Issue:ABC News: Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks:

Specific: "On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show 'The 700 Club,' Robertson had said: '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, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.' "

Specific:On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

Comment:This is a first person confirmation that Pat Robertson did indeed use the word "assassination" on Monday.

The reason this is siginificant for comment is because it goes to the nature and quality of "spin" used by the political right bent news outlets. It goes to the blind spot the right has to the "truth" in favor of "fair and balanced".

The Drudge report headlined the apology as a "misinterpretation" - they didn't bother to research it or check it out. Surfing the last could of days I crossed FOX news doing their thing on Chavez. It struck me as a parallel to treatment of Saddam. They called chavez a "neo-communist". I got the impression that Fox News was supporting Pat Robertsons proposition, even if it is wrong for him to suggest it.

This is yet another distinction between the Republican party of my father's generation and the Republican party of today. It supports the notion that there is an element in the body politic of the "right" that pursues power and control while dismissing truth when it becomes inconvenient. It suggests that the "ends justify the means" which I date back to Ronald Reagan and Oliver North.