Carter and Hamas (by Daoud Kuttab)
When approaching a conflict, any world statesperson would consider trying to break up the logjam. A Christian leader who has always stood for justice and human rights and who takes the issue of the sancity of life seriously has no choice but to try and see what he or she can do to stop the bloodshed. In a protracted conflict, adding new ideas from a high-profile figure can help shake up the status quo. While it is unlikely for an ex-president to be able to extract major concessions, what President Carter has done in his meetings with Hamas is to show the world that the issues are much more gray than Israeli and U.S. government spin portray them to be. The visit and seven-hour talks that Carter conducted with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal put to rest the attempts to paint them as merely an al Qaeda-like terrorist organistion that one should never consider talking to. In spite of its indiscriminate violence against civilians, this movement was elected in free and fair elections two years ago that Carter and other international monitors observed.
Carter's visit also showed that while Hamas, like most Palestinians, are bitter about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, they are pragmatic enough to accept a two-state solution negotiated by the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, so long as the Palestinian public gets a chance to approve it in a popular referendum. It is important that the sitting president take this into consideration when deciding U.S. policy. Keeping 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza under permanent siege is illegal and immoral. Israel, and indirectly the U.S.'s, refusal to accept the offer by Hamas of a ceasefire is illogical.
While Carter has certainly not won over enough concessions from the Palestinian movement, he has shown that they are open for talks. Naturally they would be more willing to make concessions in return for recognition by the U.S. and other world powers.
President Carter should be applauded for his efforts. With the words of our Lord Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers."
Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist, professor at Princeton University, and founder of the Arab world's first Internet radio station, Ammannet. His e-mail is info@daoudkuttab.com.
Add to:
Category: Israel, Middle East, Palestine
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I'm not applauding. There was a time when my late father used to praise Carter in his "post-Presidency" as a man of real stature.
I don't think that this is true anymore, if it ever was. Instead, I see in Carter a man so awash in his own self-righteousness, that he can't acknowledge when he might actually be making a problem worse.
I see a loose cannon and a professional busybody who perhaps has started to believe in his own PR too much.
The Hamas charter calls for Israel's destruction. What sort of compromise is possible, unless that clause is revoked? Many years ago, the reaction of a Hamas spokesman to the assassination of Yitzak Rabin, a reaction of glee, gave me an indelible sense of the nature of Hamas.
Posted by: Alicia | April 23, 2008 2:26 PM
Well the thing to me is he went against the policy of the nited States to talk to terrorists .
That policy can be changed , and we can have a debate about it and elected a predident that will . But Jimmy Carter figures he knows better , and if I recall Jimmy Carter lost his election quite badly . He had his chance .
Now he is calling Rice a liar . That was on my opening internet web from Comcast this morning .
I know the folks here think this is great , but think if Obama becomes President , and then Chenny starts floating around to other countries and disrepecting his policies and chosen official Cabinet members and such .
So Carter is telling Hamas the person from the United States they are dealing with is a liar , and he is trying to help who ?
Posted by: Mick | April 23, 2008 2:44 PM
'...accept the offer by Hamas of a ceasefire...'
I believe that it was Carter that stated that Hamas was willing to agree to a 10 year truce with Israel. Now - if I remember my comparitive religion class. That is the Max amount of time that Allah allows for Muslims indealing with the infidels that they have a conflict with.
Does anyone believe that Hamas is really interested in peace with Israel when they still desire the destruction of Israel?
Carter was one Pres and had my respect after he left office because of his work with H for H. If he was in office and Ford was going to meet with a group like Hamas after being asked/advised not to. Carter would have gone to the wall to make it impossible for Ford to meet with them.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 23, 2008 2:50 PM
So Carter negotiates a temporary truce in an exchange for a permanent secession of land, with a de facto promise to resume war in ten years. How has Carter made peace here?
All this proves is that the much ballyhooed 1967 compromise is fool's gold. It is not on the table and never has been.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 23, 2008 2:54 PM
"Does anyone believe that Hamas is really interested in peace with Israel when they still desire the destruction of Israel?"
Not only do they believe it, they take it as gospel. Haven't you read this blog?
Posted by: kevin s. | April 23, 2008 2:56 PM
Posted by: kevin s. | April 23, 2008 2:56 PM
Humor abounds -
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 23, 2008 3:03 PM
I agree. Demonizing the "bad guys" in the cartoonish manner of the present administration testifes eloquently to just how well that approach works... And look where it's gotten us with Cuba over a course of fifty years!
Paul - Original Faith
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | April 23, 2008 3:07 PM
Posted by: Mick | April 23, 2008 2:44 PM
So Carter is telling Hamas the person from the United States they are dealing with is a liar , and he is trying to help who ?
So Carter is telling them that Rice is a liar - have not heard that one but will keep my ears open. Not surprized - not at all.
Rob
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 23, 2008 3:14 PM
"Carter's visit also showed that while Hamas, like most Palestinians, are bitter about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, they are pragmatic enough to accept a two-state solution negotiated by the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, so long as the Palestinian public gets a chance to approve it in a popular referendum"
Wow I personally find this paragraph to be a good thing. At least in this paragraph we get a larger lens into the Palestinian people. They want a two state solution. Unlike Bush Carter has shown enough courage to talk to our enemies. I wish Bush had the guts to do that.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 23, 2008 3:23 PM
Daoud,
Any idiot can run around calling himself a peacemaker. Making a lasting peace -- that's the tricky part.
Much as you want to credit Carter with breaking up a logjam in Palestine, there's no reason to believe he has accomplished much of anything. Carter's credibility in the US is limited to those who are inclined to favor Hamas in the first place. His credibility in Israel is even more limited.
Because Carter is not a representative of the US or Israeli governments, in either a formal or informal sense, it really doesn't matter what Hamas officials told him. In practical terms they committed to nothing.
I'm sorry, but Carter accomplished nothing, except maybe to get used by Hamas to spread their propaganda. That isn't the same thing as peacemaking.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 23, 2008 3:24 PM
Posted by: Payshun | April 23, 2008 3:23 PM
'...Carter has shown enough courage to talk...'
Now we find out that after the fact - Carter talk with Hamas about Sec. of State Rice and called her a liar. So - if we were to consider talking with them - Carter has already made it almost inpossible because not they have a former Pres telling them the current Pres has a liar for a Sec. of State.
Maybe Carter should pick the verbage that he uses to access of people in the adm. of the US as care as he picks peanuts.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 23, 2008 3:33 PM
Always amazing to me when someone gets slammed for doing what our Lord values. Blessed are the peacemakers...
Posted by: squeaky | April 23, 2008 3:45 PM
1. What right does the political state of Israel have to exist? It is the fabrication of the United Nations (an agent of the One World Government to all the dispensationalists). If the UN granted, by fiat and in acknowledgment of their moral superiority devolved from their suffering, the continental US to the Native Americans as a homeland, don't you think it would be huge of the "Anglo/terrorists" to agree to a two-state solution?
2. If democracy is the goal in the Mid-east, how can we not recognize Hamas?
3. Wolvie: Who would you say has established a lasting peace since Pax Romana?
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 23, 2008 3:51 PM
I'm sure Hamas already knew that Rice is a liar; for example, she mouthed the "Hussein has WMD" repeatedly in the run-up to the attack on Iraq in March 2008. She lied under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. As late as Sept. 2006, she repeated on Fox News that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
If Carter is to be faulted for anything, it's for stating the painfully obvious.
Posted by: carl copas | April 23, 2008 4:05 PM
Oops, March 2003, not 2008
Posted by: carl copas | April 23, 2008 4:06 PM
Posted by: squeaky | April 23, 2008 3:45 PM
Blessed are the peacemakers...
I agree with you squeaky - but Carter was not there on a 'peace mission'. He did not have the backing of the US Dept of State. Now in the future - any talks that might happen will be hampered because of his comments about Rice's character. So - what peace is he trying to make?
Again - if this had happened during his adm. you would have seen a Pres. Carter in action that would not have been a pretty sight.
But when you are out of office and your agenda is to make sure that a Republican does not win the White House for the next four years. You will do anything to make the current adm look bad so that you look good.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 23, 2008 4:12 PM
Pastor Jeff -
Did you read my comments about Israel in the "Immature Media or Mature Faith" thread?
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 23, 2008 4:22 PM
"Always amazing to me when someone gets slammed for doing what our Lord values. Blessed are the peacemakers..."
He didn't make any peace. Israelis are people too.
"(Israel) is the fabrication of the United Nations "
Any border is a fabrication of someone. By this argument, any group may attack any nation at will.
"If democracy is the goal in the Mid-east, how can we not recognize Hamas?"
Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 23, 2008 4:24 PM
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. No one is going to believe any of Hamas' propaganda anyway, there was nothing to lose by him doing this.
Posted by: Oak | April 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Regardless of the situation, it is improper for an ex-president to undermind the current administration by visiting a group that the United States Government has designated as a terrorist organization. This sets a terrible precedence and shows the rest of the world that this country is not united. While I respect Mr. Carter's desire for peace in the middle east his actions are completely out of line, unethical, and should not be celebrated in my opinion.
