peter

@BarackObama, your defence of Ilhan Omar is remarkable for what you have chosen to leave out. You present her as a principled public servant whose only apparent offence is criticising Donald Trump. Yet you make no mention of the political record that has made her one of the most controversial figures in Congress. Americans deserve a rather fuller account than the carefully polished biography you have provided. Omar has advocated abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, supported sweeping changes to America's immigration laws, championed enormous increases in federal spending and consistently opposed key aspects of America's longstanding relationship with Israel. She voted against an additional $1 billion for Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system, which protects Israeli civilians from rocket attacks, and has repeatedly sought to restrict American military assistance to the Jewish state. Then there are her statements about Israel and Jewish political influence. In 2019, she suggested that American political support for Israel was driven by money, prompting accusations of antisemitism and condemnation from within her own Democratic Party. She subsequently apologised. In 2021, she invoked the United States, Israel, Hamas and the Taliban in the same discussion of alleged atrocities, provoking further criticism from fellow Democrats. These controversies are part of her public record, whether you consider them politically convenient or not. You are perfectly entitled to defend Omar's constitutional rights, and those rights must be upheld regardless of her political beliefs. But you go considerably further, declaring the allegations against her baseless and the administration's motives entirely political before the investigation has reached its conclusion. You appear remarkably certain of facts that have yet to be established in court. There is also a distinction you seem reluctant to acknowledge. Omar's right to criticise a president does not place her beyond lawful investigation, any more than Trump's dislike of her would justify an unlawful prosecution. The evidence, the legality of the investigation and the conduct of federal authorities should determine the outcome. Your statement asks Americans to accept your judgement of Trump's motives while overlooking Omar's own political record and treating disputed allegations as settled facts. That is a remarkably selective approach from a former president who claims to be defending the impartial application of the law. If your concern is genuinely for constitutional principles, apply them consistently. Defend Omar's rights, demand evidence from the administration and insist upon due process. But spare Americans the carefully curated political biography. They are entitled to the full picture, however inconvenient it may be to your argument.