Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Read it again:
What is instructive is that he was unable to state the simple fact "No I happen to be against Hezbollah." - the words appear to fail him.
Within the next sentence, he tosses off the "I condemn them" but then immediately wraps them into a conversation about both sides, and talks about "both sides coming together"
Which sides - a terrorist organization occupying another country and the Nation which it unilaterally attacked.
You're right about one thing - Dingell's comments are bewildering.
As to who is the hack, well....
|
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 was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
Threaded Mode