Me thinks maybe yes.
Anyone who enters into a Faustian bargain should expect certain consequences.
Jimmy Carter, a decent man but a naive fool nonetheless, bargained away the rights of the Palestinian people for the price of a few years of relative peace. Relative for it depends on whose peace. How many years? Jimmy Carter may have been thinking about his own presidential term or possibly terms in office.
He devised an extraordinary, incomprehensible scheme of perpetual multi-billion dollar payments to the devil to allow it the freedom for the commission of boundless mischief and evil from the Sinai to the Tigris (and beyond).
In his foolish naivety, he may have thought he was doing the right thing. He is after all, the man who as Governor of Georgia was outraged at the life sentence meted Lieutenant William C. Calley for the My Lai massacre, one of the greatest mass murderers in modern history, and instituted "American Fighting Man's Day", and asked Georgians to drive for a week with their lights on in protest. The moral outrage was not for the crimes, but for the sentence. (Ultimately Calley received what amounted to a full pardon from Nixon, another man of elastic principles and practical morality).
Jimmy Carter frittered away the opportunity to demand from Israel the complete and unconditional withdrawal of all the occupied territories in exchange for peace even if a guarantee for its security had to be given, which they have managed to wrangle to an absolute degree and at tremendous profit without giving away anything.
But the implacable fiend knows not gratitude. For this ungrateful foe does not want to be reminded of what was done for him yesterday. He only want to know what is to be done for him today.
Now that the wisdom of old age and the luxury of not having to compete for votes have shown him the product of his accomplishment, he has tried to make amends with history by publishing a courageous account of what is plain to lesser mortals. At least he has lent it the prestige of his former office and has made it accessible to many who otherwise would have ignored it. It is this account that has brought the present legal action against him. Not that the civil suit has much of a chance of success (has it?!), but it certainly will cost time and money to defend against. The purpose of the lawsuit is to discourage others who may harbor the unprofitable idea of writing about certain inconvenient facts.
Hence the "hassle".
Cheers
Manuel Sotil
==========================================================
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Michael <RePorterNoteBook@gmail.com> wrote:
Does Jimmy Carter Deserve To Be Sued?THE JEWISH-AMERICAN MINDSET OF MONA CHAREN SAYS:
"He doesn't deserve censorship. But he does deserve the hassle."More:+++Peace.Michael Santomauro@ 917-974-6367What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment