Carter meets Hamas chief

[olyclimber]

true, true.

[JayB]

The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter...

 

I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right).

 

I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up.

 

Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections?

 

 

 

 

what are you talking about? the process of voting? isn't that paramount to what "regime" takes power? (i.e. they don't if they aren't voted in). if you aren't voted in then it doesn't really matter what the regimes agenda is.

 

*edit* lol, i now understand you were actually talking about Hamas, not the US pres. elections. Well, I wasn't speaking to the legitimacy of their election. I was talking more about that idea of engaging in a dialogs with our enemies. This was something that Obama said he would do, or so I thought. I would definitely include Hamas in the "enemy of the US" group, and didn't know that there was the condition that they had to be recognized as a country by the US and Isreal before any negotiations could take place (not that they might be fruitful anyway).

 

What I'm wondering is:

 

-What makes a regime "democratic" in your eyes? Is the act of holding elections sufficient, or is there something more to it?

 

-Is the democracy primarily valuable as an exercise in mass-rule, or as a means of establishing a set of institutional protections for a particular set of rights and liberties?

 

For me personally, the "democratic process" is valuable when it occurs in an institutional framework that establishes mass participation as a mechanism for preserving individual rights and liberties; not for limiting, revoking, or destroying them under the auspices of a popular vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

[olyclimber]

i always thought of a democracy as a "will of the people". a majority rule. that all there is to it. however, individual rights and liberties can get mangled by democracy for sure, that is the purpose of the various checks and balances that the we (the US) have put into place.

 

likewise we have found the free market to require regulation lest it be too volatile. i'm sure some would object to this comparison, but it seems that regulation h as been the universal answer to market malfunction.

 

i haven't paid a lot of attention to the Hamas "democratic" situation, but I don't doubt that the majority of those particular people would vote for the principles that Hamas eschews. so what do you do when a people vote tyranny onto themselves? isn't that like voting for a Democrat? or perhaps it is like euthanasia, are we going to deny them the right to vote tyranny unto themselves?

 

anyway, it is an interesting discussion, far more interesting that democracy vs. communism vs. facism etc. which are discussions that are all played out IMO. how democratic does democracy have to be to be "right"? obviously the founders here didn't see the "will of the people" a complete democracy without checks and balances and statement of basic individual rights.

 

it is something that we see here where we are a Christian majority, and we see the Christians attempt to pass laws to support their beliefs.

 

 

[JayB]

Just out of curiosity, have you read "The Federalist Papers"?

 

If you haven't, it'd definitely be worthwhile. If that's not likely, it'd be worth reading through No. 10, linked below.

 

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

 

Might also be worth considering what transpired during the democratic experiment that occurred between 1789 and 1805 in France.

[olyclimber]

thanks. i love this part!:

 

Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.

[olyclimber]

I think it is accurate to call from a purely semantic (and useless) standpoint what they did over there (Palestine) a democracy. but obviously they didn't address the faction vs. liberty issue discussed there that is addressed by a "fair" and healthy democracy.

 

[olyclimber]

aren't you glad we aren't a pure democracy?

 

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science

[JayB]

Always have been.

 

I've also always thought that these considerations should factor into our analysis of whether or not supporting a particular regime was beneficial or detrimental to the cause of democracy in a particular setting.

 

If our interest is in supporting formal exercises in mass political participation, irrespective of what whether the vote will result in an expansion or contraction of particular rights and liberties - then we should uncritically endorse the outcome of every election. By the same measure, we shouldn't care whether or not the process is conducted within an institutional framework that can preserve the same rights or liberties.

 

If our interest is in supporting the expansion and/or maintenance of a particular set of rights or liberties, and we've concluded that our support of democratic exercises rests on its status as a means to secure these ends - then "supporting democracy" becomes more complicated. If the vote is taking place within a framework in which the unchecked will of the masses can completely overturn existing protections for the rights and liberties that we value, and establish a state that's more repressive than the "non-democratic" regime that preceded it - would supporting either the process or the outcome necessarily be consistent with supporting "democracy?"

 

 

[ivan]

 

Read the linked article. What he did in N. Korea was treason. Period.

