Patterico's Pontifications

4/8/2008

Carter May Meet Hamas Leader in Syria

Filed under: International — DRJ @ 8:08 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Fox News reports that former President Jimmy Carter may be planning to meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas:

“Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.
***
Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar Assad regime.

The State Department has designated Hamas a “foreign terrorist organization,” and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, “That’s not something that we could possibly conceive of.”

Let’s hope this report is either untrue or, if true, that someone talks sense to Carter before he actually makes the trip.

— DRJ

106 Responses to “Carter May Meet Hamas Leader in Syria”

  1. The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

    What, weekly tea at Carter’s place isn’t enough?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  2. Jimmah still lusts in his heart for the limelight.

    ras (fc54bb)

  3. and to embrace terrorists. If there hadn;t been an election, he’s have let out people rot without even trying…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  4. DRJ – I was wondering if there was an email where I could send you a couple photos tomorrow.

    JD (5f0e11)

  5. Not that we needed any further proof of the perfidy of jimmah …

    JD (5f0e11)

  6. Oh, JD, I was just thinking about you. I even googled a special name to see if anything came up.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  7. Someday the Israelis will be talking with Hamas too. It’s inevitable.

    Mark1971 (c92bfa)

  8. Could we implant a homing device in his shoes and Hellfire two nuisances that justly deserve it?
    We could even praise him for his selfless sacrifice in pursuit of world peace.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  9. We met with Dr. Box who thinks that it is going to be best for Better Half and Madeline Grace’s health to induce her tomorrow morning, first thing.

    JD (5f0e11)

  10. DRJ – If you would, send me an email at *** at sbcglobal dot net, so I can send you pix.

    [Edited — DRJ]

    JD (5f0e11)

  11. Been there, done that. If possible, I hope everyone can get some rest tonight because things may go quickly tomorrow.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  12. JD,

    I will, and for you and anyone else who needs to contact me, my email is drj432 at yahoo-dot-com.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  13. *goes to annoy DRJ via e-mail and messnager*

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  14. JD==good luck and enjoy the brat once she’s here!

    As for Carter–he’s already written one book of propaganda for Hamas. Why should this be a surprise?

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  15. And JD, best of luck tomorrow!!!

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  16. Email away, Scott. You would never annoy me.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  17. Not THAT sounds like a challenge! :)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  18. now*

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  19. Best of luck, JD! We have never met, but I enjoy your posts very much. I don’t know about your situation (nor is it my business), but I was an older parent—42 when my oldest was born.

    It changed me in so many ways. I would like to say that it made me a better person, but that remains to be seen!

    Take photos and for goodness’ sake, keep one of those “first year” diaries of baby!

    Anyway, enough telling you your business. I’m just delighted to hear something to make me forget how much I loathe the Peanut Farmer.

    Eric Blair (32cb22)

  20. Kishnevi,

    It seems like Carter is taking it to the next level. It’s like a preview of Obama’s willingness to talk to everyone.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  21. It would be nice if Carter publicly endorses Obama right before the trip in a big speech.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  22. You say that like it would dent the popularity of either…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  23. 1 – why should this come as any surprise? Carter has made no secret of his affections for the genocidal, Jew-hating terrorists of HAMAS.

    2 – Sen. Obama is, as far as I can tell, 100% straight out of the same mold as James Earl Carter. Whatever Carter says, expect Sen. Obama to say. The stuff Carter did: expect President Obama to do the same, should he take office.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  24. The youth-tech vote will put Barry in office, if and when the unfortunate happens. They think Jimmy’s cool cause he builds houses.

    Vermont Neighbor (e7ed47)

  25. Maybe they’ll take him hostage and Patterico can set up a tipjar to pay the ransom.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  26. mre like a collection to pay them to keep him

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  27. Austin Bay has an article on Petraeus’ Anaconda Strategy in Iraq and one element of the strategy is engaging with Syria. If Carter deals directly with the Hamas’ leader, could he intentionally or unwittingly jeopardize American/Iraqi interests in the region?

