…is such a damn fool. Ben Johnson at Frontpage provides the details:
ITâ€™S EITHER AN UNPRECEDENTED LOW IN PARTISAN DISCOURSE OR POLITICAL SURREALISM worthy of AndrÃ© Breton: on Tuesday, former president Jimmy Carter, speaking on foreign soil, denounced the policies of his successor as â€œcriminalâ€ because they fail to subsidize a genocidal Islamic terrorist organization that has killed Americans. Then, he blamed internecine Palestinian warfare on Americans and Israelis.
Speaking in Ireland at the eighth annual Forum on Human Rights â€“ without an apparent hint of irony â€“ Carter said the Bush administration had sinned against heaven and earth in its decision to withhold direct aid to Hamas once that group came to power in the Palestinian Authority. â€œThat action was criminal,â€ he said. The Palestinian people had elected Hamas fair-and-square in elections his Center described as â€œorderly and fair.â€ (Carter said the same of Hugo Chavezâ€™s election.) He deemed Hamas â€œshrewd in selecting candidates.â€
The worldâ€™s most famous Sunday School teacher further praised the genocidal terrorist organization, at a human rights conference, by citing its penchant for bloodshed. Hamas, Carter doddered, was more orderly than the rival Fatah organization, which Hamas demonstrated in military clashes that showed its â€œsuperior skills and discipline.â€ (The Jerusalem Post reported his argument thus: â€œCarter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.â€) One can only imagine how impressed he would have been by the â€œefficiencyâ€ of the SS.
Not that I have any love for Fatah, but the idea that Hamas should have received continued aid from the U.S. because it came to power in an election is mystifying. And to call the action of cutting off that aid “criminal” represents new levels of achievement in double-think and the debasement of language and concepts. Yeah, sure, the U.S. has helped regimes of a bad odor. That’s sometimes the nature of the foreign policy beast, but while it might be a legitimately criminal thing to offer that help to achieve an explicitly criminal end, it can never be criminal to not offer help to such a regime.
It’s a nasty world, but by no stretch of the imagination does the U.S. owe a terrorist group like Hamas a thing, election or no election. Same goes for Fatah. The U.S. owes it nothing, but was willing to deal with it via a “peace process.” The fact that the “peace process” resulted in Fatah being replaced by a worse group does not imply that it is “criminal” to refuse to deal with the worse group.