 

The Soviet/Chinese/etc dissidents do not even compare to Carter. Indeed most victims of Commie oppression hardly did anything that can remotely be construed as treasonous. Fuck, look what they did to Shostakovich. Carter deserves getting called a traitor, just as does that fuck McDermott.

okay - i've finished the article - i'm not quite certain what to make of its contradiction that a) carter is irrelevant and powerless and yet b) he is somehow a great threat

 

what is the great machiavellian motivation you suspect drives him? the article seems to suggest its some sad desire to be remembered well? couldn't he just be another one of you door-knob christians, actually taking the whole "get along w/ your neighbors" thing too seriously instead of busily advocating the avarices of and imitating the evils of ceaser as you seem so much more often to do?

 

the article seems to take glee in noting carter's courting of despotic communist states - as if that was some sort of aberration from our nation's ubiqitious tendency to belly up to bastards. can you think of a post ww2 president, conservative or liberal, who wasn't in bed with a monster? carter did at least seem less enthusiastic for the south africans...and he didn't suck up to shit-heads by attending their olympic games when they were making a mockery of its meaning.

 

so are you just saying carter should be labeled a traitor, or are you saying he should be prosecuted for committing treason? the former is lame, the latter is insane.

 

mostly i don't understand why you give a shit what carter does, especially when you say he's having no effect - who cares? the current state of relations between palestine and israel can get no worse - so what the fuck does it matter if some far-out old man feels like blowign sunshine up some towel-heads' ass?

 

there's a reason why the alien and sedition and logan acts have been ignored for 2 centuries - it's retarded to throw the 1st amendment out the window just b/c someone doesn't agree w/ the current regime's viewpoint or course of action

[glassgowkiss]

Carter, who brokered the 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, has defended what he calls his personal peace mission, saying Hamas must be engaged in order to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

 

 

link

 

 

this administration is like a 4th grade class: "we don't like you so we won't talk to you. neener neener."

 

the best thing he could do is open fire. talking with hamas is poinless.

[Dechristo]

It seems your lack of sight leads you to familiarity with the area beneath animals' tails only.

 

Yes, I am aware of your origin.

 

Of course you are. For, although, many have speculated broadly to origins extra-terrestrial, you know I come from the warm confines of Uranus.

[Hugh Conway]

It seems your lack of sight leads you to familiarity with the area beneath animals' tails only.

 

Yes, I am aware of your origin.

 

Of course you are. For, although, many have speculated broadly to origins extra-terrestrial, you know I come from the warm confines of Uranus.

 

yup. a day 8 ether binge vodka turd

[Dechristo]

excuse moi, I misspelled "cum".

 

humma...humma...humma...humma...HAMAS!!!

[Dechristo]

I'm promised 72 CJ's in Heaven.

[STP]

The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter...

 

I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right).

 

I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up.

 

Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections?

 

 

 

 

what are you talking about? the process of voting? isn't that paramount to what "regime" takes power? (i.e. they don't if they aren't voted in). if you aren't voted in then it doesn't really matter what the regimes agenda is.

 

*edit* lol, i now understand you were actually talking about Hamas, not the US pres. elections. Well, I wasn't speaking to the legitimacy of their election. I was talking more about that idea of engaging in a dialogs with our enemies. This was something that Obama said he would do, or so I thought. I would definitely include Hamas in the "enemy of the US" group, and didn't know that there was the condition that they had to be recognized as a country by the US and Isreal before any negotiations could take place (not that they might be fruitful anyway).

 

What I'm wondering is:

 

-What makes a regime "democratic" in your eyes? Is the act of holding elections sufficient, or is there something more to it?

 

-Is the democracy primarily valuable as an exercise in mass-rule, or as a means of establishing a set of institutional protections for a particular set of rights and liberties?

 

For me personally, the "democratic process" is valuable when it occurs in an institutional framework that establishes mass participation as a mechanism for preserving individual rights and liberties; not for limiting, revoking, or destroying them under the auspices of a popular vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

I always find it difficult to disagree with your logic but my contrarian side still keeps at it. I agree with you on face value when we look at cases such as Iraq, for instance. But...

