Last week, we noted Pat Robertson's blatant disregard for the Ninth Commandment, violation of which he once referred to as “taking on the very nature of the devil.”

Two down, eight to go: Pat Robertson works his way through the Ten Commandments

Last week, we noted Pat Robertson's blatant disregard for the Ninth Commandment, violation of which he once referred to as “taking on the very nature of the devil.”

This week, Robertson moved on to the Sixth Commandment, seeming to ignore its admonition that “Thou shalt not kill” when he called for the illegal assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Here's Robertson, in his 2004 book The Ten Offenses, on the Sixth Commandment:

Most civilized people have innate respect for human life, but where do we get our notions that killing another human being is wrong? The answer is very simple: from the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13 KJV).

Robertson went on to make clear that there are no exceptions or qualifiers to the Ten Commandments:

The commandments of God are absolute, not situational. The Eighth Commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15 KJV), not “You have to determine for yourself if stealing is wrong, depending on the situation and the culture.”

Robertson is quite clear in his book: Civilized people have innate respect for human life; the Sixth Commandment prohibits killing; and God's commandments are absolute. No exceptions.

But the moral clarity got a little foggy on the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club this week. On August 22, Robertson called for the illegal assassination of Chavez:

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. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. 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.

God's commandments, Pat Robertson assured us in The Ten Offenses, are absolute; they depend neither on situation nor on culture. But on The 700 Club, Robertson seemed to suggest a teeny, tiny, little qualifier to the Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill [unless it's for oil].”

Unsurprisingly, that didn't go over well. Alerted to Robertson's comments by Media Matters for America, the first outlet to post a transcript and video of them on August 22, news outlets across the country quickly denounced the call for illegal assassination. Even the Bush administration (more or less) got in on the act, distancing itself from Robertson's comments, if not denouncing them. And Media Matters launched a grassroots campaign to urge ABC Family, Trinity Broadcasting, and FamilyNet to stop airing The 700 Club.

Last week, Robertson bore false witness against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), putting words in her mouth that she never spoke (an offense he once described as “acting like the devil himself”). But this week, amid outrage over his call for assassination, Robertson lied about Robertson, falsely claiming he never spoke words that clearly came from his mouth.

Though video of Robertson saying “if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it” had been widely aired for two days, Robertson claimed on the August 24 edition of The 700 Club he'd never said anything of the kind:

Wait a minute, I didn't say “assassination.” I said our special forces should, quote, “take him out,” and “take him out” can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.

According to Robertson, that pesky Associated Press had simply misinterpreted him; he hadn't advocated assassination at all. No, he just said “take him out,” which could mean any number of things. Taking him out for milkshakes, for example. Or for a walk. Anyway, it's all completely innocent; Robertson never said “assassination.”

And Robertson might have gotten away with that explanation, except for one little thing he apparently forgot: He made his original comments on national television, and video of it had been replayed on Web pages and by TV news programs for two days. There was Robertson, clear as day, calling for Chavez's assassination: “if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Needless to say, not many people bought Robertson's obvious lie. So, mere hours later, he essentially declared his previous remarks inoperative, claiming in a press release that his call for assassination was “adlibbed” out of frustration and was not representative of his true thinking. But his admission that he had, in fact, called for Chavez's assassination was not accompanied by an apology for his on-air lies earlier that day, nor by an apology for falsely accusing the Associated Press of misinterpreting him.

That's integrity

There are a few journalists who do “objective” reporting and also write commentary. But there is no one quite like The Washington Times' Donald Lambro. Who else would write a “news” story about the wonders of a controversial Social Security privatization proposal -- offering only one side of the story -- then turn around and write a commentary endorsing the very same proposal?

Well, that's what Lambro did. On August 18, he wrote an article about “grow accounts” for Social Security, quoting no fewer than four supporters of the idea. How many opponents did Lambro quote? If you guessed “zero,” give yourself a prize. And that was the news article. Four days later, Lambro wrote a commentary praising “grow accounts,” saying they “would end the spending raid on the trust fund.” No wonder The Washington Times was President Reagan's favorite newspaper.

This isn't the first time we've caught Lambro doing this: He pulled off a similar trick in April, writing a “hard news” article about a new online Social Security benefits calculator created by the conservative Heritage Foundation without noting key flaws in its methodology, then four days later penning a commentary explicitly endorsing the calculator as accurate and informative.

Able? Not so much. Danger? You bet.

The strange conspiracy theory that is the Able Danger story continues to befuddle journalists and the public alike. On August 24, The New York Times told us that Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott had come forward to back up the claim by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer that military intelligence unit Able Danger identified lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks. But in fact, Phillpott turns out to be the source for Shaffer's claim in the first place.

Not that that would stop Fox News from getting breathless. On Fox News' Fox News Live, anchor Jon Scott reported that Phillpott “has come forward to back up claims” that Atta was identified in early 2000, while national correspondent Catherine Herridge asked: “If the documents [proving Atta was identified] are never found, will we reach a point when enough people have gone public to say it happened that perhaps the documents may ultimately not be that significant?” Who needs documents?

But somehow or other, this must all be Bill Clinton's fault, right? Of course, or nearly so. According to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, it's all former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration Jamie Gorelick's fault, because O'Reilly claims (falsely) that Gorelick's “involvement in building a symbolic wall between U.S. intelligence agencies and those investigating criminal activity” aided in creating “mass confusion among the agencies that are supposed to protect us” before the 9-11 terrorist attacks. That confusion, he suggested, was responsible for the purported failure on the part of Department of Defense officials to pass on to the FBI military intelligence purportedly identifying Atta.

If O'Reilly was looking for support from former Republican senator and 9-11 Commission member Slade Gorton when he had him on his show on August 22, he got a rude surprise. Gorton gave O'Reilly a scolding about his criticism of Gorelick. “We agree on a number of things,” Gorton said. “I'm no defender of Janet Reno as an attorney general. But what I'm telling you is that the wall was created by laws sponsored by the Church Committee back in the 1970s. And they went all the way through until after 9-11 was over. And that nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies.” Chastened, O'Reilly could only respond, “All right. We'll let the audience decide, Senator.”

Why does Bill O'Reilly hate grandparents?

Speaking of O'Reilly, apparently concerned that his outrage quota for the day had yet to be reached on August 22, he lashed out at Grandparents Day: “Now, listen to this. September 11 not only the day of the attack, but it's Grandparents Day. Can you imagine who made the calendar on Grandparents Day on September 11, what a genius this was?” Bill quickly went on to offer a plug for his website, where you can buy “No Spin Grandpa and Grandma mugs.” After all “a lot of that money goes to charity.”

But it turns out that the date of Grandparents Day wasn't decided by some “genius,” or perhaps, as Bill often refers to people whom he doesn't like, some “pinhead.” In fact, National Grandparents Day -- currently established under Title 36, Section 125 of the United States Code -- is an annual holiday that, by law, falls on the first Sunday in September after Labor Day. So give your grandparents some love!