So? Will Jimmy Carter stop it already, NOW?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Carter-Hamas meeting achieved nothing: Palestinians (AFP)

Quote:

Last week's meeting between former US president Jimmy Carter and the exiled leader of Hamas militants did not produce any results, Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said here Wednesday.

"President Carter came to the region thinking he could achieve something. Unfortunately president Carter left without anything concrete," he told a conference in the Spanish capital.

"The only thing he achieved was permission on the part of Khaled Meshaal of Hamas to deliver a letter from a detained Israeli soldier to his family. Nothing else," he said.

"Hamas offered nothing to president Carter. They reiterated the same positions. There was no change on the part of Hamas," Malki added.

...

This doesn't mean that Carter got nothing out of it.

[madurobob]

yeah, how dare anyone care about peace and try to do something others haven't in order to achieve it. That bastard!

Honestly, has there ever been an ex-president as good, as tireless and as engaged as Carter? Certainly not in my nearly 5 decades on this rock.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Of course.

Peace.







Suitably redefined.

[madurobob]

I await your list of positive accomplishments of other ex-presidents for comparison purposes. Feel free to start with Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Carter.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Give me a list of positive accomplishments by Carter.

Anti-Israel propagandizing doesn't count.

[BPSCG]

I must confess, I believe that ex-President Carter is, in hardly any important respect, the significant inferior of President Carter.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Give me a list of positive accomplishments by Carter.

Anti-Israel propagandizing doesn't count.

How about Habitat for Humanity?

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Tricky

How about Habitat for Humanity?

Carter raised funds for that laudable institution, and donated time, but I'd counter that with Hoover's efforts on behalf of starving children after World War II. He also raised millions of dollars for the Boy & Girls Clubs of America. As far as post-presidential accomplishments go, Hoover is still the one to beat. (Clinton and Bush's efforts on behalf of tsunami victims is nothing to sneeze at either.)

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Give me a list of positive accomplishments by Carter.

Anti-Israel propagandizing doesn't count.

You mean besides the proof of Invisible Bigfoot?

Well, there is the afore mentioned Habitat for Humanity, he spent a LOT of time not only growing that effort internationally, but also actually swinging a hammer building houses. You can see all the "gee whiz" numbers on the website. This alone is more than most ex-presidents have done.

Then there is the carter Center, established to try to resolve international political conflict and to combat disease. They've driven the near-total eradication of Guinea Worm Disease. This is not simply a vanity library like every other president has in his name, this is a working Center that has had positive impacts worldwide.

He convinced Merck in 1987 to donate the drug Mectizan for as long as might be needed to control river blindness in Africa.

He has led teams of election monitors worldwide monitoring and reporting on election processes.

He was instrumental is arms control talks with the Soviet Union in the 80's

He founded The Atlanta Project to combat inner-city poverty in Atlanta

He negotiated the departure of Haiti's de facto leaders, preventing a US invasion

He negotiated a cease fire in Sudan to allow care workers to immunize children against polio and other diseases.

there is lots more, but I bore easily. Feel free to try to pick apart and spin the few I've listed here, rather than offer any comparable post-presidential accomplishments of any president in the past 100 years (Hoover noted).

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by marksman

Carter raised funds for that laudable institution, and donated time, but I'd counter that with Hoover's efforts on behalf of starving children after World War II. He also raised millions of dollars for the Boy & Girls Clubs of America. As far as post-presidential accomplishments go, Hoover is still the one to beat. (Clinton and Bush's efforts on behalf of tsunami victims is nothing to sneeze at either.)

Hmm... Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention much about them. He did remain politically active for many years, and certainly had some voice in Republican policy (not that this had much impact during the FDR years.) I'd still have to give Carter the nod over any other ex-presidents, though I freely admit that I am not a big history buff. Aside from their tsunami work, I can't tell that GHW Bush or Clinton did much of anything that wasn't self-serving after they left office, although I do seem to recall that Clinton had some input into the peace process in Northern Ireland.

I give Reagan a pass because he was already demented when he left office.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I give Reagan a pass because he was already demented when he left office.

Perhaps even well before then

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I'd still have to give Carter the nod over any other ex-presidents, though I freely admit that I am not a big history buff.

Hoover is definitely worth reading about. He may have been our most altruistic president. He was a great individual who also happened to be a lousy President.

Wiki briefly alludes to his post-WWII efforts:

On Hoover’s initiative, a school meals program in the U.S. and British occupation zones of Germany was begun on 14 April 1947. The program served 3.5 million children ages 6 through 18. A total of 40,000 tons of American food was made available during the Hooverspeisung (Hoover meals).

