Friday, October 05, 2007

Jimmy Carter on Darfur

The Christian Science Monitor reports what happened after former President Jimmy Carter's much-publicized shouting match with Sudanese security men who prevented him from meeting with refugees.

As the Darfur peace mission of the retired statesmen known as the Elders came to an end, two of their number - former UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and former US President Jimmy Carter - chastened the West for its handling of the violent situation in Sudan. ... The BBC adds that although he praised the plans for UN-sponsored peace talks later this month in Libya, Brahimi warned that the West needs to ensure that the people of Darfur are properly represented at the talks. Brahimi's criticism of the West's handling of Darfur was joined by that of Mr. Carter, who singled out the United States government for its use of the term "genocide" to describe the Sundanese conflict. Reuters reports that Carter called Washington's use of the term "genocide" was both legally inaccurate and "unhelpful."


Then in the next sentence the Monitor tantalizingly describes a dumb show that the Elders repeatedly encountered.

Brahimi's and Carter's comments come at the end the Elders' two-day mission to Sudan. Voice of America reports that during their visit, the Elders found that "people in Darfur were desperate for protection, despite the Sudanese government's insistence that the situation in the region is getting better."

Some people they visited slipped them notes full of allegations of rape and other abuse by militias aligned with the Sudanese government. The wife of former South African President Nelson Mandela, Graca Machel, told of her meeting with women in Darfur. "The first thing they told us they need security," she said. "They need security. They gave us examples of what happened to them, even graphically, to show how women are being raped, are beaten and are brutalized. I think because they thought we may not get a clear translation, they went at length of using gestures to show us how brutal it was, the kind of assault they are subjected to."

Translation: "We are being subjected to atrocities but they don't meet the legal standard for genocide. The reason we are using sign language and cryptic notes to communicate this point is not only to avoid being overheard by your minders but also to prevent being 'unhelpful' to the solution that is going to be cooked up by the ever-wise United Nations."

For some reason I think Jeremiah Denton would understand the dumb show perfectly.

Navy Cross Citation

"The Navy Cross is presented to Jeremiah A. Denton, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam from February 1966 to February 1973. Under constant pressure from North Vietnamese interrogators and guards, Rear Admiral Denton (then Commander) endured years of inhumane treatment including torture, starvation, and constant threat of death in an attempt to procure military information or propaganda material. If a POW could be "broken" they could be forced to write letters or make audio recordings "apologizing for their war crimes". During this prolonged period of physical and mental agony, Denton heroically resisted cruelties and continued to promulgate resistance policy and instructions. Forced to attend a press conference for propaganda with a Japanese correspondent, Denton blinked the word "T-O-R-T-U-R-E" in Morse Code at the television camera which was immediately understood by United States Naval Intelligence. Displaying extraordinary skill, fearless dedication to duty, and resourcefulness, he reflected great credit upon himself, and upheld the highest traditions of the Naval Service and the United States Armed Forces."


Blogger wretchard said...

I'm glad Jimmy set us straight on that one.

Ok. Here's a plan. Experience in Burma has shown that Internet-based virtual resistance groups are vulnerable because a regime can close down ISPs, besides which regular Internet coverage is usually spotty in Third World countries. Moreover, the UN may in the future be placed in charge of the Internet, because "it is too important" to be left in the hands of private persons, most especially American persons.

Therefore, could some NGO undertake to provide selected people in Darfur and Burma with satellite phones, the cost of whose outgoing calls run from about eighty cents to a $1.50 per minute? That way we won't have to rely exclusively on UN "translations" and reports to learn that a) events in Burma are an "internal affair" and the world should butt out; and b) events in Darfur do not amount to genocide and that the situation is best left to the UN.

I understand that encouraging direct reports do not have the "legitimacy" of United Nations rapports, and may not be as "helpful" to a "solution" but why not try it for the hell of it?

10/05/2007 05:36:00 PM  
Blogger Peter Grynch said...

In the Hope Springs Internal thread I speculated:
"Another possible interpretation of Carter's recent hissy fit in Darfur is that maybe it was all staged. Carter gave his seal of approval to crooked elections in Venezuela, even in the face of strong evidence of corruption. Is it beyond the pale to speculate that the Wrong-Way Corragin of foreign policy is boosting his street cred by staging a phony confrontation?
Will he investigate and then announce there is no genocide going on over there? Events bear watching."

Well guess what? Jimmy lived up to my worst expectations yet again!!!

