Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - Page updated at 12:48 P.M.

McDermott omits 'under God' while leading House in Pledge

By Matthew Daly
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON — Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad, omitted the words "under God" as he led the House in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week.
McDermott of Seattle was one of seven lawmakers who voted against a House resolution last year condemning a federal appeals court ruling that reciting the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional because of its reference to God.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused McDermott of "embarrassing the House and disparaging the majority of Americans who share the values expressed in the pledge."

McDermott's actions Tuesday demonstrate that "he and those like him stand more for the liberal left than they do for our friends and neighbors," Sessions said.

Mike DeCesare, a spokesman for McDermott, said today that McDermott had made a mistake.

The 67-year-old McDermott told him that as a child he had learned the pledge without the words "under God," DeCesare said. The phrase was added to the pledge in 1954.

"Basically he caught himself up," DeCesare said, adding that McDermott was unsure whether to include the phrase "under God" because the 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

"Today he says, 'I should have said it,' because the pledge has been amended and in the future he will do that," DeCesare said. "Basically it was the wrong time to have a question in your thoughts."

McDermott, one of the most liberal members of the House, drew fire from Republicans last December, when he questioned the timing of the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. McDermott told a Seattle radio station that the U.S. military could have found Saddam long before if it had really wanted to do so.

In 2002, Republicans labeled McDermott "Baghdad Jim" for comments he made during a trip to Baghdad that President Bush "would mislead the American people" but that Saddam could be trusted.

Grandpa,

What's the issue here? Do you really care if or how Jim McD led the pledge? Or just trying to get some venom out of your system?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

putt...putt....putt.....putt.....putt....

Is that what I think it is? Why, yes it is -- a trolling motor. Someone's out fishing again. Looks like he's gettin' lazy, though. Bait's not as good as it used to be.

Well two of you McDermott devotees have chimed in.....no venom here Salmo....I know you think anyone opposed to your Democratic ideals is a snake but I merely point out another classic McDermott move that shows what you get with a far left , secular Democrat.

Now I know he is really popular here in his district so he must be doing what alot of his supporters want him to do.

Wipe God off of everything from the pledge to our money but shout the praises of Allah....Muslim call to prayer is ok but anything Christian is a right wing whacko ideal that needs to be stopped.

Sorry boys but I just don't buy what Jimbo is trying to sell. Glad to see you guys are true to your ideals anyway.

I can just hear it now.....one nation under Allah with no liberty and no justice for all...

Oh and by the way Salmo..Yes I do care how McDermott slammed the pledge ....I do care that your party and the ideals it now seems to stand for and embrace are destructive to America, the family and many principles this great country were built on. A cynical viewpoint that I believe is very harmful in many ways. It doesn't make you stupid for believing in it and doesn't make me stupid for opposing it. Maybe you think so but if you do I feel sorry for you.

Salmo, I didn't know you were a Republican.

Who'd a thunk?

Those two little meaningless words are going to destroy the very fabric of our society. I say delete them so we can move on to more important things like expelling the extreme right wing wackos who can't fathom the meaning of the word freedom. Or maybe we should replace the phrase with "One nation, under liberals...".

You mean instead of, "One nation under the thumb of oppressive ultra-conservative extreme right-wingers?"

One nation, divided over the term "under God", supposedly indivisable, with liberty and justice for all.


Just doesn't quite have the same ring, does it?

"Those two little meaningless words".....So sayeth Stlhead....


80% of America thinks those two words mean alot....I would say you sir are meaningless. Your minority view is what is contributing to the downfall of our social fabric in this country....God is a huge threat to your kind but so many sick things are just A OK....Thank God you ARE in the minority.

Personally, I don't care if "under God" is included or not. For me it doesn't change the context of the message one way or the other.

Wildfishlover, I'm curious, too, why you feel that someone's view, who may be in the minority, can lead to the destruction of America's social fabric.

Another question; if America survived all those years with its pledge sans reference to God, why wouldn't it survive again without it?

Because we all need to be reared from little kids on that this is a nation governed by the Christian Coalition who tries to sell oppression as freedom and we must obey a set meaning of "GOD" that we all need to adhere to or we will burn in hell and hurt little children and break up families. So is "under god" a result of revisionist historians, activist judging or strict constructionism? I'd have to say it was the result of revisionist historians in Congress who added it to the pledge and activist judges who ignore the separation of church and state. Just the type of people the extreme right should hate.

careful stlhead...Homeland Security is still listening....

You mean the Gestapo? Yes I could disappear at any moment detained indefinitely without charges, an attorney or a trial. I just have to make it through the election when freedom and democracy will be restored.