What power would Pres. Bush or VP Cheney have, once another is in office? What power does former Pres. Carter have now?

I don't know. Apparently some people believe that former presidents continue to have some influence. How else can one explain the fact that Bill Clinton has been paid tens of millions since leaving office to deliver speeches.

 

From what I have seen Bill Clinton's speaking ability has taken a nosedive in recent years. Even Democrats are now able to recognize his lies. :lol:

 

Seriously, clowns like Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Carter bestow some measure of legitimacy to those with whom they meet. Carter's value to Hamas is that he is a willing propaganda tool. Young Muslim terrorists may know that Carter is a former US president but they will not be told that he is among the worst presidents in US history.

 

Hamas meeting with a former US president is a milestone that is a reward for decades of torture, murder, and intimidation.

The law would NOT be applicable to Iran, either, then. You know, I have no problem with former Pres. Carter talking to any person about moving toward a more peaceful existance.

 

The only reason it has captured my attention is that it is one of those non-issues in my book, but it just bothers me as to how some of you are so up in arms over it...how we tend to seem to want to push ourselves toward becoming like the very "evil" in the world that we are trying to defeat.

Eventually this nation will elect another liberal president. Maybe it will be Barack Obama or maybe it will be somebody of whom I have never heard. I will unhappy when that occurs, but I will live with the results of the election and wait for our political system to right itself.

 

What I will not do is support the conservative counterpart of Jimmy Carter to travel the globe engaging in freelance foreign policy. Jimmy Carter is no more qualified and no more justified in negotiating with Hamas than I am. We are both private citizens and it is time that Jimmy Carter accept that fact and it is time for him to realize that the rule of US law applies to him the same that it applies to you and me.

IMVHO Jimmy Carter is trying to build a positive legacy after his train wreak of a presidency.

 

His handling of the whole hostage crisis was laughable and again IMVHO directly led to much of the current instability in the middle east.

 

I don't know if I'm willing to go so far as to say he is committing treason but I don't think that he has any business injecting himself in any way in foreign relations.

 

On the poll I checked the one with the UN option because I have no doubt that Carter would covet that position but isn't there a UN rule that the secretary general can't be from one of the countries that holds a permanent seat on the security council?

If they break American laws such as the Logan Act, then they should be prosecuted. If they are acting with the government's blessing or not attempting to meddle in American foreign policy, then they would not be breaking American laws. Are you opposed to enforcing the existing laws?

 

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way toward the perpetrators of the Iran-Contra saga? Did they not violate the acts of the Congress and purposefully deal with Iran and the Contras in Nicaragua? I'm just asking.

IMVHO Jimmy Carter is trying to build a positive legacy after his train wreak of a presidency.

 

His handling of the whole hostage crisis was laughable and again IMVHO directly led to much of the current instability in the middle east.

 

I don't know if I'm willing to go so far as to say he is committing treason but I don't think that he has any business injecting himself in any way in foreign relations.

 

On the poll I checked the one with the UN option because I have no doubt that Carter would covet that position but isn't there a UN rule that the secretary general can't be from one of the countries that holds a permanent seat on the security council?

 

 

I certainly can't argue in defense of that but I have a question, not just for you All Tell but anyone else:

 

If the April rescue attempt had succeeded in rescuing the hostages in '80 would people feel differently toward Carter's efforts?

 

I've long held that if he had pulled that off the result might have made the election vs. Reagan closer but the economy may still have doomed him.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way toward the perpetrators of the Iran-Contra saga? Did they not violate the acts of the Congress and purposefully deal with Iran and the Contras in Nicaragua? I'm just asking.

Different laws, different issues, and topics for other threads.

I certainly can't argue in defense of that but I have a question, not just for you All Tell but anyone else:

 

If the April rescue attempt had succeeded in rescuing the hostages in '80 would people feel differently toward Carter's efforts?

 

I've long held that if he had pulled that off the result might have made the election vs. Reagan closer but the economy may still have doomed him.

If the rescue effort had succeeded, people would have viewed Carter a little differently. Had he rescued the hostages and then launched a punitive strike against Tehran, Carter might have won reelection.

 

I have always believed that Carter should have given a deadline to the Iranian government to release the hostages and if the Iranians had failed to comply, he should have launched a large scale attack. Instead, he demonstrated to every would-be terrorist in the world that terrorism works when dealing with the United States.

Different laws, different issues, and topics for other threads.

 

Don't really see that from this perspective. Both are acts or guidelines of Congress and both were and/or are being ignored.

Don't really see that from this perspective. Both are acts or guidelines of Congress and both were and/or are being ignored.

Section 8 of the United States Constitution is ignored everyday by those who are sworn to uphold it, but like the Iran Contra issue, it has nothing to do with this thread.

Section 8 of the United States Constitution is ignored everyday by those who are sworn to uphold it, but like the Iran Contra issue, it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

Sorry. I felt like it was a comparison to the activity of Carter (who you feel is circumventing an act of Congress) and North and the gang. I won't mention it anymore.

I certainly can't argue in defense of that but I have a question, not just for you All Tell but anyone else:

 

If the April rescue attempt had succeeded in rescuing the hostages in '80 would people feel differently toward Carter's efforts?

 

I've long held that if he had pulled that off the result might have made the election vs. Reagan closer but the economy may still have doomed him.

 

Let me echo what someone else said.

 

When the hostages were taken Carter should have given the Iranians a firm deadline for their release, no negotiation and immediately started some kind of blockade/embargo of Iran. If the deadline passes then direct attack on Iran. When the Iranians invaded the embassy they in effect declared war on the United States. His half baked rescue attempt as well as his folding when it failed, as someone else pointed out, led directly to the belief on the middle east that Americans had no stomach for a fight and could be taken down acts of terrorism. Carter was a spaghetti spined coward that gave the impression of weakness to the whole world. I still maintain that his presidency and his in actions as president are directly responsible for the middle east situation we face today.

 

Here's another gem for you. Carter's second campaign was the first presidential election that I was able to vote in and I'm sorry to say that was while I was young, stupid and an avowed Democrat. I voted for him. Luckily millions more had better judgement then I did.

Carter sure sounds like he thinks he's acting in an official capacity.

 

LINK

Sorry. I felt like it was a comparison to the activity of Carter (who you feel is circumventing an act of Congress) and North and the gang. I won't mention it anymore.

FWIW, I think that North and whoever above him in the chain of command condoned his actions were wrong to have dealt with terrorists but I also believe that Congress was wrong to try to tie Reagan's hands in providing support for the Contras as well. I just don't feel like getting into a side debate on Iran-Contra in this thread. Col. North and Admiral Poindexter were not private citizens and Jimmy Carter is.

Carter sure sounds like he thinks he's acting in an official capacity.

 

LINK

It certainly does. I guess his attempts to schedule a meeting with the Israeli government shoots down the argument that because Hamas and Iran are not "foreign governments" the Logan Act does not apply to Jimmy Carter. Now, there is no reason not to jail Jimmy.

Jimmy Carter is simply trying to repair his legacy.