    DRJ (a431ca)

  28. Carter should join Hamas-he loves them so much.

    fouse, gary c (7b7c7c)

  29. Meshal must still be raking it in. Unsurprisingly, the antisemitic Jimmahi’s the one with the real nose for it.

    J. Peden (0717d3)

  30. Maybe Jimmuh could drag along Granny McRictusface to show him the sights. She loved it over there, plus she almost solved the Israeli/Palestinian dealio overnight with her magic negotiating powers. With the two of them together, who knows, I believe in miracles, and the tooth fairy, and that the government is there to help me.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  31. I really wish that Carter’s meddling with Clinton’s foreign policy back in the mid-1990’s had annoyed Bubba enough to yank his passport–he could have gotten away with it. If GWB (justifiably) did the yanking now, the Democratic leadership in Congress and the MSM would absolutely throw a temper tantrum over it–and I’m not sure he wants quite *that* much heat. Pity.

    M. Scott Eiland (b66190)

  32. Carter should be a human shield for Israeli buses, pizza parlors and seminaries.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  33. Right up to Bush’s Sr.’s Jan. 15 deadline for war about Kuwait, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action. “I am distressed by the inability of either the international community or the Arab world to find a diplomatic solution to the Gulf crisis,” he wrote. “I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis. You may have to forego approval from the White House, but you will find the French, Soviets, and others fully supportive. Also, most Americans will welcome such a move.” Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft later accused Carter of violating the Logan Act, the law that prohibits American citizens from conducting unofficial foreign policy.

    During the Clinton administration, Carter had similar difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he was not president. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country’s nuclear program. Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International without telling the administration. His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration’s efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a “treasonous prick” for his behavior.

    http://www.slate.com/?id=2065887

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  34. DRJ wrote:

    Let’s hope this report is either untrue or, if true, that someone talks sense to Carter before he actually makes the trip.

    I’m pretty certain that that would be a first.

    Dana (3e4784)

  35. If Carter deals directly with the Hamas’ leader, could he intentionally or unwittingly jeopardize American/Iraqi interests in the region?

    I think in Carter’s case we can waive Hanlon’s razor and attribute his actions to both malice and stupidity.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  36. Let’s hope this report is either untrue or, if true, that someone talks sense to Carter before he actually makes the trip.

    Or we can hope that Khaled Meshal slaps himself on the forehead, says “Killing innocent people Allah created for a losing cause? What was I thinking!” and all Palestinians permanently abandon terrorism, recognize Israel once and for all, and everyone gets together for a group hug and lives happily ever after. I give both hopes roughly equal probability of success.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  37. I’m trying to wrap my head around conservative foreign policy philosophy, and this is what I’ve got so far:

    1. Identify the people that you’re threatened by or scared of.

    2. Refuse to talk to the people that you’re threated by or scared of.

    3. ???

    4. Profit.

    I need some help on number 3, because I can’t figure out the diplomatic end-game to this strategy of non-confrontation. It seems to me that the fear and misunderstanding would just compound and compound until violence is necessary, is that what you’re going for? Stonewalling until we get to start another hugely expensive war?

    Levi (76ef55)

  38. No one can talk sense in to “Jimmah”. He’s the “Levi” of American Presidents.

    PCD (5ebd0e)

  39. So, Levi, what could possibly come out of speaking to someone who heads a terrorist organization. We’re not talking about a head of state, but of a stateless pack of murdering bastards. What can he deliver?

    Furthermore, has Hamas ever shown its willingness to achieve anything solely by negotiation? Or has it treated negotiation as a way to set itself up to commit more violence?

    And I find it fascinating that a party that refuses to attend a debate sponsored by Fox news will none-the-less insist we talk with people who have murdered innocent civilians and vowed to continue doing so. Are your political opponents less worth talking to than the enemies of civilization and all the ideals you profess to hold?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  40. Foreign policy for terrorists is pretty straightforward: Kill them wherever you find ’em.

    Is that too hard to understand, Levi?

    Eric (09e4ab)

  41. Levi, you might find this article from the National Review to be of interest regarding the benefits of talking to our enemies.

    navyvet (caa794)

  42. The benefits of talking to Hamas are like the benefits of talking to Levi. Zero, because they do not react rationally.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  43. ex-president Jimmy Carter is a walking argument for the Logan Act. A pity no one is trying to enforce it.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  44. One might ask a serious question: Hamas employs kidnapping as one of its strategies, so is not our 39th president about to increase the chances that Hamas could score a very big kidnapping?

    Second big question: Do I need to go to confession for hoping that such happens?

