TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › President Jimmy Carter at it again
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Jimmy Carter at it again

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Meeting with terrorists. How, utterly, disgusting and pathetic.
He is a traitor to his country IMO

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...e=domesticNews
post #2 of 27
Thread Starter 
I just cannot believe this. Now it has come out that Carter actually hugged a terrorist and went and laid a wreath on Arafat's grave.
Oh, he is on a roll now.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
post #3 of 27
Why can't you believe it?

He was an abject failure and a complete embarrassment as President.

He has always been quick to criticize Republican presidents who succeeded him. The fact that he called the Bush administration "the worst in history" is the greatest recorded example of the pot calling the kettle black.

For reasons known only to him, he has held anti-Israeli viewpoints and beliefs for years. And let's not forget his meeting (and handshake) with Fidel Castro and his other dalliances with "leaders" of ill repute, such as the current item in the news.

I can think of no other American president who has disgraced himself to such an extent since leaving office.
post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Meeting with terrorists. How, utterly, disgusting and pathetic.
He is a traitor to his country IMO

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...e=domesticNews
No more of a traitor than Jesus dining with tax collectors.
Don't buy the spin on this one - he actually answers to a higher God than his political rating so he has the courage to delve into the facts and consider carefully.
post #5 of 27
Thread Starter 
Cats, I don't know if Jesus would have met with the Roman Emperor while they were bombing Jerusalem. But I understand what you are saying.

But the facts, as I see them, are that Hamas wants to destroy Israel and nothing less than total annihilation will satisfy them.


RobertM, you got that right.
post #6 of 27
Since I don't live in that country and can only rely on news reports which one can believe or not, depending on which newspaper one reads, I'd be hesitant to out and out call him a traitor for liaising with any one particular group. There are always 2 sides to every story and it would be nice to hear both sides before making a decision or judgement.
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Since I don't live in that country and can only rely on news reports which one can believe or not, depending on which newspaper one reads, I'd be hesitant to out and out call him a traitor for liaising with any one particular group. There are always 2 sides to every story and it would be nice to hear both sides before making a decision or judgement.
Thank you - your calm voice of reason is like finding a spring in the desert - and it creates an oasis
post #8 of 27
Carter s*cked as a President, but he really has found a niche in being an ambassador and good will person. Look at what he's accomplished with the Habitat for Humanity!
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Meeting with terrorists. How, utterly, disgusting and pathetic.
He is a traitor to his country IMO

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...e=domesticNews
How awful of him to attempt to act as a peace ambassador.
post #10 of 27
carter, Pelosi, Kucinich, all are gulity of Violatioing the Logan act.
If not also giving moral support to terroist.

go to jail Go Directly to Jail do not pass go, do not collect $200
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
How awful of him to attempt to act as a peace ambassador.
Yes, actually it is. He has no business going to the Middle East. He is not an official representative of the US Government in this instance. He has not been designated a "peace ambassador". Yet, because he's a former President, he must be protected - that protection is provided with taxpayer money. We're paying for a trip that no one wanted him to take.

Carter is thumbing his nose at the administration's policy of refusing to legitimize terrorists by negotiating with them. He's entitled to disagree with this policy but not to actively undermine it.

Carter's arrogance is incredible - he must believe he possesses some magic that will melt the hearts of terrorists and make them lay down their arms. The man is just so full of himself.

As Bruce pointed out, he's in violation of the Logan Act. From what I read though, no one has been prosecuted for such violation. Too bad. It'd be good to see Carter, Pelosi and Kuchinich having to answer for their stupidity.
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
Yes, actually it is. He has no business going to the Middle East. He is not an official representative of the US Government in this instance. He has not been designated a "peace ambassador". Yet, because he's a former President, he must be protected - that protection is provided with taxpayer money. We're paying for a trip that no one wanted him to take.

Carter is thumbing his nose at the administration's policy of refusing to legitimize terrorists by negotiating with them. He's entitled to disagree with this policy but not to actively undermine it.

Carter's arrogance is incredible - he must believe he possesses some magic that will melt the hearts of terrorists and make them lay down their arms. The man is just so full of himself.

As Bruce pointed out, he's in violation of the Logan Act. From what I read though, no one has been prosecuted for such violation. Too bad. It'd be good to see Carter, Pelosi and Kuchinich having to answer for their stupidity.
You're condemning Carter's visit to the Middle East as an individual, yet you're not condemning visits of the former president Bush to the Middle East in 1998? I doubt there's any confusion as to whether Carter is acting on his own behalf or that of the American government. It's obvious that his views are not those of the administration, and I believe that the countries he's visiting are aware of this as well.

