U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan has taken some heat since he made comments on July 30 implying that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, and Israel, a democratic nation, are pretty much two peas in a pod.

What he actually said was, “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don’t take sides for or against Israel.” But that sounds a lot like “six of one, half a dozen of the other” to me.

The comment, made on a Detroit television program called “Flashpoint,” prompted the incredulous host to ask: “You’re not against Hezbollah?” To which Dingell responded: “No!” I use the exclamation point on purpose. If you listen to the audio, Dingell is pointedly emphatic when he says, “No!” It is not an offhand or unenthusiastic reply.

The audio was posted on the blog Power Line the next day and has been widely posted on other sites in the blogosphere. What usually happens in such cases is your press secretary puts out a statement saying that a) your statement was taken out of context for b) political reasons. But Dingell’s site has been silent on the matter. I found out why today.

The Associated Press obligingly wrote a story today that is word for word how a press release from Dingell’s office might read. When the AP will do your bidding, you don’t need to put out press releases. Here’s how the AP story begins:

DETROIT (AP) — U.S. Rep. John Dingell says remarks he made about Hezbollah to a local television station have been taken out of context by Republicans hoping to retain control of Congress.

The story correctly quotes the exchange between the host and Dingell, but immediately calls into question the audio that was posted on PowerLine:

On Detroit station WDIV-TV’s “Flashpoint” public affairs show, which aired Sunday, Dingell was asked, “You’re not against Hezbollah?” — the terror group that captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12, which sparked the violence between Israelis and Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon.

“No,” Dingell replied.

But the snippet, which was posted on Power Line, a popular conservative Web site, and picked up by other conservative Web logs, was only part of the comment.

Dingell’s full statement: “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 story then provided additional spin for Dingell:

Dingell said he was pointing out that if the United States is to be an honest broker in the Middle East, it must talk to both sides.

You might as well preface that sentence with, “What the congressman really meant to say was…” But there’s more. The AP reporter then points out this:

He also said in a release Tuesday that he signed a July 28 letter from U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., and Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to the EU terrorist organization list. Dingell said it was the second time he has called on the EU to classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Dingell’s staff, which couldn’t be bothered to post an explanation of his Hezbollah comments, did indeed post a release on the Wexler-Gallegly letter on Aug. 1, two days after his Hezbollah comments and four days after the letter was supposedly signed by Dingell.

If the AP reporter asked whether Dingell requested to be added to the letter retroactively so that he could put out a press release that would provide political cover, the story doesn’t say. Somehow I doubt such a question was asked, though it should have been.

Next comes more Democratic spin:

Several political analysts said the attack on Dingell in the blog world is part of a larger campaign to raise alarms among voters about who would chair committees, should Democrats win in the high-stakes November elections. Dingell would be in line to head the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Comments from Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato are used to support this view:

“Republicans are going to create a movie entitled, `Nightmare on Democratic Street,'” said political analyst Larry Sabato, author of “Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism and American Politics.”

“Even though (Dingell and Conyers) have no real opposition, the Republicans want them to become symbols of a future Democratic House,” he told The Detroit News.

Next, a Jewish Democratic activist is sought out to inoculate Dingell and to use the term “right wing”:

David Goldenberg, spokesman for the National Jewish Democratic Council, defended Dingell’s remarks, accusing Republicans and “right-wing bloggers” of deliberately misconstruing them.

For additional immunization, the reporter adds this:

Arab-American Muslims said Tuesday that they’re behind Dingell.

“Shame on anyone who tries to question the integrity, loyalty and patriotism of the dean of Congress,” said Imad Hamad of Dearborn, the regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Notice that no one who thinks Dingell’s comments were out of line is quoted in this story. No press secretary on Dingell’s staff could have done it better.

Jon Ham is vice president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of its newspaper, Carolina Journal.