 

Maybe these people have an answer to your question: about the International Republican Institute

 

 

“Can Democracy Be Exported?”

 

Democracy in the Middle East:

 

[Hugh Conway]

I'm promised 72 CJ's in Heaven.

 

and we are promised 72 Dechristo's in Hell :[]

[Peter_Puget]

 

ATLANTA....President Carter has the greatest respect for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and believes her to be a truthful person. However, perhaps inadvertently, she is continuing to make a statement that is not true. No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President Assad or leaders of Hamas.

 

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/middle_east_statement_042308.html

 

MR. CASEY: Okay. Good afternoon and happy Monday, everyone. I don't have anything to start you out with, so Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah. Tom, can you expand at all on what you said this morning about President Carter and his talks with Hamas? And also, I don't know if you've seen these latest comments from Khaled Mashaal, but he's saying that they won't recognize Israel, but they are prepared -- apparently, prepared to be its neighbor in peace and they've offered a 10-year ceasefire.

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, I think we'll let former President Carter speak for himself. But he made this trip on his own initiative. As you know, we counseled him against engaging with Hamas, in keeping with longstanding U.S. policy. But in terms of the nature of his discussions, I think I'll leave it to him and others to talk about.

What is clear to us, though, is that nothing has changed in terms of Hamas's basic views about Israel and about peace in the region. They still refuse to acknowledge or recognize any of the basic Quartet principles, including recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and acknowledging all the previous agreements that have been made between the Palestinian Authority and Israel itself.

And I think if you look back at the history of the rhetoric from Hamas, you see all these language about truces and other kinds of issues. But the bottom line is, Hamas still believes in the destruction of the state of Israel. They don't believe Israel has a right to exist. And it's pretty hard to see how Hamas becomes any kind of legitimate partner for Israel or for President Abbas, for that matter, as long as its fundamental view is that the person that you would achieve a peace agreement with doesn't have a right to exist.

QUESTION: Tom, just to follow up quick.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: If Hamas changes its mind, let's say, against Israel, what they have been saying for the last -- so many years, when -- still U.S. recognize -- does not recognize Hamas, but if they change their mind, you think there will be a change of policy if they do everything -- what they have been saying about Israel?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, Goyal, I think the Quartet has made clear that for the international community to be able to engage in any meaningful way with Hamas, they need to adhere to the Quartet principles. And unfortunately, I don't think we've seen anything that indicates that they intend to do so. Obviously, you know, if Hamas got out of the terrorism business, recognized Israel, met all those criteria, that would be a different situation and potentially would mean a different kind of relationship between Hamas and the international community. But I think unfortunately, we're not likely to see that any time soon.

QUESTION: But you don't see Carter's visit or his talks with -- in Syria as having broken any ice?

MR. CASEY: Like I said, Matt, I don't have any kind of direct readout on those conversations. From what I've been able to gather, though, it doesn't fundamentally change anything.

Elise.

QUESTION: New topic?

QUESTION: Can I stay on this for a second?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Tom, actually, Mr. Carter challenged this morning on NPR your assertion last week and the one you just repeated a few minutes ago, that you advised him against meeting with those Hamas leaders and said that he spoke to David Welch and David, in no way, discouraged him or urged him not to meet with these people. He didn't encourage him to do so, but -- so I'm just trying to figure out what exactly it was David said to him that made him believe that he was, you know, free to meet with those people.

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, he is free to meet with those people in the sense that he's a private citizen and a former president and he'll make his own judgments about these things as he has done in this instance. However, again, Nicholas, I can't explain to you why he is saying that. All I know is that you heard from Sean and from the Secretary and from me that the advice we gave him was not to engage in those meetings. Why he didn't hear that message or why he didn't understand that message, I don't know. That's a question you'd have to leave to him.

QUESTION: Well, it may be that David Welch is such an accomplished diplomat that even when he says no, it sounds like yes.

MR. CASEY: I think our policies on this are pretty clear. But, you know, look, he's a former President of the United States. I'll leave it to him to describe his meetings and arrangements. I -- all I can say is you've heard from us as to what we conveyed to him.