As far as wastes of taxpayer money... there are bigger sinkholes to worry about (billion dollar war in a receding economy and handouts for irresponsible consumers) than an idealist (arrogant to you, idealist to me) former president trying to convince the leaders of "rogue nations" to reach agreements in which countries live in peace as opposed to bombing the poo out of one another.
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
You're condemning Carter's visit to the Middle East as an individual, yet you're not condemning visits of the former president Bush to the Middle East in 1998? ..
what visit of former president Bush are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
former president trying to convince the leaders of "rogue nations" to reach agreements in which countries live in peace as opposed to bombing the poo out of one another.
err, hamas is a terrorist organization not a nation.
You can not reach agreements with organizations, only nations.

if you want you can find there charter on the web. Its a fun read.
there articles on the role of women is really good
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
what visit of former president Bush are you talking about?
I had to look this up for an answer. I don't know how bias the article is but this is what I found:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i18hwbush.htm

Says former Bush went to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
post #15 of 27
article sounds like x-file show hehhee. a lot of maybe, what ifs, could be .

but if you follow several links you get.
bush was there to give a lecture at the King Abdul Aziz Library in Riyadh.Not there to meet with heads of state, or to meet with terrorist organization.

also he was invited by the Kuwaits ruling family to come there.
After all, he was the main player in getting there nation back.

still not the same as meeting with a terrorist organization.
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
I doubt there's any confusion as to whether Carter is acting on his own behalf or that of the American government. It's obvious that his views are not those of the administration, and I believe that the countries he's visiting are aware of this as well.
Carter is not visiting a country. He is visiting terrorists. And yes, I've no doubt that the terrorists are well aware that Carter is not representing the US. They know Carter has no backing or negotiating power conferred from the administration, so his visit is nothing more than an exercise in futility. The terrorists can't get anything from Carter, with the exception of using him as a potential propaganda tool. Since there's nothing in it for them, why would they take anything he says seriously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
As far as wastes of taxpayer money... there are bigger sinkholes to worry about (billion dollar war in a receding economy and handouts for irresponsible consumers than an idealist (arrogant to you, idealist to me) former president trying to convince the leaders of "rogue nations" to reach agreements in which countries live in peace as opposed to bombing the poo out of one another.
Because the cost of Carter's trip doesn't compare to the war doesn't mean it should be dismissed. It's still a waste of taxpayer money.

Again, Carter isn't in a "rogue nation" - he's talking to a terrorist organization.
Whether or not he's arrogant or an idealist doesn't even matter, but either way it's useful to have a healthy grasp on reality.

The bottom line is that Carter's trip will be seen as undermining the policies of the administration and he will accomplish nothing except making Israel look bad because they would not provide security to visit Gaza. Way to go, Jimmy.
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
article sounds like x-file show hehhee. a lot of maybe, what ifs, could be .

but if you follow several links you get.
bush was there to give a lecture at the King Abdul Aziz Library in Riyadh.Not there to meet with heads of state, or to meet with terrorist organization.

also he was invited by the Kuwaits ruling family to come there.
After all, he was the main player in getting there nation back.

still not the same as meeting with a terrorist organization.
Ooops.
I realized after I posted, that the only places I could find reference to visits were conspiracy theory-ish, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that there's a conspiracy.

But my point is that Bush Sr. has, at some point, visited the Middle East to meet with leaders either as a consultant for the Carlyle group or his own investment interests, and not on behalf of the American government. (I wouldn't expect this to be big news, and if the visits occurred something like a decade ago, it's even less likely to be a headline on the internet.) So if Jimmy Carter is now visiting the Middle East out of his own interests, I don't see that it should be a major headline or really be an over-burden on taxpayers. And while I understand the significance of the Logan Act, as written, it would be difficult to draw a clear line to distinguish which persons should be indicted and which should not.

In regard to negotiating with terrorist states, which is the main issue, I believe that Carter's visits will have little effect on terrorist attitudes toward America- good or bad. Surely, Israeli leaders know that Carter's methods are not sanctioned by the U.S. government, as they're not allowing him to visit. (And Hamas is probably also aware of this; so while Carter's meeting with them might be construed as an acknowledgement of their authority, I doubt that it will do much to embolden them as the actual American government is in disagreement with Carter.)

