Far-right group asks: Does Rudy agree with Robertson’s 9/11 comments?

November 7, 2007

By some measurements, TV preacher Pat Robertson is perhaps weaker when it comes to terrorism than any prominent American in public life. If he were a liberal, Robertson probably would have been run out of the country by now.

Just since Sept. 11, 2001, Robertson has blamed the terrorist attacks on Americans, and agreed that we “deserved” to be attacked. He’s argued that federal judges are more dangerous than “a few bearded-terrorists who fly into buildings,” dismissing the seriousness of jihadists that many conservatives say threaten the future of Western civilization. Robertson has even gone so far as to openly invite a terrorist attack on the State Department. I know the right likes to carelessly throw around words like “treason” and “traitor,” but when it comes to terrorism, it’s safe to say Pat Robertson probably isn’t on our side.

And yet, Rudy Giuliani couldn’t have been more pleased to stand with the crazed televangelist this morning, and accept his endorsement.

Greg Sargent talked with one of Robertson’s religious-right cohorts — who aren’t nearly as impressed with the pro-choice, pro-gay serial adulterer — who raised the right question.

“9/11 is what Rudy’s campaign is fundamentally based on,” Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at Family Research Council Action, told us. “This does beg the question — does Rudy agree with Robertson’s comments about 9/11?”

Yoest also added that it should be asked whether Rudy agrees with Robertson on a whole host of other issues, such as Robertson’s defense of China’s one-child policy.

Good questions. Will anyone else ask them?

Pat Robertson’s record of truly insane remarks — about terrorism, about Americans, about natural disasters — is practically endless. Any campaign reporters want to ask Giuliani about any of this? Please?

Put it this way: if, say, John Edwards hosted a press conference to announce an endorsement from Ward Churchill, would reporters ask Edwards whether he agrees with some of Churchill’s controversial remarks?

Pat Robertson is, first and foremost, a crook. His main focus seems to be in a republican victory to further his own personal wealth. His christian faith and principles seem to have left the building some time ago. To give the old man the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he has gone senile.

Why is anyone surprised that Rudy can’t tell one way or another about Robertson given the history of Rudy’s current seamy associates? Rudy has no moral center either. It all makes perfect sense to me.

  • Any campaign reporters want to ask Giuliani about any of this? Please?

    I would add that if Rudy lies his ass off (OK, who am I kidding) WHEN Rudy lies his ass off, would the alleged “reporter” be kind enough to inform the readers that Rudy’s lies are sharply contrasted by what is known in some circles as “verifiable reality”?

    Please?

    I didn’t think so.

  • Does anyone know how Dr. Dobson felt about Robertson and Falwell’s remarks? Please, please, somebody dredge up those comments … and tie them around Rudy’s neck.

  • Damn facts keep getting in the way of good talking points.

    Pat Robertson and Rudy. What a pair! Unfortunately for Rudy, only 29% of Americans can accept that much cognitive dissonance. They’re called Bush supporters.

  • such as Robertson’s defense of China’s one-child policy.

    Screw the one child policy, Robertson defended the Chinese gov’t in Tianimen Square!

  • CB wrote:

    Any campaign reporters want to ask Giuliani about any of this?

    But ask him only if he’s got his garter-stockings and heels on underneath. He gets discombobulated without them.

  • Good analogy to Ward Churchill. The main difference is that Robertson is a major figure on the right who reaches millions of viewers and is consulted by the Bush administration. Ward Churchill is someone basically no-one had ever heard of before the wingnuts made a big deal of his comments.

  • Given the whoppers that each of these “gentlemen” have foisted upon the public over the years, I’d have to say that this is “a match made in heaven”—proving yet again that the gods have a wonderfully-demented sense of humor….

  • Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani is the first sign that the religious right may be beginning to circle the wagons in the 2008 GOP presidential race. Despite threats by evangelical leaders to bolt for a third party conservative candidate, it appears increasingly likely they will hold their noses and support the socially liberal Giuliani. After all, the desperate state of the Republican Party gives them little choice.

    For the details, see:
    “Just Win Baby: The Religious Right Rallies Around Rudy.”

  • Robertons’s support for Rudy the Ridiculous may go down as one of the most mind numbing announcements of Presidential support in decades. I don’t think his support will amount to anything. The evangelicals that have any street cred left have stated they will go third party if Rudy gets the nomination anyway. It’s the crazies that might end up voting for Rudy as a result of Robertson’s endorsement, and I don’t think there are enough of them to make any significant amount of difference come election time.

  • Please notice: Pat Robertson, who said something equivalent to: “America was attacked because we deserved it”, has endorsed Rudy. Ron Paul did not say America deserved to be attacked. It would seem that Rudy *HAS* heard something like what he was falsely claiming Ron Paul had said. He just didn’t remember ?? Isn’t it strange that Rudy has no problem with Pat Robertson’s endorsement? Does Rudy have a problem with his memory and his hearing? I do not think Rudy is presidential. I think Ron Paul would be the best president since our founding fathers. His views are spot on for our present predicament. Truth remains truth, even this many years later.

    • Comments are closed.