In Finland, his relief efforts after World War I (before he was President) caused the Finns to use the word "Hoover" as a verb to mean "acting altruistically". When the Mississippi flooded (that generation's Katrina), the local governors asked the President to place Hoover (who was then Treasury Secretary) in charge of relief efforts. Hoover's success was remarkable, not only because hardly anybody remembers the disaster any more, but he did it almost entirely by raising private funds in an amount that -- by today's standard with inflation -- has never been matched by any individual fundraising effort. Hoover's accomplishments earned him the sarcastic nickname "Wonder Boy" from then President Harding, who detested the "wunderkind" because his hyper-competence kept over-shadowing the President's own ineptitude.

Of course, most of his relief efforts were pre-Presidential. But his post-Presidency was fairly remarkable. Because he never wrote his memoirs (and was reviled generally as the President who got us into the Depression), people have never really looked at his actual accomplishments, and the press didn't report on them at the time. (Nobody wanted to hear what Herbert "Depression" Hoover was up to.)

[PAC]

Not many well known Americans are willing to suggest that our policies concerning Israel are flawed. Carter has had the stength, at considerable cost to himself, to suggest this. He is looking at a stalemate and saying let's try something different. I applaud his stength and guts. Perhaps he understands that one definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Guts? It costs him nothing.

What "considerable cost"? I call BS.

It costs him nothing to pretend he somehow has the authority to order the Israelis to commit suicide.

Pure ego, no results.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by marksman

Hoover is definitely worth reading about. He may have been our most altruistic president. He was a great individual who also happened to be a lousy President.

Wiki briefly alludes to his post-WWII efforts:

On Hoover’s initiative, a school meals program in the U.S. and British occupation zones of Germany was begun on 14 April 1947. The program served 3.5 million children ages 6 through 18. A total of 40,000 tons of American food was made available during the Hooverspeisung (Hoover meals).

In Finland, his relief efforts after World War I (before he was President) caused the Finns to use the word "Hoover" as a verb to mean "acting altruistically". When the Mississippi flooded (that generation's Katrina), the local governors asked the President to place Hoover (who was then Treasury Secretary) in charge of relief efforts. Hoover's success was remarkable, not only because hardly anybody remembers the disaster any more, but he did it almost entirely by raising private funds in an amount that -- by today's standard with inflation -- has never been matched by any individual fundraising effort. Hoover's accomplishments earned him the sarcastic nickname "Wonder Boy" from then President Harding, who detested the "wunderkind" because his hyper-competence kept over-shadowing the President's own ineptitude.

Of course, most of his relief efforts were pre-Presidential. But his post-Presidency was fairly remarkable. Because he never wrote his memoirs (and was reviled generally as the President who got us into the Depression), people have never really looked at his actual accomplishments, and the press didn't report on them at the time. (Nobody wanted to hear what Herbert "Depression" Hoover was up to.)

I will have to read more about him. If your portrayal is correct, it means that the two most altruistic presidents of the last century have been not very good at the job of being president. That's a pretty powerful statement on what it takes to be a good president. It would almost seem like altruism is a fatal flaw. And it is true that in my cynical adulthood, I no longer expect politicians to be nice guys. I expect them to get the things done that I want them to do.

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Guts? It costs him nothing.

What "considerable cost"? I call BS.

It costs him nothing to pretend he somehow has the authority to order the Israelis to commit suicide.

I agree it doesn't cost him considerably. But in a guts contest with criticism of Israel as the measure, he still has more than our current politicians.

Quote:

Pure ego, no results.

marsksman gave you eight results to start with.

[marksman]

That was madurobob, not I. I've been defending Hoover, not Carter, in this thread. Credit should go where it's due.

[Abdul Alhazred]

It costs him nothing. That is not guts.

"Criticism" of Israel? You mean promoting the "apartheid" blood libel?

I admit that a politician who was actually running for something might lose votes with the sort of pro-terrorist propaganda he's been spouting, but in his position all it means is some folks say nasty things about him.

Meanwhile, he's the toast of the European ruling class.

You want guts? Look at the Israelis.

BTW, going back to the OP. Why won't Hamas play?

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

I admit that a politician who was actually running for something might lose votes with the sort of pro-terrorist propaganda he's been spouting, but in his position all it means is some folks say nasty things about him.

That's what it costs him or has the potential of. Cost is subjective, perhaps he wants a legacy since his tenure as Prez sucked and that's why he's doing all this stuff.

Additionally a failure to negotiate in one situation may cost him cachet for the next. If he reasonably wants for others to pay attention to him, or for peace to reign, failures do cost him.

