Can we try him for treason?
Bookworm on Apr 13 2008 at 5:12 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Hamas, Jimmy Carter
Hamas is an official terrorist organization. That minor detail, however, doesn’t seem to deter President Jimmy Carter, a man who has never met a sleazy Islamic or communist terrorist he doesn’t admire and trust:
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said in remarks to air on Sunday that his upcoming visit to the Middle East probably would include a meeting in Syria with leaders of the militant group Hamas.
“I’ve not confirmed our itinerary yet for the Syrian visit, but it’s likely that I will be meeting with the Hamas leaders,” Carter said, according to a transcript of his interview on ABC News’ “This Week.”
The Bush administration and close U.S. ally Israel oppose the meeting, which would take place during Carter’s nine-day trip to the Middle East that begins on Sunday.
U.S. policy has been to isolate Hamas, which seized control of Gaza last June, and to bolster pro-Western President Mahmoud Abbas, who rules the West Bank and is in U.S.-sponsored talks with the Israelis.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who sought Carter’s counsel on his own previous Arab-Israeli peacemaking efforts ahead of a U.S.-hosted Middle East conference in Annapolis last November, called Hamas a “terrorist organization” on Friday.
With regard to his travel plans, here is what Carter said:
“I think there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that, if Europe is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Nazis, that Hitler will have to be included in the process,” said Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
“I think someone should be meeting with Hitler and the Nazi Party to see what we can do to encourage them to be cooperative,” he added.
Carter, who served one term as president from 1977 to 1981, would be one of the most prominent Americans to meet with the leader of the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler.
“We’ll be meeting with the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, the Japanese Imperialists, the Vichy Government, and with the whole gamut of people who might have to play a crucial role in any future peace agreement that involves Europe and the World,” Carter said of his trip.
Oh, silly me. I was having a weird historical flashback. What Carter really said was:
“I think there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their [sic -- proving that he's not only an idiot, but a grammatical cretin] next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process,” said Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
“I think someone should be meeting with Hamas to see what we can do to encourage them to be cooperative,” he added.
Carter, who served one term as president from 1977 to 1981, would be one of the most prominent Americans to meet with the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal.
“We’ll be meeting with the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Saudi Arabians, and with the whole gamut of people who might have to play a crucial role in any future peace agreement that involves the Middle East,” Carter said of his trip.
You can see where I might suffer some temporal confusion when it comes to a bumbling idiot, who lacks anything approaching a moral compass and who doesn’t even have the common sense of an old-fashioned real politician (a la Kissinger), inserting himself into foreign policy.
Two more things: First, a reminder that not only was it morally wrong to talk to Hitler, it was also useless. Hitler simply used those talks as a way to buy time to arm himself. He then kept making incremental terror steps, broken by brazen apologies to the West, and each of which was followed by an even bigger step, all of which culminated in WWII itself. Hitler loved to talk because he had no interest in cooperation or peace. For him, talk was as much weapon in his arsenal as anything else.
Second, if you find Carter’s conduct utterly loathsome, remember that Obama will be even worse, because he’ll be in the White House when he meets with Ahmadinijad.
Email This Post To A Friend
54 Responses to “Can we try him for treason?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To my regret, I voted for Jimmah in 1976. Before Gulf War 1, as I recall, Jimmah also made the rounds internationally trying to undermine Bush the Elder’s policy- which the UN had endorsed.
Carter is our worst ex-president.
He is willing to travel to the Middle East to meet w Hamas, undermining US policy,as the US has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization. but he is unwilling to debate Dershowitz at Brandeis University.
IOW, Carter is willing to meet w a terrorist organization, but not to debate w Dershwitz. I am thinking right now of Henry II.
http://www.ytedk.com/hitler.htm
While not on the level as a former President, our past has seen examples of our fellow citizens kowtowing to horrible regimes.
Carter’s right, Bookworm just doesn’t understand.
Obama’s okay, vote him over McCain.
Six words, works almost every time.
“Can we try him for treason?”
Hell no, Hail to the Chief!
Helen -
If only you were right. I suspect Bookworm would love to be wrong about Carter. But the fact is that she understands him and the fact that his willingness to schmooze with people who don’t value freedom, independent thought, or human rights is more than useless - it is damaging to the millions of people throughout the world who truly hunger for the liberties and rights that we are fortunate to enjoy here in America.
Deana
No Deana, talking is never futile. There’s always a chance for understanding. But one has to be willing to try to understand the other person’s point of view. When we are so sure we are right that the other person has nothing to teach us, the talk is doomed. History will be kind to Carter. People will come to value him for the statesman he is. Just as going into a garage doesn’t turn a person into a car, talking with people who have different views doesn’t make a person lose his love of freedom.
Helen -
We have discussed this before. There is a long, long history of attempts at talking that were collosal failures. To say that talking is never futile is to look at overwhelming evidence and ignore the experiences of others.
