What is Khaled Mashaal's motivation for meeting with Carter?

Legitimacy. A former US president (whether in an official capacity or not) negotiating with him give him legitimacy as a recognized leader.

Rockmom, your willingness to defend Carter from the attacks on here is commendable, but I think it's some what blinding your ability to look at this logically. Pres. Carter's meeting with Hamas, whether as negotiations or as peace keeping, is wrong. It undermines the official U.S. govt's efforts to address Hamas in the matter that this administration deems appropriate. Furthermore, it creates certain perceptions throughout the world. And as they say, perception is reality to many.

 

Pres Carter had his opportunity to provide his influence on world affairs when he was Pres. He may very well get tabbed to act on the U.S.' benefit if Obama or Clinton get elected. But when the current administration asks him not to meet he should not, if for no other reason out of respect for the office of the Presidency. As a former President, I'd expect him to understand that. I'm quite certain that if, while he was handling the Iran hostage situation, former Pres. Ford had been meeting with the Ayattolah, against Pres. Carter's wishes, he'd have been hotter than an afternoon in a August peanut field in Georgia.

 

I can defend Pres. Carter against a lot. He's a very caring man with values that I place a lot of importance on. But I don't care who you are or who is the President, when the current President asks you not to meet with some foreign govt, you don't do it.

 

You could possibly be right. I've given a lot of thought to this matter, so don't think that I've just blown off rhetoric defending someone I happen to admire, despite other's derisions of him as former President.

 

I honestly believe that he honestly believes he's doing the right thing.

 

In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian election. Now, whether the US decides to acknowledge Hamas' legitimacy or not, in the eyes of Palestinians, they are legitimate. I believe strongly enough in democracy to recognize that although not "our" version of democracy, there was an election, and Hamas won. That gives credence to their legitimacy, whether or not we recognize it.

 

Peace is most probably not a possibility with Hamas in power. However, it's definitely not a possibility if we fail to try to inspire them, or speak to them of the possibilities of peace. That doesn't mean negotiating, that means open dialogue.

 

Ignoring Hamas will not make it go away, nor will it lead to them just "giving up". I believe that they believe as strongly in their position, as we belive in Israel's position. We just happen to be allies of Israel, for far more nefarious reasons than friendship.

 

It's possible that you may be right, he should respect W's wishes. But, in the future decades, if things in Iraq don't work out the way W has promised and sold to the American public, he may be judged just as harshly as Carter has been for the Iranian hostage crisis. Only time will tell. And, I don't think bringing Carter's failure in the Iranian Hostage situation is judging the man on complete circumstances. And, to have a man who has worked tirelessly for peace spoken of so derisively is not respecting his position as a former president of the US.

What was it the Dali Lama said recently? Oh yeah! (sic) "The only way to defeat our enemies is to make them our friends."

 

How did that work with Hitler and the peace pacts he signed with other countries?

I am not sure that it does give them legitimacy. Carter was President 30 years ago. How many of the ones fighting in this war of terror was not even born at that time.

 

I am not sure Carter has any relevance in the world today.

You could possibly be right. I've given a lot of thought to this matter, so don't think that I've just blown off rhetoric defending someone I happen to admire, despite other's derisions of him as former President.

 

I honestly believe that he honestly believes he's doing the right thing.

 

In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian election. Now, whether the US decides to acknowledge Hamas' legitimacy or not, in the eyes of Palestinians, they are legitimate. I believe strongly enough in democracy to recognize that although not "our" version of democracy, there was an election, and Hamas won. That gives credence to their legitimacy, whether or not we recognize it.

 

Peace is most probably not a possibility with Hamas in power. However, it's definitely not a possibility if we fail to try to inspire them, or speak to them of the possibilities of peace. That doesn't mean negotiating, that means open dialogue.

 

Ignoring Hamas will not make it go away, nor will it lead to them just "giving up". I believe that they believe as strongly in their position, as we belive in Israel's position. We just happen to be allies of Israel, for far more nefarious reasons than friendship.

 

It's possible that you may be right, he should respect W's wishes. But, in the future decades, if things in Iraq don't work out the way W has promised and sold to the American public, he may be judged just as harshly as Carter has been for the Iranian hostage crisis. Only time will tell. And, I don't think bringing Carter's failure in the Iranian Hostage situation is judging the man on complete circumstances. And, to have a man who has worked tirelessly for peace spoken of so derisively is not respecting his position as a former president of the US.

