Author: admin

Ramazani: “Wider Conflict Threatens”

The reputed “Dean” in America of Iran foreign policy studies weighs in this morning on the dangers inherent in the looming US-Iran clash and on a better way to engage Iran. Having published widely on Iran-US matters for over five decades (sic), I’m posting Professor Ramazani’s essay here in full – for the interest of jwn readers. (We look forward to your reactions.)
I will be commenting myself on additional materials separately, including the alleged new “intelligence” that Iran is somehow “killing Americans” in Iraq. Before the neocons at Faux and CNN are done, we’ll have the Iranians somehow aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan — just like Rice ignorantly claimed in 2000. (Oh wait, General Karl Eikenberry, having presided over a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan for the past 21 months, just claimed “links” between Iran and the Taliban — without mentioning Pakistan! Utterly cynical nonsense.)
As argued in the current issue of Vanity Fair, the very same “wonderful folks” who brought us the war with Iraq are yet again pulling the strings to provoke a confrontation with Iran.
Here’s Professor Ramazani’s sober analysis:
—————-
Wider Conflict Threatens
By R. K. Ramazani
(originally published in The Daily Progress, February 11, 2007)

The Bush administration’s aggressive confrontation with Iran over the war in Iraq and Iran’s nuclear program threatens armed conflict throughout the Middle East. A better approach would be for the administration to seek a constructive way to engage Iran.
President Bush’s pledge to “seek out and destroy” the Iranian networks allegedly fueling sectarian war in Iraq and to “kill or capture” Iranian operatives suspected of killing American soldiers could spark a proxy war between Iran and the U.S. on the chaotic battlefield of Iraq.
Furthermore, the Bush administration’s campaign to create a regional alignment of Sunni states against Shia Iran promises to stoke the fire of ancient enmities between Sunnis and Shia, Arabs and Persians, enhancing the prospects of armed conflict throughout the Middle East.

Threats of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities also could lead to war between America and Iran. Claims by the United States that it desires a diplomatic resolution ring hollow so long as it insists it will join negotiations with Iran only after Iran stops enriching uranium. Iran claims that its nuclear program is essential for producing electricity and helping economic development to meet the needs of a growing population.
But the U.S. pretense of diplomacy with Iran could be a prelude to war just as it was before the invasion of Iraq.

Continue reading “Ramazani: “Wider Conflict Threatens””

Sunni Arab view of US-Iran Tensions

If jwn readers and our generous host will pardon me, I (Scott) wish to draw early attention to Helena Cobban’s important column in today’s Christian Science Monitor. Writing from Cairo, Helena provides us with her reading of Sunni Arab sentiment towards a war with Iran.

As the level of tension rises between the US and Iran, I am very concerned that the Bush administration is trying to paint a scenario of the probable consequences of a possible US military action against Iran that is far more rosy than the situation warrants.
One key example: Both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley have talked about the great threat that Sunni Arab countries perceive from Iran, which is predominantly non-Arab and Shiite. Some advocates of an attack (in the US and Israel) have argued that a US strike on Iran would be welcomed in Sunni-dominated nations and would therefore generally bolster the region’s forces of stability. My current tour in Egypt contradicts that. The Egyptians I’ve talked to so far – including retired diplomats, experienced political analysts, and journalists – have expressed unanimous opposition to any US attack against Iran.

This profoundly “different” observation challenges depressing contentions here in the US that some Sunni Arab governments may, like the Israelis, be pushing for the US to confront Iran militarily. Helena’s Arab sources are not nearly so enthused.
Recalling how wrong the “cake walk” scenarios for invading Iraq were, the respected Egyptian scholar and reformist, Saad Eddin Ibrahim tells Helena that, “A US attack on Iran could spread the same chaos we now see in Iraq to a number of other Arab countries. No one wants that.”
As for Hadley’s claim that Sunni Arabs feel threatened by an Iranian pursuit of nuclear options, Helena notes the telling counter view of one Egyptian diplomat: “We have lived beneath Israel’s nuclear weapons for many years, so even if Iran gets nuclear weapons it wouldn’t be anything new. Anyway, they are not that close to it.”
To the repeated mantra that Sunnis – as Sunnis – are fearful of an aggressive “Shia arc” stretching from Iran to Lebanon, Helena observes an even deeper rising regional anger – at America:

It’s true there are some concerns among Sunni Arabs about the growing influence of the (sometimes Iran-backed) Shiite populations present in many Arab countries. But well-informed Egyptians have stressed to me that anti-Americanism now runs much, much deeper than any concerns about Iranian or Shiite influence. That anti-Americanism has been hardened, they say, by the policies Washington has pursued toward Iraq and the Palestinian territories, and toward Israel during its destructive attack on targets in Lebanon last summer.
Many Sunni Arab leaders find themselves trapped uncomfortably between those popular attitudes and their own strategic alliances with Washington. Their reactions during last summer’s Israel-Hizbullah war were instructive. They started out expressing timid support for Israel’s attacks on Hizbullah. But as their publics swung behind Hizbullah, they quickly joined the growing calls for a very rapid cease-fire. In the event of a US strike on Iran, these leaders will probably need to show similar responsiveness to public pressure. And that pressure is now strongly anti-American.

How convenient it has been for Hadley & Rice to forget Pogo and instead try to change the subject – to blame Iran for the dark shadow across the region. That might work in America, but not, as Helena sees it thus far, in the Middle East.
In case you missed it, the subtitle for Helena’s column reads:

There’s virtually unanimous opposition to a US attack on Iran.

“Bottom line” implication follows for Americans:

In 2007, as in 2003, they need to be very skeptical indeed of the rosy scenarios being conjured up by the advocates of war. An attack on Iran risks bringing terrible harm to US forces and innocent civilians both in and far beyond the locus of any such attack.
Back in 2002-03, the Bush administration ignored the advice offered by the vast majority of Middle East specialists. Listening only to ideologues and others with a strong pro-war bias, it rushed the US into a war that continues to have terrible consequences for everyone concerned. We cannot let that happen again. Now, as then, there is no rosy scenario. Now, as then, many diplomatic channels for resolving our differences exist. Our leaders must now use them.

Well said Helena! No doubt you will have much more for us to “see” from your independent listening post in Cairo…

Ellison on Islam & Democracy

You have to have some sympathy for the US Information Agency staff. Especially now that they are under Condi Rice’s State Department, it’s been mighty hard, if one has a shred of decency left, to package the United States in a positive light for Arab audiences. Have you heard the one about the US “continuing” its active Middle East peacemaking?
The world doesn’t overwhelmingly resent or fear the US because of “misunderstanding” caused by poor efforts to gets America’s “message “out.” It has not been the record player that’s the problem – but the music being played.
It’s like asking the world to buy another “pig in a poke.” That is, the US has been caught too often with the “cat in the bag” (in Romanian, that’d be a fi prins cu mâṭa în sac) – or, if you will, caught “scamming” the truth.
Ok, enough bad metaphors! You get my drift.
Enter Keith Ellison…
the newly elected Congressman from Minnesota – who happens also to be a Muslim. USINFO’s web site this week features a “feel good” story about the new Congressman and his faith – no doubt as a positive for Muslim readers around the world.

Continue reading “Ellison on Islam & Democracy”

Ramazani: “Surging Backward”

We have featured several essays by R.K. Ramazani here before, and I am happy to draw attention to his latest pithy oped entitled, “Bush’s ‘new way leads backward.”
Ramazani, like most “independent” (e.g., “outside the beltway”) academic observers of the Gulf, is not impressed with President Bush’s plans to add 20 thousand or so additional US troops into the Iraq maelstrom. Deeming the President’s plan as charting “a way backward,” rather than forward, the Bush surge

“promises to deepen the quagmire in which America finds itself. And it carries the enormous risk of widening the theater of war to the detriment of American interests in the Middle East.”

Then and now, blind arrogance guides the Bush-Cheney Administration:

The president made his decision in defiance of counsel from military experts and experienced field commanders. Just as in 2003, when he dismissed the warning of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the army chief of staff, that occupation forces at the time were too small, he recently ignored the view of Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the Central Command, that troop increases were no answer in Iraq.
The president also flouted the advice of civilian experts, most notably, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. The study group’s report urged the Bush administration to set a goal of early 2008 for the withdrawal of almost all U.S. combat troops.
The Bush administration failed equally to heed the message of the mid-term congressional elections, a message heard loud and clear in the halls of the new Congress. The day after the president’s State of the Union address, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by a vote of 12-8, repudiated his plan to send more troops to Baghdad.
Yet on the same day, Vice President Dick Cheney voiced the president’s defiant stance. He said: “We are moving ahead… . [T]he president has made his decision.”