There are times when talking or attempts at talking are important. But there also are times when talking is not appropriate. Carter is engaging in the later.
The only way that history will be kind to Carter is if we somehow manage to avoid any further conflict with radical Muslims. If that were to happen, it would be easy to gloss over Carter’s embarassing statements and actions in the Middle East and focus on the peace.
But that is unlikely to be the course of history. Instead, historians will look back and simply see Carter as someone who should have recognized the foolishness and wrongness of his actions. And think about something, Helen, has history been kind to Chamberlain?
Deana
Are you saying that the countries of England and the United States were wrong in trying to ” talk ” to Hitler? That the failure to prevent WWII was our fault? That Hitler would have seen the light, but our leaders just didn’t say the right words? Didn’t talk long enough?
It seems that you do not take evil seriously to believe that talking is never futile.
History has long proven that talking to Hitler was indeed futile.
And on another point - Helen, there is a BIG difference between talking to others who have different points of view but still respect others, their lives, freedom, independence, and human rights versus talking to people who do NOT value liberty, difference of opinions, human rights, or life and will kill you simply because you are different.
That is the difference. Carter is giving legitimacy to people who would not hesitate to kill others, many, many innocent others, in order to gain power and control and squelch all hope for freedom and liberty.
The man is a disgrace, pure and simple.
Rockdalian -
You make an excellent point. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - too many Americans have lived in safety and security for so long they can’t even imagine what it is like to face the type of evil that confronts so many others every day in other parts of the world. That is why these Americans have such easy, pat responses when asked how one should confront overwhelming evil - they don’t ever have to worry about push coming to shove.
Deana
Consider Nancy Pelosi, our benighted Speaker of the House, whose particular combinations of wealth and intelligence undermine all theories of Social Darwinism. Pelosi refused to meet with Colombian President Uribe when he was in DC. Uribe was re-elected with over 60% of the vote and currently has a 84% approval rating in Colombia. Yet, Nancy Pelosi was willing to travel to Damascus to denounce Bush’s policy to Thug-In-Chief Assad Junior. Who else has visited with Assad Junior to denounce Bush’s Iraq policy? None other than David Duke. Stand in line with David Duke, Speaker Pelosi.
I guess that liberals approve of talking only with enemies of freedom.
Helen, did you realize that Pelosi and David Duke were among those who have made the pilgrimage to Damascus? Helen, did you realize what kind of regime the Assad family runs, such as Assad Senior’s Hama massacre of 10,000 to 20,000 and the many Lebanese leaders that Assad Junior has had killed? (Go to Wikipedia for Hama massacre: Book’s software doesn’t support many links.)
Helen, when you approve of Jimmy Carter talking to Hamas, what opinion do you have of Hama’s refusal to recognize the State of Israel. River to the Sea, that is what Hamas wants. Did you realize that, Helen?
“No Deana, talking is never futile. There’s always a chance for understanding.”
What is it that you don’t understand, HelenL? Hamas has been quite clear in explaining that nothing will suffice short of the complete eradication of the Jews and the global supremacy of Islam. What is it about this that you don’t understand? It seems simple enough. Personally, Book, Deana, Rockdalian and I seem to understand them quite well. Apparently, however, what we hear and read clearly is not so clear to you.
Is is that you think they are joking? Is is that they don’t speak loud enough? Is is that you don’t understand why we pay them the honor of taking at face value what they say? Is it that you don’t understand how they could possibly be and think any differently than us? What, exactly? Please explain.
Helen:
Liberals wanting to “talk” to thugs is a rather familiar pattern. Clinton “talked” to Arafat many times. Arafat was a guest at the White House many times. Did that get a peace agreement? Bush, having seen the results of talking with Arafat, cut off talking with Arafat after the Israelis intercepted a shipload of armaments from Iran bound for the Palestinians.
Consider Nancy Pelosi, our benighted Speaker of the House, whose particular combinations of wealth and intelligence undermine all theories of Social Darwinism. Pelosi refused to meet with Colombian President Uribe when he was in DC. Uribe was re-elected with over 60% of the vote and currently has a 84% approval rating in Colombia. Yet, Nancy Pelosi was willing to travel to Damascus to denounce Bush’s policy to Thug-In-Chief Assad Junior. Who else has visited with Assad Junior to denounce Bush’s Iraq policy? None other than David Duke Stand in line with David Duke, Speaker Pelosi.
.
I guess that liberals approve of talking only with enemies of freedom.
Helen, did you realize that Pelosi and David Duke were among those who have made the pilgrimage to Damascus? Helen, did you realize what kind of regime the Assad family runs, such as Assad Senior’s Hama massacre of 10,000 to 20,000 and the many Lebanese leaders that Assad Junior has had killed? (Go to Wikipedia for Hama massacre: Book’s software doesn’t support many links.)
