Monday - What he really 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.  We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Wednesday - What he claims he said:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

Which brings to mind Charles Barkley's famous quip about some of the claims he made in his autobiography: "I was misquoted."

Only Pat Robertson doesn't have Barkley's jump shot.  Or personality.  Or wit.

Putting aside the issue of whether Pat Robertson "misquoted" himself, is it appropriate for a Christian evangelical preacher cum Republican party presidential candidate to endorse kidnapping?

WWJD, Pat?