Pat Robertson's Dilemma

Kent sent me an interesting article over on FindLaw by John W. Dean. The article talks about the threat of assassination made by Marion “Pat” Robertson against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In essence, should Robertson be prosecuted based on federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats?

The cynical part of me (which admittedly is a very strong part of me these days) thinks that, in our current political environment (controlled by ultra-conservative neocon fascists), he's never going to see prosecution. No one will take an interest in this and the entire situation, while being an embarrassment for the right wing, will go away because no one will take this ball and run with it.

Why would they? That would be a blow to a symbol to their radical right political base; a base that basically owns the Republican Party at this point in time.

But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion “Pat” Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

More specifically, Robertson said, “You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination,” referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, “but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.”

“We have the ability to take him out,” Robertson continued, “and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. 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.”

Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down:

“I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'” Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. “'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.”

No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.