Will Jimmy Carter meet with Hamas officials, in Syria, by the end of April, 2008?

Nigel, where did your "poop on this question" comment go? I saw it for a few seconds, then it was gone?

Carter is a fantastic person with good intentions, positive abilities, and powerful insights for peace. So different from the idiot now in charge who has made the whole region (and America) worse for his stupidity and decisions!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

ladylara is quite right, imho, regarding Carter.
he is really good at peace.
he stinks at war.
and this is a good sign.
and maybe, yes, we are on a road to hell (erik).
but I'd like to try anything to avert that, wouldn't you. Anything?

Not give legitamacy and grand propaganda fodder to Hamas by having media, the world over, showing them meeting with a past U.S. president. It would do much more harm than good. Even his fellow democrats are pleading with him not to do it.

Carter, as a past US President, has had to mix it up with many unsavory characters. He, although a private citizen, has traveled far and wide to promote and monitor fair elections. He is considered an honest broker by most leaders (legit or otherwise) throughout the world.
If this elder statesman thinks he can ease the tension in that part of the world, (and he has some credentials there), then I say let him try. If he fails, or if Hamas tries to capitalize on it in a rogue way, then we can pressure him not to try again. But, after the mess we got with Bush-Rice, I think we need to pull out all the stops, and give peace a chance.
I agree with Erik that the event could tend to give Hamas 'credibility', and that would be a problem. But if that 'credibility' was bought by some dramatic departure from the status quo (ie., 'declare peace with Israel'), it could at least provide an opening for a larger peace.

If they do come to terms, Carter is also good at announcing failures. (has had a lot of experience with that too.) So, in all, I don't think Carter would be doing this if he didn't already have a game plan, and support from local leaders.

Anything to avert war? Definately not. I cherish my freedom and country too much. Throughout history, protectionism and appeasement generally result in catastrophe. Neville Chamberlain readily comes to mind.

*If they don't come to terms, Carter ...

Declare peace with Israel???? How many times have they stated that their goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth?

And how many times have other more organized, more militarized factions, said the same thing? I'm talking world history. Not just that area.
Saber rattling is an early trumpet for peace. Would we rather reach peace through dialog, or through all out war? I'd rather try anything to avert war, because once war is chosen, peace takes a long holiday.
I cherish my freedom and country as well. I've fought for it. Having experienced the alternative, I say let Carter do what Carter does, and pray he comes up with something closer to peace.

It is most likely true that Carter is a good person with good intentions and for those character traits he is worthy of praise. However, he is also one of the most naive Presidents we have ever had. Erik's comment is right on the mark regarding the damaging effects of this ill-conceived adventure. When a former President communicates with terrorists it serves not only to dramatically increase the terrorists' prestige, and thus their recruiting and financing efforts, but also seriously undermines the foreign policy endeavors of the nation as a whole. This is so blatantly obvious it disturbs me to think this concept has not crossed our ex-President's mind. It follows that one or both of two situations exists: 1) he is too naive to understand what he is doing and is thus ill-equipped to be conducting shadow foreign policy to begin with, and/or 2) he doesn't care and is doing it for some measure of self-aggrandisement. Neither consideration is worthy of respect. If the party roles were reversed I would look upon the Republican with equal disdain. There are certain actions that simply should not be undertaken.

everyone is entitled to their opinion, nigel. come on back, bro. "poop" wherever u like. :-)

and to those carter worshipers, benedict arnold did great things before *his* treachery too. had he not accompanied ethan allen into the woods in ny, its likely they would not have captured the cannon at fort ticonderoga. without those cannon, many subsequent and necessary continental victories would have been made impossible. my point being that mr arnold was a HERO...until he crossed the line.

Your message is clear markov. I agree that is not a good precedent to set with Hamas.
But then you'd have to disrespect Reagan's dealings with the Ayatollah (for weapons for pete's sake),
Bush (both 41 and 43) for their 'close relationship' with the Saudi royals, and the Bin Laden family (business dealings within the Carlysle Group). At least Carter won't trade weapons with them. But, if I had to chose one of your options, I'd have to chose #1) naivity. I don't think he cotinues to do what he does for self-agrandizement.

Absolutely right dan_the_omniscient! Arnold was legitimately a hero of the Revolution in the beginning. Brave, tactically adept, and grievously wounded for his country. Subsequently, he was screwed over by local politicians in Pennsylvania and his public standing deteriorated to the breaking point. This is indeed when he crossed the line from hero to traitor, likely seeking a combination of revenge and a return to greatness, unfortunately for the other side. In the end, he was held in deep contempt by both sides. The blade of the needy ego cuts both ways and fogs the judgment.

Markov, if we had sig's mine would be "The blade of the needy ego cuts both ways and fogs the judgment." Absolutely prefect!!

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

indeed. so how about restoring my question now?

^^^ second sentence should have been a new paragraph. i didnt mean to imply anything, as it is written.

History is still out on most recent US Presidents. Including Carter.
How will our great-grandchildren rate our current line of Presidents?
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43).

If you line 'em all up, ...
who are the warmongers?
who are the Peacemakers?

To me, history will reserve a very special place for Jimmy Carter.

appeaser?

If appeasing leads to a lasting peace, I'm sure Jimmy wouldn't mind.

You've got to remember the history in the region. Most American's haven't considered what the fuss is about over there from the Arab side. And while I don't condone it, in fact I fear it, the Wahhabi implementations of 'DHIMMITUDE' throughout history, IS fundamental to the problem.

Google DHIMMITUDE, and read about the concept. It's very informative, and gives a perspective to the problem that is not covered in mainstream press.