Quote:

Meanwhile, he's the toast of the European ruling class.

Yeah, maybe that's his only goal, to be the toast of the European ruling class. Maybe it's not.

Quote:

BTW, going back to the OP. Why won't Hamas play?

I didn't think that was a reason for the thread. But--because they're a militant organization that may not want peace, and/or Carter doesn't have enough power to persuade Israel or them to concede anything, and/or they have multiple other reasons. At least he's trying, which I give Bush credit for as well, and Clinton, and Rabin, and Arafat for a brief time, etc. There's plenty of reasons peace or even small steps can utterly fail. When multi-trillion $$ nations can't acheive anything, I'm not going to begrudge some dude from Georgia from trying. Or you, if you want to buy a ticket to Ramallah or Tel Aviv to broker peace I'll fully support you.

[PAC]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Guts? It costs him nothing.

What "considerable cost"? I call BS.

It costs him nothing to pretend he somehow has the authority to order the Israelis to commit suicide.

Pure ego, no results.

The considerable costs I am refering to are the lost relationships, both professional and personal. This includes the defection of some of his staff due to his stand on Israel's inflexibility. He now has reduced support from a number of groups. Just look at the policitical cartoons and his general standing in the public eye. The guts I am refering to is based on the strenght that is required to "buck" the current power structer. He could have easily gone on to other more politically correct
issues. He chose not to play it safe and is providing much needed leadership in an effort to get the Middle East peace process moving. Given our current unbending attitiude toward our support of Isreal, we are one of the largest stumbling blocks to seeing improved Middle East relations. Much of the
pressure we are now feeling from Islamic cultures is the result of their perception of our relationship with Israel. Bringing some peace and much more reasonable accomodations for other Middle Eastern cultures will definitely contribute to a more secure environment for America.

This is not to suggest that we sould "cave in" to Islamic pressure. It is, instead, suggesting that we need to re-examine our position, especially in a rapidly changing world environment. In many cases we are perceived to be (and probably are) the extremists, the danger to world peace.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Loss of relationships?

You mean people he pretended to get along with when it still mattered?

[The Painter]

Hey, come on now. Carter went to Haiti a couple of years ago to fix things. Look how great they are doing now!!!

I think Carter still thinks he is important somehow. The sad thing is, he's not.

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Loss of relationships?

You mean people he pretended to get along with when it still mattered?

Referring to his presidency? I'm still not sure what your (or others') issue with Carter is. Let's say it was Bono, or some rightist casual diplomat (examples escape me); would you be as critical?

And as Madruobob notes, he has had some accomplishments. Carter has done some good. I don't care if he's an ex-President or Mother Theresa or Paris Hilton. If an individual can achieve some positive results (or at worst, only neutral results) with limited tools, good for them.

[FarmallMTA]

Originally Posted by PAC

The considerable costs I am refering to are the lost relationships, both professional and personal. This includes the defection of some of his staff due to his stand on Israel's inflexibility. He now has reduced support from a number of groups. Just look at the policitical cartoons and his general standing in the public eye. The guts I am refering to is based on the strength that is required to "buck" the current power structer. He could have easily gone on to other more politically correct
issues. He chose not to play it safe and is providing much needed leadership in an effort to get the Middle East peace process moving. Given our current unbending attitiude toward our support of Isreal, we are one of the largest stumbling blocks to seeing improved Middle East relations. Much of the
pressure we are now feeling from Islamic cultures is the result of their perception of our relationship with Israel. Bringing some peace and much more reasonable accomodations for other Middle Eastern cultures will definitely contribute to a more secure environment for America.

This is not to suggest that we sould "cave in" to Islamic pressure. It is, instead, suggesting that we need to re-examine our position, especially in a rapidly changing world environment. In many cases we are perceived to be (and probably are) the extremists, the danger to world peace.

Jimmy Carter pursues the most leftist "solution" to all issues. While he beats his gums about river blindness and worms he has been notably silent on the malaria and other mosquito borne diseases worldwide. Why? Because a mere 5 seconds of reading up on that issue gives you the obvious solution that works with literally NO downside: DDT.

Yes, all you Rachel Carson's Silent Spring-ites, DDT is not only cheap, proven, safe, effective, and GOOD for the environment when prudently used, but is also capable of reducing to NEAR ZERO the deaths in Africa and elsewhere from mosquito-borne diseases almost IMMEDIATELY upon deployment.

Yet Carter utters nary a peep. Guts? Nope. Just no opportunity for smug left wing opportunism in that answer. So he's not interested.

