The ability to morally equivocate has got to be the greatest mental gymnastics trick the left has in it's arsenal of "intellectual arguments." If something is indefensible all they have to do is point out something else that is indefensible, and then they don't ever have to think about how evil is always the ONLY one peeing in your coffee.
It's pretty awesome, especially if you get pulled over by a liberal cop...you can talk your way out of a speeding ticket by reminding him that HE broke the speed limit to pull you over.
In the last generation Muslim extremism has gone nuclear, and now one guy wants to have a conversation about it, but liberals don't want to hear it...
For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.
More at The New York Times
When I was in college there was a popular game we played on the network in my dorms called Counterstrike. There were two teams, terrorists and counter-terrorists, basically each team would duke it out while terrorists either tried to blow up something or prevent the counter-terrorists from rescuing their hostages.
Sometimes I played on the terrorist team. Also, when I was a teenager I used to say things that were cool were "da bomb." My wife has dried her hair by wrapping a towel around her head.
So I really can't criticize Muslim terrorists either.
What if King didn't support the IRA? What if a different congressman, with a reputation that's more clean than Michael Moore's dinner plate, called for the hearings? Would it be ok to talk about Muslim terrorism then?
What if we went with Biden's suggestion, which he uses when he wishes to remain anonymous, to not make it so obvious that we're talking about them by switching the first and last letters of "Muslim?"
When will the left figure out that hypocrisy makes a person a hypocrite, but it doesn't make them wrong? Making Peter King's wrong-headed support for the IRA the reason we shouldn't talk about murder in the name of Islam is idiotic on its face, to say nothing of it being no consolation to the victims of either one of them.
In fairness the Times article does acknowledge that there is a world of difference between Al Qaeda and the IRA, but then essentially concludes that difference is meaningless after an unfortunate typo involving some terrorist named O'Sama.