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