Jimmy Carter and Hamas

Guardian · 04-16-2008, 14:09 PM

If you are unaware of Jimmy Carter's self-appointed emissarial mission with the leader of Hamas, I suggest you go read something about it and then come back to this discussion.

Let me be the first to say: "Who does Jimmy Carter think he is?"

I understand that his intentions are to open up dialogue with Hamas. But those aspirations are way too ambitious, especially for Jimmy Carter.

Israel and the West have very open dialogue with Fateh and Mahmoud Abbas. Israel is in constant contact with Abbas. But Hamas always undermines the effort. Fateh wants a working and sustainable government in the West Bank for the Palestinian people; Hamas wants the destruction of the "Zionist entity."

Hamas does not deserve recognition at a diplomatic table. They provide no platform on which to compromise a ceasefire. They are only a political organization because they won the Palestinian elections by promising the Palestinian people health care, education, and a better life; none of which were ever possible to provide. Before the elections, they were a terrorist organization through and through. Political groups do not use suicide bombers on civilians. Political groups do not openly call for the extermination of a people (except the Nazis). When Hamas crossed the threshold and stepped into a world of violence, they lost all credibility as a political organization.

Hamas is the enemy of Israel. It is for Israel to find peace, and on Israel's terms. Jimmy Carter talking with Hamas is like Margaret Thatcher talking with Usama bin Laden. It wouldn't be her place to negotiate a peace on behalf of the US gov't, just like it is not Carter's place to discuss compromise on behalf of the Israeli gov't.

Carter is not a US diplomat. He is not a gov't official. He was President 30 years ago. He was voted out of office in 1980 because he was aloof. And he still is. If President Bush had asked Carter to go, that would be different. He is going in the hopes that his influence as ex-President will be enough to make some impact on the situation.

Final point: Not Carter's place. He is only dampening relations between the Israelis and the Americans by portraying a mixed stance.

bugs · 04-16-2008, 14:17 PM

they won the Palestinian elections

your words.

gunnut · 04-16-2008, 14:28 PM

I have not confirmed this with my own research, but I've heard the Carter Center is funded by Arab dollars.

Stan187 · 04-16-2008, 14:37 PM

The worst president in US history refuses to part himself from the legacy of misguided but idiotic efforts. I guess its not that shocking, after all.

ameer · 04-16-2008, 23:30 PM

I don't agree with everything he says but he does raise many good points. It seems like the pro-Israel lobby and media would like to silence him because he's one of the few who doesn't kiss Israel's butt at every chance he gets. I'm not so sure why people find dialog so evil, so what if he's talking to the "enemy"? First of all, they are the elected leaders of Palestine and secondly, obviously whatever non-dialog stance others have been taking hasn't been working. I'm far more offended when there's politicians out there who make claims like "Americans stand with Israel"? Really? Because I don't.

All that pro-Israel lobbying and now finally someone wants to give the other side of the story and everyone throws a fit.

Go Jimmy, Go!!!

ameer · 04-16-2008, 23:37 PM

sorry double post

ameer · 04-16-2008, 23:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I have not confirmed this with my own research, but I've heard the Carter Center is funded by Arab dollars.

Prove it. Oh wait, it's just what you heard, you don't have to.

Even if it was true, so what? You do know there's many pro-Israel politicians out there funded by Jewish/Zionist dollars?

JAD_333 · 04-17-2008, 00:45 AM

This oped from a Lebanese paper appears to be written by a westerner, but notwithstanding that, it does a good job of pointing out the downsides of Carter's meeting with Hamas. The one I agree with most is that Carter will give Hamas a degree of legitimacy. In fact that is what Hamas is claiming.

Quote:

Jimmy Carter:a fool on a fool's errand
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, April 17, 2008

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, he has a way of transforming moments of plodding gravitas into uproarious comedy. Remember that moment during the 1980 Democratic convention when Carter stood up, and in a phrase paying tribute to Hubert Humphrey, instead praised "Hubert Horatio Hornblower," confusing the late vice president with the character from the C.S. Forester novels?