    Dana (3e4784)

  45. From my book review of Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid:

    The former president spends some time telling us about the various impediments to a peaceful solution, and while he certainly does mention terrorist attacks by the Palestinians, he clearly placed much more blame on Israeli government policies. But there was one episode in particular which caught my attention, because it dramatically demonstrates the differences between the way the Israelis and President Carter think.

    While on this visit to Jerusalem, I also had a personal taste of how Israeli-Palestinian relationships had changed since my earlier tours. As usual, I got up quite early and began a jog around the old city, in East Jerusalem and beyond — an intriguing route of ancient sites and steep hills. I was accompanied by an American Secret Service agent and two young Israeli soldiers, who insisted on leading the way. We proceeded from our hotel to the Jaffa Gate, then turned north around the outside of the ancient walls. As we were running eastward alongside the Jerico road, I saw a group of elderly Arab men sitting by the curb, reading their newspapers. The sidewalk was almost empty and wide enough for us to pass easily, but one of the soldiers cut to the right and knocked all of the newspapers back into the faces of the startled readers. Some of the papers fluttered to the ground. I stopped to apologize to the old men, but they could not understand me. Then I told the soldiers either to let me run alone or not to treat anyone else in a belligerent manner. They reluctantly agreed, insisting that one could never tell what was being hidden behind newspapers. This was a sharp demonstration of our different perspectives.

    Well, yes, it certainly was. Here we had a former President of the United States, secure in his Western mindset, running with one Secret Service agent and two Israeli soldiers, in an area where Palestinian terrorism had occurred before, and in an area where hostage-taking for political purposes was hardly unknown; one would think that Jimmy Carter would have been familiar with that concept, given that the Iranian hostage crisis was a major reason why he was no longer president. What if one of those men had had a gun behind a newspaper? Mr Carter himself wrote that a jog like this was not unusual for him. What would have been the impact if an Arab terrorist had managed to either kidnap or kill a former President of the United States?

    Dana (3e4784)

  46. I can’t help but wonder who’s daughter that Secret Service agent got caught with to get stuck on Moron Watch…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  47. What would have been the impact if an Arab terrorist had managed to either kidnap or kill a former President of the United States?

    Well, for starters, the entire region would likely be radioactive glass…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  48. Dana, #44…
    Well, if you have to go to confession, I suppose we’ll both be there;

    Scott, #47…
    And, the problem would be what?

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  49. So, Levi, what could possibly come out of speaking to someone who heads a terrorist organization. We’re not talking about a head of state, but of a stateless pack of murdering bastards. What can he deliver?

    Nothing, I’d expect. But it won’t hurt us, either. They may be a terrorist organization, but they’re a democratically elected terrorist organization, and as such are a principle party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which we have a vested interest. There’s lots of ‘murdering bastards’ out there, one could make the case that George Bush is a ‘murdering bastard,’ but the whole point of international diplomacy is getting those sorts of people to see that there are other ways.

    Furthermore, has Hamas ever shown its willingness to achieve anything solely by negotiation? Or has it treated negotiation as a way to set itself up to commit more violence?

    I don’t expect anything to come of Carter’s little mission, and I know that Hamas is a bunch of maniacs. But again, it doesn’t hurt to talk to them. Did Captain Kirk ever not take a call from the Romulans or Klingons?

    And I find it fascinating that a party that refuses to attend a debate sponsored by Fox news will none-the-less insist we talk with people who have murdered innocent civilians and vowed to continue doing so. Are your political opponents less worth talking to than the enemies of civilization and all the ideals you profess to hold?

    While I understand the point that the Democratic candidates think they’re making by not appearing on Fox News, which is that they’re not a credible news organization, I think it’s a stupid thing to do. They should take it to Fox News. I don’t think they’re scared to do so, as Bill O’Reilly insists they are, as if he’s some all-influential gatekeeper, they just don’t think they’ll convince anybody or be given a fair shake. But those are the conditions when a good politician has the best opportunity to make their case, I’d think. That’s sort of why I started posting here.

    Levi (76ef55)

  50. Junior (Assad Junior, that is) would never allow Hamas to commit a terrorist act on his territory.

    nk (6b7d4f)

  51. Mr. Carter should be allowed to leave the United States of America.

    But not return.

    Thank you for your time.

    The Outlander (6b77d3)

  52. Well, for starters, the entire region would likely be radioactive glass…

    Scott, #47…
    And, the problem would be what?