Posted by: Russell | April 23, 2008 5:08 PM
so we (blindly) insist upon democractic elections (despite the unified protests of the palestinian authority AND israel), and because we (rightfully) don't like the outcome, we refuse to talk to the democratically-elected government?
sorry, but carter's right - we have little choice but to hold our noses and talk to hamas, for whatever good it'll do. at the very least, it keeps us from losing what shreds of international credibility we have left.
(besides, it's not like there aren't below-the-radar talks with hamas anyways. all carter's doing is trying to move them to the public arena, which may have some merits.)
Posted by: mingus | April 23, 2008 5:10 PM
"Israelis are people too."
lest we forget, so are the palestinians.
Posted by: mingus | April 23, 2008 5:12 PM
Regardless of the situation, it is improper for an ex-president to undermind the current administration by visiting a group that the United States Government has designated as a terrorist organization. This sets a terrible precedence and shows the rest of the world that this country is not united.
Well, then, perhaps we should rethink things before we get left out of the loop. What's being undermined here, and had been for a while, is U.S. credibility in the Middle East, compromised by dispensationalists who believe in Israel uber alles with no regard for the Palestinian population, about a third of which are nominal Christians. Besides, Hamas was actually created as a counterweight to Arafat's Fatah party to keep the two sides distracted by fighting each other so that Israel could retain the upper hand -- it never occurred to anyone, especially the Israeli right, that one side might win.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 23, 2008 5:21 PM
In spite of its indiscriminate violence against civilians
When does indiscriminate violenece against civilians ever merit the prefix "in spite of"???
this movement was elected in free and fair elections
Need I invoke Godwin's law here?
1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza under permanent siege is illegal and immoral
Yes it is and the Arab nations' permanent seige of the Israeli nation is equally immoral and disgusting!
"Blessed are the peacemakers."
Hear hear! But in another turn of phrase from the Jewish Palestinian Rabbi "why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?"
Posted by: splinterlog | April 23, 2008 5:24 PM
I don't see Carter talking with our enemies as undermining. If fact -- it's a pretty good strategy if our leaders would use it right.
Letting former leaders talk with current enemies allows for us to understand something of what they need or want without the President supporting them.
It is very difficult for a President to play a peacemaker role. I think it makes a lot of sense to make good use of our previous leaders and their good relationships with leaders around the world. Why create a new ambassador when you've already got one?
Moderate Lad --
As I recall, Carter let Jesse Jackson go to Iran to try to release the hostages during his administration.
Posted by: frankie | April 23, 2008 5:25 PM
I don't understand why Christians following their still small voices have to have the approval of the US government before acting on it. It's also a little premature to declare that Carter's trip served no purpose, and dangerous to start judging from a distance to decide whether someone else's call is valid or not.
Some of the comments here would never fit my vision of Christ's commandments and example. Do I write the authors off as persons because I think their reasoning is way off a biblical scale?
When a government demands the "power and the glory" of authority and then orders actions meant to kill others, forgets the poor, the hungry, the naked, etc., where do they derive the moral authority to declare what will, or will not, lead to justice, mercy, healing, and community.
Posted by: openeyes | April 23, 2008 5:26 PM
The sad reality is the Bush administration will never be seen as an honest broker of peace in the Middle East -- for the simple reason no one trusts them, not even the Israelis.
Carter didn't call Condi a liar, but she is one -- and so are Bush/Cheney.
The best diplomats on the planet are forced to sit on the sidelines watching Bush/Cheney do their kabuki PeaceWar dance, entertaining the NeoCon cabal, AIPAC and the Christian right while everyone seriously working for Peace in the Middle East is outraged by the insincerity.
Another sad reality is that most Israelis and most Americans are against the current Bush/Cheney hard line scorched earth diplomacy.
It's easy to see it doesn't work.
So my hat's off to Jimmy Carter, our last honorable and honest President for getting out in front of the parade.
Way to go, Jimmy!
Posted by: justintime | April 23, 2008 5:40 PM
Wake up America: Do you not remember what Ronald Reagen did to President Carter on freeing the hostages. His party supplied arms to the CONTRA in a deal to let the hostages go free from IRAN. Ronald Regan is not GOD, and the Republican party has to remember there party is not 1st, GOD is 1st in my life, over all things. Be careful that we do not get into Idolatry.
Posted by: Sydney Mooradian | April 23, 2008 5:42 PM
Moderate Lad --
As I recall, Carter let Jesse Jackson go to Iran to try to release the hostages during his administration.
Posted by: frankie
I wonder if Moderatelad is old enough to remember the Iran Contra affair?
You know, where the Republicans made a secret deal with Iran not to release our hostages to the Carter administration make Carter look bad and get Reagan elected.
That was treason.
The perpetrators were pardoned.
Reagan couldn't remember anything.
But everyone knows what really happened in the Iran Contra Affair.
It's part of the public record.
Posted by: justintime | April 23, 2008 5:55 PM
ATLANTA, April 23 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday accused So Carter is telling them that Rice is a liar - have not heard that one but will keep my ears open. Not surprized - not at all.
Posted by: Moderatelad
This was released about three hours ago . Kind of amazing the lefties defending him actually . Because according to Carter , he was never asked not to go talk , the folks here think it would be Ok regardless. Even contradicting him now , Once you are on a political side idealogy , commonsense goes out the window sometimes . So who is he speaking for in regarrds to peace if the person Hamas would be talking to is dishonest ? He is nut without the pea . Well maybe we should be thankfull Carter is not talking to Iran about things , been there done that .
Reuters just released the story .
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of not telling the truth about warnings she said her department gave Carter not to speak to Hamas before a Middle East trip.
Posted by: Mick | April 23, 2008 6:02 PM
Right On Jimmy!
Posted by: justintime | April 23, 2008 6:05 PM
"Yes it is and the Arab nations' permanent seige of the Israeli nation is equally immoral and disgusting!"
okay, if there is such a widespread "siege" as you put it, if you're talking moral equivalents, then why support israel disproportionately?
(truth is, the majority of arab nations would be quite happy with a peaceful solution with israel and palestine - don't forget, they also have iran to worry about, and these days i'm betting they see iran as a much bigger threat than israel).
"I don't understand why Christians following their still small voices have to have the approval of the US government before acting on it. "
amen. if we think that our government has the last word when it comes to questions of morality, we're in deep trouble.
Posted by: mingus | April 23, 2008 6:06 PM
President Carter oversees elections about as effectively as he preserved territories. Just look at Chavez's "election" in Venezuela, and at who now owns the Panama Canal!
I will say, though, Carter's a better politician and negotiator than he is a theologian.
Posted by: Chuck | April 23, 2008 6:09 PM
Small point:
'Not telling the truth' is not the same as lying.
Not telling the truth could be only 'holding back' the truth.
So Carter hasn't yet called Condi a liar.
But I will.
Posted by: justintime | April 23, 2008 6:12 PM
Always amazing to me when someone gets slammed for doing what our Lord values. Blessed are the peacemakers...
Posted by: squeaky
Squeaky we are told we will persecuted for doing the Lord's work , but I am surprised also . especially when the other side is confessing Christians .
I am not going to judge Carter's motive , I liked him as a person when he was President . I was not political back then , interesting how I see people like you or call another liar and such based on their politics here . Just my view . I am slaming Carter for his arrogant stupidity , doing things that are not being supported by the elected United States Government , calling our head of State a liar , so what if you think Rice is a Godly woman , your thinking here is she is being slammed for doing God's work .
I suggest Rice is doing the best she can do , Carter is doing the best he can , Rice is ollowing the policy and rules of an elected government , Carter is not .
Next election things will chane , I am glad also , But sheesh ?
We have set policy not to deal with terrorist . Previous Administrations have gone against this policy , and we have seen disaterous results .
Reagan's Administration with guns sent to kill people to release hostages .
To call it God's work ? Are you speaking for God here ? What happens if it back fires and people die because of it , what happens if Carter had not been aware of information that he would have considered important and changed his tactics ?
And the best reason here why i think you are wrong , look at the thinking of someone who aggrees with you . You don't agree with his view here do you ? Isreal obviously has little value to some people , I suggest they have as much right to have their borders protected and citizens not be shot at with missles as the folks do in Kingston Washington where i live .
Jeff said
What right does the political state of Israel have to exist?
Posted by: Mick | April 23, 2008 6:17 PM
well the rightwing ideologues are out in force on this one.
Posted by: meurig | April 23, 2008 6:23 PM
Small point:
'Not telling the truth' is not the same as lying.
Posted by: justintime
Come on Just , that is a very small point . Sort of what you mean by the defintition of "is " is .
Just wondering , did President Clinton have diplomatic discussions with Hamas ?
Posted by: Mick | April 23, 2008 6:30 PM
President Carter should be applauded for his efforts. With the words of our Lord Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers."**
The Scofield Reference Bible makes this important amendation in the marginal notes to this verse from the Sermon on the Mount: some ancient mss read "except when they go against official United States policy."
