Can we try him for treason?

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.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    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.

  • Mike Devx

    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.

  • Gringo

    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.

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    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.