As Carter prepares to meet with a senior Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus, the former American president again risks attempting to say one thing, only to blunder into another. Carter's declared goal is to affirm that no one can avoid talking to Hamas. As he put it last week, "I'm not a negotiator. I'm someone who might provide some communication. I'm going to try to make [Meshaal] agree to a peaceful resolution, both with Israel and with Hamas' Palestinian rivals."

The debate over whether the United States, Israel and others should talk to Hamas has become tiresome, largely because those supporting dialogue invariably limit their reasoning to a narrow syllogism: Hamas is a central actor in the Palestinian conflict; to resolve the conflict you need to talk to central actors; therefore talk to Hamas. To many engagers the problem is mainly one of communication. If only everyone could just sit around a table and talk, things would work out. Khaled Meshaal hasn't yet been shown the prospective gains from a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; he hasn't been talked to. But because he's a pragmatic man, a sincere dialogue would allow him to deploy some of that pragmatism to the benefit of reaching a peaceful regional equilibrium.

You can almost hear Khaled Meshaal gasping at the naivete of such sweeping positivism, as he prepares to score points off his solemn American visitor. Meshaal knows what talks with Hamas would really imply, and he knows the snag is hardly one of miscommunication.

For one thing, negotiating with Hamas would effectively undermine the authority and credibility of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestine Liberation Organization - together, the paramount representatives of the Palestinian people. If the engagers' riposte is that Abbas is already discredited, that only confirms their intention to replace Abbas with Hamas as Israel's chief interlocutor. Still, senior members of the Fatah movement would disagree with the grim assessment of Abbas. They believe Hamas is increasingly squeezed in Gaza, its credibility on the wane as it has brought only hardship to the strip's inhabitants. That is why, they point out, the movement is so desperate to break out of the Israeli blockade. As for the West Bank, Hamas has lost ground there as well, they insist, despite claims that the movement could seize control of the area were it not for the presence of the Israeli Army.

Regardless of whether this is true, it makes no sense today to damage Abbas by opening a channel to Hamas, which has never endorsed the agreements reached with Israel during the Oslo years. In fact, to bring Hamas into negotiations would only grant legitimacy to the movement's rejection of those agreements, and of the entire Oslo process. This, in turn, would only further constrict Abbas' slim margin of maneuver.

A second consequence of talking to Hamas, Meshaal knows, is that it would insert Iran and Syria squarely into the Palestinian track. There are differences between Meshaal in Damascus and Mahmoud Zahhar and the Hamas leadership in Gaza, but it's hard to imagine that an open channel to the movement would not enhance Meshaal's standing, and that of his backers. Meshaal is more accessible and can call on substantial Iranian funding, even if the Muslim Brotherhood's financial networks benefit all factions. Whoever ends up speaking on Hamas' behalf, Tehran and Damascus could only gain from a dialogue with the movement. Yasser Arafat's singular achievement for three decades was to safeguard the "independence of the Palestinian decision," particularly from Syria. Talking to Meshaal could well mean reversing that accomplishment.

There is also a valid case to be made that Hamas is not interested in a peace treaty with Israel, because its ultimate ambition is to liberate the whole of Palestine. Certainly, that's what the movement demonstrates day in and day out. Meshaal has declared that Hamas would accept a deal on the basis of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, but has added a key caveat that this must also include a right of return for the Palestinian refugees of 1948 to their places of origin. For Israel this is a non-starter on demographic grounds, and Meshaal knows it. However, it does allow supporters of dialogue with Hamas to conveniently slot the movement into the Oslo consensus, even if the reality is different.

Whatever Hamas' true intentions, the contention that states should not talk to the movement on principle is difficult to sustain, if only because politics abhors a vacuum and the impulse to do something different can become overwhelming. That's why the onus should be placed on defenders of engagement to substantiate their proposals. Talking should not be an end in itself. First the engagers should clarify what Hamas will agree to talk about. The movement says it is willing to negotiate a long-term truce with Israel, a notion once championed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as well. If both parties agree, fine. But the outcome won't be peace. Israel will use the interregnum to consolidate its hold on strategic parts of the West Bank, while Hamas will use it to marginalize its Palestinians foes, rearm, and prepare for a showdown with Israel.

