assassination versus dining out

so the prominent bush backer and founder of the christian coalition, conservative pat robertson states on his '700 club' show the other day (in reference to venezuelan president hugo chavez)'i dont know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him i think we really ought to go ahead and do it...we have the ability to take him out and i think the time has come that we exercise that ability. its a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.'

lovely, cant you just feel the warm, fuzzy emanating from this mans soul?
in response to the unpredicated backlash, robertson, whose remarks obviously were taped took the low road once again , having learnt something from the bush adminstration, (deny, deny, deny--he has referred to bush as being blessed by god) 'i didnt say assassinate, i said our special forces should 'take him out'. that could be a number of things including kidnapping' (or to dinner as i myself frequently use the same expression)

the bush adminstration deemed his remarks as inappropriate- well theres the understatement of the year. robertson is the same man who stated that liberal judges were a bigger threat to america than the 9/11 terrorists.
but needing the vote of the evangelical christians in 2006 and 2008 is obviously more of a priority. but you have to balance that with the fact that venezuela supplies us with nearly 10% of our oil needs...what to do, what to say??

on the other side of things- upon hearing these gentle christian remarks hugo chavez did equate robertson to a rabid dog, which i think is entirely appropriate in this case.
to sum up --the majority of religious people or people that profess a belief in a doctrine or faith seem to be sincere hypocrites- how bout that?