Jimmy Carter's Logic

Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has received enough rebuke to convince me not to waste my money on it.....not that I would anyway.

If you're interested, you can read why Carter's book is not well received by those who believe that the Israelis deserve more credit for seeking peace in the middle east than do the Palestinians.

The purpose of this post is not to judge the merits or demerits of the book, but rather the peculiar logic of Carter's refusal to debate Alan Dershowitz on the topic of the book, i.e., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the AP story published in today's Star-Telegram:

"He [Carter] said the goal of his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is to provoke dialogue and action."

Let's see ..... Carter says he wants to provoke "dialogue," but he doesn't want to debate the issues. Hmmmm.

It was that kind of logic, no doubt, that contributed to Carter being the worst President in the history of the United States....and lately, the worst former President.

Immigration and Rationalization

Linda Campbell, one of the more liberal contributors to the Star-Telegram, wrote this article in Wednesday's edition....."We immigrate because we have to."

Yeah, Right!

Her commentary should be titled "We have to break the law, because that's the only way we can get what we want." How many crimes do you think are committed using this rationale?

It reminds me of the actual statement by a driver who ran over a pedestrian...."I had to hit him....he wouldn't get out of my way."

How can anyone justify committing a crime just because it achieves his desired goal?

"We immigrate because we have to, not because we want to, and because we dream of doing something we cannot do back in our country," Flores told about 30 editorial writers last week at a seminar sponsored by the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism at the University of Maryland.

Look, I have sympathy for people who have no hope of rising above the wretched conditions of the two-bit country they were unfortunate enough to be born in. But isn't it their responsibility to do something about their country instead of sneaking into another country illegally where their dreams can be realized more easily?

Oh, the Humanity!

Jose Miguel Layva, in today's Star-Telegram, laments the holiday woes of illegal immigrants. According to Layva, the increased security along our southern border is forcing illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. and preventing them from being with their families in Mexico.

"For many Mexican immigrants living in the United States, the holidays have come to represent a time of sadness."

He conveniently omits the fact that he is referring to illegal immigrants.

"...undocumented workers -- many of whom just want to work and send money back home -- are finding it more difficult to cross back."

Only when it comes to crossing back into the U.S. ... illegally.

"Because of the proposed fence and increased security measures, those who are already in the United States have little choice but to remain."

Let's see.....go back to Mexico where I belong or stay in the U.S. illegally?......little choice, indeed.

"Some Americans think the fence will lead toward a more secure homeland. But many don't realize that 40 percent of the 12 million undocumented immigrants now in this country came here legally and then overstayed their visas."

Only 31 percent of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. illegally.

"These workers put more into our economy than they take out."

There is no way Leyva, or anyone else, can know this, and there is no reason to believe that it is true......unless, of course, you believe something simply because you want it to be true.

"This holiday, as we sit down to eat our feast with family, it would behoove us as a nation to remember that some of the food on our table was put there by immigrant workers who cannot go home."

Now where did I put that violin?....I can never seem to find it.

Abu Ghraib - What! ...Again?

Never one to pass up an opportunity to make the U.S. military look bad, CBS 60 Minutes has dredged up the controversy of the Abu Ghraib incident. Remember, it was CBS that "broke" the story in the first place - months after the Army had already begun its investigation. I have commented previously on this story here.

In tonight's 60 Minutes episode, Joe Darby, the Army sergeant who first reported the misconduct of his fellow MP's is presented as an altruistic upholder of what is right. Perhaps he is, I don't know. But if I were his company commander, he would have received a letter of reprimand for his actions at the very least.

Was Darby correct in reporting the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib? Absolutely! Should he have reported it to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) instead of his First Sergeant? Absolutely not!

Granted, I don't have all the details of the situation, but from what has been released to the public, I can say for sure that Darby should have reported the abuse through his chain of command. His company commander should then have questioned every soldier involved and conducted a 100% "Health and Welfare Inspection" in order to confiscate all evidence (pictures) of misconduct. It would then be up to the company commander to decide if a criminal investigation was necessary after consulting with the Judge Advocate General's office (JAG).

Violations of Army regulations, not including criminal conduct, could have been handled through Article 15's and letters of reprimand, of which at least a few would be warranted.

What no one seems to care about - and this is what bothers me the most about the whole story - is who it was that leaked the pictures to CBS! That individual deserves the harshest punishment of all. A firing squad comes to mind.

SGT Darby can be excused for not being able to foresee the damage that disclosure of this incident could cause to U.S. efforts in Iraq, but whoever leaked the pictures to CBS certainly could and, therefore, is no less than a traitor to his country. And CBS? They should be required to divulge their source for the pictures and shamed for publicizing the incident. News organizations are not immune to the laws that apply to everyone else, nor are they to be congratulated for undermining our country's military in the middle of a war.

One thing most of us learned in Vietnam: Don't talk to the press. They will sensationalize anything, even if it's only a rumor, if they think they can turn it into a "news" story.