When he wraps himself in a prophetic mantle and speaks from the position of "Thus Saith the Lord" then he better be right or he needs to shut up.

It's his responsibility to be very clear and careful as to what he is saying and how he is saying it, because people supporters and critics look to him and what he says impacts a greater sphere than just his organization.

Moreover, Christians should wake up and speak out so we don't by default allow Robertson or any one else to misrepresent the universal Church in this manner.

I have measured respect for Robertson even when I disagree with him.  I can't support him financially however when he does things like this and I think other Christians should factor this type of thing into their giving decisions.

However, consider the case of Jonah. He went to a “non-church” audience and warned them Ninevah was going to be destroyed. The people of Ninevah repented so God did not destroy Ninevah after all. Did that make Jonah a false prophet?

The problem I see with a great deal of the pentecostal/charismatic type treatment in this day and age in terms of prophesy (and I went to ORU and I have a heritage in my family of Pentecostal preachers so I'm not unfamiliar with it) is that there is no accountability to a governing body, such as elders in the Church, and no accountibility.

Could it be a legitimate word from the Lord?  Yes.  There's no level of accountibility however and it appears to me to be invoking the name of God to add weight to Robertson's own opinion and when it fails to come to pass then I expect that there is an onus upon Robertson to explain why his prophesy, for a specific event in a specific time, delivered as the Word of God failed to come to pass.

Are you aware of any response by Robertson offering an explanation or additional Word from God as to why God changed His mind?  If not, then there's a problem, isn't there?

Apart from the theological, in terms of media presence and perception, which is Robertson's venue, it is not a particularly effective means of ministery and communication in my opinion.

Prophesy also includes an element of "forthtelling" of the will of God and I understand that that is an element of preaching and gifting within the body.

The problem I see with the fine line you're attempting to draw is when Pat speaks on the 700 club or in a New Magazine on Fox, or wherever else, he is communicating to an audience that is broader than the Church,  who of whom simply look at these types of claims and conclude that Pat and the Church he is representing, are pretty much a bunch of Kooks.

I think persecution for the sake of Christ's name is going to happen.

That doesn't mean that all persecution comes on that basis however and I'm amazed at how many are willing to simply defend almost anything on that basis and lose sight of the many scriptural admonitions to wisdom and foresaking folly or foolishness.

I respect Pat overall.  He's done and continues to do a great deal of good for the name of Christ, but I think with this he is overstepping some bounds.  If he's going to give an opinion as to the danger of nuclear attack, he's certainly a voice people will listen to and whose opinion carries a great deal of weight.  When he prefaces it as "Thus saith the LORD" then that is something else, and when that prophetic word doesn't come to pass, that's a strong indication to me, that he needs to re-evaluate his terminology and consider the audience he is speaking to, because many aren't equip to make the distinctions you're suggesting.

If someone in my congregation had given a word like this, I'd be asking some questions and have some things to say to him after it didn't happen.