"You have to decide..."

Several times since the Republican misadventure in Iraq turned sour, I have been told by a few defenders of the decision to invade that "even Bill Clinton believed Saddam had WMD". These folks seem to think that means he also supported the invasion.

I have known that was not true. I am glad, now, to be able to give chapter and verse. A transcript of President Clinton's remarks of March 14, 2003 -- less than a week before the invasion -- has been posted at the Hillary Clinton website. Here are some excerpts:

"... you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don’t think it matters, then you’re with a lot of the people in the current administration...

[Saddam]'s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. ... I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change..."

I, like President Clinton, believed President Bush was acting foolishly in the months leading up to March of 2003. I was quite vociferous about that, despite the ridicule of a whole gaggle of my Republican friends. I saw an administration hyping the case for preemptive war. They may have believed some of what they said about WMD, but they blatently hyped it. They knew Saddam was not an immediate threat to the US and they knew Saddam was unconnected to the terrorist attacks of 2001 (and never SAID he was, as they are quick to point out) but blatently lied about the first and actively promoted the second impression, and those misconceptions became majority assumptions in the US. The Machiavellian neo-cons viewed war as an exercise of the unique power of the world's only remaining superpower. It was an opportunity, the neo-cons seemed to think, that the US should not pass up. From slimy politics, to slippery slope, to free fall.

What a different and better world this would be today if the election of 2000 had not been compromised.

What a difference it will make for our country if in 2008 we can elect a statesman (or woman) to repair the tragic mistakes of the Republicans. I will be thrilled to support Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Obama, or Dodd.

Novak: Carter's Clarity, Bush's Befuddlement

Who would think that The Limb would be sending you to a column by Robert Novak!

You know the guy, right? He's the conservative old goat who has been a thorn in the side of Democrats for decades as a right-wing columnist and as curmudgeon-in-chief on the old CNN show, Crossfire. Novak is however an oldstyle conservative, you remember them -- able to exhibit a degree of intelligence and sometimes even respect for the Constitution?

Anyway, Ol' Bob got a preview of the new Jonathan Demme film about Jimmy Carter. Here's a little of what he wrote about it:

In the film, Carter repeatedly and unequivocally states what Palestinian and Israeli peace advocates view as undeniable: to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, with all its benefits for the world, Israel must end its illegal and oppressive occupation of the West Bank. That is a prerequisite that neither President Bush nor congressional leaders of both parties can approach for fear of being labeled anti-Israeli or even anti-Semitic (as Carter has been).

The right wing extremists -- now including, I regret to say, a coalition of Christian evangelical TV preachers -- have gone off the deep end in such uncritical support of the Israeli government that they even turn a blind eye when Israel oppresses its Christian minority. And they have absolutely no use for those who look for actual solutions to the Palestinian dilemma that take into consideration the rights of (Oh my!) Palestinians as well as Israelis.

As I think President Carter has pointed out, there is actually less frank debate about Palestine in America than there is in Israel. Maybe this film and columns like Novak's will change that.

Shocking News! The Tragedy in Iraq was Forecast!

The Washington Post has broken the story (gasp!) that intelligence analysts knew, and advised the administration, before the Republicans invaded Iraq (without a consensus of support in the world or even at home) that the likely result would be terrible sectarian violence, new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda, a surge of radical politics in Islamic countries, an opportunity for Iran to exert more influence in the region, and a financial windfall for terrorist groups. Good grief! I knew those things were likely and I am just a reader of the news with one college course in the history of the Middle East who has lived 60 years in an reasonably sane state of awareness.

The magnitude of the Republican folly of the last six years is mindboggling, and plain for all to see. Though a small percentage (less than 30%) of Americans still profess support for Bush, I believe, if you could read their hearts you'd see most know a castastrophic error was made and fib to the interviewers in a misplaced sense of patriotic duty.

Read the book: think for yourself.

"Hello! Earth to Emory!"

President Jimmy Carter has been lambasted by some on the knee-jerk right and some knee-jerks on the left for his latest book. How dare he take a balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian issue! Jody Powell writes, in a letter to the editor in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, to point out that Carter is definitely not unused to such vitriol: he's endured it since he first began trying to deal with reality in the Middle East as President in 1977:

01/28/07
Strident 'friends' of Israel
never give Carter a break

In her attack on Jimmy Carter's book, Emory Professor Deborah Lipstadt surmises that he is "unused to criticism."

Hello! Earth to Emory! In 1977, I watched with pride and trepidation as he told the American people the truth —- peace for Israel required a "homeland" for Palestinians. The response from self-styled "friends of Israel" was swift and brutal.

In subsequent years, the same chorus retaliated in similar terms when Carter said that multiplying Israeli settlements on Palestinian land was profoundly destructive to prospects for peace.

More recently, Israel and the chorus seem to have concluded that Palestinians do qualify for a homeland and that those settlements were a costly mistake. Apologies from the chorus were no doubt lost in the mail.