Helen, when you approve of Jimmy Carter talking to Hamas, what opinion do you have of Hama’s adamant refusal to recognize the State of Israel. River to the Sea, that is what Hamas wants to be. The US has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization, with very good reason. By 1999 the US government had labeled Hamas a terrorist organization, that is, during the Clinton administration. Did you realize that, Helen?
Because this software is link unfriendly, here are partial links:
Pelosi refusing to meet with Uribe: gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/04/pelosi-snubs-columbian-president-uribe.html
David Duke to Damascus: w.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=SP103505
Hamas a terrorist organization by 1999: w.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm
Rockdalain, I did not say nor do I believe that WWII was the fault of the US and Britain.
I’m saying talking should always be the first step, not that we will always convince others of the rightness of our point of view. I’m saying that by talking Carter took a logical step and should not be condemned for talking. Talking may or may not solve a given problem, but talking isn’t evil and doesn’t make a person evil. Talking in type is what we’re doing on this blog, and we’re all okay–Americans all.
At the risk of sounding cold and having people scream at me for days, I’ll say this, American policy ought not be all (note I said all) about Jews any more than people here scream when they think Obama wants to make it all about Blacks. We are in this country together–Jews, Gentiles, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Atheists, New Agers, Black, White, Hispanic–Americans all. We must learn to get along as a nation and as apart of a world community. Otherwise, King was right; we will perish as fools.
And I repeat, I am not against the Jews. The Holocaust was one of the worse slaughters in history. May God bless the Jews.
Helen:
I don’t doubt that you’re not against the Jews. Am I understanding, though, that you believe that they are demanding more than their fair share of world consideration? Let me suggest something to you:
Historically, Jews have been the canary in the coal mine. Countries and regimes that have gone after their Jews have usually gone after others with equal vigor, either simultaneously with their Jewish persecution, or as part of a continuum of that behavior. It’s not just the Nazis. It’s the Russians, who were an unusually repressive regime; the Soviets, who were a more repressive regime; the Middle Ages, which weren’t as bad as they are now painted, but which were, by our lights, repressive against women, gays, science, non-whites, etc; and Islam, old and new.
Currently, with regard to Islam, Jews and Israel are the future for America and the rest of the West. Right now, the Islamists are bending their energy to destroy the “other” religion in the region, as well as the only real liberal Democracy in the region. As I’ve noted in other posts here, they’ve also made it very plain that this is only the beginning. If they are successful in destroying Israel, they will turn their attention to Christianity and the West. Israel isn’t the end game; she’s the beginning.
So those of us, Jewish and non-Jewish, have pro-Israel policies, not only out of respect for the Jews, both politically (liberal Democracy, rights for women, rights for gays, freedom of worship) and religiously (People of the Book), but also because we know that as they go, so go we.
No doubt, Bookworm, but, nonetheless, to suggest trying Jimmy Carter for treason because he wants to fight with his mouth rather than weapons is going too far.
Helen,
Scanning over all your posts, I’m compelled to come to the conclusion that you’re actually serious.
Those who oppose your viewpoint seem to be putting a lot more energy into citing history to back up their viewpoints, than you are into backing up yours. Had you listed some hot conflicts that might have been avoided by talking things out, or some peaceful resolutions that might have degenerated into hot conflicts had the talking not been done, we could then compare those examples to what happened in the 1930’s with Germany or what’s going on with Hamas right now to see if there are any differences. But you have not so cited. I find that telling. Very telling.
Personally, I’d find this to be the most favorable outcome with the current situation.
Mkfreeberg, How can I cite historical incidents when none exist? The world has always been at war or between wars. Yes, there’s Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. who used nonviolent means to change social conditions but not against an enemy like this. Trying a friend for treason seems counterproductive. We need change. Not what we’ve already done. At least, we need to talk hope. Without hope, we’re defeated already. Internal bickering won’t help anything.
Okay, so then by your own admission, just looking at Saddam Hussein it’s Fight Guys 1, Talk Guys 0.
And then when we look at Gaddafi it’s 2-0. When we look at Zarqawi it’s 3-0. And the hits just keep on comin’…
I think it was Ann Coulter who said a great defense policy for the United States would be to wait for Jimmy Carter to say we should do something, and then do the exact opposite as fast as we possibly can. Makes sense to me.
The Moral Of The Boys In The Playground
Once upon a time there was a schoolyard where every day after lunch the children gathered in the courtyard to play. There were swings and monkey bars; there were teeter totters and slides.
Rahman was a large bully who had been held back several years in third grade, and he was VERY angry about this. Especially he blamed everyone else for his inability to handle the new math of the new civilized world. It was very hard when every morning and evening, his parents and aunts and uncles all told him how very smart their family used to be, back about 1200 A.D.
