CAIR on Robertson's Endorsement of Giuliani

CAIR, in what appears to be a paid press release [can anyone confirm this?] says that Rudy Giuliani should reject the recent endorsement he received from Pat Robertson. In part because in 2002 he implied that Muslims were "worse than the Nazis." What they refuse to mention is that Robertson clarified his remarks, saying:

"There is no doubt that the religion of Muhammad and those who adhere to it firmly ... is extreme and violent," Robertson said on the show aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "However, we must distinguish between the origin of the religion and the adherents to it in the United States who indeed are peaceful people. So to say `the religion is peaceful' I don't think is accurate. To say that most of the adherents in America to the Islamic faith are peaceful is absolutely correct."

They are "peaceful people" -- that doesn't sound like hate speech to me. Every other comment CAIR criticises Robertson for are within what people coming from Christian assumptions would conclude about Islam, such as it being "satanic" -- that is, not Christian! So what would you want a Christian leader to say? That Islam is just fine and dandy? That it is just as good as Christianity? Better? Well, actually that probably is what CAIR wants Christians to say, and then eventually convert.

And if Pat Robertson can't endorse Giuliani, who can he endorse? CAIR seems to say he can endorse no one. So the millions of Pat Robertson supporters, who vastly outnumber CAIR supporters, are simply not fit to have a political voice according to CAIR. How does placing a large segment of America's population beyond the pale promote "American-Islamic relations," the supposed goal of CAIR?