There is no way that you can read the full text of what Dingell said and think that Hanson represented it fairly. I'm not defending Dingell, who has an ability only seen in Congress to say very little at great length. But he clearly is saying that (a) he opposes violence, and (b) some negotiated settlement is necessary for peace. If you read (a) and nonetheless think he does not distinguish between Hezbollah and Israel, then you need Spanky to tutor you in reading comprehension.

It is similar to when Ty was unable to unqualifiedly condemn Arafat as a murderous thuggish ruggish terrorist. The left has Moral Compass with no bearings. It is just spinning wildly out of control.

If you read what the Left says as carefully as Victor Davis Hanson did, that is certainly true. I say this to you because you plainly do not bother to read almost anything linked here, or the longer posts for that matter.

Seriously, why can't Dingell just admit that Hezbollah is evil?

Why does he need to qualify it?

If the modern day left was in power during WWII we'd all be goosestepping and speaking german now. I like gewurtraminer and a little reisling from time to time, but overall that is not a palatable reality to me. Why can't the left find morality? Why do they hate G-d?

Why can't Rush Limbaugh and Hanson and Diane and Slave and you just admit that Dingell didn't say what you all are attacking him for? Why do you need to keep attacking him? In the middle of a war, with Islamo-fascist terrorists trying to kill us, why do you all spend so much time villifying honorable Americans for no good reason? Why do you care more about trashing political enemies than about fighting the war on terror?

I admit that he didn't say that Hezbollah was unqualifiedly an evil terrorist outfit. Is that what you were looking for?

You, too, can sign up for Spanky's reading comprehension course. If you get him to play poker while he's doing his teaching, you just might come out ahead.

A pretext is a lie.

What do WMD have to do with smoking restrictions?

I understand your point. My problem with the way medicine offers conclusions is that its very reluctant to admit the socially unpalatable finding implicit in its research (you're probably not going to get a disease from 99.9% of the things you do until you're quite old). The findings are always subtly geared toward making the readers as hyper-vigilant as possible, which, I think, actually causes our taxes to go up. Frivolous visits to docs and E/Rs are a fairly sizable chunk of medical costs each year.

I also have a problem with dumbing down data for the public. Why not tell Joe Shmoe he probably won't see any problems from weekend binge drinking or an occasional suntan or cigarette? It's true. Why do we always inflate the dangerous aspects of things?

That linkage creeps me out. Do we have to dumb everything down for the average American?

What do you mean "we," kemo sabe?

That's rather open ended, isn't it?

He clearly (i) refused to condemn Hezbollah when given the opportunity and (ii) proceeded to treat Hezbollah and the State of Israel as if they have some moral equivilency.

You're getting caught up in trying to knock Hanson - an always excellent read in my opinion - and ignoring the implications of Dingell's viewpoint. That somehow, the terrorists and Israel are on equal footing.

I'm noting that you said this the next time the fat debate comes up. We've got a major obesity problem in this country because people don't think that extra donut is going to have an impact one way or another. And yeah, they're probably right about the single donut.

But then, the causal link between obesity and morbidity is about as tenuous as second hand smoke and cancer, so no worries.