[Zeroisanumber]

Coming off of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and as a former US President, Carter is in a unique position to try and mediate an end to at least some of the conflict that is going on.

He has credibility with the major players and represents a chance at hope for two peoples who are getting tired of slaughter.

In any event, he can't make the situation any worse. So far as I see the only real reason that FReepers are against the idea is because he used to have a "D" in front of his name.

Put another way: Would you be so opposed if Ronald Reagan regained his mental health and made a similar offer?

[ConservativeMan55]

Jimmy is an utter failure at everything he does. Nuff Said.

[ConservativeMan55]

One more thing!
Jimmy wants to try and mediate with Hezbollah and Hamas!
You can't mediate with terrorists! The terrorists don't want peace!!! The terrorists want to terrorize!!!!
You won't stop terrorists unless you KILL THEM DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS.

[anobjectivist]

Right...like when he demanded that the Shah step down in Iran, an action which plunged Iran into the most anti-human-rights area in the world.

Or how about him going over to North Korea for clinton in 1994, and helping the idea that North Korea won't develop nuclear weapons if we build them nuclear reactors.

Also, how about the rampant inflation and unemployment during jimmy carter's presidency?

[ohioman]

You rentire post is complete rubbish. There is no peace to negotiate. Only a war for Israel to win. By putting his sorry nose where it don't belong, Carter would only to serve to help the Islamo-fascists. Who the hell's side are you on? I know whose side Carter is on-the liberal loser anti-american American.

[Marysecretary]

Reagan was no failure. He led the country, Jimmy almost ruined it.

[Paulus Invictus]

Carter has only one "unique position." It's called appeasement and abject surrender. Tell me how he brokered peace anywhere that is still in place? You can't. He's a loser and would be had he been a member of any party. Most of us "Rs" don't have kind thoughts about Nixon either and he did far more to help the the world gain peace (Viet Nam) than Carter did anywhere. Zero is the number your opinion is worth.

The real Peace Prize is well overdue for our greatest peace broker president--Ronald Reagan--but the Norwegian Nobel Committee members are leftist losers and it won't happen.

[maxwellp]

Put another way: Carter left AMERICANS sitting in Iran for a year. What did he do about it? NOTHING. Then the American people realized what a jerk we had in the White House and got rid of him promptly. While Ronald Reagan was still "President-Elect" the AMERICAN hostages were released. Why? Because Iran knew instinctively that President Reagan was not a man to fool around with. If President Reagan was well enough to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine, I don't think he'd bother. He'd recognize the futility of trying to negotiate with terrorists. God Bless President Reagan and God, give us some direction as to what to do with Carter.

[tet68]

In any event, he can't make the situation any worse. So far as I see the only real reason that FReepers are against the idea is because he used to have a "D" in front of his name.

Actually, he STILL HAS a "D" after his name.
Try and keep in mind that the only thing he provided in the middle east peace process was a place to sign the accord.

A loser of the first rank, he is the reason there IS no peace in the middle east today and he is the reason terrorism is rampant today.

Sad to say, I actually voted for him but it was the only time and I've made up for it since.