Carter, Hamas, and Khaled Mashaal

According to Al Jazeera Hamas has confirmed that former President Jimmy Carter will meet with Khaled Mashaal the leader of Hamas sometime between April 13th and 21st.


All the Carter Center will confirm is that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan April 13-21, 2008, as part of the Carter Center's ongoing effort to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region.


So far this has been met with criticism from a wide variety of sources both left and right.


The US state department has urged Carter not to violate foreign policy by meeting Hamas's political leader.


Condoleezza Rice has criticised the reported plans.


According to his campaign "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements..."


Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Hamas is a terrorist organization who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents and almost daily rocket attacks against Israel, Hillary respects former President Carter but disagrees with his decision."


According to an anonymous Israeli official, "Israel is very angry about the idea of former President Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria next week."

First let me recognize and praise President Carter's humanitarian and international electoral work.

In the field of international diplomacy he seems to have a much more mixed record. President Carter has often been accused of meddling in affairs of state, operating against the interests and policies of our nation.

It is US policy to isolate Hamas, an organization, reasonably placed, on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. Carter's plans to meet with the leader of Hamas would seem counter-productive to that stated goal.

Former President Carter is a member of the Elders and this was originally supposed to be a visit by Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Kofi Annan (all members of the Elders), but according to the Carter Center the others have decided "that the timing was wrong".

For a look at a real interesting curiosity (I haven't decided what I think about this yet), go to:

http://www.theelders.org/elders/

It is curious that despite widespread advice against this meeting Carter continues to persist with his plans.

I would urge President Carter to reconsider and not to meet with Khaled Mashaal.

However, and I have poked around a bit doing some research, I can find no legitimate reason to actually stop him. He may be misguided and completely off-base, but he has the right to travel to Syria and meet with whoever he pleases as a private citizen, so long as he doesn't provide financial or material aid to the organization it all seems completely legal.

The administration should publicly and loudly avow that President Carter is neither a representative of the US government nor can he speak as such.

Finntann

Contrast

Two headlines in the news today make a striking contrast:

Compare "DEMS: America can not afford endless war" to "Marine who lost leg returns to combat in Iraq"

I'd like to start by offering a salute to Gunnery Sergeant William Gibson

Two years ago he lost his leg to a sniper's bullet in Iraq. Today he is back in the combat zone by his own choice.

Read the whole story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029144/

Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi whine about the cost to taxpayers and keep asking are we safer.

To address the cost issue, we are spending 2% less of our GDP on defense now then we were under Ronald Reagan during the cold war.

Are we safer? That is an interesting question. To the best of my recollection we haven't had any major or minor terrorist attacks lately. I could leave it at that... seems a simple answer to a simple question, but what are they really asking and what do they mean by safer? Obviously they are aware of the facts regarding enemy action on US soil, so it would seem what they are asking is "do you feel safer". This is kind of a loaded question, not concerned with the facts but with your feelings. I'd go so far as to suggest that everyone felt pretty safe on September 10th, 2001... and as events proved, this feeling was pretty far off the mark. So, do you feel safer today? Your perception of threat might be higher in this post 9/11 world, but are you in any more danger? An avowed enemy has sworn to strike at this 'heart of Satan' we live in and has not successfully been able to do so. The suggestion, which is probably true, is that the evil is out there, plotting and planning, waiting to strike at the most opportune time. They are playing on your fears of attack, not the actual threat of attack itself.

Nancy Pelosi described this as a 'failed war', what I wonder is her criteria for assessing victory? One might have argued towards the end of 1942 that the war was a 'failed war' having lost most of south east Asia, Burma, The Philippines, Malaya, The Dutch East Indies, and Singapore. We were suffering significant naval losses in the South China Sea, The Java Sea, The Indian Ocean, and were losing ships along the Atlantic Seaboard to the Germans. In the desert the British had been pushed back by the Germans, and the Soviet Union looked ready to fall. Perhaps, then, from the perspective of a 'failed war' we should have sued for peace. We most likely would have gotten off rather easily, abandoning our European allies, and perhaps suffering at most the demilitarization of Hawaii. 'Failed War'! Where would we be now?

All indications are that the situation in Iraq is improving, might as well cut our losses now and withdraw. Might I point our esteemed leadership in the general direction of a good dictionary, in particular the entry on defeatist, "showing a tendency to expect failure or accept it too readily".

The debate about whether we should invade Iraq is over, Factum est... it is done.

Before we start the debate about when to withdrawal troops we really ought to consider and debate the repercussions of such an action. I keep hearing "out, out, out", but nothing about the consequences of withdrawing. Will our withdrawal result in genocide of a proportion to put Darfur to shame? Will our withdrawal result in an Iranian hegemony over the entire region? Having committed ourselves to action in Iraq we are now directly responsible for what happens there, no longer can we sit on the sidelines content or at least tolerant of our sins of omission. Like it or not each and every one of us has a responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq. Whether you consider them our friends, enemies, or are simply indifferent to their fate whatever happens, happens as a result of our actions, past, current, and future.

Might we pause and consider the actions and motivation of Gunnery Sgt Gibson?

“This is where we were 232 years ago as a new nation,” he once said. “Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here.”

Most people would consider the sacrifice that Sgt Gibson has made sufficient, all obligations have been met, no debt is owed, anything else is pure nobility.