 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2008/apr/103842.htm

 

 

Rice had said Tuesday that the United States would not deal with Hamas and "we certainly told president Carter that we didn't think meeting with Hamas was going to help the Palestinians who (are) actually devoted to peace."

Commenting on Carter's statement, Rice's spokesman Sean McCormack defended his boss, saying, "We stand by the statements.

"We stand by them as statements of fact."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080423162425.dlwedm8u&show_article=1

 

Who do you believe?

[StevenSeagal]

 

 

Rice had said Tuesday that the United States would not deal with Hamas and "we certainly told president Carter that we didn't think meeting with Hamas was going to help the Palestinians who (are) actually devoted to peace."

Commenting on Carter's statement, Rice's spokesman Sean McCormack defended his boss, saying, "We stand by the statements.

"We stand by them as statements of fact."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080423162425.dlwedm8u&show_article=1

 

Who do you believe?

 

Why, Condi, of course. We don't torture people either, she said it herself. Duh.

[billcoe]

... what carter is doing is NOT treason. treason is selling nuclear secrets to the bad guys, putting on their uniform, killing your fellow countrymen w/ your own hands, etc.

 

 

Link

 

To me, I do not think Carter has it in him to tell a lie about if he was told not to go, of course the admin folks didn't say anything to him. Carter was the Obama of his day, and a good person by all accounts despite some of the vitriol pointed at him as it concerns his job as the President. He didn't get re-elected which says something.....

 

Regardless of what any of us think, here's the ambassadors point.

 

"NEW YORK (AP) - Israel's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday called former President Jimmy Carter "a bigot" for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria......."

 

and if you read the entire story at the link, at the end of the story the main Israeli point rears it's ugly head (spelling of "Axes/Axis" was verbatum): ""Basically, Syria and Iran, together with Hamas and Hezbollah, are the main axes of terror and evil in the world," the Israeli ambassador said. "

 

..."and now you know.....the rest of the story".

[Peter_Puget]

Gotta call your common sense into question Bill. Carter issued a statement saying that there was not even a suggestion that he not go. I believe that the State Dept probably did not explicitly ask that he not go but I am certain that they would have conveyed that they thought that a meeting with Hamas would not help the cause of Middle East peace. Certianly as a diplomat Cater should have taken that as a suggestion that he not go. In this case common sense would suggest that Carter is either 1) senile or 2) a liar.

[Peter_Puget]

Also with regard to "axis/axes" how do you know what word "axes" or "axis" was spoken by the Ambassador? Inquiring minds......

 

I would like to think axes because it would be a wondeful choice......

[Peter_Puget]

The disclosures about Syrian and North Korean cooperation in some ways confirm the president's 2002 axis of evil speech, which posited that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea cooperated in support of terrorism and weapons proliferation. A co-author of that speech, David Frum, when reached for a comment said, "There is now irrefutable public confirmation of North Korean and Syrian nuclear cooperation and suggestive indication of Iranian involvement. It's almost like they formed an axis or something."

[Jim]

What a bunch of crap. The only question that needs to be asked is are we in better strategic position now or before the Idiot took over the reigns. It will be nice to get some adults running the show instead of a continual PR campaign. They know how to spin extremely well. Too bad they can't seem to apply a fraction of that skill to governance or leadership.

[Peter_Puget]

What a bunch of crap. The only question that needs to be asked is are we in better strategic position now or before the Idiot took over the reigns. It will be nice to get some adults running the show instead of a continual PR campaign. They know how to spin extremely well. Too bad they can't seem to apply a fraction of that skill to governance or leadership.

 

Jim - It'll be great seeing you across the table sharing a beer with a bunch of McCain buttons on. Until then here's a link: Fox News

 

Maybe we could meet during one of these guys' Pub Club! (Don't forget to scroll down!)

 

[Peter_Puget]

Oh and Jim...any chance you can show me where Obama demonstrated a new bipartisan way of governing, sponsored a significant piece of legislation or showed leadership during his time in the Senate?