23 Comments

• 1. Jonathan  |  April 16th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?

  He’s right! The U.S. doesn’t negotiate with the evil-doers! We bomb those s.o.b.’s back to the stone-age, and put a boot up their ass, because that’s the American way! [/sarcasm off]

  Since when did this country ever condemn a leader for making an attempt to promote and use diplomacy with their enemies? And McCain must be getting senile, since a certain former president that he establishes himself to be used diplomacy in dealing with the former Soviet Union.

• 2. Rich  |  April 16th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

  “Since when did this country ever condemn a leader”

  Since when do former ex-presidents undermine current foreign policy? Have any examples Jonathon? Please name one.

• 3. LiberalNitemare  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  If I were Jimmy Carter, Id hope that the world would remember me for the houses I had built, and not for my track record as it applies to negotiating with terrorists.

• 4. neocon  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  Jonathan,

  Reagan shamed and out spent the Soviet Union to end the cold war. He strongly condemned the Soviets and liberals shrieked that his rhetoric was too strong. He walked out on Gorbachev at Reykavic, and he had that brilliant moment in E. Germany. He hardly used diplomacy.

  But liberals constantly revise history so I am not surprised. Oh and btw, the last leader we condemned for coddling with the enemy was Nancy Pelosi for her visit to Syria. Remember?

• 5. SEW  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

  Barry picks up another endorsement. Eat your heart out Jimmy Carter and 4 more years of Bush, John McCain! He already has Chavez under his belt. For PEACE in the Middle East, all Barry would need to do is have a summit and ask for PEACE! CHANGE you can believe in!

  http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/a-hamas-problem-for-obama/

  Obama08

• 6. Rich  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

  To Diana and Sam- Obama just said he will do whatever it takes to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. No options off the table to keep them from obtaining or using nukes. So, Obama has just agreed with my position that you have been bashing for the last few days. Care to respond to Senator Obama. Will you have as harsh words for him as you have had for me? I’m all ears.

  P.S. Hillary just offered a nuclear umbrella to the middle eastern countries. Diana, are you going to tell her that those countries threatened by Iran should be the ones that deal with it?

• 7. JD  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

  Why should he condemn it? Carter should be praised for at least trying to negotiate some agreement in a chaotic part of the world. He is not doing anything as a representative of our government but rather as an envoy of peace. Promoting peace is what Jesus would do.

• 8. Christian Wright  |  April 16th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 9. Joe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  You beat me to it JD.

  Carter is not there on behalf of anyone but a citizen of the world. Why do yo uhave to get your panties in a twist over this? Damn if he gets ANYTHING done, whoever the next President is should be thanking him for making their life easier.
  If nothing comes out of it, then he got the same thing done as Bush did from taking his ball and going home.

  Jonathan:
  Since when do former ex-presidents undermine current foreign policy? Have any examples Jonathon? Please name one.

  How the hell is this “undermining current foreign policy”? Bush takes his ball and goes home and won’t talk to the enemy. There is only one result to that….. nothing. Carter goes to try and discuss issues. And you people cry about it?

  You seriously obsess over such crazy things.

• 10. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

  Rich,

  Did Senator Obama or Senator Clinton say that they would attack the missile site that Mark was talking about attacking which was the point of that post and which I condemned?

• 11. js  |  April 16th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  carters got an anti semite streak in him that goes back to his grandfather in the klan…must be something in the peanuts….

• 12. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

  Senator Obama didn’t “fail” to condemn Jimmy Carter because it would be idiotic for him to do so. Jimmy Carter is not part of the government of the United States. Hamas is the majority of the Palestinian Assembly and there is no possibility of progress in working with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that doesn’t involve Hamas. The only people who want to condemn Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas are people who are stupid enough to believe that talking to people is equivalent to endorsing them. Most people don’t have that much trouble keeping that straight in their heads.

• 13. Rich  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

  Oh Diana please.

  “Did Senator Obama or Senator Clinton say that they would attack the missile site that Mark was talking about attacking which was the point of that post and which I condemned?”

  You get more ridiculous by the day. So you are against bombing that missile site in particular but are for Obama doing anything necessary to stop Iran from getting nukes and using them? Why do you like that site so much?