Jimmy Carter is on a mission to promote peace, and there really aren't many options in that area. Either peace is enforced, truces are formed, or they're left to battle it out. About all Carter can really do is some peace-talking.
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
The bottom line is that Carter's trip will be seen as undermining the policies of the administration and he will accomplish nothing except making Israel look bad because they would not provide security to visit Gaza. Way to go, Jimmy.
I don't necessarily see this as something that will make Israel look bad. He's there as an individual, and the decision was made by the Israeli government, in the interest of protecting their lands and independence, to not partake in Carter's proposed peace negotiations. There's nothing inherently bad about that.
(I also think that if peace is to be achieved in that region, it will be achieved gradually, with a plentitude of tiny steps forward and maybe some steps back- definitely not overnight in a single meeting.)
post #19 of 27
Thread Starter 
Peace could happen if the terrorist organization that Carter is sucking up to would quit bombing Israel. All Carter is doing is giving relevancy to terrorists.
What a guy.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Peace could happen if the terrorist organization that Carter is sucking up to would quit bombing Israel. All Carter is doing is giving relevancy to terrorists.
What a guy.
no peace will never happen, when the loons like carter, keep giving moral boosts to the enemy. FOr that matter as along as we keep sticking are nose in. Peace can only happen when one side or the other fully understands it is beaten.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
I don't necessarily see this as something that will make Israel look bad. He's there as an individual, and the decision was made by the Israeli government, in the interest of protecting their lands and independence, to not partake in Carter's proposed peace negotiations. There's nothing inherently bad about that.
(I also think that if peace is to be achieved in that region, it will be achieved gradually, with a plentitude of tiny steps forward and maybe some steps back- definitely not overnight in a single meeting.)
And the first baby step has to come from Hamas. They have to stop being terrorists.
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
But my point is that Bush Sr. has, at some point, visited the Middle East to meet with leaders either as a consultant for the Carlyle group or his own investment interests, and not on behalf of the American government. (I wouldn't expect this to be big news, and if the visits occurred something like a decade ago, it's even less likely to be a headline on the internet.) So if Jimmy Carter is now visiting the Middle East out of his own interests, I don't see that it should be a major headline or really be an over-burden on taxpayers. And while I understand the significance of the Logan Act, as written, it would be difficult to draw a clear line to distinguish which persons should be indicted and which should not. .
visited for legit reasons.
Now if you wanted to bring up bush JR visit as gov of texas, in 1998 i may wonder , what a gov was doing there.

But once again , the visits where not to terroist groups. But to nations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
In regard to negotiating with terrorist states, which is the main issue, I believe that Carter's visits will have little effect on terrorist attitudes toward America- good or bad. Surely, Israeli leaders know that Carter's methods are not sanctioned by the U.S. government, as they're not allowing him to visit. (And Hamas is probably also aware of this; so while Carter's meeting with them might be construed as an acknowledgement of their authority, I doubt that it will do much to embolden them as the actual American government is in disagreement with Carter.)

Jimmy Carter is on a mission to promote peace, and there really aren't many options in that area. Either peace is enforced, truces are formed, or they're left to battle it out. About all Carter can really do is some peace-talking.
terrorist group, not nation its like carter wants to talk peace with the mob.


Stuff like this gives a huge boost to the enemy.
he has broken a couple of laws. Put him in jail.
peace is enforced-hm not are job.
truces are fromed-well i guess carter could be the go between with hamas and Iran.
left to battle it out-nomaly that is how wars are wone, when one side knows it lost. or both just sick of killing each other. But that gets harder when you have famous people showing up to give them pats on the back.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
visited for legit reasons.
Now if you wanted to bring up bush JR visit as gov of texas, in 1998 i may wonder , what a gov was doing there.

But once again , the visits where not to terroist groups. But to nations.




terrorist group, not nation its like carter wants to talk peace with the mob.


Stuff like this gives a hug boost to the enemy.
he has broken a couple of laws. Put him in jail.
peace is enforced-hm not are job.
truces are fromed-well i guess carter could be the go between with hamas and Iran.
left to battle it out-nomaly that is how wars are wone, when one side knows it lost. or both just sick of killing each other. But that gets harder when you have famous people showing up to give them pats on the back.

Oil is the only legitimate business, I suppose. Deals with the Saudis are a bit questionable, seeing as most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, however we did not invade that country. Saudi Arabia is key in the war on terror, as many Islamic extremists reside there, or originated from. The U.S. responded by relinquishing base space in Saudi Arabia in 2003. (I may be off on the year.)

So now our Allies, the Saudis are dealing with Hamas, whom you call terrorists but they continue to be our allies. Why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/wo...9saudicnd.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6577524/

If you feel peace enforcement is not our job, I agree with you. On a slightly related note, current president Bush did recently visit the Middle East to discuss peace between Israel and Palestine... (read:not Hamas but a land/government for the Palestinian people) in which he states

"The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.\tThe agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.