Maybe he'll get a sixpack of Nobel Peace Prizes for this. Whatever happened to Yasser Arafat's?

10/05/2007 06:07:00 PM  
Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

last i heard jhimmy dhimmy speak, israel was the worst in the world...

does that mean israel can rape murder and torture to the amount of the sudan government does and be legally ok?

10/05/2007 06:51:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

As long as you fly the crescent flag, it’s all good.

10/05/2007 07:01:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

I think Jimmy Carter sees conflict resolution as the process of reaching a "natural state"; of convincing one party to concede until the "natural state" is achieved. Before which, so one may reason, a situation will remain forever unstable. Let the rock roll down the hill. And then we will have peace.

Thus if you believe that the Iran must naturally be governed by the ayatollahs; that Burma and Tibet are naturally a part of greater China; that the Middle East must naturally become Muslim, etc, then it is perfectly understandable to set about removing all the "unnatural" factors of a situation in order to achieve peace. The Shah must be convinced to vacate the throne; the Burmese and Tibetans to moderate their unrealistic expectations; the Israelis persuaded to accept a One State solution. Peace consists of persuading the fossils to accept the inevitable. To go quietly.

Because it is unnatural aspiration which prevents a reversion to placid nature; that dams up the water which longs to flow into the sea. That, it seems to me, is the concept of Jimmy Carter's peace. It's appealing at one level, but is it right?

I think Carter mistakes entropy for peace. But though they may be mistaken for each other they are in reality opposites. A corpse has achieved entropy and but its stillness is not one of peace. On the contrary peace is a condition of order, of life, of free energy. Entropy is where things have fallen to room temperature. Peace is a where things are teeming, building, alive.

When we speak of Peace on Earth, we do not mean the day after a nuclear holocaust but a day at the beach, with cold drinks, splashing waves and hot dogs sizzling on the grill.

And that is why there is something sad about Jimmy Carter's pacific interventions. His certification of dictators. His advice to give up and accept the "inevitable". It describes a poverty not only of mind, but of heart. If Jimmy hasn't learned the difference between being a Peacemaker and the Dr. Kevorkian of democracies then I feel sorry for him. The words "blessed are the peacemakers" come from the same book which says "and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams". It is not about how far you have to fall, but how far you need to climb.

10/05/2007 07:55:00 PM  
Blogger F said...


If it is indeed how far you have to climb, Jimmy Carter is in good shape: he has a LOOONNNNNNGGG way to climb. And if your old men shall dream dreams, that perhaps explains Carter's lame-brained statement regarding the lack of genocide in Darfur. I truly believe Carter hopes to achieve some kind of accommodation with the Sudanese by giving them a pass on the genocide there.

The last time the world declined to proclaim genocide was in Rwanda. Ya'll remember that: a nation of approximately 6 million, where something like 800,000 died and 2 million more were displaced. Then-President Clinton specifically declined the use of the term genocide, which would have triggered an international response. Perhaps he did so at the behest of the French -- that is still a matter of some speculation. In any case, Clinton felt bad enough about his earlier decision not to use the term that he later returned to Africa and made a point of stopping in the Kigali airport and apologizing to the people of Rwanda.

If Darfur is not genocide -- if indeed one feels comfortable saying that the Muslim northerners are NOT trying to wipe the Christian southerners out of existence -- then the word has lost all meaning. If the war ever settles down there Carter might feel obliged to do a Clinton and return to the country to apologize for his earlier misstatement. Except he won't live that long (perhaps none of us will) and he has become so confused in his dottage that he might even think he's telling the truth.

Someone should tell his handlers to keep a tighter rein on him -- he's an embarrassment to his party, his state and his nation. F

10/05/2007 09:01:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Obama's press relations person advises that Obama will announce tomorrow he will no longer wear his Sudan Genocide Bracelet, explaining his reasons on a CouricBS Special Edition Newshour.

10/05/2007 09:11:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

When Jimmy Carter certifies these dictators, he not only certifies the dictators, but he also certifies their empires. Jimmy Carter the fascistic imperialist pig.

10/05/2007 09:13:00 PM  
Blogger jj mollo said...

I just don't believe that the US will ever turn over the Internet to the UN. I see less and less confidence in the UN by Americans as time passes. In light of the UN impotence on Darfur, on the Christmas Tsunami and just about everything else it puts its hand to, I imagine that Ted Turner is feeling pretty stupid about his contribution by now.