Posted by: canucklehead | April 23, 2008 7:13 PM
In other words, what the hell does the U.S. State Department have to do with anyone, anywhere at anytime acting on Christ's blessing to peacemakers.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 23, 2008 7:20 PM
Rice v Carter is interesting. Three options.
1. Rice lied.
2. Carter lied.
3. The message did not get through (Rice may have thought Carter was warned but the message may not have made it).
Hypothetically, IF Rice lied and no warnings were given to Carter about meeting with Hamas, then how should Carter respond? Should he speak the truth or should he conceal the deception?
IF Carter has lied and Rice did warn him, then should she speak the truth? Perhaps she could prove the message was sent (there must be records of the communication).
The primary interest of Carter should not be to increase the standing of the US in the world, nor should it be to defend any particular government, especially if they are being deceitful.
I do not understand how those who've accused him on this thread of damaging US standing would have rathered that he respond to Rice's claims.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: trent | April 23, 2008 7:29 PM
I just wish I could trust our government to tell us the truth. Because it's been revealed that they haven't, it's very hard to trust them or their political defenders about anything any more.
If God told Jimmy Carter to try to make peace, when it's clear we never will, since war is so profitable for our financial elite, then may God bless his efforts.
May God bless the efforts of anyone of any stripe who works hard to make peace.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 23, 2008 7:37 PM
As I recall, Carter let Jesse Jackson go to Iran to try to release the hostages during his administration.
Posted by: frankie
And as President of the United States he had every right to do so . But what if Ronald Reagan went withourt Carter's Permission . Somehow I doubt Carter would see his style of communication preferable or helpfull , as President I believe those things should be respected . Even if Carter and jessie Jackson could not do ANYTHING . Perhaps nothing could have been done .
Posted by: Mick | April 23, 2008 8:05 PM
Mick Just wondering , did President Clinton have diplomatic discussions with Hamas ?
I don't believe Clinton did talk with Hamas.
And this would have been because Yarafat and Fatah represented the Palestinian cause during the Clinton years.
Arafat's corrupted leadership and his inability to deliver results brought about the rise of Hamas influence in Palestine. Now Hamas represents the Palestinian cause and Hamas will have to be at the table for any serious negotiations to succeed.
Posted by: justintime | April 23, 2008 9:38 PM
God keeps getting used as a tag line -- "Carter/Reagan/Rice...is good/evil and therefore they can't possibly love God. Or, God can't possibly love them."
I think God would like to be consulted before we come to a final decision. And if our decision is to disparage someone else's character, we'd better be very careful about that nasty log in our own eyes.
It's still really dangerous to judge one's faith and commitment by the little bits of info the media provide. And it's really, really dangerous to tag people with political labels just because we are proud conservatives/liberals and the others disagree with us.
On the other hand, I guess if we say what we say for recreational purposes anyway, it doesn't matter what kind of comment we make.
Posted by: openeyes | April 23, 2008 9:39 PM
truth is, the majority of arab nations would be quite happy with a peaceful solution with Israel and palestine
Having lived in Arab and Muslim countries for a good part of my life I can testify that this notion is a complete pipedream. I have never understood what lies at the root of anti-semitism in Arab and Muslim countires, but rest assured that it is as real as the day is long.
What mystifies me is why Arab nations have made the Palestinian issue THE key issue when in my experience, the citizens of these same Arab states despise Palestinians. I've even had conversations with Arabs (living comfortable lives in Bahrain and the UAE) who insist that the refugee camps should remain to "keep the cause alive".
Don't you see - this is dirty politics pure and simple. The Arab states could care less about the Palestinian people. This issue is their way of drawing attention to themselves and creating a bargaining chip against the West.
And in the middle of all of this you have the desperation of the Palestinian people, who have done nothing to deserve their plight! And Israeli citizens who live under the threat or random terrorist attacks.
Posted by: aplinterlog | April 23, 2008 9:40 PM
trent:
"Rice v Carter is interesting. Three options.
1. Rice lied.
2. Carter lied.
3. The message did not get through (Rice may have thought Carter was warned but the message may not have made it).
I think we can eliminate number 3 as a possibility, Trent.
I'm not willing to give Condi a blanket benefit of the doubt.
If my life depended on believing either Carter or Rice, I would definitely go with Carter's version.
I've already watched Condi lie on television -- numerous times.
Posted by: justintime | April 23, 2008 9:47 PM
"The Arab states could care less about the Palestinian people. This issue is their way of drawing attention to themselves and creating a bargaining chip against the West."
aplinterlog (why the name so close to "splinterlog"? he's been around a lot longer than you), could you flesh this assertion out a bit? Why would the Arab states want to draw attention to themselves? Given the oil reserves that some Arab states hold, why would they need another bargaining chip?
Posted by: carl copas | April 23, 2008 9:52 PM
Sorry carl the above was me
Oil is not enough of a bargaining chip because there is no moral authority behind oil. These states need a moral bargaining chip - possessing a commodity like oil is an irresistible temptation rather than a defensive bargaining chip against the West (look at Iraq today)
On the Israeli-Palestinian issue I don't take sides. I think the people on both sides have suffered a great deal. I just want to point out that this isn't a black and white issue. It's really quite complicated and the fact that there has been an impasse on this issue for decades is precisely because it is complicated - not because realistic solutions have not been possible from the very beginning.
So I take issue with black and white presentations of the issue which assume one side as good and the other as bad, while ignoring the deeper causes and dynamics behind the issue.
Posted by: splinterlog | April 23, 2008 10:11 PM
The Palestinians would do to the Israeli's, what the Germans did. They try to kill Israeli's every day. No amount of PC spin can change what a Palestinian is. The Israeli's are the good guys.
Posted by: Just a person | April 23, 2008 10:17 PM
Another nonymous: Yes I have read your posts. Thank you for them. I thought we could continue here.
Kevin S. Thanks for the response. Most borders are established by mutual agreement which is why every border is not a justification for attack. When a border is externally imposed and dispossession of long established people groups result, then a basic injustice has been committed for which either reparations and repentance must be made.
What are we doing in Iraq if we are not fighting to establish a democracy? What is the "end"? If not democracy, what means?
Mick: Give me a just reason for the creation, by edict, of the political state of Israel. I have never heard a non-racist explanation (although I will credit Another nonymous with an attempt).
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 23, 2008 10:47 PM
I applaud Carter for his efforts. Will they be totally successful? Probably not. Yes, it is difficult to believe Hamas is truly seeking peace, Yet they were elected and we should invite them to peace. It is also difficult to believe that the US truly wants peace, as long as we refuse to talk.
Peace talks were held during nearly all the wars the US has been involved in. In Iraq we are paying some of the former insurgents to fight on our side. Must have been some talking somewhere. Talking seems absolutely necessary to me. Is foolish not to. We need to talk, not because we agree on everything, but because we don't.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | April 24, 2008 12:01 AM
Matt 5:38-48
You’ve been taught to respond: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say: (Don’t retaliate at all) offer no resistance to the wicked.
On the contrary, if you are slapped on the right cheek, offer up the other as well; if someone takes you to court to get your coat, let him have the shirt off your back. And if you are required to go one mile with someone, (give him a heart attack) of your own free will, go two.
Give to anyone who asks, and if someone wants to borrow, do not turn away.
You’ve learned: You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say: love your enemies; and pray for those who persecute you; Because, that is the way to be children of your Father in Heaven.
Hey! he causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends rain to fall, equally, on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward should you get? The tax collectors do that. And if you only have greetings for your friends, You are doing nothing exceptional? That is the way the world operates.
Be perfect, in the manner that your Father in Heaven is perfect.'
Peace talks only with our friends? What's the point?
Posted by: Deryll | April 24, 2008 12:14 AM
Mick: Did the Palestinians have the same right to have their borders secure and not be shot at in 1948?
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 24, 2008 12:28 AM
I'd like to see Brother Andrew's comments on the Carter mission. He knows Hamas far better than any of us in this discussion
meurig
Posted by: meurig | April 24, 2008 12:45 AM
US standing is damaged in my (British/Canadian) eyes far more by your current administration's manifest culture of deceit to justify violence and injustice than by anything Jimmy Carter might say about Condi Rice.
In this (though not in all things) I think I am typical of most Europeans and most Canadians.
If your country's standing in the world is really so important, we are amongst the larger constituencies that you need to impress. (And if you can't impress us, you have no chance with most of the rest of the world)
meurig
Posted by: meurig | April 24, 2008 12:59 AM
If only Jimmy Carter were simply a loose cannon and professional busybody. Actually, he is operating in his capacity as one of Nelson Mandela's minions. Israel managed to keep Desmond Tutu at bay -- but Carter, as a former US president, cannot be dismissed so easily. His book's liberal use of the word apartheid showed where he was coming from.
Posted by: elder skelder | April 24, 2008 1:17 AM
You know ...
Jesus Christ was such a failure - in our human perception. The 12 people closest to him had run away from him by the time of his ignominous end at the cross, never mind that they had vowed never to 'betray' him.
He was so naive, many thought. He had tried and failed, it would seem to all the religionists at the time, to change anything. A dreamer. He also called the authorities 'hypocrites'.