Every day after lunch, Rahman would go to the swings and say, “I want my favorite swing. It belongs to me, no matter what.” He would choose the smallest girl and push her off of her swing and then sit there grinning. When anyone would say, “But you chose that other swing yesterday, not this swing!” he would reply, “But they are ALL my favorite swing and they all belong to me.”
He would go to the monkey bars and choose the smallest boy and push him off. He would go to the teeter totters and make everyone fall off, and then he would kick the ones who didn’t get up quickly enough to run away. He liked to stand at the bottom of the slide and keep everyone from sliding down it. “I own this slide, too”, he would say. “It all belongs to me. I’ve been here the longest.”
Mrs. Dhimmi Carter was the playground supervisor. “You children simply need to play well together!” she would scold them, when any of them came to her in tears. “And don’t you dare get angry!” she would continue. “I am here to promote peace, and I will do my very best to try to get peace to happen. You all need to get along.”
“Why don’t you ever tell HIM he has to get along,” the other children would sometimes say, pointing to Rahman, currently sneering as he sat atop the monkey bars.
“He promised me to stop being mean as soon as all of you start acting nicer towards him,” she said, watching as Rahman pushed Timmy off of his swing, causing Timmy to break his arm. “Oh, dear!” Mrs. Dhimmi Carter exclaimed! “I wonder what Timmy did to provoke him this time?”
“Mrs. Carter, won’t you tell Rahman to stop hurting people?” Samuel begged.
Mrs. Dhimmi Carter frowned. “Samual, you just have to learn to get along with him,” she lectured with great moral authority. “It’s your fault, because I know you’re reasonable, and it’s up to you to keep him happy. Besides, everyone knows Rahman doesn’t listen to anything I say. I didn’t mean to say that, oops! Samuel, you run along and play nice now!”
Helen says:
American policy ought not be all (note I said all) about Jews any more than people here scream when they think Obama wants to make it all about Blacks
Here is an interpretation of that statement: American policy ought not be all about standing up for democracy and human rights. Rather, it should also accommodate bigots, tyrants, and terrorists such as Hamas. What good did talking to Arafat do, Helen? That talking with Arafat was totally futile is just a NITPICKING DETAIL to you.
Consider how Israel and Hamas conduct themselves regarding democracy and human rights. Oh no, those are NITPICKING DETAILS. Consider that there are Arabs in the Knesset. Oh no, that is just a NITPICKING DETAIL. Do you even know what the Knesset is, Helen?
Hamas wants the destruction of the State of Israel. WHAT DO YOU WANT? WHAT IS THE POINT OF TALKING TO SUCH PEOPLE?
How is Hamas wanting the destruction of the State of Israel different qualitatively from the KKK’s attitude towards Blacks and Jews? Does one talk to the KKK? No, one applies the hammer to the KKK.
Given the many times that Carter has taken it upon himself to conduct his own private foreign policy- Gulf War 1, Gulf War II, North Korea et al- the label of treason has some validity. What is the point of someone whose failed Presidency ended 27 years ago interjecting himself into foreign policy, especially when his doing so often undermines US policy? What would Carter have thought of Republicans taking trips overseas during his Presidency to undermine HIS foreign policy? Of course, these are just NITPICKING DETAILS to you. What do facts matter, as long as you have good intentions?
Why does Carter want to talk to Hamas, but Carter refuses to debate with Dershowitz at Brandeis? Talk to a terrorist organization founded on bigotry against Israel, but refuse to debate a Jewish attorney ? What does that say to you? Or is that just another NITPICKING DETAIL to you?
Why does good Liberal Pelosi refuse to talk with President Uribe, but good Liberal Pelosi follows in the footsteps of David Duke to travel to Damascus to denounce Bush to Assad Junior? Or is that just another NITPICKING DETAIL to you?
Helen, if you refuse to answer these questions, I can but conclude that you are afraid of them.
Gringo,
Helen will never answer you. She may write another comment, but it won’t be an answer to your questions. Take it from one who knows. We’ve been around this track before - and have worn a deep rut. Helen is a better person that the rest of us. Talking is on a higher moral plane than shooting or shunning. It doesn’t matter what sort of vile, evil character is on the other side of the conversation. Everybody deserves the dignity of earnest discussion. It doesn’t matter what they’ve done, what they’ve said, what they think. Helen is ready to talk. She can’t tell you what she’d say that would make any difference. That’s for smarter people to figure out. But she’s just sure that there must be something. She has no concern for the fact that engaging in conversation with someone whose every word is suspect is idiocy (perhaps suicidal idiocy).
When treason doth prosper, then none dare call it treason. How could they, since treason is something negative and why would something negative and hurtful to the nation be feted by that nation as glamorous and “good”?