But can such arrogance prevail “in the face of deepening frustration” of publics at home and abroad? Ramazani cites polling data indicating a strong majority of Americans oppose increased deployments of troops to Iran. He then contends that the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of protestors who recently took to the cold streets of Washington “were reminding legislators that the people had elected them and expected them to act as a check on the executive branch.”

Continue reading “Ramazani: “Surging Backward””

Webb 4 President (?)

My neighbor sent me a note last night chiding me for finally taking down my Webb for Senate sign at the end of my driveway, on the eve of Webb pulling his coup within the Democratic Party to deliver its response to the President’s State of his Mind speech.
I lamely replied that oh contraire, I’m just trying to figure out how to recast it as a “Webb for President” poster.
Never mind the media spinmeisters focusing on how well (or not) the President did. And never mind the surreal Anderson Cooper having on two neocon Brigadier Generals who one-upped each other in proclaiming the President’s plan will work, “if only the American people stand behind it.” “Spider” Marks is “certifiable” in my book. He’s been wrong on Iraq for years – so who is pulling the strings at CNN to keep him as their featured military anal-yst?
Ah, but never mind the talking trolls.
In my book, Webb hit another home run tonight. I’d still like to know how the Democrats picked Webb over, say, Obama or Hillary, to give the Democrat’s response to the President. My guess: Nancy Pelosi. Shrewd move. In case you missed it, here’s the transcript.
Ok, so Webb may be the accidental, semi-uncomfortable junior “Democratic” Senator from Virginia. (and a former Reagan era Navy Secretary) I like his refreshing non-style. He beat incredibly long odds last November, when he de-throned Senator George “Macaca” Allen here in Virginia. Not just because Allen couldn’t get his foot out of his mouth, Webb won the ole’ fashioned way…. he held his ground. The neocon chickenhawks couldn’t touch him either – as he wore a pair of his son’s Marine combat boots, every day of his campaign.
Soon after being elected, I admired the way Webb refused to banter with President Bush and his unseemly inquiry into “his boy’s” condition in Iraq. I was so impressed that I kept my Webb sign up – in defiance of Virginia “tradition” to take down political signs the “day after.”
I’m still with the Dixie Chicks; I’m not ready to make nice.
Ok, maybe “J.W.” is a greenhorn to national politics – compared to such “veteran” national political figures like Hillary, Al, John, or Obama…. Imagine how Obama must feel being upstaged by “J.W.” Webb’s 9 minute speech tonight packed in more key zingers than I’ve heard from any of the other Presidential contenders yet, including from my best hope for the Republicans – Chuck Hagel. Maybe I haven’t been listening either.
In Webb’s world, America is in deep trouble, at home and aborad. On the economy, the glittering oil laden Dow Index belies a hidden problem:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Continue reading “Webb 4 President (?)”

Hanging, Decapitation, & Promoting Democracy?

Iraq is starting to look like Jeb Bush’s Florida: they can’t even do executions right.
Today, the Iraqis hanged Saddam Hussein’s half-brother, Barzan Ibrahim, and former head of his revolutionary court, Awad Hamed al-Bandar.
Under heavy global scrutiny and American pressure after the execution of Saddam, which in practice amounted to a sectarian lynching, the Iraqi authorities insisted that, “Those present signed documents pledging not to violate the rules.” The press was told by Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh that “the gallows were built to international standards and in accordance with human rights organizations.”
I’d like to know what human rights organization has published standards on executions.
In any case, how come the hanging resulted in Barzan Ibrahim’s head being severed?
Does this seem grotesquely familiar? Two years ago, we had the horrendous spectacle of hapless American contractors in Iraq being decapitated on video, garnering deserved international outrage. Will there be any similar outcry this time?
Assuming the US media even dares to ask, the Snow-job excuse machine will no doubt be out in force with a line suggesting that well, sometimes “these things” happen, but “rarely.”
But according the macabre Wikipedia entry on hangings, “scientific advancements” in hanging technique dating to 1872 (that’s the 19th Century!) were supposed to prevent hangings that ended as bloody decapitations.
Iraqi Sunni politicians understandably are already smelling foul play. Khalaf al-Olayan, a key Sunni parliament member, told Al-Jazeera television that,

“It is impossible for a person to be decapitated during a hanging…. This shows that they (the government) have mutilated the body and this is a violation of the law.”