 

Rockmom, you say everything I want to, just better! :thumb:

I am not sure that it does give them legitimacy. Carter was President 30 years ago. How many of the ones fighting in this war of terror was not even born at that time.

 

I am not sure Carter has any relevance in the world today.

For the most part, the guys and gals blowing themselves up for Hamas are not very well educated. Many will see an American president (any president will do) negotiating with their leader as evidence that their terror tactics have brought the Great Satan to its knees. If I were in their shoes, with little education and only sketchy news from outside my own terror cell, I would assume that Jimmy Carter was acting on behalf of the US government and I am sure that is how Hamas' leaders will portray the meeting.

You could possibly be right. I've given a lot of thought to this matter, so don't think that I've just blown off rhetoric defending someone I happen to admire, despite other's derisions of him as former President.

 

I honestly believe that he honestly believes he's doing the right thing.

 

In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian election. Now, whether the US decides to acknowledge Hamas' legitimacy or not, in the eyes of Palestinians, they are legitimate. I believe strongly enough in democracy to recognize that although not "our" version of democracy, there was an election, and Hamas won. That gives credence to their legitimacy, whether or not we recognize it.

 

Peace is most probably not a possibility with Hamas in power. However, it's definitely not a possibility if we fail to try to inspire them, or speak to them of the possibilities of peace. That doesn't mean negotiating, that means open dialogue.

 

Ignoring Hamas will not make it go away, nor will it lead to them just "giving up". I believe that they believe as strongly in their position, as we belive in Israel's position. We just happen to be allies of Israel, for far more nefarious reasons than friendship.

 

It's possible that you may be right, he should respect W's wishes. But, in the future decades, if things in Iraq don't work out the way W has promised and sold to the American public, he may be judged just as harshly as Carter has been for the Iranian hostage crisis. Only time will tell. And, I don't think bringing Carter's failure in the Iranian Hostage situation is judging the man on complete circumstances. And, to have a man who has worked tirelessly for peace spoken of so derisively is not respecting his position as a former president of the US.

 

 

Your words bespeak the truth. Mr. Carter is a great advocate for peace and a truly great American!

You could possibly be right. I've given a lot of thought to this matter, so don't think that I've just blown off rhetoric defending someone I happen to admire, despite other's derisions of him as former President.

 

I honestly believe that he honestly believes he's doing the right thing.

 

In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian election. Now, whether the US decides to acknowledge Hamas' legitimacy or not, in the eyes of Palestinians, they are legitimate. I believe strongly enough in democracy to recognize that although not "our" version of democracy, there was an election, and Hamas won. That gives credence to their legitimacy, whether or not we recognize it.

 

Peace is most probably not a possibility with Hamas in power. However, it's definitely not a possibility if we fail to try to inspire them, or speak to them of the possibilities of peace. That doesn't mean negotiating, that means open dialogue.

 

Ignoring Hamas will not make it go away, nor will it lead to them just "giving up". I believe that they believe as strongly in their position, as we belive in Israel's position. We just happen to be allies of Israel, for far more nefarious reasons than friendship.

 

It's possible that you may be right, he should respect W's wishes. But, in the future decades, if things in Iraq don't work out the way W has promised and sold to the American public, he may be judged just as harshly as Carter has been for the Iranian hostage crisis. Only time will tell. And, I don't think bringing Carter's failure in the Iranian Hostage situation is judging the man on complete circumstances. And, to have a man who has worked tirelessly for peace spoken of so derisively is not respecting his position as a former president of the US.

 

Oh I definitely agree that Pres. Carter believes he is doing the right thing, although I don't believe that is the issue here.

 

I also agree that there needs to be some level of dialogue, although I believe that are currently elected officials are the ones that should be making the decisions of what dialogue is conducted, how it is conducted and when it is conducted, not a former Pres particularly when he has been asked by the current administration not to do so. To support what he is doing, is only asking for big problems in the future. Any then current administration will be fair game to have their legs cut off at the knees by anyone who disagrees with that current administration's policy. Such would create nightmares in foreign policy administration. I think that Pres. Carter has the right to and should provide his thoughts and input to Pres. Bush, but if Pres Bush chooses to go another direction, Pres. Carter should respect that fact that Pres. Bush was elected by this country to conduct foreign policy and attorn to Pres. Bush's decision.

