So, you all saw that news that Pat Robertson, former presidential candidate, and now impotent spokesmen for disillusioned dispensationals, had called for the assissination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Now, granted the U.S. doesn’t like the guy that much (Chavez, I mean), but after hitting the airwaves, the U.S. Federal government distanced themselves from Robertson pretty quickly.

Now, two days later, Robertson has decided that the best way to deal with this little faux pas is to lie about what he actually said. Robertson did very clearly call for the assissination of Chavez:

“You know, 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. 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, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”

Now, he’s saying that he didn’t really call for killing the guy, and that we all misinterpreted him:

“I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted.”

That’s bullshit, Pat. You sounded exactly like the mullahs who are propogating hate and murder from the mosques of the Middle East, and now you’re a liar for not standing by your words.

I wonder if anyone will feel any sympathy if Venezuelan guerrillas took out Mullah Robertson in a first strike attempt. This is clearly a hostile statement, and one that Venezuela would have every right to deal with in kind.