How will it ever be overcome? I don't know. But if Carter thinks he can unwind some very tight knots, I say let him get it a try. After all, it is HIS legacy. And, as far as shadow diplomacy is concerned ... has happened throughout history. Sometimes, that's the way to figure out how a deal can be done. It's the way of the world. Certainly can't blame Carter for his efforts to save future lives. And btw, what is it that he can trade, anyway? It's not like he can decide to surrender. I don't believe he has the blueprints for any military secrets he can give away, like Arnold.

cognos, I am as troubled as you are by certain of the Reagan and Bush dealings you mention. However, as far as I know, none of the situations you mentioned ran counter to the foreign policy of another sitting President. This is a profound distinction. Nonetheless, your point is well taken. Poor judgment is the sole province of neither party, though degree and frequency is worthy of note with particular individuals.

Thanks, Ryan.

"If appeasing leads to a lasting peace..."

does it? history answers this question clearly.

Members of both parties, their business associates, family, friends and foes, have always tried to use whatever 'influence' they may have to further their causes. Whether those causes have the consent of the President, or not, they continue to pursue those causes. Some use that influence to rig business markets. Some use that influence gain political favor (favour for our Brit Cousins), to be used in some future negotiation. Whatever their causes, public or private, the continue to pursue their cause.

In most, if not all, of Carter's 'wanderings', whether during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush years, have been devoted to either oversight of foreign elections (with or without said governments explicit permission), or in Peacemaking endeavors.

I applaud him. He helped to bring Eygpt and Israel to a lasting (if sometime stressed) peace. He was there to help Israel and Jordan on the path to peace. He's helped many African and South American Countries develop and implement democratic reforms, especially in the area of voting rights. I think his record should be reviewed in regard to the Damascus trip. Who is better qualified? I love Cowboys, but I think in this case, a peanut farmer will do just fine.

Jimmy Carter: Our best worst president.

How's about this for naivety, I actually believed that Carter would not meet with Hamas and voted "no." This morning I had to cash in. Sheesh. I don't follow the ole peanut [gallery] farmer, but has he met with bin laden yet? Seriously, is Carter the guy forwarding the tapes to the press?
Sad.

perhaps. but surely u agree that building houses for poor ppl washes clean any amount of past, present and future subversiveness? ::)

Absolutely.
Because people have a right to own a home, it's in the consitution, look it up.
See also: government bailout of fraudulent mortgages.

tickle_me_economy,

Re:government bailout of fraudulent mortgages

Is that the deal our selfless benefactors in Congress came up with that rewards the greedy bastards that blew up the real estate and credit markets while simultaneously making the foreclosure option more attractive to the unscrupulous lenders?

Bwah!

It's not a done deal. Last I heard Dubya was saying he did not support such a measure (though not saying he wouldn't veto it).

[in Skwisgaar from Metalocalypse voice]: Yay! Fun with election times, kids!

notice that some Hama officials are on their way to meet Carter in Egypt....but this would not satisfy the question, since it referred to a meeting in Syria...right?

If no meetings take place in Syria, then Jimmy will not meet Hamas leaders in Syria, meaning the answer to whether or not he will meet leaders in Syria will be "No". Just a guess.

Ryan?

= )

still supposed to meet in Syria this Friday.

I read today that Hamas presented Carter with a nice gift: http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2945

Hey steph,

If he doesn't meet with Hamas officials in Syria then this settles as a no. The market asks if he will meet with them in Syria if he doesn't half of the market hasn't come true, therefore none of it comes true.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

Carter met with their leader in exile today in Damascus, Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351794,00.html

For those who may believe Carter's activities DO NOT undermine U.S. foreign policy and embolden terrorists, the following portions of the above referenced article may shed some light:

- "Political isolation by the American administration has begun to crumble," Mohammed Nazzal, a top figure in Hamas' political bureau, told The Associated Press after Friday's meeting in Damascus.

- Carter, on what he has called a personal peace mission, is the most prominent American to hold talks with Mashaal, whose group claimed new legitimacy from the meetings with the Nobel laureate.

- Echoing criticism from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the trip, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack suggested Friday that Carter had opened himself up to "exploitation" by both Hamas and the Syrian government.

To those who foretold Carter's activities WOULD undermine U.S. foreign policy and embolden terrorists:
GOOD CALL - THANKS FOR THE WARNING!

Fox News- such an objective, well-centered information source... NOT!!! The exit opinions don't match the the quotes- You think Carter's activities undermine foreign policy based on his actions crumbling our political isolation? I read that as a positive! I think stubborn saber rattling and head-into sand-sticking are the negatives that undermine any foreign policy advances, and am glad Carter is trying to do what he can to correct these errors.

"In the final analysis, Jimmy Carter will be best remembered by history as a man whose time in and out of high public office was almost unblemished by success." - Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The Associated Press contributed to the Fox report.

If we speak with enough voices, maybe we can confuse them. Perhaps they (those who kill women and children with bombs planted on buses and in supermarkets) will think we condone their activities or lack the moral courage to confront them. That way they won't be ready for it when we come to kick their asses. I'm beginning to see the logic. Shame on me for my initially superficial analysis.

@erik: LMFAO

Perfect, and classic! Thanks

erik,

Ditto on what TOCM said! First reading (misread): DISBELIEF - Second reading: LMFAO.

@ Markov: I had to read it twice, as well... it is so fitting, i wasn't expecting it....Cheers!

ladylara, perhaps this bit of news from the Associated Press, quoting other Democrats, will seem a bit more objective, in your eyes: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iihUfGqvvx-3JR2f5A_1zmdK0cmgD901TQVO0