  Let us look at some of your quotes from yesterday.

  “Finally, I must assume that you are simply unable to muster an explanation for why you think that a putative Iranian nuclear ballistic missile is not an issue that can be dealt with by those countries that might actually be threatened by such a hypothetical device instead of by the United States.”

  Why is it that Obama beilives the U.S. should deal with Iranian nuclear ballistic missiles?

  ” I note that you failed to address why you think the governments that might be directly threatened by a putative Iranian nuclear missile capability can’t be trusted to decide what to do or not do on their own.”

  Once again, why does Obama believe these governments threatened by Iran can’t be trusted to decide what to do?

  “So, what do you think the Israeli government, which controls the armed forces of a nation that would have just been attacked, would do? Do you think they might launch an overwhelming counterstrike or do you think they would just chalk it up to a bad day at the office?”

  Here you are stating that Iran will never use nukes on Israel because it would be destroyed by Israel in a counter-attack. If Iran would never use nukes, why is Obama saying he will do anything to stop them from getting them? if he doesn’t think they would be used, why not just let them build some?

  I think it is great that Obama has stated tonight that all options are on the table to stop Iran from getting nukes. What do you believe he means by this Diana? I just find it hilarious that you and Sam worked yourselves up belittling my opinion that Iran shouldn’t get nukes, and yet here today Obama is saying the same thing, to the point that he would use force to stop it. Is Obama saying that Iran is not rational?( note correct spelling here Diana) I would love to hear more of your viewpoint on this Diana.

  P.S. I never said anything about bombing the missile site yesterday, so no need for the strawman in your reply.

• 14. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  Rich,

  Unlike people who have exhibited their apparent power to read my mind, I cannot read the minds of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama to explain why they said anything. You would need to address that question to them. I can speculate that Senator Obama used the “no options off the table” formulation because of the stupid Democratic tendency to be fearful of what Republicans will do anyway, which is to paint them as effete peaceniks and, in this case, depict Senator McCain as the Manly Churchillian Warrior, which has been the basic script since 1968.

  I note with interest that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama also both made the point that they would (horror of horrors) talk to the Iranians. As a result, I would assume that they believe that they are rational.

  If I made myself unclear on Mark’s post, I was making an effort to follow its topic which was his contention that we should attack the missile site mentioned in the headline. Yes, it would be stupid and unjustifiable to bomb the missile site. No, it is not stupid to engage in efforts directed at deterring the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons, if that is what their intent is. However, I would disagree with any decision on the part of the United States to attack Iran in some sort of preemption strategy.

• 15. Rich  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  Oh jeeze -Diana, did you ebven look at the link at the top of this thread?

  You wrote-

  “Senator Obama didn’t “fail” to condemn Jimmy Carter because it would be idiotic for him to do so.”

  and

  “The only people who want to condemn Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas are people who are stupid enough to believe that talking to people is equivalent to endorsing them.

  And Obama said-

  http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1636948020080416?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

  “Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter’s overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.

  “That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

  So which is it Diana- Is Obama an idiot or is he stupid enough to believe that talking to people is equivalent to endorsing them? Maybe this Obama guy anit so bad after all, seems the two of you have been disagreeing an awful lot lately.

• 16. Mark Noonan  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

  Diana,

  What Rich just said - well, that’s gotta hurt!

• 17. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:50 pm

  Rich,

  Fair is fair and you correctly identified that I didn’t follow the link. I made the grievous error of thinking that the headline on this post was actually meaningful. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

  No, I feel confident in saying that, contrary to your false choices, Senator Obama is neither an idiot or stupid. He is a politician, just like the other two Senators vying for the White House. I would speculate that, having recently met with some Jewish groups, he is concerned with how he is perceived by those groups.

  Since he has previously been attacked here for saying he would talk to people like Raul Castro without preconditions, I would say that he can grasp that talking to people is not equivalent to endorsing them.

• 18. Dennis  |  April 17th, 2008 at 12:04 am

  Rich, disagreeing is not the same as condemning. If I might use a religious example invoked by others here, Jesus refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery (St. John chapter 8). When the Pharisees wanted to stone her, he first shut them down and then told her quietly, “Go and sin no more.”

