Misunderstood

So it turns out that Pat Robertson didn't call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, according to Pat Robertson (all quotations from this piece in the NY Times).

His original statement was:

"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." (emphasis added)

He added:

"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."

Now he claims:

"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."

Good point! Hell, he might have meant "take him out for dinner on his birthday." The possibilities are endless. How could the media have been so irresponsible as to report that he meant assassination?