lied to the American people about the reason for invading Iraq and as a result thousands of innocent Iraqi noncombatants have been killed during an illegal invasion (not to mention the deaths of over 1,800 American combatants), what would happen to that person? Can you say Guantanamo Bay for the duration of his life? What makes Robertson any different? That he's a "Christian" and it's okay for a Christian to advocate political assassination because God is on his side? What?