Giuliani tries, fails to defend Robertson’s sedition

November 8, 2007

At the risk of belaboring the point, I’ve been anxiously awaiting the point at which Rudy Giuliani is asked why he’d embrace a crazed TV preacher who blamed Americans for 9/11. The State’s John O’Connor has the story. (via Greg Sargent)

Giuliani defended Robertson’s past controversies, including statements after the Sept. 11 attacks that God was “lifting his protection” because the U.S. was allowing abortion and removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from public schools.

“I think the comments he explained a long time ago,” Giuliani said. “I’ve had to explain lots of comments of mine.”

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. The Republican presidential hopeful running on a 9/11 platform is perfectly comfortable with Pat Robertson’s anti-American lunacy because Robertson “explained” his comments “a long time ago.”

I happen to know quite a bit about this — I covered the controversy closely six years ago — and what Giuliani said is simply wrong. Robertson never offered an “explanation” for his sedition. Indeed, he still hasn’t.

It’s worth taking a moment to review exactly what Robertson said, and then review his justification for his remarks.

Just 48 hours after the planes hit the Twin Towers, Robertson invited Jerry Falwell onto The 700 Club to discuss the attacks.

Robertson began his remarks with an error-ridden description of American society, arguing that church-state separationists, in conjunction with the federal judiciary system, have angered God, who in turn, neglected to protect us on 9/11.

“We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God’s eye and said we’re going to legislate you out of the schools,” Robertson said. “We’re going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We’re not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We’re not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say, ‘Why does this happen?’ Well, why it’s happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.”

In other words, as far as Robertson was concerned, it was our fault. We brought the terrorism upon ourselves.

A few minutes later, Robertson brought Falwell on, via satellite from Lynchburg, and Falwell followed with a series of harsh remarks of his own. “What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if in fact, if in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve,” Falwell said.

Robertson agreed, saying, “Jerry, that’s my feeling.”

Falwell then went on his now-infamous tirade, identifying specific American groups and minorities whom he personally wanted to assign blame for the worst terrorist strike in U.S. history. He blamed the ACLU, “abortionists,” feminists, Pagans, “the gays,” and everyone who has tried to “secularize” America. Falwell concluded, “I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.'”

Responded Robertson, “Well, I totally concur. And the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.”

So, when did Robertson “explain” this borderline-treason to Rudy Giuliani’s satisfaction? Apparently, never.

A day after the broadcast, Robertson issued a press release saying that “there are organizations within the United States that have labored unceasingly to strip religious values from our public square, and, in the process, to take away the mantle of divine protection which our nation has enjoyed ever since the days of its founding.” In essence, he repeated his claims from the day before.

Three days later, under intense criticism from every corner, Robertson issued yet another press release, throwing Falwell under the bus. Robertson called Falwell’s remarks “harsh” and “unexpected.” Robertson even said that he was watching Falwell on a monitor and Falwell’s comments were “not fully understood.”

This was, of course, stupid. On the one hand, Robertson understood Falwell’s remarks well enough to say he “totally” agreed with them. On the other hand, Robertson said the exact same things when he personally blamed Americans for the attacks.

Robertson never apologized and never repudiated his own remarks.

That Giuliani finds Robertson’s comments acceptable speaks volumes about the former mayor’s twisted values and worldview. If campaign reporters are smart, they’ll recognize this as a pretty important story.

Update: Interested readers can watch the clip of Robertson’s and Falwell’s 9/13 comments here. Keep a bottle of Maalox handy.

I really don’t see what Rudy gains from hooking up with Pat. In addition to having to answer questions like these, I don’t think Robertson has nearly the sway over evangelical Christians that he used to have.

  • An element of this that I haven’t yet seen discussed is that part of Giuliani’s electoral appeal is that he’ll supposedly bring normally blue states like Connecticut and New Jersey into play. And I did see polling on TPM this morning that suggests he run strongly in Connecticut.

