Via Hugh Hewitt LILEKS: Screedblog

If the Dems retake the House, Rep. Dingell (D-Mi) will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee. They handle oil and stuff. Well, the guys with the oil will love this:

“I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don’t take sides for or against Israel,” said Dingell on a local TV show. Perhaps he’s on to something. Nothing works in the Middle East anymore, after all; perhaps utter neutrality is our best options. But let’s review the others first.

The US continues to support Israel. This is becoming difficult, since many important nations with well-dressed, urbane spokesmen have decided that Israel should stop its strange policy of firing rockets on UN-run stem-cell research facilites for no apparent reason. These diplomats will tolerate a little wartime madness – we all have our moments, after all – but enough is enough, and now they must go home and sit in the basement and wait for more rocket attacks. If they’re good, they will get a snack.

Strict Neutrality, or Dingellism. This may seem odd to some, given that one side consists of bloodthirsty religious lunatics who relish the indiscriminate killing of civilians, and the other is an Islamic social welfare organization reluctantly pressed into combat. (Any objections to those characterizations, Rep. D? Just curious.) Perhaps the West, in the name of fairness, could supply Hezbollah with the tools it requires. After all, it is manifestly unjust that Israel has such wizardly munitions on their side, and Hezbollah is forced to use crude devices made from disassembled Iranian baby-milk factory equipment. And it is rather condescending to believe that Hezbollah fires its missiles randomly without caring where they land; if they had access to precision munitions, it is possible they would aim more carefully.

Arming Hezbollah, however, might alarm Iran, and that would warn the French the US is up to its crazy ways again. As the French foreign minister, M. Douste-Blazy (pronounced Vee-shee) recently said in Beirut:
(
“We could never accept a destabilization of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilization of the region. In the region there is of course a country such as Iran – a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region.”

Of course, he’s right. Without the steady, respected hand of Iran on the Middle Eastern helm, the Syrian regime might be replaced by pragmatic elements of the military unwilling to enjoy the boon of Persian dominance. One can excuse the occasional, inexplicable acts of Iranian mischief; the mullahs no doubt are busy destabilizing Iraq today, for example, but only to achieve a more stable future (Would that our leaders had such foresight!) Granted, their rhetoric is hardly helpful – a New York Times photo of a billboard in Tehran shows the well-fed adamant face of Sheik Nasrallah, a man about whose movement the gentle Democrat from Michigan has no opinion, and the billboard’s English text reads “Israel must be wiped out the world.” (sic)

Extreme? Sure. That’s how those loveable nuts talk over there. You’d have to be nuts – or a Jew! – to take it seriously. But what if the billboard suggests to a third option?

Abandon Israel, and wait for it to collapse. Since the presence of Jews on holy Arab soil is the primary cause for dreaded “instability,” then a Palestine as Judenfrei as Gaza would calm everyone down. Everyone who remained, in any case. It would mean favorable oil terms from new allies. The money spent on foreign aid to Israel could be rebated to the taxpayer in the form of “Fiddler on the Roof” DVDs, which they could study for the myriad ways in which the Jews antagonized the Tsar. (With a new commentary track from Mel Gibson!) Best of all, the United States would be respected again. We would have allies. Respect and allies matter more than what you did to get them, after all.

Give them the Jews and they’ll leave us alone. Lord knows, that always works. If you don’t want any surprises down the road, toss in Spain now. Call it a signing bonus.

Of course, Dingell’s position is ludicrous and Flap covered it here and here.

Sometimes it takes a parody or hyberbole to clearly demonstrate the politicans morons views.

Lileks highlights the sense of importance in maintaining the GOP majority in the House this November.

Can you imagine Dingell as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee?

Previous:

Representative John Dingell Watch: You’re NOT Against Hezbollah? REDUX

Representative John Dingell Watch: You’re NOT Against Hezbollah?

Technorati Tags: JohnDingell, Israel, Hezbollah

Representative John Dingell, D- Michigan

Flap has this piece on Representative John Dingell’s audio clip on YouTube regarding Dingell’s ambivalence, might you say, about supporting democratically governed Israel over Hezbollah, a non-state terrorist organization. The clip is here or here.

Now, Powerline blog has Dingellbats

Yesterday John posted a link to video clip of Democratic Rep. John Dingell on YouTube and posted the audio of the clip here. John accurately quoted Dingell as follows:

“I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don’t take sides for or against Israel.” Asked, “You’re not against Hezbollah?” Dingell answers, “No…”

ThinkProgress has posted a longer video clip and points out that Dingell continues his last answer:

No, I happen to be—I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence.

The exchange occurs in the context of questioning on Dingell’s vote against House Resolution 921 supporting Israel and condemning Hezbollah that I commented on here; Dingell was one of the seven Democratic “no” votes on the resolution. Here’s the exchange in full as quoted by ThinkProgress:

DINGELL: First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem. If we don’t, the possibilities of regional war, calamitous situation with regard to Israel which has 5 million people amidst a billion and a half Arabs are a real potential for calamity. Having said at that, what we have to do is to see to it that finally we begin to address the problems that exist to abate the difficulties that are preventing a–a honest solution to the problem and a negotiated end. It takes–it takes a lot of work to get the trust that it takes to do this. The resolution did not instill that kind of trust and the end result would be quite frankly, the real solution to the problems that exist in the middle east would probably have been and probably will be put off.ANCHOR: Overall majority of your colleagues didn’t see it that way and some would suggest that if–even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to israel against Hezbollah and Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there’s only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.

DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.

ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?

DINGELL: No, I happen to be—I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.

ThinkProgress comments:

Dingell was arguing that the United States should seek to maintain its historic role as an “honest broker” in the Middle East. There are legitimate criticisms of this position, but they should be based on Dingell’s actual views, not a dishonest caricature.

Scott Johnson of Powerline blog concludes:

If I have this right, Dingell’s “actual view” is that the United States should be a friend of Hezbollah, though he condemns the organization for its “violence” even if he does not quite deem it a terrorist group. In other words, according to Rep. Dingell, the United States should serve as an “honest broker” between a murderer and the murderer’s intended victim. Thanks to ThinkProgress for introducing the nuance necessary to appreciate Rep. Dingell’s true view fully.

And at the end of this Flap, the conclusion remains, Dingell is an apologist for Hezbollah and does NOT support Israel.

Dingell is an old-time lefty who should have been retired long ago. Flap asks Representative Dingell again:

What about the Beirut bombing of United States Marines by Hezbollah? And…..the other Americans murdered by Hezbollah?:

William Rich Higgins

Robert Dean Stethem

William Francis Buckley

Honor the 241

Most wanted Hez: Imad Mugniyah

Dingell is scum-bag LEFTY MORON! trying to cover his tracks……and fast…….

Previous:

Representative John Dingell Watch: You’re NOT Against Hezbollah?

Technorati Tags: JohnDingell, Israel, Hezbollah