That is why the old saying is always “Treason Doth Never Prosper”. And it is still true today. For treason never prospers, since if it does, you get someone like Carter who is never labeled nor treated as a traitor by his nation. Just members of his nation that are powerless to exile or kill him.
In fact, I believe like all ex-Presidents, Carter gets Secret Security protection and benefit packages from the victims he will be gleeful in seeing Hamas and Hizbollah hurt.
Here is how the wolves of the world treat Artists for Peace and Talking . This murder of a well-intentioned peaceful artist occurred in Turkey, but it could have occurred anywhere.
Okay Judy, so first Gringo gives an “interpretation” that I don’t agree with. Then he asks a bunch of questions that I’ll be thinking I’m holier than thou if I don’t answer. Maybe you’d be happier, if I said I’d knock him off his swing.
And no, I’m not taking a test on this blog.
Regardless of your opinion of Jimmy Carter, he remains an ex President of the United States. As such he is deserving of respect. Respect the office even if you do not respect the man. Carter is entitled to the same honor, the same pomp and ceremony, of a state funeral as was President Reagan. I look forward to it. Soon.
See. I told you.
Judy wins!! And I’m scared of the big bad questions.
But I have managed a decent draft of a new poem. Wanna see it?
A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line, a terrorist walks up to the right side of the line.
Just something people like Helen need to see, I think.
Mkfreeberg, ha, ha.
judyrose
See. I told you.
Yes, you did. I was going to add more, but I see that would be a waste of time- as you have already pointed out.
BTW, I have bookmarked your website, as I can always use improvement in writing, coming from a non-writing background. For a long time I had a writing phobia, a reaction to English teachers wanting to turn me into a literary critic when instead I wanted to write to express myself.
If this were literally true, we’ be discussing Carter’s funeral not talking about treason.
So Helen…has our talking with you changed any of your opinions? How likely do you think it is that we will convince you to not vote for Obama?
Hi Gringo,
I just wanted to save you from crushing disappointment as you awaited a direct, reasoned reply to your questions. Okay, I’m getting a little snarky, but I’ve been there myself.
Glad you liked my site. Thanks for mentioning it. It’s apparent that you’ve thoroughly conquered that writing phobia.
Suek,
I think Helen has said she’s a Hillary supporter. Helen, is that right? Or have you switched over?
Suek, Judy, Whoever else is listening, I am a Clinton supporter. But I will vote for Obama, if he’s the Democratic candidate in November. That’s the same as it always was. I was ticked at Clinton, only the day some damn (oops, I’ll get tagged) recording called me tell me she was in W-S, which I already knew - me being computer savvy enough to read USAToday and find out. LOL To me, DO NOT CALL means Hillary, too. But that’s just me.
I think you have o% chance of convincing me not to vote for Obama unless the Republicans just go ape-shit and find someone other than McCain to nominate.
And Gringo, Judy’s smart and polite most of the time, but she can be “snarky.”
Like I can’t. I just don’t need an assignment right now. I’m half-sick and won’t be bullied into answering a bunch of questions based on twisting my words. I’ll just get snarky. 
Every citizen of the US deserves to be heard and represented in policy making.
Hey Bookworm, “Damn” and “ape-shit” seem to be okay.
Helen,
I’m not sure why I’m bothering as you are obviously just poking people here to get a reaction. Otherwise you would actively engage in a debate rather than make snide and insipid remarks. But, what the hey, I’ll bite.
We live in a republic, which means our citizens are “heard” through our democratically elected representatives. So your last comment regarding every citizen being heard and represented seems rather naïve and ignorant.
President Carter is acting outside of his authority and should at the very least be censured. He is now simply a citizen and has no authority to act as a representative for the United States in foreign affairs without the permission of the current President. He may well be undermining ongoing efforts of the United States or our allies in the region. I don’t give a crap what side of the aisle you are on that is unacceptable.
Sean
I don’t give a crap what side of the aisle you are on that is unacceptable.
You have to make some allowances for Americans that want a President for Life and thus do not see why when a President is out of office, they stop being a President, Sean.
Then he asks a bunch of questions that I’ll be thinking I’m holier than thou if I don’t answer.
For someone interested in “talk”, you seem very hostile to people who challenge you and try to ask you questions to better learn your beliefs and positions.
Doesn’t this share a disturbing correlation to Obama?
As such he is deserving of respect. Respect the office even if you do not respect the man.
You can’t respect the office when the man ain’t the office and certainly not when the man ain’t even in office.
As if I or any other America should respect “him” just cause the office is deserving of respect when Carter is undermining that exact same office of the Presidency and when he ain’t even in office.
The Navy gave Carter all the respect he needed when he and his killer water bunny was given the honor of having a submarine named after them. The Navy’s subtle hint that good little Submarine Carters should never be heard or seen, and preferably should remain underwater for Looong periods of time without surfacing.