On the other hand, if Hamas is willing to discuss peace, then the movement has to first demonstrate this before anyone seriously considers overhauling the Palestinian-Israeli track. That shouldn't be difficult, even if nothing shows that Hamas is contemplating peace with Israel, while everything about the movement's behavior and rhetoric says the contrary.

That's why Jimmy Carter is on a fool's errand, complicating an already complicated situation. It's often said that Carter has been a better ex-president than president. That's no compliment, so ghastly was his tenancy of the White House - the Camp David accords notwithstanding. Peace may be a long way away between Palestinians and Israelis, but Carter won't speed things up any by turning into Meshaal's patsy.

The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - Jimmy Carter: a fool on a fool's errand

Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

ameer · 04-17-2008, 01:33 AM

double post, sorry

ameer · 04-17-2008, 01:35 AM

I don't feel the least bit sorry for Jimmy Carter, who, predictably, is being pilloried for his plans to meet the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, in Syria on Friday.

As Pete Seeger once said of the victims of McCarthyism: don't mourn those who fought. Don't mourn the people who saw clearly what the right thing to do was, and did it, fully aware of the hammer that might come down on them for doing so.

Jimmy Carter surely knew that he would be called every bad name. Perhaps he even calculated that, by calling him every bad name, his critics would do him a favor. They would call attention to his meeting, and that would call attention to some basic facts that Jimmy Carter knows, but the world doesn't know, because they have been under-reported in the Western press.

Jimmy Carter knows that 64% of Israelis told the Israeli daily Haaretz in February that they wanted their government to engage in talks with Hamas toward a cease-fire.

Jimmy Carter knows after Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, it was willing to declare a ceasefire in Gaza and the West Bank and allow President Abbas to negotiate with Israel on behalf of all Palestinians.

Jimmy Carter knows that the blockade of Gaza being carried out by Israel, the U.S., and Egypt, far from weakening Hamas, has strengthened its grip on Gaza, as 90% of Gaza's factories have closed and many of their former employees are now working as Hamas policemen or have joined the movement's military wing.

Jimmy Carter knows that Efraim Halevy, former head of Israel's Mossad, has called for Israel to negotiate with Hamas. He knows that before the Annapolis conference, a bipartisan group of U.S. foreign-policy experts, including former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, sent a letter to President Bush and Secretary Rice saying that "genuine dialogue" with Hamas is "far preferable to its isolation."

Indeed, he knows that the U.S. has encouraged Egypt to talk to Hamas about negotiating a cease-fire. How can it be a scandal for Jimmy Carter to talk to Hamas, but not for Egypt to talk to Hamas at U.S. direction?

As Carter has said,

"There's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."

Will the end, will the means. If the United States truly wants a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians - as opposed to just pretending that it wants one - it must deal with Hamas.

Robert Naiman: Jimmy Carter Speaks for Me - Politics on The Huffington Post

Carter met with Shimon Peres, if Israel's own president has no problems talking with him then surely people are overreacting in the US.

Quote:

The party Carter is talking to is “a gang of cutthroats who’ve never hesitated to include Americans in their growing body count,” said the New York Post in an editorial, and his decision to “break bread” with them is an “outrage.” Is he “so convinced of his powers of persuasion” that he thinks he can “single-handedly” persuade Hamas to stop trying to destroy Israel? “Fat chance.” Instead he is “putting a stamp of legitimacy” on Hamas and disgracing “(again) the office he once held.”

They are legitimate, it's who the people voted for. To not include them in peace talks is foolish and to think Hamas can't change its ways is just ignorance of history. When a movement becomes more mainstream and popular it must shift to moderation.

Oh and BTW...

64% of Israelis told the Israeli daily Haaretz in February that they wanted their government to engage in talks with Hamas toward a cease-fire.

I wonder if the pro-Israel lobbyists here in the US know this?

