1.15.2006 | "cheek-by-rhetorical-jowl"

This is how Jim Hoagland, the Washington Post's reliably centrist foreign affairs columnist, describes Pat Robertson and Iranian president Mahmoud (moonbat) Ahmadinejad. Hope I didn't give away anything by the parenthetical note on the Iranian felow.

Mr. Hoagland makes an amazingly inaccurate comparison between the two. Pat is famous for sticking his foot in his mouth, and chewing loudly. The most recent such meal for him was when he commented, foolishly, on the massive stroke suffered by Ariel Sharon, suggesting that this was holy payback from the Lord. As reported by CNN, here's part of what Pat said:

He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone.'

Now, shock of shocks, I happen to think that God did, in fact, promise all of what is now Israel, "Palestine", and Jordan to the Jews. That opinion is merely what Scripture states. Merely. And there's the nub of the problem in the public square. Pat Robertson surely knows his Scripture, just hasn't much of a clue about how to preach in public with love.

Pat may have been right, but he showed a mean and black heart, an unchristian heart, in praising God for striking down Sharon. Assuming, of course, that this is why Sharon suffered his stroke. As opposed to him being grossly overweight and being 77 years old and eating mounds of God knows what kind of anti-health foods.

There's an overarching difficulty, however. How does Pat Robertson know what God's plans are for Ariel Sharon? Perhaps taking Ariel Sharon was God's way of denying the path on which Sharon has started down. Perhaps God knows that by taking Sharon, his country will become even stronger in the long term. Perhaps God really doesn't care much about how insignificant spits of land are divvied up in the year 2006, but the important thing is the survival of am yisrael, the People of Israel, and this is the way to best ensure this in the long term. Now there's a radical thought. God taking the long view and carrying out salvation history at His pace and His methods, not Pat Robertson's.

Now, getting back to the Iranian idiot, he's not just about praising God for actions taken by God. Oh no, this guy doesn't trust the Almighty to do the bidding of the mad mullahs. He's got a better idea. He's going to lead Iran in the building of nukes, and then they'll wipe out the Jews. Give them enough firepower, I'm certain he'd want to, in his heart of hearts, then start wiping out the Christian infidels in Europe.

At the very least, Pat Robertson bases his stupid remarks on valid Scripture. The Iranian nutjob bases his stupid remarks on what appears to be pure vitriol, hatred of God's Chosen People. Pat Robertson loves the Jews too much. Ahmadinejad of Iran hates them too much. Beyond operating at the extremes, the comparison between the two is invidious.

If you doubt this, if you could only choose one of these guys to be the all-powerful king of the world, and had to choose one (no write-in votes, please), which would it be? Robertson, who still has some vestige of humility (he did apologize), or, as Jim Hoagland points out, the very seriously "nuts" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?