Well, I relish disagreeing with Andy McCarthy. It doesn’t happen too often, so it makes life interesting.

No question — we shouldn’t allow democracy to legitimize terrorist groups. That’s more a problem of the Bush administration’s sloppy implementation than of failure of democracy itself. Agreed. We shouldn’t legitimize any party that has a militia. Political parties don’t need anti-ship missiles. The problem with Hamas and Hezbollah is that they seek both the benefits of war and the benefits of peace. We shouldn’t allow them to have it both ways. If they choose war, then they should be held accountable. And the idea that U.S. aid is an entitlement that must continue regardless of what group wins an election is ridiculous.

But concern over Hizbullah or Hamas is not excuse for recent White House silence on Egyptian dissident Ayman Nour. Or Libyan dissident Fathi El-Jahmi. Or the Iranian crackdown on the bus drivers’ union. The U.S. coddling of Tunisian President Ben Ali’s current crackdown on liberal dissent and civil society is benefiting no one but the more extreme opposition. These are the guys who provide an alternative between the autocrats and the theocrats, between the corrupt elites and terror sympathizers. I’m not sure that trust in Hosni Mubarak, empty hope of sincere détente with Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi, or a dream of reform in Islamic Republic is beneficial to US security.

Can Hezbollah be moderated? No. They represent an ideological problem, not a political problem. There’s a lot of projection out by people who insist they can moderate the group. These folks have never watched al-Manar or watched Hezbollah ‘militants’ goosestep on parade which Nasrallah delivers a frothy sermon.

At any rate, the devil is in the details. When people talk about Hizbullah winning elections, they have no idea how the Lebanese electoral system was stacked. There are ways to undo this.

Rob Satloff, Daniel Pipes, Josh Muravchik and I debated the issue in greater detail, here.