What the hell am I to make of Pat Robertson's latest outburst?

In all honesty, I don't know. For starters, I don't even know what to call him. Is the man labelable, and should he be labeled?

Glenn Reynolds and James Lileks both seem comfortable with the term "idiotarian," and I much enjoyed the latter's take on popular labels:

The term “wingnut” is not as harsh and cutting as you might expect. Personally, I don’t like any of these terms – moonbats, repugs, democraps, etc. (Except for “idiotarian.” I like it because it’s ecumenical.)

Anyway, Idiotarian Robertson is staring me in the face as the pressing issue of the day (right there on the top of the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer), and I'm wondering what's on his mind. What is the man really thinking when he calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez?

Here's the Yahoo version of current events:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"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," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

I can't stand Hugo Chavez, and I'm sure a good argument could be made for taking him out. But this isn't about the merits of Robertson's idea. Besides, such things are done covertly. (As the Wicked Witch of the West would say, "handled delicately....") Especially discussions of them. By sounding off like this, Robertson has probably helped guarantee Chavez's continued tenure, because the latter will use the threat as a sympathy ploy, boost his internal security apparatus, crack down on dissidents -- the whole nine yards.

Hell, the first thing he did was to fly to Cuba to get some victim love and hugs from another dictator who has never stopped kvetching about U.S. attempts to kill him.

Here's the lovely sight:

Is Robertson such an idiot that he's unaware of his own fame? His ability to make headlines and affect world news?

How many men have the power to make tyrants embrace?

Back to his previous attempt to intervene in U.S. foreign policy. Liberia was suffering under the rule of a brutal dictator named Charles Taylor, and far from advocating his assassination, Robertson did his level best to protect the Taylor regime -- and (coincidentally?) his own investments in it!

Pat Robertson Hammered for Stance Toward Liberia
By David Fein
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 10, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - At odds with President Bush over the political situation in Liberia, Christian evangelist Pat Robertson is also under attack from the Left. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has accused Robertson of failing to disclose all of his business interests in civil-war torn Liberia at the same time he was blaming the U.S. State Department for trying to "destabilize" that African country.

During a stop in Senegal Tuesday as part of a five-day, five-country African trip, Bush affirmed his desire for Liberian President Charles Taylor to quickly relinquish power. He echoed those sentiments Wednesday while speaking with South African President Thabo Mbeki.

However, Robertson has used his nationally broadcast television program, The 700 Club , to criticize the Bush administration's handling of the Liberian crisis. Robertson is founder of the Christian Coalition and CEO of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), one of the world's largest television ministries. In 1999, a Robertson-owned company, Freedom Gold, reportedly entered into an arrangement with Taylor's government to look for gold in southern Liberia.

If the motive was money in Liberia, might there be more to this than the idiotarian political philosophy? I think the well-educated, (and politically well-briefed) Robertson is smart enough to know the consequences of his meddling. He's been around a long time, and these things are very predictable.

If you've finished digesting the touching photo of love and hugs from the geriatric tyrant, consider the following facts about Venezuela:

How major?

Here's Venezuelanalysis:

Over the past few weeks there have been some signs that Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez has backed down from his earlier confrontational posture towards Washington. According to the Venezuelan foreign minister, Chavez has no intention of reducing oil exports to the United States. The economic importance of oil in terms of Venezuelan-U.S. relations cannot be overstated. Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter in the world and the fourth largest supplier of oil to the United States after Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Last year, Venezuela’s state owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa) accounted for 11.8% (1.52-million barrels a day) of U.S. imports. (Emphasis added.)

Is this a good time to buy stock in companies that import Venezuelan oil? Or would it be better to buy stock in Mideast importers?

Or maybe sell short?

What do I know? In my case, it matters not at all how much of an idiotarian I might be, because nothing I say can affect the price of oil.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Robertson aside, it occurs to me that if the voicing of opinions can affect world events, anyone with a large audience might be considered an "insider" for SEC purposes. (Fortunately, that's an irrelevant consideration in blogging.)

MORE: Speaking of oil-induced idiotarianism, here are some clever bumpersticker suggestions:

send me your best ideas for anti-SUV bumper stickers. One reader already suggested: "How many soldiers-per-gallon does your SUV get?" Another ofering: "Osama Loves Your SUV." Got a better one?

How many soldiers-per-gallon? Har! I get it now!

But why do we have to get cute when the old "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" will do just fine? (As regular readers know, I've long advocated banning SUVs. . .)

I'm almost tempted to ask whether Hugo Chavez might love SUVs at least as much as Osama, but I don't want to confuse the issue.

UPDATE: Robertson now says he's being "misinterpreted.":

Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping.

("Misinterpreted" also might be what I'm doing by attributing to intelligence something more easily explained by simple stupidity.)