Now, Carter has tried to explain why Palestinians are so angry and what must be done to end the shedding of Palestinian, Israeli, and American blood in that holy, misery-stricken land. The professor responds with the same old epithets and innuendo from the same dog-eared script. She accuses him of "anti-Semitic stereotypes" and "traditional anti-Semitic canards," of providing "refuge for scoundrels," "trivializ[ing] the murder of Israelis," and "minimiz[ing] the Holocaust." She notes that a fellow chorus member describes the man who risked his presidency to bring peace between Israel and Egypt as "moronic." In a final bow to civil discourse, the distinguished professor charges Carter with "giving comfort" to Holocaust deniers.

After all that, Lipstadt can't fathom why one might conclude that criticism of Israeli policy will be met with vitriol and intimidation rather than reasoned debate. She also seems unable to comprehend the corrosive damage that such hateful outbursts do to the cause and the country to which she is so obviously devoted.

For those confused and distressed by all this, one small suggestion: Read the book ["Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"] and think for yourself.

-JODY POWELL
Powell served as White House press secretary in the Carter administration.

Then Now

No religious test...

(One reader seemed to misunderstand part of this post so I have edited it slightly to be better understood. By the way, my outgoing e-mail is still not working, dang it! I know it's just some little setting that's different on this machine.)

From the Constitution of the United States:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under the United States.

That text is very clear and absolute. Any Congressman who tries to institute a religious test for a Member of Congress has broken his oath: He is NOT defending, protecting, supporting the Constitution.

Congressman Keith Ellison, our first Muslim Member of Congress
I congratulate him and wish him well.

My Median Sib, today, a remarkable woman; a loving wife, daughter, mother, and grandmother; and an honored teacher, and a person I respect and love and welcome to rebut what I write here, has, it seems to me in my anything-but-humble opinion, leapt off a cliff, gone off the deep end, climbed out of the pot and into the fire, [fill in your own cliche for "failed to wisely agree with her loving older and wiser brother"]. In reaction to the election of our first Muslim Member of Congress, she has written:

"Muslims worldwide have declared jihad on the United States and ANYONE who is not Muslim. I think it was a mistake to elect an “enemy” to Congress."

I cannot express how saddened I am by that unfortunate statement. And I cannot let it pass without comment.

My Sib's post seems to consider Congressman Keith Ellison an “enemy” simply because he is Muslim. If so, that is an affront to many wonderful loyal Americans, including some of my favorite students and their fine parents and one of the finest co-workers I have (an Iraqi-American Kurd whose brother was murdered by Saddam and who fled Iraq with her husband and children to escape some of the same terrorists that my Sib seems to be lumping her with). It would certainly be an affront to our Muslim-American soldiers past and present.

Would we force a member to be sworn on the Bible when that is not his Book of Faith? Wouldn’t that require him to be hypocritical? Isn't that a "religious test"? Does the Constitution preclude non-Christians from serving in Congress? Should we take away citizenship from those of other faiths?

I am not a Muslim. I am sure there is much to admire in their faith, but I happen to think it contains a lot of hogwash. I also think some elements of Catholicism are largely hogwash. (The saint "worship", the ridiculous veneration of a bit of bone or cloth as a holy relic, pilgrimages to venerate a cookie that vaguely resembles somebody’s idea of what Mary looked like.) And Mormonism, Lord have mercy! Shoot, I’m a Methodist, and I know there are some radical and ridiculous Methodists, too.

Still, I find much to admire in some Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims. Democratic Senator Harry Reid and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch are Mormons -- Do they really believe in Joseph Smith’s golden tablets? And does that strange belief preclude them from office? If Hatch or Reid want to use the Book of Mormon (I know they also claim the Bible) as the Book of Faith that they use for their swearing-in ceremonies, that’s fine with me.

I just want them to mean it when they say:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”

Until the Civil War, when Yankee Congressmen were concerned about domestic rebels, the original oath was used:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

That’s simple and to the point, though I like the addition of “defend”: the first duty of a member of Congress is to support and defend the Constitution.

You will note that Madison, et al, neglected to add “so help me God” to the Presidential oath written into the Constitution. They were determined that ours was to be a secular government, as they later specifically pointed out to the Muslim Barbary pirates. The following is part of the treaty read and approved unanimously in the Senate on June 7, 1797. President John Adams, a devout Christian, signed it and proclaimed it to the Nation.

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The recounting of the evils of the Islamic governments elsewhere in the world, of course, begs the question and has no legitimate relevance to how we should interpret our Constitution.

I will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone to oppose any Muslim who tries to restrict any American's freedom of religion or speech or any other Constitutional right. But I will also stand with Congressman Ellison, or my co-worker, or my students, against anyone who tries to limit their religious rights.

I know this question sounds harsh, -- no one should take it as a personal shot -- I mean it as beginning point for an honest dialogue: How can we restrict religious speech or non-violent religious practice [that is, disallow the use of the Koran for a swearing-in ceremony] and still support and defend the Constitution of the United States? Such restriction, in my book, is counter to the Constitution and therefore quintessentially un-American.

I absolutely welcome polite debate about this issue.

1-05-07 Note: The Median Sib has written a post to clarify the post that I have responded to here. I won't try to characterize it or comment on it except to invite my readers to visit her blog to better understand her position on the issue of Keith Ellison's election, his use of the Koran, and other things.

Here is a previous post on the separation of church and state.