    I’ll never understand how denizens of the wealthiest and strongest nation to ever have existed can be so frightened by a bunch of cave-dwelling cultists that they joke about obliterating entirely one of the poorest populations in the world for no other reason than to eliminate some relatively minor problem they can’t seem to buy or force their way out of.

    You sound like a couple of spoiled princes, eager to execute anything or anything that confuses or alarms you. I know it was a joke, but god, whatever is going on in your mind that makes you think that nuclear holocaust is funny… well, that’s why I’m scared of you people.

    Levi (76ef55)

  53. Levi wrote:

    I don’t expect anything to come of Carter’s little mission, and I know that Hamas is a bunch of maniacs. But again, it doesn’t hurt to talk to them. Did Captain Kirk ever not take a call from the Romulans or Klingons?

    Watch The Undiscovered Country, and see what happens when you do take calls from Klingons.

    Unless you want to be a dilithium miner on Rura Pentha

    Dana (3e4784)

  54. Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

    “But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.” (The Cow – verse 120).

    There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

    “The people of Syria are Allah’s lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.”

    From the Hamas Charter

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  55. I’ll never understand how denizens of the wealthiest and strongest nation to ever have existed can be so frightened by a bunch of cave-dwelling cultists that they joke about obliterating entirely one of the poorest populations in the world for no other reason than to eliminate some relatively minor problem they can’t seem to buy or force their way out of.

    We have a new guinea pig as a pet, Levi. We pick her up and cuddle her and play with her. But then we wash our hands afterwards in case she brought salmonella or LCMV with her from the pet store. After about a month, we’ll feel safer.

    The same thing with your pet Jihadi terrorists. When we kill them, it’s no more than washing our hands after handling our new pet.

    Maybe they’re dangerous, maybe they’re not, but we have no obligation to take a chance on their innocuousness.

    After a few generations of killing them, maybe we will feel that we have washed away all the germs.

    nk (6b7d4f)

  56. Jimmy Carter acquired the Stockholm syndrome during his Iranian hostage crisis and has been suffering from it ever since and thereby making us suffer.

    n2dubes (355ab7)

  57. P.S. And to continue the analogy, I consider you a methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus. So far, we can only use Bactrim (the majority of opinion) to suppress you. But I expect that we will find an antibiotic which will eliminate you and all the other infections of America.

    nk (6b7d4f)

  58. Did Captain Kirk ever not take a call from the Romulans or Klingons?

    The answer to this would be, yes, Captain Kirk never took any calls from the Romulans or the Klingons, because neither he nor the Romulans nor the Klingons ever existed.

    Your constant use of movies and fictional characters to buttress your opinions is one of the many reasons nobody takes you seriously. Fictional characters do whatever the writer wants them to do, regardless of what would occur in the real world.

    Steverino (e00589)

  59. I’m trying to wrap my head around leftist foreign policy philosophy, and this is what I’ve got so far:

    1. Side with the people that threaten you, target civilians for murder, snuggle up to every communist or leftist murdering dictator and slam your own country at every chance.

    2. Refuse to support your military, your troops, export propaganda against your own country, lie about your own country, fake photographs to make your own country and its allies look bad and their enemies look good, do everything you can to tear at the fabric of society, in order to replace it with socialism or some off-shoot thereof.

    3. When the enemies come after you, cower in a corner and pee your pants.

    4. Try to talk your way into being killed last by sniveling, groveling and selling out everyone around you.

    This Charter looks like this:

    Lie about what you are doing and what you stand for, steal the truth and corrupt the information stream, attack your own country from within, aid any and all enemies from without, overthrow the system via fraud …then cower and pee yourself when the inevitable happens.

    Jimmy Carter is the head coward and turncoat.

    Last I looked, he was voted OUT of office and has no authority to speak with any enemy of state, nor attempt to circumvent policy. He and his half-wit brother were in the pockets of Arab oil barons. Jimmy should be tried for treason and its high time we fight back against open sedition.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  60. Steve, Steve, Steve, I’m a solid conservative, and even I know that Star Trek is real. :)

    Dana (3e4784)

  61. cfbleachers: A man who speaks with common sense.

    Dana (3e4784)

  62. Houses. Jimmah must be going to build houses. Because as nuts as that is, it is far more rational and easier to understand than going to have tea with a terrorist.