Well, hindsight is always 20-20.
Is it unChristian for a private citizen to meet with Hamas, however naive his or her mission to bring about peace may be? Is it unChristian to disregard the advise of the State Department?
Was Daniel 'unChristian' when he disobeyed the law of the land?
Is it unChristian for a believer to pursue his calling as he perceives it? Are we Christians so eager to bring one another down just because we have different political positions?
Somehow, I hear many comments here saying, the approval of the US Administration is necessary for Christ's work to be done, no, attempted, on earth.
In Carter's profound words, however, whatever is going on now doesn't seem to be working ...
So, a politician who 'fails' at the American presidency is considered not worthy to, yes, try anything positive? How come he brought peace to Egypt/Israel and won the Nobel Peace Prize? Oh, I forget, it's not what the rest of the world thinks ...
Amazing!
Maybe I am mistaken, or just slow on the uptake and this is simply a political blog - with God in its title. Admittedly I don't quite get 'politics', especially American politics.
- Alu
Posted by: Robert Alu | April 24, 2008 3:55 AM
Daryll, you said it all. Thanks.
Posted by: Li'l bit | April 24, 2008 8:21 AM
Posted by: frankie | April 23, 2008 5:25 PM
Moderate Lad --
As I recall, Carter let Jesse Jackson go to Iran to try to release the hostages during his administration.
I believe that you are correct - but I believe that it was also agreed on by both parties. Carter did not have the backing of the Adm to talk with Hamas. Several around the world are trying to bring peace to that region and are talking with several groups. Hamas is not one of them because of their radical stance on Israel. Not Carter has caused problems not only talking but damaging Rice's character that could cause problems with other groups.
So - Mission Accomplished Jimmy - you have stirred the waters of bringing peace in the mideast and I wonder how many people will be killed because of the confussion Carter has caused. But I don't think Carter is not worried about that - let's just cause more problems for the current adm.
I know that there is the popular 'lie' that Reagan made a deal with Iran so that the hostiges would not be released during the Carter adm. The only place that deal was made was in the CNN-ABC-CBS-NBC newsrooms to incease circulation.
Mission Accomplished Jimmy. Today Hamas - tomorrow North Korea.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 24, 2008 8:23 AM
Was it "unchristian" for Carter to meet with Hamas? Ultimately that's something for God to figure out. What I can say is that his Hamas meeting was very likely to be counterproductive.
Carter's intentions are his own, but certainly there is a temptation for a man in his position to engage in free-lance foreign policy, not so much for the cause of peace, but for selfish reasons such as ego, recovering a personal legacy, and raw partisanship.
Again, any idiot can run around calling himself a peacemaker, making a lasting peace is the tricky part. And I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't pronounce a blessing on posers.
Until God pronounces his judgement, we have our own public policy debates, and while I cannot make a final pronouncement on Carter's intentions, neither am I obligated to extol his virtues as a "peacemaker" for a mission that is not likely to bring Palestine an inch closer to peace.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 24, 2008 8:46 AM
I know that there is the popular 'lie' that Reagan made a deal with Iran so that the hostiges would not be released during the Carter adm. The only place that deal was made was in the CNN-ABC-CBS-NBC newsrooms to incease circulation.
Will you quit blaming the media? They have never actually reported this.
Carter's intentions are his own, but certainly there is a temptation for a man in his position to engage in free-lance foreign policy, not so much for the cause of peace, but for selfish reasons such as ego, recovering a personal legacy, and raw partisanship.
OK, basically accuse someone of having nefarious motives because he goes against a conservative president; meanwhile, over the years he's gone to several continents to talk peace, not simply talk about it. Thing is, he would not have even been welcome had he not put his money where his mouth was years ago, so in one sense he has authority that Bush never had and never will have. Talk about raw partisanship!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 9:00 AM
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 23, 2008 10:47 PM
"Another nonymous: Yes I have read your posts. Thank you for them. I thought we could continue here."
All right then: For the reasons I've already stated, Israel's right to exist is non-negotiable. Everything else is. That's why I'm inclined to support Carter's efforts, even though I don't like the people he's meeting with, and I'm dubious about his prospects. Carter also has moral clout (a Nobel Peace Prize will do that for you; ask Teddy Roosevelt), and the current administration has none.
I realize this post is not going to please either side of the current discussion, but so be it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 24, 2008 9:13 AM
Wolverine, you said:
"Again, any idiot can run around calling himself a peacemaker, making a lasting peace is the tricky part. And I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't pronounce a blessing on posers."
I couldn't agree more, and I think you are right about Carter's intentions. We can't of course actually see into his heart, and perhaps, mixed in with the ego and self-righteousness, there are actual good intentions.
elder skelder, I also believe that Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu are operating from good intentions, but I think they are dead wrong, and very unhelpful, in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
They are overgeneralizing and oversimplifying, which is a great way to stoke one's sense of moral outrage, but when it comes to actually solving a complex problem, I think these oversimplifications, overgeneralizations and falsehoods are very destructive.
Posted by: Alicia | April 24, 2008 9:31 AM
Rick,
As I recall you are mostly right about the "October Surprise" story. The mainstream media dabbled with it a bit but never really took it all that seriously. None of the networks really picked it up and ran with it the way that CBS did with the forged TANG memos, and when the evidence didn't pan out they let the story go.
As far as your defense of Carter goes, however, you are long on noble generalities, very short on specifics. Carter's only notable foreign policy success -- and to be fair it was a big one -- was the Camp David accords that brought an uneasy but stable peace between Israel and Egypt. Since then what has he accomplished? Zilch.
Carter "talks peace". That's nice. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers." I'm not aware of any blessing for peacetalkers. There is, however, this from the prophet Jeremiah:
"From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace', they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when I punish them." -- says the Lord.
Jeremiah 6:13-15
'Tis true, Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers". He also said "By their fruits ye shall know them." (It was part of the same sermon -- you can look it up.) It's been a while since Carter produced any fruit. Does that mean Carter isn't a legitimate "peacemaker" any more? I really don't know, but it's not a good sign.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 24, 2008 9:54 AM
Wolverine,
"Any idiot can run around calling himself a peacemaker"
"Posers"
"Recovering a personal legacy"
"Raw Partisanship"
This is interesting.
Now why do you expect God to judge Carter, when you already have?
Of all the nastiness I have read here about this rare American is the totally incomprehensible idea, to me, that, somehow, Carter is driven by a need to redeem his 'legacy'.
Whether Carter is the worst President that America ever had - and he is not, I hear - certainly to most of the rest of the world he is a noble character and has got nothing to prove to anyone. The term peacemaker is one that others have given him, unless I am mistaken, not one that he coined for himself out of an outsize ego ...
He may have failed the American political test, but, it has never stopped him contributing immensely to the welfare of humankind, I daresay much more than some of his critics on this page will ever be able to boast of. Have you ever heard of dengue fever?
Does it occur to you that it may never matter at all whether Carter succeeds in bringing the adversaries closer? All that matters is that he tried to do something, rather than just sit around, hoping to avoid the opprobrium of disapproving Americans.
It is called courage. Politicians and business people are into the ends, but Carter has shown me that the means are just as important. Should Christians only do what they are really sure will bring about desired results? Is that what the Greatest Commandment is all about?
God bless Jimmy Carter!
- Alu
Posted by: Robert Alu | April 24, 2008 9:56 AM
I also believe that Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu are operating from good intentions, but I think they are dead wrong, and very unhelpful, in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Well, consider that Israel was one of apartheid South Africa's most consistent allies -- that may have tempered their views. And ironically, Mandela is a supporter of Israel (I've seen what he has had to say about it). The point, however, is that isolating Hamas has only made it stronger, and I believe that the Israeli government -- specifically the right wing -- has never in its history intended to negotiate honestly with the Palestinians in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 10:12 AM
CORRECTION!:
Sorry,
I meant to type "ever heard of Guinea worm?" in my previous post, not "ever heard of dengue fever?"
- Alu
Posted by: Alu | April 24, 2008 10:14 AM
Alu,
You have these admittedly provocative phrases, but I note that you cannot quote a complete sentence where I flatly say that Carter is any of those things -- at least not on this thread. There's a reason for that: at bottom I really don't know.
What I am saying is that it is folly to congratulate Carter for the mere good intention of being a peacemaker when it has been so long since he has made any discernable contribution to a lasting peace. No more, no less.
As I've said before on other threads, I'm not particularly impressed with Carter's free-lance diplomatic work. Nor do I consider him especially effective as President. I've also said that Carter was dealt a tough hand in office, and since then conservatives have been rougher on him than he deserved, and this may be driving some of Carter's actions now.
I've said, explicitly, that I don't really know what's in Jimmy Carter's heart, and that the final judgement lies with God. What I am trying to do is evaluate the results of his actions, as this is needed to debate foreign policy. It's a fine distinction, but its an important one.
