Deja-vu all over again? Other than the reactionary fundamentalism and pompous bigotry, Pat Robertson seems of late to be distinguishing himself on another front altogether: putting his foot in his mouth. Whatever the issue, Mr. Robertson’s predilection for political faux pas knows no bounds. The script is becoming ever more familiar:

1) outrageous statement made by Robertson, noteworthy for either its ignorance or cruelty or both

2) anguished complaints, often from the left and the right

3) more or less stonewalling by Robertson

4) and finally, mealy-mouthed apologies or nuanced qualifications

Such was the case when he attributed at least partial blame for the 9/11 attacks to the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People for the American Way. Likewise, his call for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez followed similar pattern of zealous overstatement and then humble withdrawal. As far as I can tell, though, Robertson’s suggestion that the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters should be nuked and his support for Liberian dictator and alleged war criminal Charles Taylor have not led to retractions on his part.

And he doesn’t seem to be learning. Recently, commenting on Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke, he ascribed his turn toward ill health—an overweight septuagenarian, mind you—to divine intervention as retribution for dividing God's land i.e., ceding Gaza to the Palestinians.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime MinisterAriel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which Robertson opposed."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,'" Robertson told viewers of his long-running television show, "The 700 Club."

Predictably, of course, he would come to eat his words. "I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel for saying what was clearly insensitive at the time."

This apology was offered after a threat by the Israeli government to cut Robertson out of a $50 million deal building a Christian heritage site on the Sea of Galilee (By the way, check out Slate for a take on how evangelicals such as Robertson actually think about the Jews theologically).

The real question here is how cynical is Mr. Robertson. Does he honestly believe the things he says, and, buoyed by the certainty of his faith, charge headlong into controversy, unperturbed by how mean-headed and narrow-minded he seems? Were this the case, his aggressive piety and charged rhetoric would, at least, seem the work of an honorable man; his apologies and retractions, mitigated only by pride, would at bottom be heartfelt.

This may very well be the case, and he has every right to blabber on as I do.

Something tells me otherwise though. The serial nature of his gaffes, the predictable template of the controversies that ensue, the way in which he comes out not so burned by the controversy as to be shamed from the public sphere, yet still hot enough to insist on relevance; all this suggests he knows exactly what he’s doing. If this is the case, and his message of intolerance and crazed millenarianism is not just the inane bluster of an ignorant but well-meaning man, then Mr. Robertson is a more vile and sinister force in American society than most people realize.