I want to see his funeral just as much as you may, Z, but I wouldn’t do it simply based upon the assumption that Carter is the office of the Presidency. He ain’t and he never was.
a reaction to English teachers wanting to turn me into a literary critic when instead I wanted to write to express myself.
Take it from me, my early writings were long and not very clear. People complained, but I just told them to stuff it. You only get good if you practice, and you can’t practice if you stop listening to your inspiration and start listening to critics and idiots that have no idea how to improve your writing except by making you stop.
If this were literally true, we’ be discussing Carter’s funeral not talking about treason.
Technically, helen, the logical result of a successful treason charge is a funeral. His funeral, to be more exact.
I’m half-sick and won’t be bullied into answering a bunch of questions based on twisting my words.
America is half sick, if I listen to you and Obama, so why should we answer questions or cooperate in “talking” with Iran, Syria, and child murdering terrorists when you yourself won’t talk or answer us?
There is such a thing as moral accountability, if not moral equivalence. It would be different if you, Helen, didn’t advocate that we should take the time and energy to talk to people who want our heads and lives. If you yourself doubt your own energy or willingness to do what you want others to do… why should anyone believe your position to be moral or ethical?
I occasionally wonder what world you live in, Helen.
Let’s see, Israel was a topic of conversation for two years (at least) before it came into existence in the UN and elsewhere - didn’t do much good as I recall, the Arabs were at war with it five minutes after it was proclaimed in 1948. I would not suspect that there have been any fewer than several billion words expended in the ensuing 60 years - between Israel and various Arab states directly, through intermediaries, via back-channels; in a couple of dozen languages in thousands of meetings, publicized and privately, held all over the world.
Manifestly, talking is, at least on this issue, indeed futile. The “first step” of talking has been tried to the point where people have worn their legs off with that step. Even by Jimmy of Arabia.
And I would posit that the world is probably better off without the sainted Gandhi, who was perfectly okay with physically uprooting and forcibly moving out millions of Indian Muslims, and never expressed any feelings one way or the other regarding the historical fact that as many as a million of them died during the removal to what became Pakistan. Gandhi also thought Hilter wasn’t so bad, and if even he was, he was strictly an internal problem for Germans, and the Jews ought not to resist. Should, I suppose, line up to be shot sporting cheerful smiles.
Those who constantly reference Gandhi tend not to know much about him, beyond that in the popular imagination he has become a saint. On the other hand, the popular imagination is also very taken with “American Idol,” Brittney Spears, and Lindsey Lohan - which tells you most of what you need to know about the popular imagination. Gandhi was a jerk.
Jimmy Carter has been out of office for 27 years, which is long enough for history to have begun to form some judgments about him, and so far they aren’t pretty. I’m uncertain that they’ll get better with the passage of more time - but we’re a nice people. When he conks out a few of us will attend his funeral, (the rest of us will pay for it), and we’ll dredge up something nice to say about him: it’s the way we are. The fact that his portfolio of actual accomplishments is slim-to-vanishing will be ignored for a day or two - but that’s as much slack as he’s earned.
“If Israel is ever going to find peace…” they’ll have to do it. Not him. Them. What he needs to do is keep his goddam mouth shut.
HI Y., You say, “Take it from me, my early writings were long and not very clear.” Well, take it from me, they still aren’t, but don’t ever let anyone tell you to stop writing. One hint though: Drop the bold. It’s considered yelling.
And JJ, I live in the world that has God, not Israel, at its center. You say, ““If Israel is ever going to find peace…” they’ll have to do it.. . . Them.” Amen. And amen. Bring the troops home. Enough about Israel. Let the last man win. Or kill each other. That section of the world has had too much attention. Elect a woman or a black man as President of the US. Only the US can solve US problems, such as systemic racism. That’s the world I live in.
And as far as being a literary critic, try reading this: http://www.howard.edu/divinity/weeklyword.htm
Helen
I’m half-sick and won’t be bullied into answering a bunch of questions based on twisting my words.
Posters have been known to twist words. In another blog, when another poster had misrepresented what I had said, I pointed out sentence by sentence, documenting where the poster had twisted my words. I received an apology. Please point out where other posters have twisted your words. If you can document where I have twisted YOUR words, I will apologize.
I have asked you many questions, many regarding the inconsistency of Good Liberals traveling six thousand miles to talk to bigoted terrorist thugs but refusing to debate a Jewish attorney in the same room in the case of Carter, or in the case of Pelosi refusing to talk with a the President of Colombia, who was reelected with 62% of the vote, who has traveled to Washington DC. Have I bullied you? If so, how? Please document.
What Pelosi and Carter have done shows a glaring inconsistency on the part of some Good Liberals, one which I would assume would concern you. The fact that you have apparently refused to deal with this inconsistency concerns me.
Gringo, Everyone is inconsistent. We’re human.