It's also a distinction you might want to keep in mind the next time you comment on Bush's decision to invade Iraq. For all I know, it might be the difference between the two of us arguing about foreign policy, and the two of us condemning ourselves.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 24, 2008 10:38 AM
Jimmy Carter let everyone go talk to Iran -- every week it seemed someone else was going -- including one of the hostages' mother. He believes in talking things out. One can argue that it doesn't do much good, but Carter believes it does some good.
Carter went as a private citizen and not representing the State.
I'm not saying Carter is infallible, but he is being who he is. And -- he is doing something about a situation that troubles him. That alone is admirable.
Posted by: frankie | April 24, 2008 10:49 AM
I hear you Wolverine,
[My apologies re the provocative phrases].
Let me try to quote YOU (again) now:
"Carter "talks peace". That's nice. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers." I'm not aware of any blessing for peacetalkers."
And, how about?:
"What I am trying to do is evaluate the RESULTS of his actions". [emphasis mine]
Is there not a Scripture that says the power of life and death is in the tongue? Pray how is Carter or anyone else, to "make peace" in the Middle East or elsewhere save by 'moral persuasion'?
What have the results got to do with anything, when it comes to pursuing the calling of your Christian convictions?
And,
By what measure are you evaluating?
My limited understanding of much of what Jesus challenges us to do sort of includes an uncertainty as to what the consequences of doing the right thing might turn out to be, to ourselves and to others.
But,
I am not too clever, which explains, perhaps, my inability to grasp why we, Christians, are attacking a fellow Christian for TRYING to do the right thing. Jesus never said it would be easy, did he?
And,
Were he to come back today, how do we know how Jesus might conduct himself? Would he decline to resurrect Lazarus because he would die, anyway? Would he refuse entry to his inner circle to Judas because he would betray him?
I, just like yourself, Wolverine, do not know what the answer to the Middle East problem might be, but I really pray that anyone, especially Christians, with compassion and the ability to TRY to do something there - and elsewhere - will TRY, without stopping to check that the American political constituency's excellent manual for conflict resolution has been adhered to ...
I guess, again like yourself, I am repeating myself here now, Wolverine ...
I forget your reasons for supporting Bush's decision to attack Iraq, or even if you did support him, shall we please let that pass?
Well, well ... Daoud Kuttab could have added that Jesus said it is blessed to be reviled for the sake of his name ...
God bless Jimmy Carter! God bless you too!
- Alu
Posted by: Robert Alu | April 24, 2008 11:11 AM
What I am saying is that it is folly to congratulate Carter for the mere good intention of being a peacemaker when it has been so long since he has made any discernable contribution to a lasting peace.
The Nobel Committtee obviously doesn't feel that way. Besides, most of his critics (as some have already stated) don't even try.
It's also a distinction you might want to keep in mind the next time you comment on Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Bush went into Iraq for two reasons: 1) To prove himself a "tough guy" who had to be dealt with; and 2) as revenge for an assassination attempt on his father (he even said that). At some point, however, the intimidation factor wears off because people eventually stand up to bullies who are throwing their weight around, which is why Hamas in particular and the Palestinians in general are not backing down. The real reason folks are complaining about Carter is that they really believe that with enough force their enemies can be brought into compliance and he's sabotaging that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 11:12 AM
"Does it occur to you that it may never matter at all whether Carter succeeds in bringing the adversaries closer? All that matters is that he tried to do something,rather than just sit around, hoping to avoid the opprobrium of disapproving Americans."
All that matters is that he try, regardless of impact? That's your opinion, but I think it represents the core of the divide between conservatives and liberals on this issue and many others.
"Most borders are established by mutual agreement which is why every border is not a justification for attack."
Some borders are established by mutual agreement, but in almost any circumstance someone is going to be put out by the border's existence.
"What are we doing in Iraq if we are not fighting to establish a democracy?"
We are fighting to establish a stable and free society. Democracy is the best way to make that happen, but that does not require us to tolerate the actions of every Democratically elected leader.
"OK, basically accuse someone of having nefarious motives because he goes against a conservative president;"
He was equally asinine when he did it to Clinton.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 24, 2008 11:17 AM
Jesus healed a Roman centurian's servant. The Jewish powers-that-be surely saw that as an afront to their authority. Imagine! Jesus showing love to an enemy of Israel! And without the approval of the Jewish leadership!
Jesus looks at the most hated of people in Jewish eyes at that time and sees them as people needing compassion and love.
We are all challenged to do likewise, and misguided as many of you think he may be, this is what Carter is trying to do.
The larger question is this: does the Kingdom of God require the approval of the Kingdom of this World before it can be established?
Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2008 12:00 PM
I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides and so to some degree I think we grant both Carter and the State Department deference to their judgments.
But I very much wish those two parties would get on the same page. I really do not see excuse for the President and ex-Presidents to be operating out of different playbooks.
When President Carter picks up a hammer and helps build a Habitat house or teach a Sunday School class, I think it is abundantly clear he acts as Pivate Citizen Carter. When he meets with State leaders attempting to advance international agreements, wielding his status as ex-President of the United States, it suddenly becomes less clear.
He obviously knows these issues far better than I. So for him to proceed against State Department wishes does display something very troubling to me. It could mean he is right and there is need for him to not move in concert; i.e. a severe, implicit critique and rejection of US policy that rises to the point of him ignoring the State Department wishes. (It doesn't work for me to read reports beforehand that the State Dept doesn't want him to go and for him to say he is going anyway because he doesn't know they don't want him to do what they are saying they don't want him to do.)
But I don't think he can wield the ex-President status power and then have no accountability to the public. So he may mute his critique of Bush policy in respect; but if in action he is overtly rejecting and countering policy he almost is obligated to speak forthrightly that he is rejecting and countering and acting as private citizen.
I apprecitate much of what he has given himself to and think it better stewardship of his life than retiring to the golf course or lucrative speaking tours. I don't mind if the ex-presidents assume different roles/styles. But I do think they each have obligation to more transparently (i.e. publicly) identify their relationship to subsequent administrations; and for subsequent presidents to make better use of these leaders.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 24, 2008 12:09 PM
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 24, 2008 12:09 PM
Great post and thought provoking.
This is my take. Carter did talk to Hamas against the desire of the current adm.
Now there have been several in our country and around the world that have been working with several groups hoping to bring peace to the middle east. Now - Carter comes out and talks about what he and Hamas have 'talked' about and what might be 'doable' in achieve peace. Then he referes to Rice as a liar who has been working with the others towards a peaceful end to conflict.
So - now we have an ex-Pres making statements that could and I believe are in direct conflict or contrast to what has been talked about privately with others. Then when they hear an ex-Pres call a person that they have delt with very closely a 'liar'. Do you think they are going to go forward with what has been talked about with them by Rice and others?
I believe he has damaged the process that so many have worked on over the past years. Now the 'skeptic' in me wonders - was that the desired goal all the time - damage the process so that he looks 'presidential' and the current adm. is hampered in their dealings in the mid-east.
You figure
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 24, 2008 12:42 PM
I think it's important to remember that Carter belongs to "The Elders," a diplomatic group patterned after the African concept of the "village elder" and comprising seasoned statesmen, including Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan, who are no longer in public life. The concept of an older generation sharing its collective, far-reaching wisdom that goes beyond the moment -- something I treasure today -- I think has largely been lost in America because of our focus on the energy of youth. And it's for that reason that Carter has such status around the world. You will never be able to say the same for many of his critics, who often can't see beyond their own noses.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 12:48 PM
"When President Carter picks up a hammer and helps build a Habitat house or teach a Sunday School class, I think it is abundantly clear he acts as Private Citizen Carter."
Well, not exactly. Even then, he is acting as a card-carrying citizen of the one-world humanist alliance. Case in point: Habitat For Humanity also has the high-profile endorsement of one Desmond Tutu.
But clearly, Carter the Sunday School teacher must answer to God, not me.
Posted by: elder skelder | April 24, 2008 1:07 PM
Rick--I was not aware of The Elders and am fully appreciative; and also believe there is a status/power available at this stage of life that needs to be excercised much more aggressively. My only addendum is simply the uniqueness of the US Presidency. I value and affirm the 'return to private life.' I particularly appreciate Carter's return to Plains and his woodshop instead of relocation to NYC.
Even if disgraced and driven from office (i.e. Nixon), however, the dust from the White House can't just be shaken off one's shoes on the way out. Jimmy Carter as private citizen is just a 'different animal' than Jesse Jackson as private citizen--especially when treading on the turf of national government to national government diplomacy.
I am not saying he does not belong there. He does. It is just a question of how the presidents ought to continue to relate and exercise accountability to the people--both in agreement and when in disagreement.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 24, 2008 1:08 PM
It is just a question of how the presidents ought to continue to relate and exercise accountability to the people -- both in agreement and when in disagreement.
And that's precisely why Carter's meeting with Hamas should be interpreted in the proper context. He obviously sees something that for some reason the present administration cannot or refuses to see, I believe at its peril. It's one thing to commit to a certain policy; however, it's sheer foolishness to continue to do so when such policy clearly doesn't work for anyone -- and that reflects a lack of accountability to the people.