    And #59? “I’m trying to wrap my head around leftist foreign policy philosophy…” – careful, don’t hurt yourself.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  63. Dana, even if Star Trek is real, it couldn’t be real yet :)

    Steverino (e00589)

  64. Levi wrote: I’ll never understand how denizens of the wealthiest and strongest nation to ever have existed can be so frightened by a bunch of cave-dwelling cultists that they joke about obliterating entirely one of the poorest populations in the world for no other reason than to eliminate some relatively minor problem they can’t seem to buy or force their way out of.

    Dude, read the entire exchange. The “radioactive glass” comment was made in response to a hypothetical situation in which a Islamist terrorist kidnapped or killed an POTUS.

    Last time I checked, the kidnapping of the so-called leader of the free world is not “a relatively minor problem” that nobody could “buy or force their way out of.”

    Context. It’s a good thing.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  65. Steve, it will be real, which is real enough.

    Dana (3e4784)

  66. Mr Jacobs wrote:

    What would have been the impact if an Arab terrorist had managed to either kidnap or kill a former President of the United States?

    Well, for starters, the entire region would likely be radioactive glass…

    I suppose that depends on who’s the current president. If, say, Gerald Ford were the kidnap victim and Jimmy Carter the president, no, there’d be no radioactive glass. If George H W Bush were the kidnap or murder victim (as some tried to do when he visited Kuwait) and Bill Clinton was the president, it would depend on whether there was other news Mr Clinton wanted to obscure. If the kidnap victim was Bill Clinton, and George W Bush was the president, the probabilities of glass would be rather high.

    And if George W Bush were the kidnap victim, and Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton were the president, about half of our friends on the left would be screaming, “Yeah, you go, Hamas! Off with his head! He deserves it!” and there’d be no glass.

    Dana (3e4784)

  67. We have a new guinea pig as a pet, Levi. We pick her up and cuddle her and play with her. But then we wash our hands afterwards in case she brought salmonella or LCMV with her from the pet store. After about a month, we’ll feel safer.

    The same thing with your pet Jihadi terrorists. When we kill them, it’s no more than washing our hands after handling our new pet.

    Maybe they’re dangerous, maybe they’re not, but we have no obligation to take a chance on their innocuousness.

    After a few generations of killing them, maybe we will feel that we have washed away all the germs.

    That’s probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

    Levi (76ef55)

  68. I suppose that depends on who’s the current president. If, say, Gerald Ford were the kidnap victim and Jimmy Carter the president, no, there’d be no radioactive glass. If George H W Bush were the kidnap or murder victim (as some tried to do when he visited Kuwait) and Bill Clinton was the president, it would depend on whether there was other news Mr Clinton wanted to obscure. If the kidnap victim was Bill Clinton, and George W Bush was the president, the probabilities of glass would be rather high.

    I should have been more specific… If *I* were PotUS, no matter WHAT former PotUS they killed or kidnapped, austronauts would need sunglasses to cut the glare while in orbit…

    Because I’d make a mirror of the whole fucking place.

    Then again, I’d rain down barely-subnukes when ANY citizen got taken while abroad.

    Civis Romanus is a phrase we should have applied to our own a long time ago…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  69. Of the many things about international diplomacy that Levi doesn’t understand are these things:

    1. If the US goes on some kind of formal diplomatic talk with Hamas and doesn’t come away with anything, the US is portrayed as having lost.

    2. If the US is portrayed as having lost, Hamas is portrayed as having won.

    3. If Hamas is portrayed as having won, then Hamas gets more recruits and more handouts from wealthy Saudis/UAE types/UN types.

    So Hamas’ perfectly valid goal is to rope us into useless talks, make a big show about how the US isn’t acceding to their supposedly ‘perfectly reasonable demands’ to destroy Israel, push it into the sea, give them lots of money, and cut our own throats when we’re done. When we refuse to do something so ludicrous, they storm out and appear the victor, claiming the prestige.

    That is why George W. Bush, poker player that he is, doesn’t engage in that game. He sets conditions before the talks can take place where Hamas (or any other group) can earn their way to the table. And a rich table it is, for anyone willing to be peacable and play by the rules.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  70. That’s probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. (Levi #67)

    You’re reading habits are even less relevant than your opinions, germ.

    nk (6b7d4f)

  71. nk, actually that comment of his makes it clear he does not read his own comments.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. If our 39th President had had the cojones to say to the Ayatollah Khoumeini, “OK, we’ll assume that those really were a bunch of hothead students, and not the government. But if those hostages are not on a plane, heading out of Iran in 72 hours, they will be declared casualties of war — in a place that’s about to have a lot more casualties,” he’d have served two terms.