 

And I don't believe that I have ever spoken derisively of Pres. Carter. Heck, I voted for him. Great man, but he did handle the Iran hostage situation poorly in my opinion. I agree with you that he should not be talked about so poorly on here. Do you feel the same about Pres. Bush?

Oh I definitely agree that Pres. Carter believes he is doing the right thing, although I don't believe that is the issue here.

 

I also agree that there needs to be some level of dialogue, although I believe that are currently elected officials are the ones that should be making the decisions of what dialogue is conducted, how it is conducted and when it is conducted, not a former Pres particularly when he has been asked by the current administration not to do so. To support what he is doing, is only asking for big problems in the future. Any then current administration will be fair game to have their legs cut off at the knees by anyone who disagrees with that current administration's policy. Such would create nightmares in foreign policy administration. I think that Pres. Carter has the right to and should provide his thoughts and input to Pres. Bush, but if Pres Bush chooses to go another direction, Pres. Carter should respect that fact that Pres. Bush was elected by this country to conduct foreign policy and attorn to Pres. Bush's decision.

 

And I don't believe that I have ever spoken derisively of Pres. Carter. Heck, I voted for him. Great man, but he did handle the Iran hostage situation poorly in my opinion. I agree with you that he should not be talked about so poorly on here. Do you feel the same about Pres. Bush?

 

I didn't mean to imply that you were the one who had spoken derisively of him. But, you have to admit, there are those who have.

 

As to his handling of the Iran hostage situation, I would agree that in retrospect it was handled poorley, but ask that you consider that the current Iraqi situation is quite possibly the current administration's poor handling of a crisis. I will admit that over the years, I've come to realize that W may have believed he was doing the right thing. However, in my gut, I have a feeling that his reasons for going into Iraq were quite a bit less than altruistic.

 

I have to also admit, over the years, and especially after reading the Reagan Diaries, I have a huge respect for the man/woman who holds the office of president. It really seems like it would suck, as a job. :lol: However, I also admit that I don't think W is, or will be proven to be, half the man that Reagan was.

I didn't mean to imply that you were the one who had spoken derisively of him. But, you have to admit, there are those who have.

 

As to his handling of the Iran hostage situation, I would agree that in retrospect it was handled poorley, but ask that you consider that the current Iraqi situation is quite possibly the current administration's poor handling of a crisis. I will admit that over the years, I've come to realize that W may have believed he was doing the right thing. However, in my gut, I have a feeling that his reasons for going into Iraq were quite a bit less than altruistic.

I have to also admit, over the years, and especially after reading the Reagan Diaries, I have a huge respect for the man/woman who holds the office of president. It really seems like it would suck, as a job. :lol: However, I also admit that I don't think W is, or will be proven to be, half the man that Reagan was.

 

 

And then is it fair for the people posting derogatory things about Pres. Carter to justify their behavior with the rationalization that in their gut they believe the derogatory things they post about him? Should we ever allow our stomach to control our brain when it comes to thinking and making conclusions? Way too many posts, way too many votes, way too many decisons and conclusions are made based on gut feelings and emotions. At times I think people check their brains and ability to think analytically and logically at the door.

 

And I don't mind Pres. Bush's decision in re Iraq being judged in 30 years to see if it was mistake or was a poor handling of the crisis in Iraq. That's only fair.

I didn't mean to imply that you were the one who had spoken derisively of him. But, you have to admit, there are those who have.

 

As to his handling of the Iran hostage situation, I would agree that in retrospect it was handled poorley, but ask that you consider that the current Iraqi situation is quite possibly the current administration's poor handling of a crisis. I will admit that over the years, I've come to realize that W may have believed he was doing the right thing. However, in my gut, I have a feeling that his reasons for going into Iraq were quite a bit less than altruistic.

 

I have to also admit, over the years, and especially after reading the Reagan Diaries, I have a huge respect for the man/woman who holds the office of president. It really seems like it would suck, as a job. :lol: However, I also admit that I don't think W is, or will be proven to be, half the man that Reagan was.

I confess to speaking about Jimmy Carter derisively. I have great respect for the presidency but Carter is no longer president and I have absolutely no respect for him as a private citizen. Carter would not be welcome in my home - and I would welcome Bill Clinton over for a cookout in my backyard.

 

No former president in my lifetime has embarrassed this country and undermined its government as Jimmy Carter has done. I could forgive him for being the worst president in US history, but his meddling in foreign policy for the past three decades is inexcusable and allowing him to continue meddling sets a dangerous precedent. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton have not followed Carter's poor example.