The wise man admits and learns from his mistakes and tries to correct them, and having read many of Carter's books I can tell you that he is a wise man. Why the Bush administration would not thus consult with him is a mystery to me unless it's because it knows that he won't tell it what it wants to hear.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 1:41 PM
I sort of don't like where this train of thought is going. If a former President can't talk to anyone he wants to when he wants to -- where does that lead us?
Carter couldn't promise much, since he no longer is in power and was not going as a State official. However, if Clinton wants to meet regularly with Tony Blair -- who am I to even guess at what they're talking about? Even if he wants to meet with someone who is an enemy -- should we limit that? Or read their emails back and forth?
I don't mind the public deciding if he is right or wrong for going. I don't even mind them thinking he's an idiot for going. But to forbid his going, that's a scary matter.
Posted by: frankie | April 24, 2008 2:21 PM
"Even then, he is acting as a card-carrying citizen of the one-world humanist alliance."
Please elaborate, with references or links that furnish information on this alliance.
Posted by: carl copas | April 24, 2008 2:27 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 1:41 PM
"Why the Bush administration would not thus consult with him is a mystery to me unless it's because it knows that he won't tell it what it wants to hear."
Bingo.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 24, 2008 2:45 PM
Olmert: Bush And Sharon Had Secret Deal To Expand West Bank
A letter that President Bush personally delivered to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon four years ago has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president's efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians during his last year in office.
Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush's letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush's peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank. In an interview this week, Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed this understanding in a secret agreement reached between Israel and the United States in the spring of 2005, just before Israel withdrew from Gaza.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303128_pf.html
Bush/Cheney is a two faced administration.
After nearly 8 years of double dealing, deception and unashamed lying, is it any surprise no one trusts the Bush junta anymore?
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 3:14 PM
Elder Skelder
"Well, not exactly. Even then, he is acting as a card-carrying citizen of the one-world humanist alliance. "
Explain what you mean, please--you seem to be saying that Habitat for Humanity is evil for some reason...a characterization I doubt the thousands who have homes through this organization would agree with.
Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2008 3:32 PM
Moderatelad--here's the official word from the Carter Center website:
"President Carter has the greatest respect for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and believes her to be a truthful person. However, perhaps inadvertently, she is continuing to make a statement that is not true. No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President Assad or leaders of Hamas."
Sounds like a failuh to communicate, but saying he is calling her a liar is a bit of a harsh characterization of what he actually said, especially when he clearly made an effort not to say that.
Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2008 3:50 PM
"Jesus healed a Roman centurian's servant. The Jewish powers-that-be surely saw that as an afront to their authority. Imagine! Jesus showing love to an enemy of Israel!"
What are you talking about? The Jewish elders were the ones who pleaded for Jesus to intervene, so good was the Centurion to the Jewish people.
"I really do not see excuse for the President and ex-Presidents to be operating out of different playbooks."
How about the constitution? We have term limits for a reason. If America wants a president who honors Yassir Arafat and equivocates in the face of terrorism, they will elect him. Carter can still run for another term, if he likes, though everything about Barack Obama suggests that such a campaign would be redundant.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 24, 2008 4:55 PM
Sorry, Kevin--I admit I didnt look up the verse before I used it as an example. However, the point that Jesus treated the enemies of the Jewish people--people who no good Jew would associate with--with love and compassion still stands.
Posted by: squeaky | April 24, 2008 5:06 PM
If America wants a president who honors Yassir Arafat and equivocates in the face of terrorism, they will elect him.
Uh -- we've had presidents that actually supported "terrorism" when doing so would enhance the administration's foreign policy. Let's start with Ronald Reagan and apartheid in South Africa; no one save Cold Warriors believed it was anything less. Let's not forget that we also supported Saddam Hussein and in fact armed him because of that war with Iran.
Besides, Hamas (as I have stated before) was formed as a counterweight to Arafat.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 5:16 PM
Frankie: "As I recall, Carter let Jesse Jackson go to Iran to try to release the hostages during his administration."
Actually, I think Jackson went to Lebanon during the Reagan era without Reagan's permission, and it was effective. I believe it was Andrew Young who went during the Carter Administration.
If i've got this all turned around tell me.
Posted by: I and I | April 24, 2008 5:19 PM
"What are we doing in Iraq if we are not fighting to establish a democracy?"
We are fighting to establish a stable and free society. Kevin S.
And what if, as the last 3,000 years have demonstrated, the Iraqis aren't really interested in your stable and free society, Kevin? Will you leave them to self-determination?
No, of course not. Why not? B/c you want their oil, the only context for giving a rat's patootie about a stable and free society?
How about a stable and free society for Darfur? Zimbabwe? Somalia?
What, in the mind of the USA, makes Iraq's need for a stable and free society any more pressing than any of these other nations'?
The answer is obvious for those who choose to see the truth.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 24, 2008 5:26 PM
Actually, I think Jackson went to Lebanon during the Reagan era without Reagan's permission, and it was effective. I believe it was Andrew Young who went during the Carter Administration.
Jackson, if I remember correctly, went to Libya to rescue a soldier. During the Carter years Young did speak to the Palestinians or advocated doing so; however, at the time he was the U.S. ambassador to the UN and was subsequently fired from that post because it did go against the stated policy at that time.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 5:35 PM
I'll be impressed with Carter's mission to Hamas if they actually follow through with an acceptance of a 2-state solution and recognize Israel's right to exist. From what I remember from Jimmy Carter's presidency he could get promises from other world leaders, but rarely did he get true action (like he did with Egypt and Israel).
Posted by: instructor29 | April 24, 2008 5:47 PM
What, in the mind of the USA, makes Iraq's need for a stable and free society any more pressing than any of these other nations'?
MORE OIL!
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 5:48 PM
I'll be impressed with Carter's mission to Hamas if they actually follow through with an acceptance of a 2-state solution and recognize Israel's right to exist. From what I remember from Jimmy Carter's presidency he could get promises from other world leaders, but rarely did he get true action (like he did with Egypt and Israel).
Posted by: instructor29 | April 24, 2008 5:49 PM
"But when you are out of office and your agenda is to make sure that a Republican does not win the White House for the next four years. You will do anything to make the current adm look bad so that you look good."
In regard to this view of Carter's agenda it is clear that no effort is necessary by Carter or worth the time and energy. He could just sit back and eat peanuts. The Bush administration takes care of the art of looking bad every day. Their primary attribute is looking bad and they succeed by seizing every opportunity to solidify that legacy.
Posted by: Earl Troglin | April 24, 2008 6:01 PM
Jimmy Carter is entirely qualified, as a former president, to meet with Hamas, etc., in the effort to bring about the discussions vital to reducing the bloodshed in the Middle East. (Note: He is certainly not the first former president to act in this capacity.) As a Christian who has the means to do this, he also has a moral obligation to do whatever he can to help reduce the bloodshed.
The simple truth is, American government has lost credibility in the eyes of the world. Even (former) allies, such as Britain and Russia, have grown throughly disgusted with the Bush administration. You are unlikely to find a single nation that trusts the US today, making it impossible for anyone in the Bush administration to succeed in any diplomatic efforts, whether on behalf of the US or any other nation. But Carter does have an international reputation of honesty and integrity.
Unlike anyone in the Bush administration, Carter does, indeed, have a long, often successful, record of working with the leaders of Mideastern nations to resolve or prevent conflict. Unlike anyone in the Bush administration, Carter
has proved to be able to bring opposing parties together to negotiate the issues that result in bloodshed. There is simply nothing on record to indicate that any of the leading people in the Bush administration are interested in, or capable of, such diplomacy.
On his economic record (which has nothing to do with the current issue, but is sometimes brought up, anyway), I can say that while we were dealing with inflation that began taking hold before Carter became president, we had nothing like the extreme economic disparities/poverty that we see in the US today. As high as gas prices shot up, it was not as extreme as it is today. Back then, the minimum wage did cover basic needs, and it was much easier to quickly find a job, and to get ahead. There was some deficit spending, but nothing like the deficit spending of Reagan -- and, of course, the current president broke all records for running the country into debt.
Let's get our priorities straight. The focus has got to be on ending the slaughter in the Mideast, and it doesn't matter who can do this, only that someone is willing and able to try.
Posted by: DHFabian | April 24, 2008 6:03 PM
Are we forgetting the last time Carter went on a peace mission not supported by the then current Clinton Admin. He negotiated a deal with the N. Koreans that everyone knew was not going to hold up. This put Clinton in a box to take the deal. If this trip emboldens Carter, I am more concerned with what he might do in the future that might put a Dem. President in a tight spot. I am no fan of Clinton, but I think Carter screwed him over on N. Korea.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 24, 2008 6:35 PM
Posted by: Earl Troglin | April 24, 2008 6:01 PM
As the above poster said it so well and I had forgotten. Carter really did a number on the US and the world with his dealing with North Korea.
Carter's personality type is that of an analytical. There make the worst decidion makers. Their need for all the facts and testing all possible avenues cause them to stale mate. As an elderstatesman that would talk to leaders when they come to visit in GA - I believe that he would be interesting to listen to and even learn.
