Virgil Goode: “In Mohammed We Trust?”

Heee’s baaaack. No, not “Chuckie,” that ” sneering, mean-hearted, movie doll,” nor “Q” from Star Trek fame. But our “Q-ran” fearing Congressman Virgil Goode.
Goode has been the subject of several extended entries here at jwn. He’s the “gift” that keeps on giving – if you like satire. Goode is the Congressman who infamously made a name for himself by portraying incoming Congressman Larry Ellison’s use of {Jefferson’s} Koran for his swearing-in ceremony as a threat to America’s traditional “values and beliefs.”
Hat tip to Eric H. for the alert: our “goode-ole-boy” who represents some of Virginia’s 5th District citizenry is at it again, this time rationalizing his vote for Bush’s “surge” by spreading fear of a mean-green Islamic machine marching on Washington.
Only Virgil Goode could transform his allotted five-minute speech yesterday on whether or not to support President Bush’s “surge” plan for Iraq into another dark warning against a “sea of illegal immigrants” in which more terrorists will swim. That is, if we don’t support the President, a “calamity” will surely befall us in which more Muslim “jihadis” invade our shores.
Below, I provide the transcript, from the Congressional Record, with my annotations inserted between paragraphs. Phonetic transliterations from the video version are kept to a minimum this time. Readers should view the “youtube” version themselves here. Goode’s “stie-ul” is rather unique. Render your own opinions in the discussion.

“We are in the middle of a 4-day marathon here. While I cannot say that I agree with all of the actions of the President in dealing with Iraq, I will not be supporting H. Con. Res. 63. The eyes of the world are upon this House, and there will be commentary from the Middle East to the streets of small-town America about what we do here over this 4-day period, even though this resolution does not carry the weight of law.”

“Eyes of the world?” Since when did Virgil care about what the world thought of “the Vuhgil Goode” position on anything? Instead, he’s with those who would characterize a resolution critical of Bush as giving “aide and comfort to the enemy.” (It occurs to me that for many neocons, the “eyes of the world” and “the enemy” are flip sides of the same coin.)

“When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see “In God We Trust” stricken from our money and replaced with “In Mohammed {“mooo-hahmat”} We Trust.” (emphasis added)

So much ripe material in this paragraph; where to begin?

*Does Goode really think that “the enemy” in Iraq somehow wants to take over the United States? Which “jihadi,” sectarian, or tribal force would that be?
*How is it that an otherwise forgettable Congressman from the most dominant military power on earth is fretting about somebody else controlling the world…? Really now.
*About that conjured flag image, which of the players in the region flies a green flag? Hint – it’s America’s friend with the most oil.. And as for rather uncommon flags with the “crescent and star,” check countries generally friendly to America, such as Turkey, Tunisia, and Algeria.
*And since when would any Muslim anywhere march to the motto, “In Mohammed we trust?”

It might shock Goode (not) to learn that Muslims have no particular qualms about the motto, “In God we Trust.” For them, “God” is the English variant of “Allah.” Muslims don’t “worship” the prophet Mohammed. Indeed, our Muslim neighbors would likely be less upset by an official motto referencing Jesus (an accepted prophet) than would, say, our Jewish neighbors.
No matter. Goode then switches gears and goes surprisingly negative on the President’s surge:

“I am not sure that reinforcing the existing troops by 20,000 will save us from the jihadists, and I am not sure it will prevent chaos in Iraq. I do hope that these additional forces will stabilize Baghdad and will lead to democracy and a tolerance of divergent views and religions in Iraq. Unfortunately, the history of that {reason,.. corrects himself, of that} region does not bode well for such conclusions.”

Et tu Virgil…!? Are you jumping off the good(e)-ship Bush too? Have you ever admitted this before – that imposing democracy by force into a region that (other than Iran) had little experience with participatory government might be difficult?
Oh ye of little (neocon) faith! Yet for the record, let us re-state the (neocon) creed in particularly ironic terms – particularly coming from you:.

“In my view, the United States by removing Saddam Hussein has provided a great opportunity for Iraq to be a showcase for tolerance and understanding. Perhaps one day Iraq may want to adopt something like the first amendment of our country. That may only be an optimistic hope.”

Is anybody else out there laughing or crying? For our international readers, the American Constitution’s first amendment includes provisions for religious freedom – which Virgil Goode made a mockery of in his shrill warning about Ellison using the “Q-ran.” Imagine then that Virgil Goode, the Islamophobe determined to keep the green monsters away from our shores, has the audacity to talk about anyone anywhere being a “showcase for tolerance and understanding.”
If Bush’s surge turns into disaster, then Goode lays down a marker that the United States will not be a refuge for the suffering souls who flee from the chaos caused by that misbegotten adventure:

”I hope my fears and the fears of others about chaos and calamity prove false. If the Shiite and Sunni controversy escalates and the situation worsens, we could be faced with a clamor to admit thousands and perhaps millions into this country. I call on the President and our Secretary of State to not allow a mass immigration into this country with the dangers and pitfalls that it could bring to our safety and security. The terrorists would surely enter into this country in such a way as the 9/11 terrorists swam around in a sea of illegal immigration before we were struck on September 11.”
Let us vote “no” and let us forestall, if not prevent, calamity.

Virgil is out to sea himself.
How is a vote for the surge morphed into a vote to “forestall” a horde of Muslims coming to America? In Goode’s eyes, a “vote for the surge” reduces crassly to a vote for “the Virgil Goode position” against immigration – and Muslims in particular.
News flash to Virgil: there are already an estimated 2 million refugees from Iraq, and neighboring states, like Jordan, are not bearing the strains of such suffering masses well. The “clamor” for the US to share in that burden, a “calamity” we created, will inevitably grow – whether we surge or don’t surge.
As for 9/11, where is the evidence that the 9/11 terrorists were “swimming in a sea of illegal immigration” before they struck? Is there some Hispanic-Islamo-Catholic conspiracy out there yet to be revealed? Would the “Virgil Goode position” to reduce immigration in general and against Muslims in particular have made any difference in 2001?
And by the way, would the Congressman make an exception for the half million or so Iraqi refugees who happen to be Christian? (Before saying no, his staff ought to check with his Republican colleagues from Michigan, or, for that matter, his constituents who follow Virginia TV “evangelists” like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.)
Footnote for 2008:
Larry Sabato, our esteemed University of Virginia guru on all things political in Virginia, has checked his crystal ball and predicted that Congressman Goode’s comments about Ellison, the Koran, and immigration are unlikely to hurt him politically next year. Perhaps not.
Yet that experientially derived counsel assumes that today’s Virginians no longer care about their own founding heritage, that they don’t “give a hoot” about just how un-Jeffersonian Virgil Goode’s Islamophobia has become, and that they don’t mind having a national embarrassment as “their” representative.
It’s rather telling that the US Information Agency does promotional broadcast reports about Congressman Ellison, not Virgil Goode. You can bet USINFO won’t be featuring Goode’s latest fears about “In Mohammed We Trust” on our (Saudi bank-rolled) dollars.
With due respect to Professor Sabato, I reserve judgment on whether a viable “threat” to Goode might yet emerge, say, one well-versed in Jeffersonian principles, who could explicitly challenge Virginians to draw from their better natures and “dismiss” Goode.
I, for one, retain a Jeffersonian optimism that one day Virginians from Jefferson’s district will again be proud of their Congressman.