    Dana (3e4784)

  73. luagha,
    Well said. I hope it wasn’t pearl before the swine.

    paul from Fl (47918a)

  74. “That’s probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. (Levi #67)”

    Since Levi is so fond of movie metaphors, I can only cite Forrest Gump:
    Stupid is as stupid does.

    And Levi, you certainly come across to most here as very stupid.

    But of course, we mean that in the nicest way.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  75. “If our 39th President had had the cojones to say to the Ayatollah Khoumeini, “OK, we’ll assume that those really were a bunch of hothead students, and not the government. But if those hostages are not on a plane, heading out of Iran in 72 hours, they will be declared casualties of war — in a place that’s about to have a lot more casualties,” he’d have served two terms.”

    Instead he could say ‘How about missiles? want to buy some missiles?”

    stef (8a983a)

  76. Yup, Stef, that was a huge mistake. President Reagan said in public that we wouldn’t negotiate with terrorists, but then let his compassion get the better of him, and negotiated with terrorists to try to save a few American lives.

    At least some good came of it: the profits were used to fund the Contras when the weak-willed Democrats in Congress refused.

    Dana (c36902)

  77. I’ve gone ahead and changed my usual posting name, since the prettier Dana has been posting here as well.

    Now let’s see if’n I remember to change it on my computer at work.

    Dana R Pico (c36902)

  78. “the profits were used to fund the Contras when the weak-willed Democrats in Congress refused.”

    – Dana

    When the “weak-willed Democrats” refused to fund an insurgency against a democratically elected government, you mean?

    Guess we don’t like to talk about that…

    Leviticus (000681)

  79. “but then let his compassion get the better of him”

    Is this really what happened?

    stef (36ab60)

  80. When the “weak-willed Democrats” refused to fund an insurgency against a democratically elected government, you mean?

    Funny how that government was thrown out when the people were given an alternative.

    Steverino (6772c8)

  81. #77, funny you.

    Dana (1dfee2)

  82. It was accurate, Dana! :)

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  83. In the Third Book of Moses it is written:

    When the “weak-willed Democrats” refused to fund an insurgency against a democratically elected government, you mean?

    Except that the Sandinistae came to power via military force; not sure how that translates into “democratically elected.”

    The Sandinista government was Maexist in orientation, and a tool for Soviet expansionism. Deposing that government was the right thing to do.

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  84. When the “weak-willed Democrats” refused to fund an insurgency against a democratically elected government, you mean?

    Yeah, that’s it. Apparently, in Democrat-land, George Bush wasn’t democratically elected but the Sandinistas were. Can’t we disenfranchise these people?!

    Xrlq (eaa3a6)

  85. Levi,

    You are wrong, as usual. The dumbest things you read are the things you source as basis for the stupidities you post.

    PCD (5ebd0e)

  86. So the money went from terrorists to terrorists. That does take strong will.

    stef (48e229)

  87. Stef: the aid to the Contras wound up forcing free and fair elections. It was supposed that Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas would win, but Violetta Chamorro and the democratic forces won the elections. It’s difficult to see the Contras as terrorists, unless, of course, someone defines opposition to Communism as terrorism.

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  88. “It’s difficult to see the Contras as terrorists,”

    You see them as terrorists when you see their terror tactics. That they worked and forced the government to bargain in order to stop attacks against farms, clinics and other soft targets don’t make them not terrorists. It makes them successful terrorists.

    That the population was told that voting for one side guaranteed more such war and voting for the other side guaranteed an end to it also helps us tell which side is the “democratic force.”

    The lesson is clear: terror works, specially when the other guy blinks.

    stef (e870b9)

  89. stef,

    Yup, when your side endorses anti-american terror and you and your fellow travellers do all you can to get the country to surrender to them. Yup, terror does work, ON YOU!!!

    PCD (5ebd0e)

  90. And #59? “I’m trying to wrap my head around leftist foreign policy philosophy…” – careful, don’t hurt yourself.

    Comment by Dana — 4/9/2008 @ 9:30 am

    Heck, I’m hurting myself trying to figure out which Dana is which!