It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interests of both parties.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides.\tWhile territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0080110-3.html

Ironically, this plan calls from aid from the notoriously Islamic Arab countries. I'm a bit skeptical.
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
Oil is the only legitimate business, I suppose. Deals with the Saudis are a bit questionable, seeing as most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, however we did not invade that country. Saudi Arabia is key in the war on terror, as many Islamic extremists reside there, or originated from. The U.S. responded by relinquishing base space in Saudi Arabia in 2003. (I may be off on the year.)
lol oil is the only thing the arabs have that people want.
With out that, no one would care what they did. (yet another reason to find other types of fuel)

The whole issue with saudi arbia is different, the terroist from 9/11 are indeed sudi, Which where taught Wahhabism. which is very radical form of Islam. Whom the sudi goverment itself has done raids and killed many terror groups with in its own borders. The equal scary part is the US goverment has allowed ,the them to bulid wahhabism style school here in the US.

Groups that want to over throw the king(not that i blame them, i would want to over throw him also) I think if most americans really knew about the goverment there,they would not really be in favor of duing business with the royal family there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
So now our Allies, the Saudis are dealing with Hamas, whom you call terrorists but they continue to be our allies. Why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/wo...9saudicnd.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6577524/

If you feel peace enforcement is not our job, I agree with you. On a slightly related note, current president Bush did recently visit the Middle East to discuss peace between Israel and Palestine... (read:not Hamas but a land/government for the Palestinian people) in which he states

"The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.\tThe agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.

It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interests of both parties.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides.\tWhile territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0080110-3.html

Ironically, this plan calls from aid from the notoriously Islamic Arab countries. I'm a bit skeptical.
Saudis can deal with whoever they want, they are a nation,not one crazy old man, who thinks he is important.
the funny part is I like carter, i even had dinner with him back when i was a kid ok i was 19 but that seems like a kid to me now. But the fact remains he was a very bad presdent.

oh yea,i would never really call the them are allies
i have no warm and fuzzy feeling for them. THey really are not on my list of countries i would care to help out.

Hamas, goal has nothing to do with Peace. It stated goal is to remove the nation of the Israel not to get along with it.

I do feel bad for the people, they elected and followed Arafat as there leader , Who stole 100 of millions if not billions of dollars that was ment to aid his people. They are being used by there so called arab brothers, and the UN, No one wants them.

Heck if i thought it would help, i would give them part of texas to live in. really the bottom line is carter is not helping, he making things worse.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
lol oil is the only thing the arabs have that people want.
With out that, no one would care what they did. (yet another reason to find other types of fuel)

The whole issue with saudi arbia is different, the terroist from 9/11 are indeed sudi, Which where taught Wahhabism. which is very radical form of Islam. Whom the sudi goverment itself has done raids and killed many terror groups with in its own borders. The equal scary part is the US goverment has allowed ,the them to bulid wahhabism style school here in the US.

Groups that want to over throw the king(not that i blame them, i would want to over throw him also) I think if most americans really knew about the goverment there,they would not really be in favor of duing business with the royal family there.
I completely agree. The Saudis do have their own internal terrorist problems, and many attractive oil-filled anticlines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
Saudis can deal with whoever they want, they are a nation,not one crazy old man, who thinks he is important.
the funny part is I like carter, i even had dinner with him back when i was a kid ok i was 19 but that seems like a kid to me now. But the fact remains he was a very bad presdent.
I'm not old enough to remember him as a president, and this is probably why I don't see him as Jimmy Carter, former president of the U.S. To me, he's Jimmy Carter, peace advocate (basically, I mean what you said. lol)


Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
oh yea,i would never really call the them are allies
i have no warm and fuzzy feeling for them. THey really are not on my list of countries i would care to help out.
My mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
Hamas, goal has nothing to do with Peace. It stated goal is to remove the nation of the Israel not to get along with it.

I do feel bad for the people, they elected and followed Arafat as there leader , Who stole 100 of millions if not billions of dollars that was ment to aid his people. They are being used by there so called arab brothers, and the UN, No one wants them.

Heck if i thought it would help, i would give them part of texas to live in. really the bottom line is carter is not helping, he making things worse.
I agree, for the most part.

My original response was really just in disagreement with Jimmy Carter being "disgusting and pathetic" and a "traitor" as the OP stated. (While his actions may not be helping, I still think that calling him a traitor is a bit melodramatic. I doubt his intentions are to undermine America. Not-so-smart? Maybe. Traitor? I don't think so.)

My personal opinion on Carter meeting with Hamas et al. is that it's not a good idea (to say the least).

I suppose the part we disagree on the most is whether he's really doing damage by meeting with Hamas. (I still think that his visit doesn't lend that organization much credibility because, well, he doesn't really have any power... unless they see him as a political figure with some authority? Or maybe it just looks bad that a former president is going against the wishes of the current administration?)
post #26 of 27
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
You can say that again...!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › President Jimmy Carter at it again