JAD_333 · 04-17-2008, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ameer

I don't feel the least bit sorry for Jimmy Carter, who, predictably, is being pilloried for his plans to meet the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, in Syria on Friday.

As Pete Seeger once said of the victims of McCarthyism: don't mourn those who fought. Don't mourn the people who saw clearly what the right thing to do was, and did it, fully aware of the hammer that might come down on them for doing so.

Jimmy Carter surely knew that he would be called every bad name. Perhaps he even calculated that, by calling him every bad name, his critics would do him a favor. They would call attention to his meeting, and that would call attention to some basic facts that Jimmy Carter knows, but the world doesn't know, because they have been under-reported in the Western press.

Jimmy Carter knows that 64% of Israelis told the Israeli daily Haaretz in February that they wanted their government to engage in talks with Hamas toward a cease-fire.

Jimmy Carter knows after Hamas won the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, it was willing to declare a ceasefire in Gaza and the West Bank and allow President Abbas to negotiate with Israel on behalf of all Palestinians.

Jimmy Carter knows that the blockade of Gaza being carried out by Israel, the U.S., and Egypt, far from weakening Hamas, has strengthened its grip on Gaza, as 90% of Gaza's factories have closed and many of their former employees are now working as Hamas policemen or have joined the movement's military wing.

Jimmy Carter knows that Efraim Halevy, former head of Israel's Mossad, has called for Israel to negotiate with Hamas. He knows that before the Annapolis conference, a bipartisan group of U.S. foreign-policy experts, including former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, sent a letter to President Bush and Secretary Rice saying that "genuine dialogue" with Hamas is "far preferable to its isolation."

Indeed, he knows that the U.S. has encouraged Egypt to talk to Hamas about negotiating a cease-fire. How can it be a scandal for Jimmy Carter to talk to Hamas, but not for Egypt to talk to Hamas at U.S. direction?

As Carter has said,

"There's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."

Will the end, will the means. If the United States truly wants a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians - as opposed to just pretending that it wants one - it must deal with Hamas.

Robert Naiman: Jimmy Carter Speaks for Me - Politics on The Huffington Post

Carter met with Shimon Peres, if Israel's own president has no problems talking with him then surely people are overreacting in the US.

They are legitimate, it's who the people voted for. To not include them in peace talks is foolish and to think Hamas can't change its ways is just ignorance of history. When a movement becomes more mainstream and popular it must shift to moderation.

Oh and BTW...

64% of Israelis told the Israeli daily Haaretz in February that they wanted their government to engage in talks with Hamas toward a cease-fire.

I wonder if the pro-Israel lobbyists here in the US know this?

Ok. The polls show that 64% of Israelis want their gov't to negotiate with Hamas; peace is surely desirable between Palestine and Israel; and so on and so forth. But what has that got to do with Jimmy Carter entering the fray? I don't get your logic here. Is he a solution? How?

gunnut · 04-17-2008, 14:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ameer

Prove it. Oh wait, it's just what you heard, you don't have to.

Don't have to. I already stated that's something I've heard and not confirmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ameer

Even if it was true, so what? You do know there's many pro-Israel politicians out there funded by Jewish/Zionist dollars?

Irrelavent. We're talking about Carter here. Just want to let people know that there's a connection.

Guardian · 04-17-2008, 14:46 PM

Before this issue turns into another Israeli-Palestinian argument, lets refocus our attention to the issue at hand: a former President meeting in a diplomatic manner with a declared enemy of the US and Israel without the orders or invitation to do so from President Bush or Congress.

He is trying to open up dialogue...I understand. The important point here is that he has no legal right to suggest that the US would be open to dialogue with Israel. I do not deny that I would encourage dialogue if I were in a position of political power; but my wish for dialogue means nothing because I am not President, Sec of State, or any other member of the State Dept. Carter is not employed by the federal government. He is a former employee.

I would argue that Bill Clinton did more to alleviate some of the tension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Carter ever did. Clinton has more credibility to make this particular diplomatic mission. But he does not because Clinton shares my opinion. It is not currently his place to do anything about it.