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  91. “It’s difficult to see the Contras as terrorists,”

    You see them as terrorists when you see their terror tactics. That they worked and forced the government to bargain in order to stop attacks against farms, clinics and other soft targets don’t make them not terrorists. It makes them successful terrorists.

    Close, but not quite. That you swallowed Sandinista propaganda hook, line and sinker does not make them not liars. It makes them successful liars, at least to the extent that such lies were directed toward credulous lefties in the West. With their own people, not so much.

    Xrlq (eaa3a6)

  92. “It makes them successful liars”

    Its not Sandinista propaganda that we promised all Nicaraguans more war if they voted the wrong way. Thats our propaganda! But you think the contras limited themselves to military targets? Plausible, when lots of people formed militias to defend things like hydroelectric dams.

    stef (e9c033)

  93. cfbleachers wrote:

    Heck, I’m hurting myself trying to figure out which Dana is which

    I’m the ugly one; she’s the pretty one! But even before I added my full name to my posts, you could always see who was whom via the embedded links!

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  94. One of us wonders if Stef can see that Hamas are terrorists.

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  95. Its not Sandinista propaganda that we promised all Nicaraguans more war if they voted the wrong way. Thats our propaganda!

    Assuming that by “our” you meant “that which belongs to Stef and a handful of other leftist nuts,” I agree. The only reason a Sandinista “victory” would have prolonged the war is because a lot of Nicaraguans – an overwhelming majority, actually, given the results of the only free election ever held on their watch – understand that totalitarian “peace” can be worse than war.

    But you think the contras limited themselves to military targets? Plausible, when lots of people formed militias to defend things like hydroelectric dams.

    I don’t doubt that some of the atrocities popularly attributed to Contras may in fact have been committed by Contras. I also don’t doubt that many more were committed by the thug regime you defend.

    Xrlq (eaa3a6)

  96. “Assuming that by “our” you meant “that which belongs to Stef and a handful of other leftist nuts,” I agree. The only reason a Sandinista “victory” would have prolonged the war is because a lot of Nicaraguans – an overwhelming majority, actually, given the results of the only free election ever held on their watch – understand that totalitarian “peace” can be worse than war.”

    I meant our as in statements from our government that a Sandinista victory would mean we would continue our policy against Nicaragua. Thats gotta make for some free election!

    “I also don’t doubt that many more were committed by the thug regime you defend.”

    I certainly don’t defend human rights violations or civilian casualties of war or collateral damage or things like that. That the contras were terrorists doesn’t really tell us about Sandinista human rights violations. I don’t know how thoughtful you are, but its not this neat black and white world where one person being bad makes the other good.

    stef (1d0ada)

  97. stef, you are a supporter of terrorists and are Anti-american. Therefore, the opposite of your conclusions are the truth.

    PCD (5ebd0e)

  98. I meant our as in statements from our government that a Sandinista victory would mean we would continue our policy against Nicaragua. Thats gotta make for some free election!

    First, that theory is only semi-plausible because a lot of Nicaraguans supported that policy and wanted the totalitarian regime gone. Without them, there wouldn’t have been any (or at least not many) Contras for us to support in the first place. Second, I don’t recall our government stating that we would continue to fight a war (or that there would even be one) against the ruling party if they won a legitimate election. Third, since when has any people bowed to international pressure and voted in a government they opposed just because an evil outside state threatens to make war on them if they don’t? We didn’t do that, of course, but more importantly, there’s no chance in hell that it would have worked if we had. The only way to get the Sandinistas to lose as big as they did was for an overwhelming majority of their own people to want them gone.

    I certainly don’t defend human rights violations or civilian casualties of war or collateral damage or things like that. That the contras were terrorists doesn’t really tell us about Sandinista human rights violations. I don’t know how thoughtful you are, but its not this neat black and white world where one person being bad makes the other good.

    It does, however, call into question the legitimacy of many of the allegations that the Contras used terrorist tactics, where the sole basis of that allegation is that someone committed a terrible atrocity, the Sandinistas or any of their sympathetic organizations blamed it on the Contras, and the American left chose to take the Sandinistas at their word. Hell, some of them would believe just about anything the Sandinistas said, including that they were democratically elected!

    Xrlq (eaa3a6)

  99. “The only way to get the Sandinistas to lose as big as they did was for an overwhelming majority of their own people to want them gone.”

