Dhimmi Carter
So yesterday at the gym I again was graced with Wolf Blitzer, speaking with Dhimmi Carter, worst President ever!
Carter was rambling on about how we MUST NOT punish the poor Palestinian people by withholding money from known terror organization Hamas, that now rules them.
Whoa!
Why the disconnect?
Didn't these people just elect Hamas as their representatives?
Didn't Carter just certify the election as fair and square, and thus as the very will of the majority of the people?
How are they "innocent" here of association with Hamas???
Some chuckled in schadenfreude that we'd just have to "accept" and "respect" unfortunate outcomes if unfriendly governments are chosen "democratically" via Bush's grand experiment of bringing choices to the Middle East.
That's wrong.
Democratic elections do not confer respect automatically.
What they do confer is moral responsibility.
No more can the dodge be used that the Palestinian people are somehow not responsible for their leadership, and must therefore get our cash aid out or compassion -- filtered through their corrupt leaders, of course, but never mind that.
No, they have spoken, and can now all be collectively punished with a clear conscience.
Indeed, it is a moral imperative that we do so.
Now, to Wolf's credit, he brought up a little snag for Dhimmi Carter's desire to still send aid money -- your taxpayer money! -- to the Hamas terrorist organization.
He read a very clear law that stated no such support in any way could go to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. To do so would be a Crime.
And Hamas is clearly designated as such by the State Department.
How do we "get around" that law, asked Blitzer?
Dhimmi Carter -- worst President ever! -- explained it would be simple: we should just give the taxpayer money to the U.N., and the U.N. would in turn give it to Hamas.
Actually he said some fantasy about the U.N. "giving it directly to the Palestinian people" and "bypassing" Hamas, but what planet is he from?
Can a President be retroactively impeached?
Pretty please?
I mean, come on, here's an ex-President, talking about how to circumvent our own laws to aid terrorist organizations!
Sedition, anyone?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Carter was rambling on about how we MUST NOT punish the poor Palestinian people by withholding money from known terror organization Hamas, that now rules them.
Whoa!
Why the disconnect?
Didn't these people just elect Hamas as their representatives?
Didn't Carter just certify the election as fair and square, and thus as the very will of the majority of the people?
How are they "innocent" here of association with Hamas???
Some chuckled in schadenfreude that we'd just have to "accept" and "respect" unfortunate outcomes if unfriendly governments are chosen "democratically" via Bush's grand experiment of bringing choices to the Middle East.
That's wrong.
Democratic elections do not confer respect automatically.
What they do confer is moral responsibility.
No more can the dodge be used that the Palestinian people are somehow not responsible for their leadership, and must therefore get our cash aid out or compassion -- filtered through their corrupt leaders, of course, but never mind that.
No, they have spoken, and can now all be collectively punished with a clear conscience.
Indeed, it is a moral imperative that we do so.
Now, to Wolf's credit, he brought up a little snag for Dhimmi Carter's desire to still send aid money -- your taxpayer money! -- to the Hamas terrorist organization.
He read a very clear law that stated no such support in any way could go to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. To do so would be a Crime.
And Hamas is clearly designated as such by the State Department.
How do we "get around" that law, asked Blitzer?
Dhimmi Carter -- worst President ever! -- explained it would be simple: we should just give the taxpayer money to the U.N., and the U.N. would in turn give it to Hamas.
Actually he said some fantasy about the U.N. "giving it directly to the Palestinian people" and "bypassing" Hamas, but what planet is he from?
Can a President be retroactively impeached?
Pretty please?
I mean, come on, here's an ex-President, talking about how to circumvent our own laws to aid terrorist organizations!
Sedition, anyone?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
posted by RDS at 12:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home