And Clinton knows that he is no longer President. If Bill Clinton wished to open dialogue with Hamas, he would have asked for permission, or have waited until his wife was democratically elected to be in a position to delegate authority to Bill Clinton to make a diplomatic mission.

The reason that I make the comparison of Clinton and Carter is that Carter is on this diplomatic mission because he was personally involved with the Camp David Accords of 1979 between Israel and Egypt. That is the extent of Carter's involvement. But he thinks his involvement is enough to give his unwarranted diplomatic mission legitimacy

Clinton was intimately involved with Oslo, Camp David II, and Oslo II. All of the aforementioned summits all involved the Israelis and Yassir Arafat. Clinton is perhaps the ONLY President that the Palestinians would trust.

Argument: Carter has no place to interfere with these affairs. Combatting terrorism requires more politicking than gun shooting. Carter is interfering with the diplomatic isolation and condemnation placed upon Hamas.

Dreadnought · 04-22-2008, 09:22 AM

In all truthfullness Carter is an assclown. The deal he is making will never be upheld by Hamas nor its followers and anybody who thinks it will probably voted for him as president as well. He should have stayed at the retirement home and not embarrased the U.S. by bargaining with terrorists. Most of the Israeli higher ups wouldnt give him the time of day and rightfully so.

BenRoethig · 04-22-2008, 10:38 AM

I think Carter has shown the biggest reason he's running neck and neck with GW on the all time worst presidents list, he's too naive. There should be some talks with Hamas, but all carter did was give them a photo op.

04-16-2008, 14:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
Guardian Regular Join Date: 02-08-07 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 56 Country:	Jimmy Carter and Hamas If you are unaware of Jimmy Carter's self-appointed emissarial mission with the leader of Hamas, I suggest you go read something about it and then come back to this discussion. Let me be the first to say: "Who does Jimmy Carter think he is?" I understand that his intentions are to open up dialogue with Hamas. But those aspirations are way too ambitious, especially for Jimmy Carter. Israel and the West have very open dialogue with Fateh and Mahmoud Abbas. Israel is in constant contact with Abbas. But Hamas always undermines the effort. Fateh wants a working and sustainable government in the West Bank for the Palestinian people; Hamas wants the destruction of the "Zionist entity." Hamas does not deserve recognition at a diplomatic table. They provide no platform on which to compromise a ceasefire. They are only a political organization because they won the Palestinian elections by promising the Palestinian people health care, education, and a better life; none of which were ever possible to provide. Before the elections, they were a terrorist organization through and through. Political groups do not use suicide bombers on civilians. Political groups do not openly call for the extermination of a people (except the Nazis). When Hamas crossed the threshold and stepped into a world of violence, they lost all credibility as a political organization. Hamas is the enemy of Israel. It is for Israel to find peace, and on Israel's terms. Jimmy Carter talking with Hamas is like Margaret Thatcher talking with Usama bin Laden. It wouldn't be her place to negotiate a peace on behalf of the US gov't, just like it is not Carter's place to discuss compromise on behalf of the Israeli gov't. Carter is not a US diplomat. He is not a gov't official. He was President 30 years ago. He was voted out of office in 1980 because he was aloof. And he still is. If President Bush had asked Carter to go, that would be different. He is going in the hopes that his influence as ex-President will be enough to make some impact on the situation. Final point: Not Carter's place. He is only dampening relations between the Israelis and the Americans by portraying a mixed stance. __________________ The history of the world is but the biography of great men. -Thomas Carlyle

04-16-2008, 14:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
bugs Patron Join Date: 07-19-07 Location: 29°43'34.48"N 95°32'47.97"W Posts: 215 Country:	they won the Palestinian elections your words. __________________ Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

04-16-2008, 14:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 8,594 Country:	I have not confirmed this with my own research, but I've heard the Carter Center is funded by Arab dollars. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

04-16-2008, 14:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
Stan187 WAB BOUNCER *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-24-06 Posts: 2,152 Country:	The worst president in US history refuses to part himself from the legacy of misguided but idiotic efforts. I guess its not that shocking, after all. __________________ In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158 The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

04-16-2008, 23:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
ameer Regular Join Date: 12-11-04 Location: Michigan Posts: 132 Country:	sorry double post Last edited by ameer : 04-16-2008 at 23:40 PM.

