Powerline has noted John Dingell's (D—MI) bizarre refusal to say he is against Hezbollah, which killed hundreds of American Marines, among many other crimes of terrorism, and notes that he will be the chairman of an important House committee if the Democrats gain control of the House. This fact should be brought to the attention of voters in every House district even close to winnable for the GOP. He did manage to use the word "condemn," though:*

 Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence.

So "violence" is bad. Tell it to some WW II vets. This is the moral equivalence argument that posits states defending themselves against terrorists are as bad as the terrorists themselves.

Our contributor Matt May, who has previous covered Dingell, says today that Dingell is a walking argument for term limits.

 Upon entering office, each Member of Congress swears that he or she will 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.' Hezbollah, along with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al—Qaeda and the various offshoots of militant Islam, has as its main goal the destruction of Israel and the establishment not just of a Muslim Middle East, but a Muslim world ruled by Sharia. These organizations have repeated this intention over and over again, and that intention includes the demolition of the United States.

Only the ignorant and stupid ignore their stated goal, perhaps thinking they would be spared by the 'religion of peace.' Battlefronts in this quest include the current Israeli conflict, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the waters in which the USS Cole was bombed, American embassies overseas, Iraq, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A refusal to support defense against these entities is contrary to the oath of office Rep. Dingell has recited 25 times in his life. His failure to support Israel is against not only the oath of office, but against our own efforts in this titanic struggle against terrorists.

The twilight of Rep. Dingell's congressional career should yield nothing short of outrage from the thinking man.

* We earlier eroneously stated that Dingell refused to condemn Hezbollah, based on the Powerline post. Having been advised of the context, we have updated our post, and regret the error. Dingell also earlier stated the following words,which are somewhat inconsistent with his television interview:

I believe we must speak with one voice that Israel has a right to defend itself. I believe we are unanimous in our opinion that Hezbollah began this conflict; and I believe that we are unanimous that Iran and Syria continue to destructively meddle in the emerging democracy of Lebanon."

So why did Dingell later refuse to say that he is against Hezbollah?