# 21 “Helen says:
American policy ought not be all (note I said all) about Jews any more than people here scream when they think Obama wants to make it all about Blacks
Here is an interpretation of that statement: American policy ought not be all about standing up for democracy and human rights. Rather, it should also accommodate bigots, tyrants, and terrorists such as Hamas. What good did talking to Arafat do, Helen? That talking with Arafat was totally futile is just a NITPICKING DETAIL to you.”
I explained this, when I said in #38 “Every citizen of the US deserves to be heard and represented in policy making.”
To expand, not every American thinks that American policy, “standing up for democracy and human rights,” means fighting. Some of us, namely me, think too much time and money is being spent fighting other people’s battles. Some of us think domestic policy has suffered at the hand of foreign policy. Some think it time for a change. Some of us think change means a better life for Americans who have paid the price but not reaped the benefits of “democracy and human rights” as much as others. Some of us think it’s time to remove the American elite from more power than “one person one vote.”
Change could come in many forms: educational grants, health care, to name a couple. Some of us think the Democrats are more concerned about common people and the poor than the Republicans are. Some of us know the rich pick the fights, but the poor fight them. Apologize or don’t. It’s about saying the same thing over and over, It’s about the one who finally gets it. That’s the kind of world I live in, one where Jimmy Carter is seen as a man who tries and sometimes fails. One where maybe, just maybe, we will realize we cannot change the world. We can only change ourselves. We do that when we find something we think makes more sense than what we previously believed. I found that. If you do, great. If not, live on.
But anyone who thinks he/she is not consistent and condemns others for inconsistency is in a big rut. People who change do so unevenly. We are inconsistent. But those who do not change, either think they are already perfect or don’t put much effort into trying to understand the opinions of others. Some who leave commens on this blog only know how to criticize but don’t seem willing to learn. No one can addrests all issues with fervency at all times. And I don’t wish to examine all of Jimmy Carter’s moves.
Living one life well is my goal. So Gringo, you’ll just have to remain concerned. The lives of Minorities in American concern me more. Equality is a huge piece of the puzzle that seems to be missing in “standing up for democracy and human rights.” It concerns me that most of the comments here deal with “we/they” rather than “us.”
To be honest, I was running around enough today that I lost track of this thread. I just wanted to give you all kudos for keeping things lively. Even when tempers seemed to get a little hot, you all did a great job of reining yourselves in and focusing on the issues. Special thanks to you, Helen, because, as you know, while I don’t agree with your positions, I admire your goodwill in coming here, and being willing to state them and defend them.
Bookworm, I think we’ve about used this one up, unless, of course, Gringo wants to grovel.
That’s joke, guys. A joke. You know, something we all can laugh about.
Call off the lions, Y. It’s a joke.
No bold Letters. None.
One thing I have learned here. Use them smileys.
Judyrose, I see what you mean. Again. Where I might disagree with you is that I think she may have really tried to the best of her capabilities. Where I agree with you is that ultimately it IS a waste of time.
BTW, here is then-Governor Carter talking to Golda Meir, the leader of Israel.
Chutzpah, thy name is Jimmy Carter. I doubt he would talk that way to Chavez or to Hamas or to Arafat. Perhaps Carter approves of the “religious” nature of Hamas.
Well, take it from me, they still aren’t
The fact that you would say something like “take it from me, they still aren’t clear” is so predictable that there’s nothing surprising about it to me. I do not really expect anything to be “clear” to you when it is both foreign and alien to your world view. It has nothing to do with me, you know.
What is surprising is that you have the time and inclination to criticize others but won’t defend your own protracted positions that are currently stuck in a quagmire.
It’s considered yelling.
Caps are considered yelling on the net. Bold or italics provide emphasis. Italics for words inside paragraphs in order to highlight certain phrases or terms or words in a sentence. Bold is often used to enlarge title subjects or paragraph titles in order to separate out the title from the text about the title.
A line by line response on the internet then simply uses other people’s words as the title description for an author’s text reply. Bold is much superior to quotations since it gives a clear visual cue to the reader on what part of the text is the author’s words and what part isn’t.
I’m sure this is new to you only because you yourself don’t often find yourself in a position where you need to quote other people and then respond to their quotes.
Call off the lions, Y. It’s a joke.
What’s a joke is that you somehow think bad positions can be laughed off as a joke.
Those lions are the ones you brought on yourself. It has nothing to do with me.
I explained this, when I said in #38
Since you didn’t quote the person you were talking to, your comments weren’t very clear, obviously.
Some of us know the rich pick the fights, but the poor fight them.
Since rich blacks like Jesse Jackson and Rev Wright are the ones deciding which battles poor blacks fight, why do you support the rich and powerful, helen? Isn’t there supposed to be some kind of consistency here?