Jimmy Carter is a puzzle. He was a Navy man, too, and submariners are supposed to be pretty carefully screened for psycological issues. They need to be able to deal with incompatible personalities in a tightly enclosed space without cracking. As a Cold Warrior, he also needed to absorb the logic of MAD. If it doesn't drive you crazy, it does impart a relentlessly logic-driven approach to problems. Remember, before Reagan, the consensus was that the Cold War would last forever -- if we were lucky.

On the Venezuelan election, I'm not sure he was wrong. The last I checked in, statisticians were arguing back and forth on the liklihood of fraud. The problem with Chavez is more of the issues associated with a personality cult, not election fraud. One man, one vote, one time. The fraud theory is just wishful thinking.

So why is he saying that Darfur is not genocide? Well, it's clear from the recent attack on UN forces that things are not as simple as they seem. There are a whole lot of nasty things going on, and one side is more successful at its nastiness. His approach to the Palestinian issue is certainly bizarre, maybe old-fashioned fair-mindedness, or post-modern relativism. But even Ben Franklin was extremely reluctant to give up on negotiated solutions in the face of overwhelming evidence. For whatever reasons he acts this way, I think he's really trying to do the right thing. I can't credit the conspiracy theories about him. Maybe we should check to see if he's blinking in code.

10/05/2007 10:46:00 PM  
Blogger Kevin said...

That Denton character was obviously a proto-Moonbat, deviously defining the tough love he received while in captivity as “torture” knowing full well that just a few years later his loose use of this word would be jumped on by global jihad to embarrass his future commander-in-chief. I mean, after all, if a jihadi clenched the Morse code for “T” “O” “R” “T” “U” “R” “E” with his butt cheeks while playing pyramid at Abu Ghraib that wouldn’t actually prove that a war crime had been committed.

It’s peacenik phoney soldiers like Denton, crying torture in response to the mildest of love taps, that are undermining this great nation. Surely he realized that his captors had a moral obligation to prevent the next attack against their people and any information gleaned from one of their prisoners could have been critical in preventing more deaths. That is the least the “prisoners” (I even hesitate to use such a politically charged label, some could argue that “non-paying guests” would be a better appellation) could expect for the three squares and a roof they were given. Most of the spankings they received were mild compared to the corporal punishment that was common in working class public schools at the time. And the exact same rope trussing that was bandied about by the hippies (oops I mean POW's) as torture is now costing their spoiled children $200 an hour in their fancy big city yoga salons. Given the survival rate of 19 out of 20, I think Denton (as well as his progeny at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) could have more propitiously blinked out “Universal Health Care” instead of torture.

But at least one American still has the stones to defend this great nation against the creeping liberalization of the term “genocide” in Iraq and Afghanistan and, sure, why not, Darfur. Just as many of us have learned to call BS on the moonbat’s promiscuous ejaculations about “torture” we need to be just as vigilant in policing the use of the term “genocide” and thank God we have Jimmy Carter to lead this charge.

10/06/2007 12:59:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

j mollo,

If the UN doesn't get the Internet it won't be for lack of asking. And just as the EU constitution can be rejected a hundred times without precluding a 101st attempt, saying "no" to the UN a hundred times never settles an issue.

But saying "yes" just once establishes precedent forever. And I've often asked myself why the arrow of events must flow in one direction. Maybe this "irreversibility" comes from our implicit assumptions about a "natural state" that's woven into the rhetoric of "progressives". They've captured the vocabulary and insinuated unstated assumptions into many a policy debate until by constant repetition they have slowly acquired the solidity of fact. Things flow but one way. They can do no other but become what has been subconsciously suggested. We are reduced, without realizing it, to quibbling with the timetable, but the destination is foreordained.

I wonder how much of the UN's power comes from the fact that we all "know" that world government must come in the future. Science fiction tells us so. Ilya Somin, writing in the National Review, argues persuasively that "evidence in the TV series [shows that United Federation of Planets] seems to have a socialistic economy with a massive welfare state and no currency, which would require a high degree of centralization and planning incompatible with meaningful federalism. ... virtually all large-scale Federation enterprises in the Star Trek universe seem to be government-owned: from space stations to research facilities to mining operations. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Federation is communist; we don’t see much evidence of class struggle (though maybe that’s because all of the bourgeoisie have already been safely packed off to Gulag planets) or of a monolithic one-party state. But it at least has some form of kinder, gentler non-Marxian socialism."

