Thursday, February 02, 2006
The Democrats and their ex-presidents
Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, has turned himself into an internationalist activist. He no longer makes any pretense at all of speaking for American interests, but instead champions precisely the sort of feel-good internationalism that quite appropriately hurts Democrats with the voters. There he was, on CNN last night, arguing that we should continue aid to the Palestinian Authority notwithstanding that its new governing party, Hamas, bases its political power on the proposition that Israel must be destroyed:
"If there are prohibitions -- like, for instance, in the United States, against giving any money to a government that is controlled by Hamas -- then the United States could channel the same amount of money to the Palestinian people through the United Nations, through the refugee fund, through UNICEF, things of that kind," he added.
Carter expressed hope that "the people of Palestine -- who already suffer ... under Israeli occupation -- will not suffer because they are deprived of a right to pay their school teachers, policemen, welfare workers, health workers and provide food for people."
Before we get to the really stupid part, haven't we learned that "channeling" money through the United Nations -- which quite obviously has worse internal controls than Jeff Skilling's Enron -- is a profoundly bad idea? The left, which thinks that every nickel the Pentagon loses is a totem to financial mismanagement, suddenly gets all "billion here, billion there" when the United Nations is involved. The great American center knows that it would be asinine to recruit Kofi Annan's friends and relatives to launder our money so that we can skirt federal law and continue to fund the Palestinian Authority.
But, as I said, that isn't the really stupid part. This is:
Carter expressed hope that "the people of Palestine -- who already suffer ... under Israeli occupation -- will not suffer because they are deprived of a right to pay their school teachers, policemen, welfare workers, health workers and provide food for people."
The people of Palestine elected a government that is expressly at war with America's most stalwart ally outside of the Anglosphere, and Jimmy Carter declares that notwithstanding this they have a right "to pay their school teachers, policemen, welfare workers, health workers and provide food for people."
Wrong. The Palestinians have a right -- finally -- to elect their own leadership. They have exercised that right. They have a responsibility to pay their school teachers, policemen, welfare workers, health workers and provide food for people. That Palestinian Arabs have exercised their rights in a way that makes it very difficult for them to perform their responsibilities reflects on their immaturity -- or even incompetence -- as a society.
It is this kind of thinking that is killing the Democrats.
CWCID: LGF.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Feb 02, 08:50:00 AM:
Wow! One wouldn't think there had been enough time yet for your marching orders to be faxed in from AIPAC.
By 
Bat One, at
Thu Feb 02, 09:45:00 AM:
In the case of former President Bill Clinton, there is another consideration (There always is). Clinton has made no secret of the fact that he wants the job of Secretary General of the UN when Kofi Annan retires at the end of this year. The result is that any influence Clinton may have on behalf of a rational, less adolescent Democratic Party, is instead squandered as he campaigns to become in effect, the world's president while Hillary takes over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the following year. Again, two for the price of one.
By sirius_sir, at
Thu Feb 02, 09:58:00 AM:
Whatever happened to the idea that 'people get the government they deserve'? It seems to me the whole point about democracy is making decisions that will affect the future. Making bad choices shouldn't immunize a society from the consequences of those decisions. Didn't bin Laden make some ham-handed argument to that effect in trying to redirect blame for 9/11 on the U.S. electorate?
So... if we, the people of the United States, must be held so strictly--if tenuously--to account, then surely the Palestinians must too, especially as the line between their vote and its consequences is so much shorter and direct.
Finally, I am surprised that Jimmy Carter would favor skirting the law by employing the kind of financial skullduggery he suggests. And I'd be even more surprised if any other Democrat would endorse it. After all, the instruction "Follow the money" once held much currency for the party of the people, and some Dems are bound to remember--even if Mr. Carter seems to have forgotten--those words once helped bring down a President.
By , at
Thu Feb 02, 12:14:00 PM:
"It is this kind of thinking that is killing the Democrats."
Democrats RIP - if it only were true.
By Shloky, at
Thu Feb 02, 12:55:00 PM:
He does make a decent enough point, but gets it ass backwards.
Hamas won the vote because of its social services. If those social services are cut off (as they would be because of a lack of international funding) Hamas loses out on its powerbase. Which will force it to splinter into those those who derive their personal power from the social services network and those who get theirs from blowing people up.
He thinks cutting funding off will cause people to support Hamas more. But that's not true.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Feb 02, 01:15:00 PM:
Shloky, I think that you have nailed the problem with Jimmy Carter. He is a smart and knowledgeable man, but his instincts for human nature are just silly. Me, I'm with Bush: we'll support a Palestinian government that works for peace, but we will not support one that wants war. Hamas, by its platform, is the latter.
Carter believes in leading with rewards, hoping to induce better behavior through kindness. Bush believes in leading with coercion, and then rewarding better behavior if and when it occurs. I know which trait I want in a president.
By sirius_sir, at
Thu Feb 02, 01:31:00 PM:
He thinks cutting funding off will cause people to support Hamas more.
You may be right, but I'm not sure that plays logically. It seems to me that funding Hamas would only make it more popular among its constituents, assuming of course that at least some of that money found its way to the general populace.
Actually, I do feel for those Palestinians who want nothing more than to live and let live and to get on with the hard work of building a viable society. Unfortunately, neither Fatah nor Hamas offered much towards that end. But I don't think we do them or anyone else any favors by funding avowed terrorists. The ball is in Hamas' court. Let's see what they do with it.
By , at
Thu Feb 02, 02:47:00 PM:
Agree wit BatOne re
Bill, but will take it a bit
further;
The running for "president of the world" is correct and
strenghten by his comments at Dravos and his comparison
of those Danish cartoons to
rampant anti-Semitism.
I think Bill's been watching
the ABC "Commander-in-Chief",now on "hiatus" or in
plain english, cancelled,
and has decided he really does not want to be the
"First Laddy" if the UN thingy doesn't pan out.
If you consider the cartoon
comparison to anti-Semitism,
he may not want her to be
Senator from New York for
much longer either.
Poor Bill - photo in previous post could be the
one that reveals her soul.
Now we know why he likes those overseas gigs!
By sexy, at
Mon Nov 10, 12:07:00 AM:
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,按摩棒,G點,跳蛋,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,角色扮演,SM,潤滑液,威而柔,精油,自慰套,自慰,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛,A片,色情,成人,做愛,色情A片,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,免費成人影片,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,情色電影,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購