Same thing with this latest junket to ass-kiss Hamas. He knows damn good and well that Hamas wants to wipe out Israel and Israelis, and cares for no other initiative but that. But he goes anyway and gets laudatory press from the appeasement wing of world opinion.

As usual, it's just all about Jimma'

[Abdul Alhazred]

Interesting point from Pyrrho. Remember him?

Originally Posted by Pyrrho, over THERE

Getting back to the OP...ex-Presidents such as Carter can carry diplomatic messages and consort with terrorists without acting on an official US government basis. So, let's say Bush wanted to send a candygram to the leader of Hamas--he can't send Condi Rice or anybody else in an official capacity. But, he can send Carter. Unofficially, of course, and nobody would suspect that Carter might be helping the sitting POTUS to float a trial balloon, etc.

Anyone here think that's it? That would certainly change things.

[linusrichard]

I hope if I ever achieve some success, and then afterwards, decide to devote my time to hobbies like building houses for people, eradicating disease, or convincing enemies to stop killing each other, I'll remember some of the comments from this thread, and realize that it's all just an attempt on my part to feed my bloated ego, and that even though I might still think I'm important somehow, the sad thing is, I'm not.

Acting on this realization will surely free up a lot of my time for something more worthwhile, like a stamp collection.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yes, heaven forbid someone TRY to change the world. That's CRAZY TALK.

[Wolfman]

I will submit that any truly altruistic individual -- particularly one who is more concerned about humanity as a whole, rather than specifically focusing on Americans -- will ultimately be judged by many Americans as a weak, incompetent President. Carter would be a more than adequate example of this. The role of the President is, after all, to pursue the interests of the United States first and foremost, even if it proves detrimental to other countries.

Make a list of the American Presidents that the majority of Americans would describe as "strong, decisive leaders", and I'd be willing to bet that the list would include Presidents who may have done much to benefit the U.S. -- but who largely ignored the rest of the world, except for in regards to their impact on the U.S.

Whereas a President who sees the U.S. as "just part of the larger world", and who makes their decisions based on "what is best for the world as a whole", as opposed to "what is best for the U.S.", will inevitably make decisions and enact policies that will have a negative impact on the American people themselves, and make that leader look weak and incompetent.

If we judge Carter by the measurement of being an effective President, I'd agree with assessments of him as weak, or incompetent. After all, he did not place the needs and priorities of the U.S. above those of other nations.

If we judge Carter as a man -- one not only with admirable values and morals, but who is willing to make significant sacrifices and efforts in support of those values and morals -- I would say that there are few Americans who come even close to him, ex-Presidents or not. In fact, without Carter, our world today would be significantly different, not only for the countless individuals who have benefited from efforts like Habitat for Humanity, but also on a larger scale through activities such as monitoring elections, and in effectively combating destructive diseases.

That does not make the man inerrant, and he has most definitely also engaged in more than a few misguided or ineffective efforts. I would count his current discussions with Hamas among this latter category. Carter has admirable goals and values, but I think sometimes he lets those blind him to larger realities.

So, in the end, he comes out like pretty much every other human on the planet -- flawed, and inconsistent. The only difference being that he, in his successes, has accomplished more to improve the lives of literally millions of human beings than most other people will ever even have the chance to do. And for all his flaws and failures, he surely deserves credit and recognition for that.

The United States may not be any better for having had Carter as its President; but the world in general is, in very measurable and distinct ways, a better place for having had him as its resident.

[Parsman]

Have to wonder about this OP. Carter seems to be trying to engage with both sides of this disoute and surely that is a neccessary pre-condition to ANY progress? Here in the UK, look at Northern ireland just over 10 years ago. It took talking to people whose philospophies and approach most decent human beings abhored before any progress towards peace could be achieved. So maybe you don't agree with Carter's approach. Maybe it didn't wotk this ttime. But surely any engagement has to be better than the many deaths on both sides that are occuring right now?

[PAC]

One other thought on this general subject. I would agree with some earlier comments that it would be difficult for a current US official to do much different in the pursuit of peace in this area of the world. It would be political suicide. Perhpas the spark that is needed to bring about some change would best be provided by leadership from people around the world who are not looking at their next election possibilities.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Yes, heaven forbid someone TRY to change the world. That's CRAZY TALK.

Change the world?

OK, eliminating Israel would definitely be a change.

[Abdul Alhazred]

If Carter is really for peace, why does he promote blood libel against Israel?

Carter is an old man. He wants to see Israel off before he dies.

But hell. That's what peace is, right?

[PAC]

Who is suggesting a lack of support for Israel? Personally, I have great admiration for Israel and Jewish populations the world over. My thoughts are based on the point that this situation is not an all or nothing, not who is right and who is wrong.