Are we sickened of this yet? This subject reminds me of my mentor’s essay last week which well asks how any of these trials and executions promote democracy. I post in full here with his permission:
How can flawed trial, execution of ex-leader promote democracy?
By R.K. Ramazani
Charlottesville Daily Progress
Sunday, January 7, 2007
The flawed trial and execution of Saddam Hussein deal a heavy blow to the Bush administration’s goal of creating a “new Middle East” based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

Continue reading “Hanging, Decapitation, & Promoting Democracy?”

The President’s “mind”

Does the President think the citizens he serves are that stupid? Does he assume everybody has minds turned to jello by 24? In the face of mounting bi-partisan criticisms of his “surge” plan for Iraq, and huge public opinion poll margins against it, George III from his bunker declared in his weekly radio address that:

Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.

Strange. Is he that shameless? What was the Baker-Hamilton Commission (BHC) report all about? It indeed is a plan – just one that the Bush-Cheney Administration and their neocon propagandists refuse to consider. But even the most ardent Fox-head surely knows there are many plans out there – including Helena’s here. What, if anything, was going through George III’s mind when he claimed his critics oppose everything “while proposing nothing?”
Alas, all too much of Congress, especially Democrats, was lukewarm to Baker-Hamilton (aka, “the Iraq Study Group” report) at first, particularly as it so frontally challenged core assumptions from “the lobby” regarding talking to Iran and Syria and linking what isn’t happening in the Israel-Palestine “peace process” to what isn’t happening in Iraq.
Yet it seems many in Congress are belatedly latching onto the BHC plan – as it’s “on the shelf.” To hear House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanual tell it, “We have all endorsed the Iraq Study Group — that is our plan.”
It’s obviously not the President’s plan, snow-job denials by his press secretary notwithstanding. In a crazily patched together paragraph in his Saturday radio address, George III declared:

America will expand our military and diplomatic efforts to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. We will address the problem of Iran and Syria allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. We will encourage countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states to increase their economic assistance to Iraq. Secretary Rice has gone to the region to continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

Let’s see now, our approach to Syria and Iran is purely military – forget Baker-Hamilton and that “talk” softness. Yet our outreach to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et. al. is merely to solicit money — no mention of the Salafi jihadis and financing for them coming from those quarters.
And just what “urgent diplomacy” is Rice being sent to “continue?” That one doesn’t pass the screaming laugh test.
George III’s resistance (lately that is) to the idea of talking with Iran is no doubt music to neoconservative and certain Israeli ears who seem capable only of conceiving Iran as an “existential threat” – one that can only be, by definition, contained, (or nuked – if one takes recent Israeli threats seriously).
Former Republican Senator (and BHC member) Alan Simpson (as quoted in WaPo) has it about right:

“Nothing is ever solved by not talking to somebody,” he said. Simpson said he was stunned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement that Iran could use talks with the United States to extort concessions. “Where did that come from?” he asked. ” What the hell is gained by not thinking of some kind of system to talk? It makes no sense.”

Agreed – in spades. Alas, the only “bold” action since the President’s surge speech has been to capture and detain Iranians in raids on an established Iranian “consulate” in a Kurdish area of Iraq. Iran insists they are diplomats and demands their release.
Various Bush spokespersons counter that the captured Iranians are not diplomats – but then hedge their bets and imply, vaguely but confidently, that the arrested Iranians were engaged in activities not consistent with being diplomats.
Swell. Almost 28 years ago, when the Iranian students stormed the US Embassy (e.g., the “Den of Spies”) out of plausible fear the US was about to return the Shah to the Iranian throne (as we did in 1953), the world united in condemning the Iranian revolutionaries for conduct in flat contravention of all accepted international law.
Today, for George III, international law is something you invoke only to beat your opponents with, not apply to yourself. Besides, the bogey is Iran, and surely no one in the mainstream US media will actually ask for evidence…. Or will they? (He asks rhetorically, wondering if he still believes in miracles. The Guardian yesterday at least dared to consider the matter within one of its reports.)
Curiously, Iraqi and Kurdish authorities are quite unhappy about the detention of Iranians inside Iraq. At least to me, they appear to be backing the Iranian statements about who the “detainees” are.
Bush’s present confused state was again on display in last night’s 60 Minutes interview. Regarding Iran, Bush had this bizarre response to an awful question (note Pelley accepts the allegation as fact):

PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?
BUSH: I’d say, first of all, to him, “You’ve made terrible choices for your people. You’ve isolated your nation. You’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you’ve made your country the pariah of the world. You’ve threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You’ve said you want a nuclear weapon. You’ve defied international accord. And you’re slowly but surely isolating yourself.” And secondly, that “it’s in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It’s in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy.” And thirdly, you know, “If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them.”