    We promised to maintain blockades unless one side won. Thats not us respecting their choice. Thats us telling them that if they want blockades to stop and harbors to not be mined, they better vote our way. The people knew the war would continue if the Sandinistas won. That people are freely choosing to end the years of war and blockade may mean a lot of things, but it could mean just that, rather than a policy preference.

    “Third, since when has any people bowed to international pressure and voted in a government they opposed just because an evil outside state threatens to make war on them if they don’t?”

    It’s plain old coercion. Of course it works.

    “It does, however, call into question the legitimacy of many of the allegations that the Contras used terrorist tactics, where the sole basis of that allegation is that someone committed a terrible atrocity”

    You’re entering the territory of lunacy here. Contra human rights abuses existed. Contra attacks against infrastructure targets existed. So did Sandinista relocation of villagers, and other abuses by them. This isn’t controversial here.

    stef (dfd808)

  100. No one is disputing that some Contra human rights abuses existed. It doesn’t follow that most, let alone all, of the human rights abuses the Sandinistas blamed on the Contras were in fact perpetrated by the Contras.

    As for the hallucination that the Nicaraguans really liked the Sandis but voted them out anyway to end their problems with the U.S., let’s just say that no one inside or outside Nicaragua thought for a minute that voting the Sandis back in in 1996 or 2001 would have reignited the war, so why didn’t they vote them back in then? Or, for that matter, why did a whopping 38% of the population dare to vote Daniel Ortega back into office in 2006, at a time when U.S. foreign policy was as aggressive as it had ever been since the dreaded Reagan Administration?

    Xrlq (eaa3a6)

  101. “As for the hallucination that the Nicaraguans really liked the Sandis but voted them out anyway to end their problems with the U.S”

    People knew a vote for the Sandinistas would be a vote for continuing war. You hallucinate that this means people really liked the Sandinistas. I just say it means that people could have been voting against continued war, blockade and all the misery that brings. Freely and fairly, of course. Unlike in 1984.

    “Or, for that matter, why did a whopping 38% of the population dare to vote Daniel Ortega back into office in 2006, at a time when U.S. foreign policy was as aggressive as it had ever been since the dreaded Reagan Administration?”

    Our policy of exporting coercion to Central America has changed quite a bit in the last 16 years. There’s no threat of blockade, for example. No threat of continued war. Its ridiculous to compare today to back then.

    stef (9c1615)

  102. You missed my point. “Our policy of exporting coercion” didn’t change much at all over the past 12 years. It changed radically upon Clinton’s inauguration, when we stopped trying to force anti-American despots out of power and started intentionally reinstalling them. So if the Nicaraguans’ real motive for voting out their own anti-American tyrants in 1990 was just to end their troubles with the U.S., and not to rid themselves of the despots they wanted nothing to do with anyway, why didn’t they vote tehm back into power in 1996?

    Xrlq (cc8c08)

  103. stef…
    “…Thats us telling them that if they want blockades to stop and harbors to not be mined, …”

    Just when did we do either of these?
    When did we proclain a blockade of shipping to and from Nicaragua?
    What harbors were mined? And, when?

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  104. Dispelling the myth that all Jews are smart:
    Only one out of four is:

    (IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has turned down a request from former American president Jimmy Carter for a meeting during his visit to Israel next week. The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni both said that their schedules will not allow a meeting, but an anonymous Israeli official told the Washington Times, “You draw your own conclusions.” Other officials have expressed anger at Carter’s proposed meeting with Syrian-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. However, President Shimon Peres, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israel Is Our Home (Yisrael Beiteinu) leader Knesset Member Avigdor Lieberman have scheduled to meet with the former president, whose recent book compares Israeli policies on the Palestinian Authority (PA) with former apartheid policies in South Africa.

    nk (6b7d4f)

  105. Now, that’s funny!
    What kind of flea-collar do you put on when you’re going to meet with Jimmah?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  106. “So if the Nicaraguans’ real motive for voting out their own anti-American tyrants in 1990 was just to end their troubles with the U.S.”

    I don’t say it was their real motive. I say it has to be taken into account when discussing choices that people know voting for one side means more war and blockade.

    “When did we proclain a blockade of shipping to and from Nicaragua?
    What harbors were mined? And, when?”

    We mined managua and blocked trade with them. Google it. This is not a secret.

    stef (0a2529)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6057 secs.