Hey look, it's "Right Noise"'s first disagreement!
You've gotta be kidding, right Matt? Why is there little to no outrage over Senator Hagel's comments and a great deal of outrage over Pat Robertson's comments?
Where to begin? Hagel's been running to the left on Iraq for quite some time now, so it's not like this was unexpected. When a preacherman advocates assassinating a foreign leader, that typically comes as a shock to folks.
Hagel's not the first politician to compare Iraq to Vietnam. Pat Robertson is the first preacher I know of to advocate assassinating Hugo Chavez.
And quite frankly, compared to Cindy Sheehan and the mouth-frothing hordes of moonbats, Senator Hagel's comments were lucid. Displeasing and demoralizing?
I suppose so. Not as demoralizing as Senator Durbin's recent comments. Not as demoralizing as Rep. Rangel comparing U.S. military action in Iraq to the Holocaust, but demoralizing all the same. But his statement could at least be defended. Maybe not to your liking, but Hagel's got an argument to make.
Robertson, on the other hand, made a completely undefensible statement. On the scale of "Religious Scandals", it falls somewhere below molesting little boys and a little above getting busy with a prostitute. There is no logical argument to make for a religious leader advocating the assassination of a foreign leader, at least not without invoking Godwin's Law.
Having said all that, disregard it. Although you didn't specify, I'm inferring that you were specifically talking about the media and it's outrage (or lack thereof). The reason why there's media outrage over Robertson's comment and not over Hagel's comment is that most of the media agrees with Hagel and disagrees with Robertson. It's as simple as that.