Is this George III’s idea of talking to Iran – by prevaricating? Is that what it means to be “the educator-in-chief?” Where exactly has the current or any Iranian President “threatened” anyone with nuclear weapons. (That would be Israel, not Iran, btw.) Where did any Iranian leader admit to “want a nuclear weapon?” This isn’t even just a gross exaggeration – and either Bush knows it is, or something’s gone wrong in his bellfry.
And Bush (e.g. George III) is a fine one to talk about making one’s country into a “pariah of the world.” Imagine, George III lecturing any other country about “slowly and surely isolating yourself” and for making “terrible choices.”
Imagine.
Alas, Ahmadinejad is probably the only person Bush can castigate that, at least to Americans, makes Bush look smart. Iranians parliamentarians, by the way, recently started impeachment procedings against Ahmadinejad.
Hey, there’s an idea….
By the way, I agree with Bush’s second point – as do most Iranians! It indeed is in Iran’s interest to have a unified nation on its border. It’s also in their interest for Iraq to become a flourishing democracy. Why would Iran not want either of these things? (A “democratic” Iraq is far more of a problem for the Saudis and Jordanians.)
Speaking of absurd images of the President’s mind, how ironic indeed it was to have the President deliver his surge speech from a White House library – a room one wonders if he has ever previously used.
As a “Jefferson Fellow” at Monticello, I picked up a souvenir Jefferson mug, inscribed with one of my favorite Jefferson quotes, “I cannot live without books.”
For Bush, a future mug might read, “At Yale, I read a book.” Or, “I cannot be bothered by books.”
Ah, but in an interview with 60 Minutes, the President surely restores our faith in him, when asked a question about the influence of Vice President Cheney. Bush ducked the question and instead replied,

Oh, yeah, sure. I mean, I rely upon my National Security Council, and I expect everybody to make contributions, and I expect to hear everybody’s opinions. And when I make up my mind, I expect them to salute and say, “Yes, sir, Mr. President.”

Comforting to know, isn’t it? It is what’s in that “mind” that frightens me.

About that Jefferson Koran

Yes, “Virgil,” it’s true: There is a Jefferson Koran.
When and why?
In the University of Virginia’s Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library rests the original Virginia Gazette Daybook – a fascinating account book of that bookseller’s customers in the Virginia Colony capital town of Williamsburg.
For October 5th, 1765, the Gazette Daybook clearly records a purchase by the second customer of the day: a 22-year-old law student named Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson made a single purchase: George Sale’s two-volume translation and introduction to “The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed.”
In a recent article in Early American Literature, Kevin Hayes suggests that Jefferson had multiple reasons for buying a Koran, ranging from preparations for the bar exam, to his broader interests in natural law to the history of religion.
(As may pleasantly surprise some), the most frequently cited source in Jefferson’s legal writings was Pufendorf’s 1672 classic, Of the Law of Nature and Nations.
As Pufendorf cites multiple precedents from the Koran on various civil and international legal issues, It was quite “natural” for Jefferson as an advanced student of laws, not just of one nation but of the world, to study the Koran, especially one which included detailed comparative comment by a distinguished British lawyer, George Sale.
The following introductory passage from Sale no doubt was a selling point to Jefferson:

If the religious and civil Institutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Mohammed, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters…. Since students of law study legal precedent from ancient Rome, they should also study precedent from a society with an even greater reach than Rome.

