Din­gell’s stance

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

In ref­er­ence to Rep. John D. Din­gell’s let­ter to the ed­i­tor (Aug. 14 edi­tion): I do not be­lieve that the Wash­ing­ton Times has any­thing to apol­o­gize for in re­gards to their edi­to­rial crit­i­ciz­ing Mr. Din­gell for his stance in re­gards to his not con­demn­ing Hezbol­lah.

Mr. Din­gell takes ex­cep­tion to the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of his an­swer to the ques­tion of whether he re­ally “wasn’t against Hezbol­lah.” Sure, the Wash­ing­ton Times didn’t print his com­pletean­swer,which started with“no,” butread­ing his com­plete­sum­ma­tion cer­tainly leaves no doubt that he is play­ing both sides of the fence. He states that he con­demns Hezbol­lah for the vi­o­lence. Butheal­so­has­said that, “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbol­lah.” What opin­ion is areader to ar­rive at with th­ese two state­ments? I be­lieve the Wash­ing­ton Times got it right, and Mr. Din­gell knows that he has a real prob­lem in re­main­ing true to his vot­ing con­stituents, of which many are of Arab de­scent, or sup­port­ing the waron ter­ror. Af­ter all, it comes­down to get­ting sup­port for re-elec­tion when­thetime­comes,ortheap­pear­ance that he sup­ports the pres­i­dent — which we all know is a no-no for any Demo­crat to do. Just look at how the Democrats treated Sen. Joe Lieber­man. Dave Dahlke Port Or­chard, Wash­ing­ton

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.