Op-Ed: And Carter Calls Condi a Liar?

In a meeting with about as much substance as peace talks between Mikhail Gorbachev and Howard Dean, former President Jimmy Carter met with exiled "political" party leader Khaled Meshaal in supposed attempts for peace.

The fact that a former president of the United States thinks he is above the law, as Jimmy Carter clearly violated 18 U.S.C. § 2339A by providing "expert advice" to a known terrorist organization, is beside the point as we all know he would never be charged, let alone convicted. However, he must think the American public is about as dense as Presidential candidate Barack H. Obama does. In a public statement from the Carter Center, "No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him (Carter) to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President (Bashar) Assad or leaders of Hamas," To add insult to injury, the Carter Center made this public statement, "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." Um, does he not watch the news? Even CNN reported that they didn't want him to go in advance. In this article from CNN dated April 10th, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack stated, "U.S. policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization," and continued, "We don't believe it is in the interest of our policy or in the interest of peace to have such a meeting." McCormack also said that Assistant Secretary David Welch urged Carter in a phone call not to take part in the meeting, arguing doing so would be a detriment to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Maybe he missed this quote from Secretary of State Condolezza Rice on Friday April 11th two days before his meeting, "I find it hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is, in fact, the impediment to peace," or this quote from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, "The State Department made clear we do not think it's useful for people to be running to Hamas," But former President Carter responded with, "We do not believe that peace is likely and certainly that peace is not sustainable unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way." And we're expected to believe that he was never told just because he said so despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Well, some people in PA voted for Barack Obama after he essentially called them (and all of us Midwesterners) gun toting hicks who don't have a shred of faith and go to church just because their lives suck, so I'm sure some schmuck out there will buy it. So anyway, let's get back to my earlier analogy comparing this meeting. Let's imagine a theoretical meeting between former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev and Democratic Party National Chair (DNC) Howard Dean. We'll create an imaginary scenario. Gorbachev is incensed over the U.S. policy regarding illegal immigrants and thinks we should have open borders with no fees or identification checks. So he sets up negotiations with Howard Dean. After all, Dean is the DNC, and they control the majority of Congress, just like Hamas controls the majority of legislative seats in the Palestinian Authority, right? And just like Carter, Gorbachev is the former head of a world super power. So would anyone see any folly with a such a meeting? Never mind the USSR, or Russia for that matter, have no say so whatsoever in US policy, just like the US has no authority to dictate to Israel how it should handle things. Never mind Howard Dean is a former governor and failed presidential candidate with no authority in the US government. He is the head of the ruling party of Congress and Gorbachev thinks our immigration policy is wrong. So who cares if the Putin administration (Bush administration in the real world scenario) asked him not to go. He thinks he can make a difference. Would anyone take the meeting serious? Would it even make headlines? Maybe, but I think it would be a joke that just offends a lot of Americans and Russians. But hey, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he doesn't know any better. Maybe he actually thought a former President could accomplish something meeting with an exiled militant that is the head of a "political party." I mean, yes I've had SERE (Survival, Escape, Evasion and Resistance) Level B (relatively low) training, just like every other current member of the Air Force since it became an annual requirement a year ago, and there was a whole section on how U.S. policy is to NEVER negotiate with terrorists. So I know what would happen to me if I tried to negotiate with someone on this list, but he's just a former President, he probably never had any training on foreign policy. That was sarcasm in case you missed it. But in the news release posted April 10th on the Carter Center's Web site, it says President Carter is leading a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan from Sunday through April 21 as part of the center's "ongoing effort to support peace, democracy and human rights in the region." They explained, "This is a study mission, and our purpose is not to negotiate, but to support and provide momentum for current efforts to secure peace in the Middle East," So what could possibly be gained then? An attempt to undermine his "hated Bush regime" for the Democratic Party with an upcoming presidential election? Doubtful as Democratic Reps. Artur Davis of Alabama, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Adam Schiff of California and Adam Smith of Washington state wrote a letter to Carter saying the meeting could confer legitimacy on a group that embraces violence. Not to mention, it is a terrorist organization...I don't actually have an answer for that. Personally I thought the meeting was one of the most asinine things I had ever heard (slight exaggeration only). It makes no sense to me why he would even attempt to do this, knowing he could accomplish absolutely nothing. Who knows maybe he's just bored in his retirement years and wanted to feel important again. But statements like this, "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." generally tend to make the veins on my head throb in a very visible way. Sorry big boy, you can't have it both ways. Either you think she is telling the truth or lying, or as you put it, "continuing to make a statement that is not true." Regardless, by allowing that press release he speaks volumes about his character. Honestly I'd have had more respect for him if he just "manned up" and said 'yes, they told me not to go, I said beforehand it wasn't a negotiation, so I went anyway.' I'd disagree with the wisdom behind it, but I don't have to agree with someone to respect them. But I do need to believe they have a modicum of integrity to respect them.