While I wouldn't make too much of it, how we subconsciously imagine the "natural state" powerfully determines our approach to the world. Bill Clinton was unabashedly affected by his vision of how the world was going to be. At an NYU forum, he said:

America will not likely be the dominant force it is today ... India if it can ever straighten out its relationship with Pakistan, might also outdistance the U.S. And the E.U. - European Union - could also be larger, if it could put more emphasis on the 'U' in its name. What kind of world do we want to look forward to when we are no longer the world's only superpower?

This whopper of an assumption, which really reduced all foreign policy planning to managing the American decline has since shown to be suspect in several details, such as the necessary rise of the EU. Yet it was swallowed without demur by the audience. The account continues:

At the end of Clinton's main address, this observer was reminded of Clinton's comeback in New Hampshire 11 years ago when he won over Democratic primary audiences and rescued his damaged presidential candidacy. As he finished his speech last week to rousing applause, a woman sitting behind me, a complete
stranger, could not contain herself. Leaning over, she shouted: "Can you believe it? Isn't it amazing. He still has it!"

Once the idea of a "natural state" is established by subconscious consensus the only remaining problem is how to grease the skids. If you accept
the idea that the Middle East is "naturally" all-Muslim what remains for discussion is how to most painlessly arrange for the liquidation of Israel.

Yet history constantly reminds us that we do not know as much as we think about how the future will "naturally" unfold. In 1999 few pundits would have believed that religion would be the dominant subject of international relations in the 21st century. Were we not at the End of History?

Which governments foresaw the fall of the Soviet Union? Who in Chamberlain's cabinet clearly predicted the Second World War? Upon learning the Japanese had invaded Malaya, British Governor Thomas Shenton told British officers "Well, I suppose you’ll shove the little men off." Shenton's world had but two months to live.

Neither Conservatives nor the Left can really know what the world should "naturally" be like in ten years' time. So I am deeply suspicious of the fatalism that goes by the name of 'progressive' thinking. The killings in Darfur are not inevitable. Nothing is written.

10/06/2007 01:15:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Cheney Pelosi Blink Off.

10/06/2007 02:59:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Tucker Carlson Enters Wesley Clark's Orwellian Universe:
- Ratings for Political Discourse!

Carlson: "Here's part of what you wrote in the Huffington Post. You said this: 'Since Rush Limbaugh won't listen to us, we're going directly to Congress, which can prevent him from disrespecting and censoring the voices of our soldiers.'
Now, with all due respect, that's almost Orwellian, General. You're accusing him of censorship and, at the same time, attempting to censor him by taking him off the air?"
"I want to know if you're going to apply that same standard of censoring Limbaugh to the rest of public broadcasting in this country, and there's a lot of it.

You think Congress ought to decide what opinions are acceptable and which aren't and yank the unacceptable ones off the air?
That's what you seem to be saying."

I mean there's X-rated,there's R-rated in public broadcasting
CARLSON: This is a political belief!

I don't see why there can't be standards for political discourse.
I'd like to see A-rated, B-rated, and C-rated --

CARLSON: I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why.

CLARK: Senator Reid was talking about what Limbaugh said about our soldiers.



CARLSON: Well, then -- will you call out Harry Reid? Okay --

CLARK: So let's raise it.

CARLSON: I'm asking you to raise it. You say that that was unfair of Reid to say that.

CLARK: Let's have the Congress get into this issue.

CARLSON: Oh, this is just political nonsense.

CLARK: This is not political nonsense.

CARLSON: Yes, it is.
Limbaugh on Clark:
Wesley Clark, what's really scary is this guy was the general at NATO. He ran NATO.
He's either unable to, or is unwilling to, or doesn't care about the truth.

10/06/2007 04:46:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

HotAir: Video: Crazed by Rush, Wes Clark Calls for Political Discourse to be Rated

Human Events: Rightometer: Defending Rush

10/06/2007 04:59:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Doug: Limbaugh on Clark:

He's also on the short list to be the next VP, or at a minimum SecDef. Jane Fonda already has Secretary of Veteran's Affairs in the bag.

10/06/2007 05:23:00 AM  
Blogger R said...

Somewhere in Jimmy Carter's garage (I am sure) there are a few cases of Billy Beer. He should just go in that garage, turn on a stereo playing some Jimmy Swaggart gospel songs (recorded live in a motel...known as the "moaning spirits"), and polish off those remaining beers.