Flash Forward:
241 years and 3 months later from the day Jefferson first purchased it, Jefferson’s Koran was delivered from its current home at the Library of Congress to the House of Representatives. There, it served as the holy book upon which America’s first Congressperson of the Muslim faith, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, took his ceremonial oath of office.
I already wrote here about the controversy over Ellison’s desire to use a Koran for his ceremonial oath, and specifically about Virgil Goode’s bizarre letter and contentious press conference about Ellison’s wishes.
Among the press conference lowlights, Virgil Goode declared that he wouldn’t use the “Q-Ran” for his oath taking; denied he was a racist, characterized all Muslims as inherent threats to American values; ducked the core question of whether Ellison has the right to take an oath on whatever book he wishes, and refused to apologize to Ellison or anyone else.
In my annotated transcription of Virgil’s “bad” performance, I suggested that Congressman Goode might benefit from re-studying his basic Virginia civics, particularly the most famous person ever from his district – Thomas Jefferson.
On Jefferson’s tombstone at his Monticello home, Jefferson’s requested epitath cites three great accomplishments in his life:

Author of the Declartion of Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom and Father of the University of Virginia.

That Jefferson was America’s third President is not mentioned.

Continue reading “About that Jefferson Koran”

Virgil Goode vs. Thomas Jefferson

Our local Virginia Republican Congressman, Virgil Goode thinks he’s a good(e) American. We’ve written about him here before. He also wears the “good(e) book” on his sleeve.
He’s also likely unfamiliar with Thomas Jefferson, author of, among other things, the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. Never mind that Monticello, Jefferson’s home, is in Goode’s district.
JWN devotees may have seen Helena’s quick “tag” of a Charlottesville weekly paper’s revelation of an astonishing Goode letter, via the new del.icio.us “Things I’ve Tagged” feature on the right side of this blog.
Goode’s Islamophobic letter is lighting up the blogosphere and even the mainstream media. His press conference late yesterday deserves even greater scrutiny. What he says is an affront not just to Muslim Americans, but to any American who “gives a hoot” about our founding values. Below, I provide my own transcript of Goode’s appalling comments – with my own annotations and a Jeffersonian test inserted.
Goode has deluded himself into thinking that his critics are not reading his letter. Let’s get that out of the way first. Here again is the original letter. (Unbalanced, run-on sentences in the original; emphasis added.):

Dear Mr. Cruickshank:
Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.
The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

Unlike our outgoing Senator George “Macaca” Allen, Goode has been anything but apologetic. In his press conference late yesterday, Goode was as defiant as George W. Bush has been in defending his “cause” – with one difference: Goode is the only politician I know who makes our current President seem “brilliant” – relatively speaking.
At least for now, you can watch Goode’s press conference via the WVIR TV29 web site, under “featured videos.” Goode, speaking in his standard “goode-ole-boy drawl,” shows no signs of backing down. Here’s my own transcription (with annotation) of nearly all of the “event.”
Preface Note: Rather than insert the “sic” emphasis repeatedly, please keep in mind that the following transcription is phonetic, that is, literally “as heard.” Some “suthun” politicos still speak this way. Watch the video yourself if you think I’ve got the “Goode-‘ole-boy” twang wrong. Grammar gaffes are in the original, including those by our local reporters.

Goode: Thaynk ya fuh bein’ he-uhr… I uhpreciate you’all being here at one time. I know several of, uh, press asked about meeting, and we thought it would be best to do it all at one time.
This is, ah, just to me not an open press conference…

Continue reading “Virgil Goode vs. Thomas Jefferson”

Ramazani on engaging Iran

One month ago, I featured here an essay by my mentor, R.K. Ramazani, on how the Bush Administration was misreading Iran’s nuclear policy. His latest essay in today’s Daily Progress challenges the “chorus of hostile diplomatic rhetoric against Iran (that) threatens to drown out” the much anticipated Baker-Hamilton Commission recommendation “to engage Iran to assist the stablization of Iraq.”
I provide the full text below for jwn readers to consider and discuss. (The Payvand Iran news service also carries it here.)
Drawing upon his 54 years of chronicling US-Iran relations, the Professor finds the present US-Iran impasse “grim, but not hopeless.”
Ramazani’s references to the impact of American “evangelicals” on the making of US Iran policy were catalyzed by a recent depressing New York Times article. (I will soon post a longer personal reflection on the dangers of such “holy warrior” messianism….)
Yet on the bright side, I especially appreciate Ramazani’s invocation of cultural traditions in both Iran and the United States that might yet be marshalled to muster the courage for both parties to talk seriously.
Where else can we find the immortal sage words of Sa’di, Washington, and… Reagan called upon to buttress the cause of constructive dialogue?
As I’ve written here repeatedly, its time to get on with it.
(Ramazani essay below:)

Continue reading “Ramazani on engaging Iran”