  There is a difference between disagreeing and condemnation. Barack Obama made the distinction well - and I do not infer that Carter “sinned” in any way by talking to Hamas. But you guys want to stone Carter in any case, because he has become your scapegoat for all America’s failures and wrongheaded decisions in the Middle East.

  It is useful sometimes to practice precision in language, if not thought (although clarity of thought leads to clarity of expression). Diane spoke correctly that it is stupid to equate talking to someone as endorsing them. Apparently Matt and you don’t have the ability to make such distinctions. This deficiency ends up producing a lot of bellicose rhetoric and inflaming prejudice, but accomplishes nothing productive.

  If there is one single thing that would be more productive of peace than ratcheting down the hostility, I’d like to know what that might be. At least people like Carter (and presumably Obama, when he becomes our president) will treat our enemies as human beings, and by so doing defuse at least a degree of the needless hostility that leads to violence. This process must start with somebody, and I salute Carter for sticking his neck out for peace.

• 19. Rich  |  April 17th, 2008 at 12:29 am

  Oh spare me Dennis. The topic is whether or not it was right for Carter to meet with Hamas. All of you libs say Carter should have went, and Obama disagrees with you. Obama did the right thing and I applaud him for it and agree with him. Diana thinks he is being slick and simply trying be cool with Jewish voters and I guess that is possible but smacks of being just another politician. If Mark wants to say he should have condemned it, thats his opinion but I think Obama went far enough. It is quite strange that Obama would meet with Iran but not Hamas, and I would like anyone to explain that to me.

• 20. Dennis  |  April 17th, 2008 at 1:42 am

  There is room for more opinion than one. But the baseline facts remain that a.) unless we recognize the humanity of our enemies we are fated to perpetual violence, and b.) without communication that will not happen.

  I guess the third option would be to nuke ‘em all - some no doubt would favor that and McCain has pandered to their mentality - but that way madness lies.

• 21. Dennis  |  April 17th, 2008 at 2:48 am

  Mahmoud al-Zahar:

  President Jimmy Carter’s sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acts as if a few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of apartheid fit better…

  Palestinians are fighting a total war waged on us by a nation that mobilizes against our people with every means at its disposal — from its high-tech military to its economic stranglehold, from its falsified history to its judiciary that “legalizes” the infrastructure of apartheid. Resistance remains our only option. Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people. We Gazans, living in the world’s largest open-air prison, can do no less…

  Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state — the violent expulsion from our lands and villages that made us refugees — to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away. Judaism — which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam — has corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid…

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

• 22. Buyakasan  |  April 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  “But liberals constantly revise history so I am not surprised. Oh and btw, the last leader we condemned for coddling with the enemy was Nancy Pelosi for her visit to Syria. Remember?”

  Did u forget Neocon? Or are you revising/omitting history?

  Republican Reps. Aderholt and Wolf were visiting Syria when Pelosi was on her way. According to a congressional official on Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) staff, Aderholt and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) are currently visiting Israel and Syria.

  Michael Lowry, a spokesman for Representative Robert Aderholt, said that the Alabama lawmaker will visit Syria as part of a Republican delegation led by Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican. Wolf is the top Republican on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department.

  Republican Rep. Hobson accompanied Pelosi on the Syria visit. Speaker Pelosi traveled with a contingent of members of Congress to Syria. The delegation includes Reps. David Hobson (R-OH), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Nick Rahall (D-WV).

  Moreover, as the AP reports, “U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey held talks with a senior Syrian diplomat on how Damascus was coping with a flood of Iraqi refugees, the first such talks in the Syrian capital for more than two years.”

  Even Condi Rice went to Syria…

  Coddling with enemy….Remember neocon?

• 23. Joe  |  April 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  damn Buyakasan… don’t you know it is OK if Republicans visit with the enemy. Dems aren’t allowed to try and do anything!

  I still say if something (no matter how small) comes out of Carter meeting with them then that is better than what we are currently getting.
  If nothing comes out of a visit by Carter, then we are in the exact same position as with Bush’s “don’t talk” policy.

Matt Margolis on Twitter