I just love compulsives.

10/06/2007 05:24:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sam Kinison's "moaning spirits")

10/06/2007 06:00:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Carter may have been a different person in his younger years, a together sane submariner able to assess a situation and react to it.

There is, however, such a thing as dementia brought about by old age, not to mention Alzheimers. I would also make the case that his dithering as a President didn't bode well for his decision-making skills or ability to assess reality later.

If he was an idiot when he ws President, why on earth do we think he would have gotten any smarter 20 years later. Sometimes people just don't as they age.

AS for the UN and the Left, the tactics described by Wretchard of repeating and repeating and repeating the same memes and demands are the exact same tactics a child uses to wear down an adult: "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" Isn't it nice to know that we're the adults in charge, and the level of intellectual maturity on the part of both the UN and the progressive Left is that of a 4-year old?

10/06/2007 08:58:00 AM  
Blogger Peter Grynch said...

Jimmy Carter's Next Move:

Let me make a prediction. I have no insider knowledge and this is based solely on my low opinion of the failed ex-President. There is no logical reason for him to do this, other then it is the stupidest, most terrorist-friendly move that Carter can currently make.

General Musharraf swept the Pakistani elections. I expect Jimmy Carter to travel to Pakistan and attempt to delegitimize the Pakistani government, thereby handing nuclear weapons over to the fanatical islamists who created the Taliban.

You heard it here first!

10/06/2007 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Marzouq the Redneck Muslim said...

Dang, Peter, your beat me to it!

Oh, is Kevin for real or just very sarcastic!

10/06/2007 11:15:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

He lives Behind Bars in Belgium with a Swedish Wife!

10/06/2007 12:05:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Ask him about the time he got busted in Beserkley!

10/06/2007 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Let's just say Carter got Subbed out of his mind:
Larry Craig Wants To Share His Super Submarine Sandwich.
Here’s the most beloved recipe of Gay Larry Craig, the beloved “Super Tuber. ... I think this recipe needs some work.. maybe instead of a regular hot dog, ...

10/06/2007 12:14:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...

I think Jimmy Carter's mentality is strongly influenced by slavery and Jim Crow. His "liberalism" derives principally from his refusal to join the White Citizens Council in the 1950's, yet his Jim Crow paternalism and his smug sense of superiority over other people are undiminished.

Jimmy Carter's mentality is not that of a man campaigning for victory against Jim Crow, but a man who emotionally identified with segregation yet turned against it out of paternalism toward those he regards as inferior. I don't think Jimmy Carter does, every has, or ever will believe in human equality. Instead, he applies his paternalism toward blacks to other people as well.

Jimmy Carter epitomizes the racism of affirmative action, for his patronizing condescension became the "New Liberalism" where white racial supremacy was enforced through a race-based double standard called "human rights". Put quite simply, he expects white people to uphold the "white man's burden" while he expects non-white people to act as barbaric savages.

Seen through this lens, Jimmy Carter's policies toward Iran, Israel, Africans, and genocide make perfect sense. Being "white" means living up to "white" standards set by Jimmy Carter; otherwise, Jimmy Carter can cast an ethnic group into the abyss of being non-white. I don't think Jimmy Carter is nearly so offended by Jews abusing the human rights of Palestinians as he is offended by the impertinence of Jews to act as if they were "white people".

The "liberalism" of Jimmy Carter is a far cry from the ideals of equality and color blindness that liberalism once stood for. In this sense, it is men like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell who stand for the ideals of liberalism, not the present day leadership of the Democratic Party.

10/06/2007 12:57:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Marzouq - I'm reading Kevin's post as an attempted satire that didn't work very well. I think he's trying to be witty and funny.

10/06/2007 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Exactly Right, Alexis:
I'm often bemused by the contortions some go through to explain Carters actions w/o any reference to base motives.

The Truth,
as you describe,
is quite the opposite.

10/06/2007 03:00:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...


If you truly want to stop torture, try stopping fraternity hazing on college campuses. After all, today's hazed freshman may eventually become the President of the United States. Such a man may not see hazing prisoners as doing anything wrong, especially given how he was treated in preparatory school and in college.

Next time you hear of a fraternity brother's head getting dunked under water, you are seeing the future -- this is what future leaders will do those under their authority. When those on the Left don't care about victims of hazing, it's difficult for lefties to get others to care about other victims of exactly the same abuse.

Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing.