Doing what he did with North Korea and Hamas just proves that he should not be given a forum. His comments to Hamas and now the world about the character of Rice is unexcusable. I know - for many on this site it was dead on - whatever. I do not remember any Republican doing what Carter has done during his Adm or even during the Clinton Adm. Well - I believe that gloves are off and it will be interesting to see what is done if and when the Dem's take the White House.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 24, 2008 8:19 PM
Jeff, you've been reading right wing revisionist history.
Read this excerpt from Rolling Blunder:
How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes. By Fred Kaplan (a conservative, by the way)
...Clinton's cabinet was divided over whether to let Carter go. Officials who had served under Carter--Clinton's secretary of state, Warren Christopher, and national security adviser, Anthony Lake--opposed the trip. Carter, they warned, was a loose cannon who would ignore his orders and free-lance a deal. Vice President Al Gore favored the trip, seeing no other way out of the crisis. Clinton sided with Gore. As Clinton saw it, Kim Il Sung had painted himself into a corner and needed an escape hatch--a clear path to back away from the brink without losing face, without appearing to buckle under pressure from the U.S. government. Carter might offer that hatch.
Both sides in this internal debate turned out to be right. Kim agreed to back down. And Carter went way beyond his instructions, negotiating the outlines of a treaty and announcing the terms live on CNN, notifying Clinton only minutes in advance.
Four months later, on Oct. 21, 1994, the United States and North Korea signed a formal accord based on those outlines, called the Agreed Framework. Under its terms, North Korea would renew its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, lock up the fuel rods, and let the IAEA inspectors back in to monitor the facility. In exchange, the United States, with financial backing from South Korea and Japan, would provide two light-water nuclear reactors for electricity (explicitly allowed under the NPT), a huge supply of fuel oil, and a pledge not to invade North Korea.
The accord also specified that, upon delivery of the first light-water reactor (the target date was 2003), intrusive inspections of suspected North Korean nuclear sites would begin. After the second reactor arrived, North Korea would ship its fuel rods out of the country. It would essentially give up the ability to build nuclear weapons.
Other sections of the accord--which were less publicized--pledged both sides to "move toward full normalization of political and economic relations." Within three months of its signing, the two countries were to lower trade barriers and install ambassadors in each other's capitals. The United States was also to "provide full assurances" that it would never use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against North Korea.
Initially, North Korea kept to its side of the bargain. The same cannot be said of our side. Since the accord was not a formal treaty, Congress did not have to ratify the terms, but it did balk on the financial commitment. So did South Korea. The light-water reactors were never funded. Steps toward normalization were never taken. In 1996, one of Pyongyang's spy submarines landed on South Korean shores; in reaction, Seoul suspended its share of energy assistance; Pyongyang retaliated with typically inflammatory rhetoric. Somewhere around this time, we now know, the regime also secretly started to export missile technology to Pakistan in exchange for Pakistani centrifuges.
Kaplan goes on to show how the Bush administration is responsible for North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons.
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 8:33 PM
Moderatelad: "I do not remember any Republican doing what Carter has done during his Adm or even during the Clinton Adm."
Well then you haven't been paying attention, ML.
Either that or you're too young to remember the Iran Contra affair.
You know, where the Republicans made a secret deal with Iran not to release our hostages to the Carter administration, to make Carter look bad and get Reagan elected.
That was treason, Moderatelad.
The perpetrators were pardoned.
Reagan couldn't remember anything.
But everyone knows what really happened in the Iran Contra Affair.
It's part of the public record.
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 8:41 PM
"The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties."
Just a little something from the U.S. Constitution which doesn't say a thing about ex-presidents having that power. It's very dangerous having two people trying to act in the same capacity.
Posted by: Cads | April 24, 2008 9:29 PM
"Let's not forget that we also supported Saddam Hussein and in fact armed him because of that war with Iran."-Rick
Osama bin Laden himself was supported when he was fighting communism in Afghanistan. Terror is a fluid concept. Terror is whatever the powers that be say it is. The "war on terror" is the biggest power usurpation in my lifetime. Thank you canuklehead for your broader perpective. As Jeremiah Wright might say "if you sow terrorism, don't be shocked and start singing "God Bless America" when those chickens come home to roost"
Another nonymous: I read your post and respect your attempt to justify Israel's existence as a sympathetic response to suffering. I do not agree that sympathy for suffering is no reason to disposess hundreds of thousands of persons. You stated that there are some elements of racism in Zionism. Would you please show me what elements are and are not. I asked for someone to defend Israel's existence in something other than racist terminology and you have responded with the "moral superiority through suffering" line of reason. Thanks for trying, but I struggle to see the connection. I would give greater consideration if you could back the reasoning up biblically.
Pastor Jeff (apologies canuklehead- but there's another Jeff in the thread)
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 24, 2008 9:39 PM
If Carter was actually making a treaty with Hamas, you might have a point there, Cads.
But he isn't, is he?
Carter just went over there to talk to Hamas.
How does that violate the Constitution?
It doesn't.
Bush has zero credibility as an honest broker of peace in Palestine.
Bush couldn't make peace even if he wanted to.
He's a War President.
So does this mean no one else should try to bring the parties together?
Of course not.
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 9:48 PM
"Either that or you're too young to remember the Iran Contra affair.
You know, where the Republicans made a secret deal with Iran not to release our hostages to the Carter administration, to make Carter look bad and get Reagan elected."
I'm too young to remember Iran-Contra, but my understanding was it was about selling arms to Iran and funneling the profits to the Contras.
"But everyone knows what really happened in the Iran Contra Affair.
It's part of the public record."
Who's everyone? I did a brief search on the internet and didn't find any credible evidence to suggest that there was a secret deal between Iran and candidate Reagan. I thought Congress investigated those very allegations and determined they were unsubstantiated. I'd be interested to learn more though, maybe you could direct me to the public record.
Posted by: J. P. | April 24, 2008 9:56 PM
PJ: "I did a brief search on the internet and didn't find any credible evidence to suggest that there was a secret deal between Iran and candidate Reagan. I thought Congress investigated those very allegations and determined they were unsubstantiated."
Congress whitewashed their investigation of the 'October Surprise conspiracy'.
Witness, Former Reagan-Bush Campaign and White House Staffer Barbara Honegger:
Barbara Honegger was a member of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign team and Reagan White House policy analyst. Since 1995, she's been Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School,(1995−present). After the 1980 election, Honegger headed Reagan's gender discrimination agency review before resigning in August, 1983. While working for Reagan she discovered information that made her believe that George H. W. Bush and William Casey had conspired to assure that Iran would not free the U.S. hostages until Jimmy Carter had been defeated in the 1980 presidential election, and she alleges that arms sales to Iran were a part of that bargain.
Witness, Former Iranian President Bani-Sadr:
Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, first elected President of Iran after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, claimed in a December 17, 1992 letter to the U.S. Congress, that he had first learned of the Republican "secret deal" in July 1980 after Reza Passendideh, a nephew of Khomeini, attended a meeting with Cyrus Hashemi and Republican lawyer Stanley Pottinger in Madrid on July 2, 1980. Though Passendideh was supposed to return with a proposal from the Carter administration, Bani-Sadr said Passendideh proffered instead a plan "from the Reagan camp." "Passendideh told me that if I do not accept this proposal, they [the Republicans] would make the same offer to my [radical Iranian] rivals. He further said that they [the Republicans] have enormous influence in the CIA. ... Lastly, he told me my refusal of their offer would result in my elimination." Bani-Sadr said he resisted the threats and sought an immediate release of the American hostages. But Bani-Sadr said Khomeini, the wily Islamic leader, was playing both sides of the U.S. street. Bani Sadr has stated elsewhere that,
"It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president."
Kevin Phillips deals with the 'October Surprise' conspiracy in his book American Dynasty.
Ernest Backes' revelations:
Banker Ernest Backes from Clearstream (Luxembourg) claimed he was in charge of the transfer of 7 million $ from Chase Manhattan Bank and Citibank, January 16, 1980, to pay for the liberation of the hostages. He gave copies of the files to the National French Assembly.
Journalist Robert Parry has written the most detailed account of the 'October Surprise Conspiracy'. Check out:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html
The Original Eight-Part Series -- 'October Surprise X-Files'
The Russian Report
What the KGB knew about the October Surprise mystery, but the American people didn't. (12-11-95)
The Ladies Room Secrets
How historic secrets about this political era were recovered from a remote Capitol Hill wash room. (12-21-95)
Bill Casey's Iranian
What FBI wiretaps captured about secret payments from BCCI and a Bush-connected lawyer to an Iranian "double-agent."(12-31-95)
Follow the Money
How some of the world's most secretive and powerful players joined forces to fix the pivotal 1980 election. (1-15-96)
Saddam's 'Green Light'
What a "top secret" report reveals about the origins of the bloody Iran-Iraq War. (1-31-96)
Where's Bill Casey?
