I disagree. Pat Robertson may be a flawed messenger but I would bet that anyone in public life who made these statements would be attacked on some level. As for his not being an expert; Pat Robertson has spent his life as a religious man and unlike most of us he's actually studied the Koran, which is his point. Few non-Muslims have and the media ignores the intolerant and even violent aspects of Islamic teaching, leaving many Americans ignorant about the violent overtones in Islam and buying the 'religion of peace' mantra churned out by the media.
The 'big picture' in the mid-east isn't the point here. Understanding the violent nature of Islam, is. Robertson is simply pointing it out and reminding the average person that we have a distinct enemy in Islam, not a peaceful religious partner. He takes pains to point out that he's not against all Muslims, just that we need to understand that their religion encourages war with non-Muslims and is not 'a religion of peace'. It's a slap at President Bush but Robertson stands on factual ground when he says it, 'big pictures' aside.
It is the goddamdest mishmash and non-sequential hodgepodge of hossshoe ever committed to paper and gives Westerners a headache.
Oh yeah, it also advises Muslims to kill,maim,convert, degrade, tax, enslave, and otherwise be nasty to infidels. But only on every other page or two. To be scrupulously truthful, there are a few verses where it advises Muslims to play nice with infidels, particularly Christians and Jews, until Muslims can turn the tables on the infidel bastards and go with Plan A!
To be fair again, the Muslims also read the Bible! They have to, no one can make heads or tails out of Qu'ran, not even Muslims. The Suras of Qu'ran cover everything from taking a leak to building a house and stockbreeding ... but if the Good Book of Muhammed (May Peace Be Upon Him) has any theme at all, Pat is correct: it's Plan A for the infidels. To deny this, as many "moderate" Muslims are attempting to do, is certainly interesting. I would advise them to go with "allegory," "Arabic Figure of Speech," "Archaic Usage," "Agricultural Metaphor," "Ancient Myths." That sort of thing. Biblical scholars have been doing it for years. Fortunately for them, the Bible is just so much more interesting as literature than Qu'ran, which truly is a sort of J.C. Whitney catalog of violence.
I can see why Pres. Bush doesn't want Americans to go ballistic with individual members of the Religion of Peace (which it is AFTER everyone is converted or dead) but it's going to be very very tough to do if the Muslims who are in America don't clean up their act... and their brother's.