An Open Letter To John Edwards
Dear John:
I am in receipt of your undated letter soliciting my support for your Presidential campaign.
I am sure that you do not recall this, but when you voted in 2002 to give President Bush the power to invade Iraq, I wrote you directly protesting your vote and demanding an explanation for it. At the time, you were my United States Senator.
After several weeks, I received a response from you in the mail. Frankly, the response disgusted me. You did not address the specific questions that I raised in my letter. Instead, you regurgitated the Administration's rhetoric in support of their immoral, unjust, and illegal actions. I started to write a response to your response but ended up tossing both in the garbage, recognizing the futility of communicating with someone who was clearly quite comfortable with playing politics with people's lives.
Now you write that you were wrong when you voted in 2002 to grant the President permission to invade Iraq. I suppose that I should find this admission mollifying, but I do not. The reason that I do not is that you had a moral, if not a legal, duty to engage in due diligence when it came to making a decision that you knew would result in the taking of lives. I do not believe for one moment that you exercised that due diligence because, if you had, you would have opposed the Iraq invasion as I did.
Indeed, I find you particularly culpable in this regard because, as someone who has both training and practice in the law, you should possess a finely-tuned sensitivity to what constitutes reasonable evidence. What the Administration offered as "evidence" compelling the decision to invade Iraq would have been laughable if the stakes involved were not so serious. I do not say this in hindsight or as someone who had access to information not publicly available. On the basis of the evidence that the Administration made publicly available at the time, I began telling my students at the University of North Carolina that the United States was preparing to invade Iraq for reasons personal to the President of the United States and members of his inner circle. You, on the other hand, claim to have bought the Administration's case.
I have perhaps overestimated your abilities as a lawyer or your intellect, but I truly doubt that. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the Administration pulled the proverbial wool over your eyes. I do not think that you exercised your duty of due diligence before voting to invade Iraq. I believe, instead, that you made what seemed to you at the time to be a pretty simple political calculation. You voted with the howling mob confident that your Presidential ambitions (not this country and not the people of Iraq) were now that much more secure.
Today, you present yourself in your campaign literature as a moral leader and not just another politician. Forgive me if I find an effrontery in that. In my eyes, your claim to possess a moral vision is simply not credible.
Be that as it may, I do believe that people can learn from their mistakes and I also believe that people can mend their ways. I have hope for you and wish you the best in your future endeavors. Unfortunately, I do not believe that running for President of the United States is the appropriate way for you to make amends. You see, it was your Presidential ambition that caused you to ignore the evidence and vote with the war-mongers. Supporting you in that ambition now would be like offering an alcoholic a six-pack as a way of furthering his struggle to overcome the addiction to drink. No, I will not be your enabler.
Recently, you were quoted as saying that your ideal job would be as a mill supervisor. I think that that would be a wonderful choice for you and, should you sincerely pursue such a career, I want you to know that you have my best wishes for all success.
Your former constituent,
The Mazeppist
I am in receipt of your undated letter soliciting my support for your Presidential campaign.
I am sure that you do not recall this, but when you voted in 2002 to give President Bush the power to invade Iraq, I wrote you directly protesting your vote and demanding an explanation for it. At the time, you were my United States Senator.
After several weeks, I received a response from you in the mail. Frankly, the response disgusted me. You did not address the specific questions that I raised in my letter. Instead, you regurgitated the Administration's rhetoric in support of their immoral, unjust, and illegal actions. I started to write a response to your response but ended up tossing both in the garbage, recognizing the futility of communicating with someone who was clearly quite comfortable with playing politics with people's lives.
Now you write that you were wrong when you voted in 2002 to grant the President permission to invade Iraq. I suppose that I should find this admission mollifying, but I do not. The reason that I do not is that you had a moral, if not a legal, duty to engage in due diligence when it came to making a decision that you knew would result in the taking of lives. I do not believe for one moment that you exercised that due diligence because, if you had, you would have opposed the Iraq invasion as I did.
Indeed, I find you particularly culpable in this regard because, as someone who has both training and practice in the law, you should possess a finely-tuned sensitivity to what constitutes reasonable evidence. What the Administration offered as "evidence" compelling the decision to invade Iraq would have been laughable if the stakes involved were not so serious. I do not say this in hindsight or as someone who had access to information not publicly available. On the basis of the evidence that the Administration made publicly available at the time, I began telling my students at the University of North Carolina that the United States was preparing to invade Iraq for reasons personal to the President of the United States and members of his inner circle. You, on the other hand, claim to have bought the Administration's case.
I have perhaps overestimated your abilities as a lawyer or your intellect, but I truly doubt that. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the Administration pulled the proverbial wool over your eyes. I do not think that you exercised your duty of due diligence before voting to invade Iraq. I believe, instead, that you made what seemed to you at the time to be a pretty simple political calculation. You voted with the howling mob confident that your Presidential ambitions (not this country and not the people of Iraq) were now that much more secure.
Today, you present yourself in your campaign literature as a moral leader and not just another politician. Forgive me if I find an effrontery in that. In my eyes, your claim to possess a moral vision is simply not credible.
Be that as it may, I do believe that people can learn from their mistakes and I also believe that people can mend their ways. I have hope for you and wish you the best in your future endeavors. Unfortunately, I do not believe that running for President of the United States is the appropriate way for you to make amends. You see, it was your Presidential ambition that caused you to ignore the evidence and vote with the war-mongers. Supporting you in that ambition now would be like offering an alcoholic a six-pack as a way of furthering his struggle to overcome the addiction to drink. No, I will not be your enabler.
Recently, you were quoted as saying that your ideal job would be as a mill supervisor. I think that that would be a wonderful choice for you and, should you sincerely pursue such a career, I want you to know that you have my best wishes for all success.
Your former constituent,
The Mazeppist
posted by Sidi Hamid Benengeli | 12:26 PM
2 Comments:
A ball busting worthy of that award named after your erstwhile client and still good friend, the good doctor.
I am not worthy...
Post a Comment
<< Home