How the national news media and Congress "debunked" the October Surprise allegations by adopting bogus alibis for Bill Casey. (2-14-96)
Bush & a CIA Power Play
What CIA veterans and former CIA director George Bush did to regain The White House in the 1980s. (2-29-96)
Lies Spun into History
How absurd alibis became part of the October Surprise historical record. (3-14-96)
More Recent Updates
Henry Hyde: Mr. Cover-up
The death of ex-Congressman Henry Hyde is drawing fond eulogies from both sides of the political aisle and across Official Washington. But no attention is being paid to Hyde's crucial role in covering up the worst political crimes of the Reagan-Bush era. November 30, 2007
The Original October Surprise
Both Republicans and Democrats are fretting about the prospect of an "October Surprise" that might hurt them in the last days of Election 2006. But perhaps no "October Surprise" has been more mysterious or more influential than the one in 1980 that -- with the help of George H.W. Bush -- gave the concept its name. Arguably, the 1980 "October Surprise," which involved secret contacts with Iran, launched the modern era of Republican dominance. October 25, 2006
Original October Surprise (Part 2)
Part 2 of our series on the "Original October Surprise" of 1980 focuses on the role of banker David Rockefeller and his collaboration with Republicans during the Iranian hostage crisis. That national humiliation, which played out over 444 days, doomed Jimmy Carter's presidency and helped open the door to the modern era of GOP dominance. October 27, 2006
Original October Surprise (Part 3)
Part 3 of our series on the "Original October Surprise" of 1980 addresses the troubling question of whether disgruntled CIA officers collaborated with their former boss, George H.W. Bush, to sabotage President Jimmy Carter's Iran-hostage negotiations -- and thus changed the course of U.S. political history. October 28, 2006
Enjoy.
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 10:32 PM
Moderatelad: "Carter's personality type is that of an analytical. There make the worst decidion makers."
We've had almost 8 years of decisions made in Bush's gut and it's been a disaster.
justintime, I'm usually on your side with these things, but you're conflating two separate historical incidents. One was the deal that Reagan and co. allegedly made with the Iranians during the campaign of 1980. There is some pretty persuasive circumstantial evidence that such a deal was made. But there is as of yet no smoking gun to prove such.
The other was the arms for hostages project that Reagan and co. attempted in the mid-80s, and which became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Journalist Theodore Draper wrote an exhaustive and insightful account of that one.
Posted by: carl copas | April 24, 2008 10:33 PM
"If Carter was actually making a treaty with Hamas, you might have a point there, Cads.
But he isn't, is he?" - justintime
trea·ty – noun, plural -ties. 1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.
If you believe ex-president Carter wasn't trying to do this very thing with Hamas, then there's no reasoning with you. The Constitution specifically gives this power to the sitting U.S. President, not to former presidents. Mr. Carter should realize his time has passed and respect the Constitution he once promised to defend.
Posted by: Cads | April 24, 2008 10:39 PM
Carl's right.
I should have referred to this as 'The October Surprise Conspiracy'. It has similar elements as the Iran-Contra affair, but earlier.
I posted references to this for PJ, but I think the post was held back for its excessive length.
Here's a shorter version:
Congress whitewashed their investigation of the 'October Surprise Conspiracy'.
Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, first elected President of Iran after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, claimed in a December 17, 1992 letter to the U.S. Congress, that he had first learned of the Republican "secret deal" in July 1980 after Reza Passendideh, a nephew of Khomeini, attended a meeting with Cyrus Hashemi and Republican lawyer Stanley Pottinger in Madrid on July 2, 1980. Though Passendideh was supposed to return with a proposal from the Carter administration, Bani-Sadr said Passendideh proffered instead a plan "from the Reagan camp." "Passendideh told me that if I do not accept this proposal, they [the Republicans] would make the same offer to my [radical Iranian] rivals. He further said that they [the Republicans] have enormous influence in the CIA. ... Lastly, he told me my refusal of their offer would result in my elimination." Bani-Sadr said he resisted the threats and sought an immediate release of the American hostages. But Bani-Sadr said Khomeini, the wily Islamic leader, was playing both sides of the U.S. street. Bani Sadr has stated elsewhere that,
"It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president."
Kevin Phillips deals with the 'October Surprise' conspiracy in his book 'American Dynasty'.
Journalist Robert Parry has written the most detailed account of the 'October Surprise Conspiracy'. Check out:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 10:44 PM
I would note, for the purpose of understanding what is going on in the middle east, that the conflict between Israel & the descendants of Ishmael has been going on since Genesis (in ch. 16 v. 12 it is said that "[Ishamel] will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.") God promised Abraham that he would make Ishmael into a great nation (Gen. 17:20), but He would establish His covenant with Isaac (Gen 17:21). With this history, why should we be surprised that there is conflict in the middle east? Did not God say that he would grow both of Abraham's sons into nations & that Ishmael would be in conflict with those around him?
...And, yet, perhaps more profound is that it says that "with your blood you purchased men for God from EVERY tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9, emphasis added). And again in Revelation 7:9: "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from EVERY nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands." (emphasis mine). This means there will be descendants of Ishmael that choose to follow Christ. There will be Palestinians (& Israelis) in heaven...as well as people from every other nation, tribe, people & language.
Any of us who stand there, wearing white, in front of the throne of the Lamb will be there only because Jesus purchased us with His blood.
So many of the comments on this blog seem to be in the interest of determining who is "right" & who is "wrong". However, the Bible says that "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (1 Corinthians 8:1). It seems that we would do best to stop "biting & devouring one another" (lest we be destroyed by one another - see Galatians 5:15). If we - as individuals & as nations - are to be transformed, it will be because of what Jesus has done for us. He died for our sins, He was buried & He rose again & appeared to His disciples & many others (1 Cor. 15:3-7). He came that we might have life (John 10:10). "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17).
Jesus calls us to "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything [He has] commanded [us]" (Matthew 28:19-20). Let's get on with the work of His kingdom...He's the one who can transform our world!
"Our battle is not against flesh & blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12). Let's "[take] up the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests" (Ephesians 6:17-18). Jesus & His Spirit can & will transform this world. Everything else - debate, politics, public policy, etc. - may be mediums which He can use, but will never, in & of themselves, bring about the change we wish to see. May we not forget. "Let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:1-2). Lord, transform us & renew our minds. In Jesus' name - Amen.
Posted by: ChangedbyJesus | April 24, 2008 10:47 PM
trea·ty – noun, plural -ties. 1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.
The key words in the definition are formal agreement, Cads.
Did Carter make a formal agreement?
I don't think so.
He doesn't have the authority anyway.
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 10:53 PM
Justintime,
So your saying Carter hung Clinton out to dry so he could grandstand as a great peacemaker. Carter is more dangerous to a democrat president who can not easily dismiss him. Maybe if he went through the proper channels, instead of going on CNN, we could have had a workable deal.
I'm old enough to remember this time in history without reading as you say "right wing revisionist history" (don't know if thats a dig at me or just the right wing in general, but uncalled for). On the outset pundits from right and left were dubious of the plan and critical of Carter's behavior. The bottom line is Carter was more concerned with his own image than the Presidents image and mission.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 24, 2008 10:54 PM
"So your saying Carter hung Clinton out to dry so he could grandstand as a great peacemaker."
I didn't say that, you did.
And the rest is pure speculation on your part.
Posted by: justintime | April 24, 2008 10:58 PM
Carter is more dangerous to a democrat president who can not easily dismiss him.
I doubt that. Most Democrats would at least listen to him and likely push different policies than Bush does now.
The bottom line is Carter was more concerned with his own image than the Presidents image and mission.
At his age, I doubt that.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 24, 2008 11:05 PM
So you don't believe Carter was disrespectful to our president (Clinton) by grandstanding on CNN?
Posted by: Jeff | April 24, 2008 11:05 PM
"Sorry, Kevin--I admit I didnt look up the verse before I used it as an example. However, the point that Jesus treated the enemies of the Jewish people--people who no good Jew would associate with--with love and compassion still stands."
Jimmy Carter didn't meet with Israeli prostitutes to argue for better treatment under their law (and, if you were a prostitute, would you rather face an Israeli or Palestinian court?). I see no evidence that Jesus was interested in compromising with those who murdered the Jewish people.
Squeaky, consider, for one moment, the possibility that Carter might not have been doing the right thing.
Posted by: Kevin s. | April 24, 2008 11:44 PM
"So you don't believe Carter was disrespectful to our president (Clinton) by grandstanding on CNN?"
No.
Does Bill Clinton think so?
Posted by: justintime | April 25, 2008 12:14 AM
"Blessed are the peacemakers, except, of course, where it conflicts with U.S. political protocol."
-Jesus
Posted by: canucklehead | April 25, 2008 1:52 AM
"Did Carter make a formal agreement?
I don't think so.
He doesn't have the authority anyway." - justintime
I like the point you made - - without any authority, what was it he was trying to accomplish other than to stir up trouble for the sitting president who has that authority? Look, I'm not enamored in any way with Bush's Middle East policy, but it was unethical for Carter to do what he did. Ex-presidents have an obligation, more than anyone else, to show respect to the office they once held. Since he left office, he's never learned the proper protocol involved in dealing with our enemies. He's certainly set a bad precedent for future ex-presidents.
Posted by: Cads | April 25, 2008 2:39 AM