Jimmy Carter is back in the news, arguing that the world community should embrace Hamas, even though it just engaged in a bloody insurrection against its own Palestinian leadership and remains committed to the destruction of Israel as well.
Ed Morrissey is on the scene with reaction:
So let's get this straight. Bush's refusal to engage with a terrorist group -- one that has long been on the State Department list of outlawed terrorist organizations -- is "criminal". Wouldn't it literally have been a criminal act to engage with Hamas? Federal law prohibits such direct contacts and the transmission of aid to terrorist groups such as Hamas.
Even more ridiculous, Carter feels that we should applaud the organizational skills of a terrorist group that just murdered its way to the top of the Gaza power structure. He applauds their "superior skills and discipline," while turning a blind eye to the ways in which they apply them. Rather than scold them for using violence to achieve their political goals, Carter wants the global community to welcome and reward them for it.
Carter started his post-presidential period as a model for retired politicians and statesmen. Had he stayed retired and focused on building homes for the poor, he would have gone some way towards mitigating his feckless presidency. Instead, Carter has become an apologist for terrorists -- and in this case, a cheerleader for them. Carter has embarrassed his nation and solidified his status as the appeaser-in-chief who coddled radical Islam at its birth, and seems determined to midwife it at every successive turn.
My crystal ball says it's going to get even worse with Carter before his public speaking career is done. For all his merits as a Christian, as a Habitat for Humanity homebuilder and as a cardigan-sweater-wearer, Carter has completely lost it in matters dealing with terrorism.
It's pretty obvious that he's still trying to retroactively burnish his own presidential legacy of America Held Hostage for 444 days when Iranians took over the U.S. Embassy and Carter tried every ineffectual response in the book. (The hostages were released only when Reagan took office.) But the truth is that Carter failed miserably as a president, and there's no amount of post-presidential posturing that's going to make his legacy look good.
So now he spends his days catering to Middle Eastern terrorists and urging the rest of the West to join him in racing toward the cliffs of mayhem to dive into the sea. Sensible people and nations know that this is a very bad idea and are not swarming like lemmings in response to Carter's call. Instead of heeding the feedback, Carter grows ever more shrill.
He's had plenty of time to see the warning signs and to hear the clanging bells and blaring horn, but he's still determined to drive what's left of his lousy foreign policy reputation (think a Yugo or a Chevy Vega) right onto the tracks in front of the oncoming Train of Reason.
I don't think I'll be able to watch the final dénouement. It won't be pretty.
On cue, Jimmy Carter steps forward and demonstrates again that there is no fool like an old fool [h/t: Ben Franklin].
Let's see where this serial idiot got it wrong this time. The US should not favor Fatah over Hamas because...."[it would be an] effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."?
Fatah has renounced violence and has recognized the possibility of recognizing Israel. Abu Mazen has met with the Israeli PM in an effort to achieve a peaceful solution down the road.
Hamas has espoused terrorism, kidnaps Israeli soldiers and launches missiles into Israel while attempting terrorist attacks on Israel. Its leadership refuses to consider any diplomatic measures toward Israel. I could go on.....
But it already sounds like the Palestinians are two peoples.
So the US should treat Fatah and Hamas the same?
How long ago did this terminal retardo Carter lose the last of his marbles? And why doesn't he just shut up and stop proving Ben Franklin's old adage again and again and again......
Posted by: daveinboca | June 20, 2007 at 12:22 AM
GIVEN Carter's history of accepting extremely generous 'donations' from the Saudis and others, my intuition is to FOLLOW THE MONEY. What I mean is that Carter's positions are almost always congruent with the positions of his funding sources.
The surprise for me is that, (1) the Hamas victory in Gaza is almost certainly attributable to the Iranian-Syrian alliance. But, (2) how does the Hamas victory benefit the Saudis? Is Carter getting new money from Iran? I'm not sure Carter is intellectually nimble enough to handle funding from Sunnis and Shias at the same time. That would require a very nuanced intellect (with a taste for danger).
I conclude that Carter still has his Saudi funding sources. This would mean that the Saudis wanted Hamas to win. This could be because the Saudis think that Hamas will do a better job of challenging Israel.
In the end, Hamas may or may not succeed in bothering Israel very much. Israel can be pretty tough when it needs to be, and Hamas is a 'cleaner' target than Fatah is.
GO JEWS!
Posted by: DemocracyRules | June 20, 2007 at 03:42 PM