 

Just because many liberals agree with Carter's failed ideas on foreign policy and hope to elect Carter II this fall is no excuse for defending the man for violating US law, IMO. Democrats would not support a freelance Bush/Cheney foreign policy and they should condemn Carter's unpatriotic efforts, as should all Americans.

 

What is to stop a presidential hopeful, like Hillary Clinton for example, attempting to undermine foreign policy by negotiating deals with foreign leaders to improve her election prospects? Hillary Clinton and I have just as much legal right to engage in negotiations with foreign countries as Jimmy Carters does.

 

Maybe Congress needs to create a procedure to impeach former presidents.:lol:

[/b]

 

 

Your words bespeak the truth. Mr. Carter is a great advocate for peace and a truly great American!

 

I disagree on both points.

And then is it fair for the people posting derogatory things about Pres. Carter to justify their behavior with the rationalization that in their gut they believe the derogatory things they post about him? Should we ever allow our stomach to control our brain when it comes to thinking and making conclusions? Way too many posts, way too many votes, way too many decisons and conclusions are made based on gut feelings and emotions. At times I think people check their brains and ability to think analytically and logically at the door.

 

And I don't mind Pres. Bush's decision in re Iraq being judged in 30 years to see if it was mistake or was a poor handling of the crisis in Iraq. That's only fair.

 

This I'm willing to consider, and agree with your throughts about analytical thinking versus emotional thinking. But, the caveat here is, for me, I feel I have analyzed my feelings and the evidence that have lead to my gut feeling about Bush. I honestly don't think I'm wrong. I feel that nothing has surfaced to make me question my initial reaction to him.

 

I'm certain there are some who will say the same applies to Carter. However, as evidenced below, there are those who obviously are letting emotion rule, in response to their personal feelings of what is expected of Carter, and what was expected of Carter. To say the man has embarassed this country more than any other former president is really subjective, don't you think? That's not an objective statement, yet, the poster chooses to state it as fact.

 

The sword is double-edged. I'm not here to compare Carter to Bush. But, in the overall scheme of things, if you asked me to judge each man's character on his life to this point, and not include their actions during their respective presidencies, then I'd put Carter ahead of Bush on character alone.

 

I confess to speaking about Jimmy Carter derisively. I have great respect for the presidency but Carter is no longer president and I have absolutely no respect for him as a private citizen. Carter would not be welcome in my home - and I would welcome Bill Clinton over for a cookout in my backyard.

 

No former president in my lifetime has embarrassed this country and undermined its government as Jimmy Carter has done. I could forgive him for being the worst president in US history, but his meddling in foreign policy for the past three decades is inexcusable and allowing him to continue meddling sets a dangerous precedent. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton have not followed Carter's poor example.

 

Just because many liberals agree with Carter's failed ideas on foreign policy and hope to elect Carter II this fall is no excuse for defending the man for violating US law, IMO. Democrats would not support a freelance Bush/Cheney foreign policy and they should condemn Carter's unpatriotic efforts, as should all Americans.

 

What is to stop a presidential hopeful, like Hillary Clinton for example, attempting to undermine foreign policy by negotiating deals with foreign leaders to improve her election prospects? Hillary Clinton and I have just as much legal right to engage in negotiations with foreign countries as Jimmy Carters does.

 

Maybe Congress needs to create a procedure to impeach former presidents.:lol:

This I'm willing to consider, and agree with your throughts about analytical thinking versus emotional thinking. But, the caveat here is, for me, I feel I have analyzed my feelings and the evidence that have lead to my gut feeling about Bush. I honestly don't think I'm wrong. I feel that nothing has surfaced to make me question my initial reaction to him.

 

I'm certain there are some who will say the same applies to Carter. However, as evidenced below, there are those who obviously are letting emotion rule, in response to their personal feelings of what is expected of Carter, and what was expected of Carter. To say the man has embarassed this country more than any other former president is really subjective, don't you think? That's not an objective statement, yet, the poster chooses to state it as fact.

 

The sword is double-edged. I'm not here to compare Carter to Bush. But, in the overall scheme of things, if you asked me to judge each man's character on his life to this point, and not include their actions during their respective presidencies, then I'd put Carter ahead of Bush on character alone.

 

Curious to know what you think is flawed with Bush's character?