Parsman talks about the progress in Northern Ireland. Years ago I wondered if this could ever be resolved. Perhaps their is hope for the Middle East. But that hope will be realized only if all sides are able to begin to drop the inflexible stands they have created. We need to drop our extremes to have a chance at peace.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Anyone here think that's it? That would certainly change things.

How exactly would that "change things"?

FWIW, Carter said in an interview a few days ago that the contacted Condi Rice before he went on this trip. He spent most of the phone conversation with her chief deputy who conveyed the general message that they approved of the mission. It was only after he was there that the White House complained.

One could easily assume that the administration approved of the attempt, but had to publicly deny it for political reasons.

Still, I fail to see how this changes anything.

I'll also point out that there is no argument in this thread that Carter is the best ex-president ever in terms of leveraging the position to better the world. Bluster perhaps, but no argument. I'm still waiting to hear of the great accomplishments of other ex-presidents (OK, yes, I heard about Hoover).

[mr rosewater]

Part of this was in today's N.Y. Daily News, this guy doesn't think much of the former president.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...DQ0YWE=&w=MA==

A hint lies in the very organization he said he was representing on this trip, the Carter Center. His not-for-profit research and activist organization has prospered as a direct result of Arab largess. Saudi Arabia, the source of 15 of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11, and whose royal family has funded terrorism outside the kingdom, has channeled tens of millions of dollars into the Carter Center. In 1993 alone, the late King Fahd gifted $7.6 million. More recently, the King’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, donated at least $5 million. The Saudi Fund for Development is a recurring supporter, as is the family of Osama bin Laden.


Another million-dollar-plus backer is Sultan Qaboos sin Said, absolute monarch of Oman. Considerable financial support comes from the United Arab Emirates, and in 2001, Carter traveled there to receive the $500,000 Zayed International Prize for the Environment. In 2002, Carter praised the efforts of the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up, which has repeatedly hosted anti-Semitic speakers — these speakers have denied the Holocaust, supported terrorism, and asserted that there is an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists for world domination. The center has made the outlandish assertion that Zionists, rather than the Nazis, “were the people who killed the Jews in Europe” during the Holocaust and that a Jewish-American conspiracy perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Carter-Hamas meeting achieved nothing: Palestinians (AFP)



This doesn't mean that Carter got nothing out of it.

And no one got anything out of peace talks with the IRA, either.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

If Carter is really for peace, why does he promote blood libel against Israel?

Carter is an old man. He wants to see Israel off before he dies.

But hell. That's what peace is, right?

What blood libel has he promoted against Israel?

Why does holding peace talks mean you want one side destroyed?

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by mr rosewater

The center has made the outlandish assertion that Zionists, rather than the Nazis, “were the people who killed the Jews in Europe” during the Holocaust and that a Jewish-American conspiracy perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11.

Fail.

Originally Posted by mr rosewater

A hint lies in the very organization he said he was representing on this trip, the Carter Center. His not-for-profit research and activist organization has prospered as a direct result of Arab largess. Saudi Arabia, the source of 15 of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11, and whose royal family has funded terrorism outside the kingdom, has channeled tens of millions of dollars into the Carter Center.

Its funny how when the overflowing-with-cash Saudis support right-wing causes that they are simply rich folks supporting a worthy cause. When they support the Carter Center, however, they are terrorists.

Tell me, sir, just which party vehemently opposed and which generally supported the massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia just a couple of months ago? Now who is supporting terrorists?

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by FarmallMTA

Jimmy Carter pursues the most leftist "solution" to all issues. While he beats his gums about river blindness and worms he has been notably silent on the malaria and other mosquito borne diseases worldwide. Why? Because a mere 5 seconds of reading up on that issue gives you the obvious solution that works with literally NO downside: DDT.

Yes, all you Rachel Carson's Silent Spring-ites, DDT is not only cheap, proven, safe, effective, and GOOD for the environment when prudently used, but is also capable of reducing to NEAR ZERO the deaths in Africa and elsewhere from mosquito-borne diseases almost IMMEDIATELY upon deployment.

Yet Carter utters nary a peep. Guts? Nope. Just no opportunity for smug left wing opportunism in that answer. So he's not interested.

Same thing with this latest junket to ass-kiss Hamas. He knows damn good and well that Hamas wants to wipe out Israel and Israelis, and cares for no other initiative but that. But he goes anyway and gets laudatory press from the appeasement wing of world opinion.

As usual, it's just all about Jimma'

Tell that to the Peregrine Falcon.