It’s about the one who finally gets it.
obviously rich Obama got it. And since the rich decide for the poor what they will be fighting for, that pretty much creates the elite oligarchy right there.
We are inconsistent.
Is that some kind of excuse for why your arguments often violate formal and informal logic?
The lives of Minorities in American concern me more.
Since rich people are a minority, I guess that’s why you are so concerned with Clinton and Obama over the poor black and white women in this nation or anywhere else.
It concerns me that most of the comments here deal with “we/they” rather than “us.”
Given the fact that you would sacrifice our foreign allies for “us”, it is just a different form of segregation. We segregate things based upon politics and personal beliefs such as classical liberalism or no classical liberalism. You separate things based upon domestic good stuff for Americans vs everybody else in the world.
That kind of isolationism isn’t very effective now a days.
I thought HelenL’s posts at #7, #14 and #16 were reasonably phrased and gave her perspective well. Though I disagree with them, especially the part about Carter’s being eventually recognized as a great statesman. Also, no one wants to try Carter for treason because he wants to fight with his mouth rather than with weapons. They want to try him for treason because he consistently assists countries and movements widely viewed as hostile to American interests, and Carter *never* assists countries and movements that are expressly pro-American.
Having said that, I don’t think Carter should be tried for treason either. He is in fact out there using his personal prestige to act as an international mouthpiece. There’s no law against that. I despise the main thoroughly, with all my heart, but there’s no law against what he’s doing.
Seems to me some of the responses to her posts got too personal against her. Ad hominem attacks won’t get anyone anywhere… HelenL never once got snarkey in any of her posts, and she should be given credit for that.
Now, my turn to respond to Helen who said:
‘It concerns me that most of the comments here deal with “we/they” rather than “us.”’
My response is that when someone’s speeches are filled with phrases about destroying you, and your blood running in the streets, and how evil you are, and when their actions confirm their words, then you’d be entirely justified in viewing it as a “we vs. they” problem. Conflicts happen, and they’re sometimes deadly serious. Eventually the conflict is resolved. For the really serious ones, talking just doesn’t help, or else it comes too late.
This conflict with radical jihadists is one of those. Some of them want to murder us all and the others just want us firmly under their boot for all eternity in a world forever and ever jihadist Muslim (not just merely Muslim but jihadist Muslim and with all others viciously oppressed!), and they will never listen. Never. I refuse to be their homicide victim and I refuse to be their oppression victim. I resist those who want to destroy me or harm me.
Helen:
The lives of Minorities in American concern me more. Equality is a huge piece of the puzzle that seems to be missing in “standing up for democracy and human rights.
Many people who want “equality” also claim to love “diversity”: there seems to me to be a contradiction there. People are different. While all should be given fair and equal treatment, equal treatment does not mean equal outcomes. We are not all made from the same cookie cutter.
A family member was killed at Harper’s Ferry fighting on the side of John Brown. I had two black teachers in elementary school, before the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Way Back When. My sister’s and my third grade (black) teacher was going to rent the space above our kitchen after my father finished rehabbing it by himself into a livable apartment, but he didn’t finish it in time. I am still friends with a black elementary classmate who when an adult told me that I was only one of three in the class “who treated me like a human being:” the South had no monopoly on racism. As a child, I did not do so to prove I was not a racist: a person was a person, no more and no less. I simply followed my parent’s examples.
I am skeptical about government efforts in this regard since it was government that passed Jim Crow laws: their elimination shows that perhaps the best thing that government can do is simply create a fair playing field and get out of the way.
You worry about equality. I worry about gangsta culture and out of wedlock births. If someone thinks that throwing money around solves things, I have several replies. 1) The Washington DC educational system. 2) The expansion of welfare benefits in the 1960s ultimately did more harm than good by encouraging out of wedlock births. I don’t know what the solution is, but indiscriminately throwing money around with the government program de jour will not solve it. It hasn’t in the last 40 years. Here is one government action which might help minorities in the US: shutting down the borders to illegal aliens, which would raise wages for US citizens.
I have also had housemates of another race and nationality in the US, Argentina, Trinidad, and Guatemala. (oilfield was a mobile profession) I might add that the US has no monopoly on bigotry/racism/ethnocentrism, and that compared with other places I have been, the US doesn’t come across that badly. For example, I have been a guest in homes in South America that have featured portraits of Hitler in the living room- something I have never seen in the US. There is no simple answer.
In summation: before the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, as a child I was already living a life of fair treatment. I am not sure what the solutions are, but I am skeptical of further government interventions, given the track record. We HAVE made progress.
I have heard enough of your views on the matter. You have never heard mine. I do not expect a reply to this, as I am not trying to convince you, just present you with my point of view.
Gingo, You sound as though you were raised very much the same way I was: race neutral. It wasn’t until later in life that I realized much of what I now believe and that you’ve heard enough of.