From USA Today:
A day after returning from the Mideast, former Democratic president Jimmy Carter on Wednesday defended his meetings with leaders of the militant Palestinian movement Hamas, and said his visit doesn't lend the group credence.
....
"Hamas was not legitimized by my visit," Carter said. "They were legitimized by the fact that their people voted for them to be the ruling party in their parliament."
Where Rice "gets this repetitive claim that I was warned and advised not to go and urged not to go — she's completely mistaken," he said. "I think she's being misinformed. I don't think Condoleezza is deliberately lying, but the statement she's making is false."
....
Carter said he spoke with David Welch, Rice's deputy.
"He never said anything about 'Don't go to the Mideast. Don't meet with Hamas. Don't meet with Syria.' He never said anything like that," Carter said. "That was the only person in the government with whom I've discussed it."
Knowing what you know about Condoleezza Rice and her history of "misspeaking", who do think is telling the truth, Carter or Rice? Perhaps, Welch misinformed Condi about what he said to cover his rear. Perhaps Condi misspoke about what Welch told her. Who knows? She does not have a reputation as a truth-teller. Actually, I find this delicious, Carter calling them on their "misspeaking" and the press actually covering the story.
It reminds me of the attorney's question, "Who ya gonna believe? Me or yo lyin eyes?"
ReplyDeleteJimmy. In a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for a reply from someone who picks Condi. In truth, it was a rhetorical question.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Carter has a much better track record than anyone in the current administration for honesty, integrity, and concern.
ReplyDeleteJan, absolutely.
ReplyDeleteSay what you want about Carter, I'd never doubt his honesty.
ReplyDeleteCondi Rice...not so much.
I don't trust either of them.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, I'm a cynic. ;)
Bubs, exactly right. Whatever you thought of his presidency, he is an honest and honorable man.
ReplyDeleteFran, Carter appears unfazed by the misspeaking and criticism directed his way. He has accomplished so much in the years since he served as president, doing more good than anything we will see from the likes of the Bush gang. You could say that he's our greatest ex-president.
Roland, I'm a bit of a cynic, too. but I trust Jimmy Carter. Either they warned him, or they didn't. Ya gotta pick one.
On the contrary, Carter has gotten to the point that whatever he says should be doubted immediately. He got the Clinton administration p.o'd at him, and I'm sure he's got the current one p.o'd too. When building houses or fighting diseases in the Third World, he's to be less trusted than anyone in the current administration. (And I trust them even less than Mimi does, if that's possible.) But in the conflict of veracity and Carter's ego, Carter's ego seems to win most of the time.
ReplyDeleteI don't think his mendacity is intentional; I think he has a case of selective hearing, and interprets what he's told into something that he wants to hear.
Good case is last week, when he announced that Hamas was willing to recognize Israel (if Israel accept preconditions that amounted to surrender), and the Hamas leader was on the air within a few hours saying no to recognition, but if the preconditions are accepted we'll give them a ten year "truce". My bet is Carter heard the word truce, decided that meant Hamas would recognize Israel, and made his announcement based on that. Probably Mr. Welch didn't say "Don't go." He probably said something on the lines of "it's a bad idea" and "we'd prefer you didn't go", but Carter undoubtedly decided it meant whatever Carter thought it meant.
And I say that as a graduate of the university where the Carter Center is based.
Ooops, the flying fingers of Typo hit:
ReplyDeleteWhen building houses or fighting diseases in the Third World...
should be
When not building houses or fighting diseases on the Third World...
The business of having the Clinton and Bush administrations pissed off doesn't bother me much. In fact, if the Bush administration is pissed off at him, then he's more than likely done something right.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that Carter did backtrack on his initial claims about what Hamas said they were willing to do.
The Israelis didn't want him to go to the ME, so the Bush crew had to go along with them. Carter made it clear that he didn't go as their representative. Why would I believe Condi?
Carter has been called an anti-Semite, a pro-terrorist, and a liar by conservative groups, none of which I believe is true. I'd have to get much more documentation before I could agree with you, Kishnevi.
Email update received a short time ago from the Atlanta Journal Constitution - can't find it on the NYT right now:
ReplyDelete"Israel's ambassador to the United Nations says former President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter "went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal."
Wonder when or if Lieberman will swell the chorus.
Both sides, Israel and Hamas, have blood on their hands The plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza is desperate even now. Carter tried to move some sort of accommodation between the two parties forward. I give him credit for that.
ReplyDeleteGrandmere, if you want documentation that Carter is a dishonest bigot, it exists, and it's relatively easy to find: the book he published year. It's got enough "mispeakings" to qualify as a Hamas book.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd like to know how one can accomodate both sides when one side actively preaches genocide and murder of civilians. The side, btw, which Carter supports.
How will there ever be peace if the two sides won't even talk to each other?
ReplyDeleteWe'll agree to disagree on some things. I do not support genocide or killing of civilians. The Israelis kill civilians, too, you know. It's not all about the words. It's in the deeds, too. The US kills civilians. I don't like it whenever or wherever it's done, or whoever is doing it.