04-16-2008, 23:30 PM	#5 (permalink)
ameer Regular Join Date: 12-11-04 Location: Michigan Posts: 132 Country:	I don't agree with everything he says but he does raise many good points. It seems like the pro-Israel lobby and media would like to silence him because he's one of the few who doesn't kiss Israel's butt at every chance he gets. I'm not so sure why people find dialog so evil, so what if he's talking to the "enemy"? First of all, they are the elected leaders of Palestine and secondly, obviously whatever non-dialog stance others have been taking hasn't been working. I'm far more offended when there's politicians out there who make claims like "Americans stand with Israel"? Really? Because I don't. All that pro-Israel lobbying and now finally someone wants to give the other side of the story and everyone throws a fit. Go Jimmy, Go!!!

04-17-2008, 01:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
ameer Regular Join Date: 12-11-04 Location: Michigan Posts: 132 Country:	double post, sorry Last edited by ameer : 04-17-2008 at 01:36 AM.

04-17-2008, 14:46 PM	#13 (permalink)
Guardian Regular Join Date: 02-08-07 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 56 Country:	Jimmy Carter is the topic of conversation Before this issue turns into another Israeli-Palestinian argument, lets refocus our attention to the issue at hand: a former President meeting in a diplomatic manner with a declared enemy of the US and Israel without the orders or invitation to do so from President Bush or Congress. He is trying to open up dialogue...I understand. The important point here is that he has no legal right to suggest that the US would be open to dialogue with Israel. I do not deny that I would encourage dialogue if I were in a position of political power; but my wish for dialogue means nothing because I am not President, Sec of State, or any other member of the State Dept. Carter is not employed by the federal government. He is a former employee. I would argue that Bill Clinton did more to alleviate some of the tension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Carter ever did. Clinton has more credibility to make this particular diplomatic mission. But he does not because Clinton shares my opinion. It is not currently his place to do anything about it. And Clinton knows that he is no longer President. If Bill Clinton wished to open dialogue with Hamas, he would have asked for permission, or have waited until his wife was democratically elected to be in a position to delegate authority to Bill Clinton to make a diplomatic mission. The reason that I make the comparison of Clinton and Carter is that Carter is on this diplomatic mission because he was personally involved with the Camp David Accords of 1979 between Israel and Egypt. That is the extent of Carter's involvement. But he thinks his involvement is enough to give his unwarranted diplomatic mission legitimacy Clinton was intimately involved with Oslo, Camp David II, and Oslo II. All of the aforementioned summits all involved the Israelis and Yassir Arafat. Clinton is perhaps the ONLY President that the Palestinians would trust. Argument: Carter has no place to interfere with these affairs. Combatting terrorism requires more politicking than gun shooting. Carter is interfering with the diplomatic isolation and condemnation placed upon Hamas. Last edited by Guardian : 04-17-2008 at 14:49 PM.

04-22-2008, 09:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 4,970 Country:	In all truthfullness Carter is an assclown. The deal he is making will never be upheld by Hamas nor its followers and anybody who thinks it will probably voted for him as president as well. He should have stayed at the retirement home and not embarrased the U.S. by bargaining with terrorists. Most of the Israeli higher ups wouldnt give him the time of day and rightfully so. __________________ Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

04-22-2008, 10:38 AM	#15 (permalink)
BenRoethig *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-03-04 Location: Dubuque, IA Posts: 981 Country:	I think Carter has shown the biggest reason he's running neck and neck with GW on the all time worst presidents list, he's too naive. There should be some talks with Hamas, but all carter did was give them a photo op. __________________ F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hamas, Israel, the World and Palestine	Ray	International Defense Topics	8	02-22-2006 01:09 AM
Why We Are in Iraq	Leader	The War in Iraq	107	12-16-2004 21:23 PM