Left Loves Pat For "Kill Chavez" Comment

Media Matters matter of factly posted a video link and transcript of Pat Robinson saying we have the authority to kill Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and ought to do it:

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.

Kudos on the fiscal responsibility, Pat, but really, please try thinking before you speak. Everytime you say something like this, particularly when you follow up with a prayer before the cameras, you trash Christianity, not just the political right.

Leftiblogs are loving the quote, and some are taking it as an opportunity to belittle Christianity, including Ezra Klein ("It's not necessarily un-Christian"); Atrios says "It's the Christian thing to do,;" it's just like calling for a Fatwah says Cenk Uygur; and AmericaBlog snidely asks, "Who would Jesus assassinate?"

Suburban Guerilla comments, "apparently there are several footnotes under 'Thou shalt not kill,' right near the 'Godless secular humanists who hold life cheap.'" And this, from Greg Saunders at This Modern World:

I feel rather justified in saying that anyone who actively supports Pat Robertson's ministries at this point is a "bad" Christian. There is no way you can reconcile Pat Robertson's apparent bloodlust with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Period. Even attempting to justify a remark like this is tantamount to putting "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor" behind less important teachings like "thou shalt cover they televangelist's ass".

It's a crying shame that most non-Christian Americans think televangelists speak for most Christian Americans.

What's missing from most of these posts, though, is any acknowledgement that Chavez is bad news. The focus on Robertson is just as a lazy swing at low-hanging fruit; it's about as tough for the Left to be snarky about Robertson as it is for this blog and others to have a snark-fest at Ward Churchill's expense.

We'll give the Left the point. Robertson said something really stupid. But given that Robertson's outburst recommends action that is illegal (see the non-navigating Capt. Ed), given that it's not something on our foreign policy wish list, what would the Left have us do with Chavez.

Nothing. They're thrilled, by and large, to have a new Nicaragua on the continent, ecstatic that Communist China has an oil buddy in the Carribean, and chortling over the fact that Bush has a foreign policy nightmare that's difficult to deal with.

Assassination is out. But to ignore Chavez, as the Left would, is out too.