Should Carter have met with Hamas

[emilyg]

http://www.cnn.com/

Quick Vote
Should Jimmy Carter have met with Hamas leaders?
Yes 48% 46253
No 52% 50470
Total Votes: 96723

read related article »This is not a scientific poll

[saltpoint]

1. Why not? Just because Bush is too big a

pussy to meet with the tough customers around the globe doesn't mean everyone else is.

I'd rather have Carter sit down with a world leader than Bush or Rice or anyone else there is in the Bush administration.

Give 'em hell, Jimmy.

And God Bless Rachel Maddow while we're at it.

[OhioChick]

3. Agreed.

No one else in this administration is/has done jack-shit.

[Ian David]

2. Yes, but I think the blowjob was unnecessary. n/t

[Taverner]

4. Yes

We need dialog with people who don't agree with us, if anything to define boundaries.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Yes

Some people go through the motions.

Carter **lives** Shalom.

[gratuitous]

6. What's the alternative?

Ignore them and maybe the duly elected representatives of a nation will just go away? And how's that workin' for ya, Dr. Phil?

[defendandprotect]

7. Yes -- he's the peacemaker --- those carping are the warmongers/murderers ---

though, Carter has always been weird ---

Council on Foreign Relations, as well --- ??

[mac2]

8. He's out of power. Not unless someone who is elected

sends him there. It is a voilation of the Logan Act.

[Benhurst]

9. Yeah, but we haven't had any elected officials representing us since

2000.

[mac2]

13. Remember when Carter went to do peace talks? He

was sent there to do so like Mitchell in Ireland by Clinton. Otherwise he has no power to promise anything.

Many other countries have tried but their problem is we fund the war/strife and look the other way when they do horrendous things to each other. We don't say...stop it or we will cut off your funding, support, etc. We are the problem. This administration wants strife and killing. It gives them an excuse to sell weapons and be there. The Empire Builders of old are back.

[Toucano]

19. I don't think that's technically correct.

You assume he's there to represent the United States. He's not.

He's representing himself, which he's perfectly within his rights to do.

[Wizard777]

10. He's destroying our war policy!

And instituting a Peace policy.

I have not lost one bit of my respect for this peaceful man.

[reprehensor]

11. Yes.

There is nothing wrong with a meeting.

[mac2]

15. It violates the Logan Act.

Maybe you trust Carter but it could be someone else acting in our interest who is not as "peaceful" or well meaning.

[saltpoint]

12. While Carter is no longer in office, he seems a lot more so than Bush is,

and Bush is supposed to actually BE in office.

Also, if it's not too much trouble, maybe the Secretary of State could show up for work one morning. Just for the sheer novelty of it, I mean.

[mac2]

14. Good job Condi!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. Of course he should have!

You cannot have peace without dialogue among ALL the involved parties!

:eyes:

[mac2]

17. Everyone has been there but we can't send Carter unless

he has some power to do something. Right now he has none.

[Toucano]

20. He's not there for "We", if by that you mean the United States. n/t

[Toucano]

18. 100% YES

How on earth can you ever expect to reach a truce with someone if you can't talk to them?

There's enough blood to go around on both sides. Shunning one side over the other will accomplish nothing and maintain the status quo, which - it appears - is in a lot of people's financial interests.

It is only TALKING. That doesn't indicate approval or support in any way.