    But the voters of those states who might be susceptible to Rudy’s 9/11 strongman persona and perceived social moderation are precisely the same people who’d rather key their own Audis than have anything to do with Pat Robertson. Any smart Democratic campaign–though, alas, none of his Republican primary opponents–would exploit that rather easily and destroy Rudy’s chances in the Northeast.

  • ….as far as Robertson was concerned, it [911] was our fault. We brought the terrorism upon ourselves.

    Well, I might agree if God had hijacked those planes and was the simultaneous pilot of all of them, but most people would think that was a bit strange if God was a vengeance pilot. I suppose Robertson believes God was mad at each of those people who died that day.

    Giuliani’s still a whacko in my book, and no amount of “explaining” alleviates his dipshitness. And I agree, “like attracts like” in many cases — these two idiots belong together, and it couldn’t happen to nicer people.

  • What I’m hearing is not so much that it is Pat Robertson in his own right that helps Rudy, it is that if one face of the fundamentalist movement can support him, it gives permission to “rank-and-file” evangelicals and fundamentalists to vote for him.

    I’m thinking that for all the votes he might pick up from the religious end of the spectrum, he loses as many, if not more, from those who might have been taken in by the “socially moderate” label, but who, seeing Rudy standing at the side of a certified nutcase, are having second thoughts. As well they should.

    I think Robertson is anxious to be relevant again, to have a bigger platform, and sees Rudy as the means to that end. They are nothing more than two ego-driven megalomaniacal peas-in-a-pod.

  • If you haven’t heard Jim Ward’s reenactment of Robertson and Guiliani on an international flight, listen here. It starts about a third of the way through the audio clip. Ward always does a masterful job of impersonating the Reverend Pat and lampooning wacko hillbilly preachers.

  • An article in TPM recalled that there was a somewhat similar occurance during one of the Republican debates. One of the the other candidates (one whose name should not be printed) made the comment that America’s foreign policy in part was to blame for the attack. Well, Julie Annie jumped all over that candidate accusing him of blaming America with the comment.
    Their updated page features this, including a Utube link

  • Robertson’s declaration of support for Rudy isn’t going to do anything positive. All those evangelicals with any street cred left weren’t even going to vote for Rudy. It’s the crazies that might listen to Robertson’s endorsement, and there are not nearly enough of them in numbers to make a difference in the campaign.

    I think it’s sick that anyone would even go after this lunatic’s endorsement in the first place. What has our electoral process come to? Lies and cries.

  • I’m disappointed that you would use a term as loaded as “sedition” to characterize Robertson’s comments. Idiotic, offensive, and reprehensible all seem appropriate, but sedition carries it with it the idea that what Robertson said was criminal (i.e., the sedition acts). Whatever else we can say about Robertson’s stupidity, it is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. I see conservatives throw around the term “sedition” far too often and am dismayed to see a liberal stoop to using such terminology.

  • If campaign reporters are smart, they’ll recognize this as a pretty important story.

    So you’re saying we’re screwed?

  • The press has gone out of its way to keep the public from seeing the real Guiliani. He is given a pass on nearly everything coming out of his mouth because nearly everything coming out of his mouth is a lie, exaggerated or totally misguided. With all we know about Guiliani already how is it possible that he could be a GOP front runner? He has absolutely no credibility in any area and the press goes out of its way to apologize for him. What a joke he is as a candidate, it’s embarrassing. On the same level as having ‘porky pig’ or “yosemite sam” running for office. All we should be hearing is…”are you kidding” whenever Guiliani’s name is mentioned.

    Robertson is a hypocrite of megalomania proportion. A power hungry fanatic who sells religion like snake oil, who preys on the weak and susceptible. Who is so full of hate and moral condemnation he doesn’t deserve a public voice. Did I mention he is insane. Guiliani shaking his hand in public should be enough to condemn his campaign. I doubt the Pope would recognize Robertson as a legitimate religious leader.

  • I think I’ve figured out why Pat has decided to back Rudy. Rudy is the personification of Pat’s vengeful god.

  • It’s one nutcase hooking up with another wacko, tis all.

    Just goes to show what phonies both are.

    • Comments are closed.