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.<\/p>\n
Just since Sept. 11, 2001, Robertson has blamed the terrorist attacks on Americans<\/a>, 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<\/a>,” 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n And yet, Rudy Giuliani couldn’t have been more pleased to stand with the crazed televangelist this morning, and accept his endorsement.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n “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?”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Good questions. Will anyone else ask them?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n