King of Hypocrites?

I'll say this for New York congressman Peter King, he knows how to compartmentalize his views. The one-time IRA supporter is planning to hold hearings is now Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. In the latter role, he's preparing to hold hearings on the potential terrorist threat of radicalized Muslim Americans. On the surface, that may seem like hypocrisy, which is why it's important to look at the facts.

For his part, though, King sees them as totally different. Why that is seems to boil down to the fact that radical Muslims attacked us here, while the IRA attacked them (i.e. the "imperialist" British regime) over there. Giving King the benefit of the doubt that, even before his election to national office, he understood that Britain is America's staunchest ally, the equation simplifies to a question of here versus there.

In the 1980s, King refused to blame the IRA for civilian casualties incurred in the group's fight against the British government, which he described as a "murder machine". A couple years after "9/11", he claimed that 85% of American mosques are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists, who he characterized as "an enemy among us". Do those positions make King a hypocrite? Of course not, the advantage of a cynical and opportunistic worldview is that, when you can turn an issue to political advantage, here versus there makes all the difference in the world.

If you'd like to let Representative King know that that's not cool, he can be contacted at  house.gov.