-- George Bernard Shaw

10/06/2007 03:10:00 PM  
Blogger jane said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10/06/2007 03:34:00 PM  
Blogger jj mollo said...

Alexis, You have a very interesting angle on the problem with JC. I'm not sure if you were completely serious, but I think you may be right. He's got the outsized ego and this huge white man's burden on his shoulders. He thinks that if he just treats the children equally and tells them to play nice, that they'll probably listen.

10/06/2007 05:31:00 PM  
Blogger jj mollo said...

Wretchard, Is there really anyone left who thinks that the UN is the prototype for the future? I think one day there might be a common federal government of the planet, but it will never come from the UN. It will evolve out of international business requirements, or be constructed by democracies facing some mutual challenge, on the order of NATO being a response to the Cold War. We will know better than to let in the dictators next time.

Will we be a minor league team in the future? The PRC is showing astonishing transformations. India too. I personally don't think that they can ever fill our shoes though. If things work out I believe we will all wake up one day and realize that there are really no important divisions remaining for the non-Gap countries. It'll be like Canada and the US. Our arguments will be like the arguments between Pennsylvania and New Jersey -- consequential but non-threatening, and capable of resolution.

10/06/2007 05:47:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

JJ Mollo --

China has a huge impoverished class, will get old before it gets rich, and has around 40 million men who will never get married. There is a reason China has never projected much power outside it's borders -- it's internal dynamics make for social instability.

India has a thin veneer of educated people over a mass of illiterate dark-ages peasants who are horribly, horribly poor.

Carter and Clinton's assumptions are the product of terribly shallow minds unable to analyze properly strengths and weakness of their own country and others.

They are not very good at thinking. Or organizing. They are good at role-playing. That's it.

10/06/2007 09:22:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

"He should just go in that garage, turn on a stereo...."

That is not possible. Carter has no soul. Alexis' exposition is part of the proof. Also, do not confuse submariner status with mental health.

10/06/2007 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger Derek Kite said...

I wouldn't demean myself by calling Carter mentally deficient. Just a little misguided person with a large pulpit. History is full of them, I would posit, there have been more fools than not. Democracy came to be to allow bloodless removal of stupid leaders.

World affairs between nations could best be described as relationships between rival criminal gangs. That is the level of interaction. Threat, bluster, a good whacking once and a while, trading favors and power for advantage. Not much different except scale.

Carter wishes it could be otherwise. It's like the discomfort nice upright people feel when they live in a neighborhood where a Hell's Angel higher up lives. No crime. No petty criminals roving about. No hookers or drug deals in the streets. No one dares. It's peaceful, a good place to raise your kids. But fundamentally rotten.

This is an impossible state of affairs. How could any right minded person be happy with this? So right minded people establish the UN, ICC, other instruments. All they end up being is another platform where everyone conspires to gang up on someone (US et al vs Iraq) or to protect a buddy (China & Burma).


10/07/2007 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

Carter is the product of the same South and the same period that raised L. B. Johnson. If a man repeats a lie often enough to himself it becomes the truth. There's no mystery about Carter.

10/07/2007 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger Barry Meislin said...

Merely shows how imperative it is for Israel to stage an attack on a Darfur village (preferably one that's already been destroyed and vacated).

The ensuing global outrage and media howling might be able to get those miserable, hopeless people back on the main page, and make helping Darfur one of Jimmy's main concerns (as long as he can skewer Israel in the bargain).

10/08/2007 01:04:00 AM  
Blogger Peter Grynch said...

A liberal friend of mine recently expressed his belief that Jimmy Carter was a great president.

"Oh?" I asked, "Did you like it when he gave away the Panama Canal?" No, he admitted, he hadn't liked that.

"Well, did you like it when he forced the Shah to step down and helped Khomeini seize power?" In retrospect, he admitted, that had been a mistake.

"You must have thought it was a shrewd move when he allowed Castro to empty Cuba's worst prisons into the streets of Miami during the Mariel Boat Lift?" No, he said, but Castr had LIED to Jimmy so it wasn't Jimmy's fault.

"I know!", I said, "You liked it when he protested Russia by dashing the hopes of America's Olympic athletes by not letting American's compete in the Moscow Olympics" Hey, he said, Jimmy was taking a STAND!!!

"So what was it you liked about Carter? Stagflation?" After thinking awhile, the only thing he came up with was "He won a Nobel Prize!"

Of coourse, so did Arafat.

10/08/2007 04:39:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger