SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (24379)12/8/2006 7:13:10 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
It just keeps getting worse for Jimmy Carter

****

Errors, omissions, inventions, falsehoods, and theft

Power Line

Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has accused Jimmy Carter of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him. Ross says he commissioned the maps for his use, but that Carter appears to have ripped them off for use in his book, 'Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid'.

Ross' charges (if true) are probably the least of the problems Carter faces with respect to his book. Several days ago, as Scott reported, Kenneth Stein resigned as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. He stated that
    "President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too 
inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished
analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied
materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions,
and simply invented segments."
But at least it has good maps.

Hat tip: Laura Mirengoff

powerlineblog.com

foxnews.com

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)12/12/2006 3:37:46 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Heh! Heh! Jimmy Carter, lying lib.

****

What would Jimmy do? Part 2

Power Line

This morning Newsweek publicist Natalia Labenskyj emailed us the political stories in Newsweek's new issue. One of the items in Labeskyj's email is Eleanor Clift's softball interview with Jimmy Carter, which I happened to read. Here is one question and answer that caught my attention:

<<< [CLIFT:] You're obviously aware of your main critic, Mr. Stein, who used to be with the Carter Center.

[CARTER:] Thirteen years ago! He hasn't been associated with the Carter Center for 13 years. >>>

When we were originally sent Professor Stein's letter explaining his resignation from the Carter Center last week, I looked Professor Stein up on the Carter Center's site. Professor Stein's Carter Center page is linked below, describing Professor Stein as the "Carter Center fellow for Middle East affairs since 1983." A reduced screen capture of Professor Stein's Carter Center page is below.




In answer to the question posed in the heading, Carter would lie and then keep right on on lying.

Sincere thanks to readers Glenn Bowen, Peter Beddow, Tommy Germany, John Purcell, Colin MacLeod, William Hughes, Bart Lidofsky, Dr. David Shafer, William Katz and Jerry Heyman for the screen capture of Professor Stein's Carter Center page.

powerlineblog.com

msnbc.msn.com

cartercenter.org



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)12/12/2006 5:30:21 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Creepy Carter

Ex-presidential madness.

By Rich Lowry
National Review Online

Jimmy Carter brings a Christian perspective to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Unfortunately, it is the same Christian perspective as a drunken Mel Gibson, obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews.

Yes, there are two sides to every dispute, and heaven knows the Palestinian people have suffered throughout the past six decades, but Carter apes the Palestinian position and calls it evenhandedness. He is such a rabid partisan that his next logical step after the publication of his rant of a new book, 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid', can only be to follow the example of the late Israel-hater Edward Said and be photographed throwing rocks at Israeli security forces.

Carter’s inflammatory title accords with attempts to delegitimatize the existence of the Jewish state by equating Zionism with racism. Carter thinks he’s being charitable because what he is criticizing “is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens.” Oh, is that all?

The book marks Carter’s further disgraceful descent from ineffectual president and international do-gooder to apologist for the worst Arab tendencies. “It is imperative,” Carter writes, “that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” In the meantime, presumably, the slaughter of Jews can continue.

Israel can’t be so blithe about the murder of its citizens, which is why it built the security fence. Carter calls it an “imprisonment wall,” but it has been effective in preventing Palestinian terrorists from blowing people to bits — the kind of attacks Carter characterizes as “(unfortunate) for the peace process.” Twice recently, Israel has vacated occupied land, in Southern Lebanon and Gaza, only to see attacks against it launched from those same territories. But Carter always finds a way to point a finger at Israel.

In doing so, Carter thinks he is providing an extraordinary public service. In an interview with Newsweek, Carter said he wants “to provoke discussion, which is very rarely heard in this country.” Carter must not have followed the news during Israel’s war with Lebanon this summer, when media outlets were replete with criticisms of the Jewish state. Carter-like calls for a rejuvenated peace process, meanwhile, are so common that they are a cliché.

Carter argues that more people would see the Middle East his way if it weren’t for the nefarious influence of the pro-Israel American-Israel Political Action Committee. He apparently believes that if only the Palestinian Authority had better lobbyists, then members of Congress would flock to the cause of this chaotic, corrupt, terrorist-supporting excuse for a governmental entity.

Incredibly, given his media presence, Carter thinks that he is being silenced by shadowy forces. He makes this bizarre claim:


<<< “My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment.” >>>

Does Carter keep track of which schools have lots of Jews? And who does he think is keeping him from speaking at them?

Just as creepy is a passage in the book about Christians in Galilee who “complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost 2,000 years earlier.” As New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg notes,
    “There are, of course, no references to ‘Israeli 
authorities’ in the Christian Bible. Only a man who sees
Israel as a lineal descendent of the Pharisees could write
such a sentence.”
What the Palestinians desperately need is a decent government that is genuinely committed to pursuing peace with Israel. By excusing the current degraded state of the Palestinian leadership, Carter is helping only to extend the conflict with Israel and perpetuate Palestinian suffering, not to mention trash his own reputation.

© 2006 by King Features Syndicate

article.nationalreview.com

nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)12/15/2006 1:51:56 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Brave Jimmy Carter?

It takes courage to criticize Israel?

By Mona Charen
National Review Online

Having scolded the Western world for its “inordinate fear of communism,” Jimmy Carter is now, 30 years later, attempting to legitimize the shameful Zionism Equals Racism resolution passed and later repealed by the United Nations. The man has a seemingly unerring instinct for error. 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' is touted (by Carter himself) as an evenhanded analysis of the Israeli/Arab conflict — but one need go no further than the title to suspect otherwise.

Carter, like all Israel bashers, proclaims his courage. Please. It takes courage to criticize Israel? The world is teeming with Israel-haters. No other nation in the world — not Russia, not Saudi Arabia, not Cuba — is the subject of so much concentrated calumny. In Europe, as Melanie Phillips recounts in her dazzling book Londonistan, Israel is cursed not just among the rabble but at elegant dinner parties and embassy soirees. And while it’s true that in the United States, Israel enjoys high levels of support, it is also routinely castigated (and nearly always by people who imagine they are defying some powerful cabal). What is amazing is that even a former president of the United States confuses freedom of speech with freedom from criticism for the content of that speech.

Here’s a precis of the book: Israel is the problem. In fact, it’s all summed up in the final paragraph:


<<< “Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens — and honor its own previous commitments — by accepting its legal borders.” >>>

By the way, that kind of awkward phrasing is found throughout this slapdash work.

Sixty years of withheld recognition by its neighbors, ceaseless terror against Israeli civilians, countless agreements defaulted upon — none of this disturbs President Carter’s certitudes.

The book is so foolish that you can pretty much close your eyes and point to any page to find something simplistic, naïve, or tendentious.
On page 97, for example, Carter asserts that “The militant group Hezbollah . . . was formed in Lebanon in 1982 to resist the Israeli occupation.” Not quite. Hezbollah’s founding document calls for Islamic rule in Lebanon, an end to Western imperialism and the destruction of the state of Israel. An arm of the Iranian Islamic revolution, Hezbollah’s operatives have been found in France, Spain, Cyprus, Singapore, the “triborder” region of South America and the Philippines, reports Foreign Affairs magazine.

Carter tells the history of the Six-Day War in 1967 this way: “On June 5, Israel launched preemptive strikes, moving first against Egypt and Syria, then against Jordan.” That’s false. Israel did strike first at Egypt and Syria (waiting to be attacked would have meant national suicide), but specifically called upon Jordan to stay out of the fighting. Jordan’s King Hussein, putting faith in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s claim that Egypt was defeating Israel, chose to shell Jerusalem. Israel then turned its full might on Jordan, driving them out of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Carter claims that “The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians.” What? In December 2000, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Israel (unwisely) gave nearly complete autonomy to the Palestinians in the disputed territories and even gave the Palestinian security forces weapons. In return, the Palestinians were supposed to prevent terror attacks against Israel. Not only did the PA fail to prevent terror attacks, it organized and carried them out.

Explicating last summer’s Israel/Hezbollah war, Mr. Carter offers a distorted history. He claims that Hezbollah “attacked two Israeli vehicles, killing three soldiers and capturing two others.” Hezbollah did this, Carter explains, in order to exchange them for captives in Israel. Very understandable. But then Israel just went wild, attacking Lebanon without mercy. In fact, Hezbollah’s attack on the Israel Defense Forces was accompanied by rocket attacks on several Israeli towns, which wounded several civilians and displaced many others. It was also timed to hit Israel when she was already under attack by Hamas from Gaza.

These are not careless errors, they flow from Carter’s pointed animus toward Israel and corresponding softness toward the Arabs
(read his elegy to Saudi Arabia if you want to gag). How else to account for the fact that he takes Yasser Arafat’s peaceful declarations at face value? Or that he lets slip nasty anti-Semitic asides like this: “It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.” Those Jews never change, do they? What complaints exactly did Jesus receive about holy sites and culture? We could ask President Carter, but we should know better than to expect an honest answer.

COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

article.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)12/15/2006 7:02:39 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Somewhere Out There, A Village is Missing Its Idiot

By Texas Rainmaker on Israel

Two days ago, Jimmy Carter was defending his pro-terrorist, fabricated work of plagiarism by claiming it was just intended to spark debate:

<<< He said he chose the title to shine light on the festering conflict and give Americans a different point of view than what they’re used to.

I wanted to provoke debate,” Carter said. “I wanted to provoke discussion.” >>>

And Alan Dershowitz and Brandeis University stepped up to the challenge and offered Carter a forum to debate. So what was Carter’s response?

<<< Carter, author of a new book advocating “peace not apartheid” in the region, said he will not visit Brandeis University to discuss the book because the university requested he debate Dershowitz. >>>


So Carter wrote the book to spark debate, then refused to visit Brandeis because they requested a debate. I guess we really shouldn’t expect more from the peanut farmer.


<<< The school’s debate request, Carter said, is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation’s most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. >>>


No, the school’s debate request is proof they wanted to hear a debate, moron. But instead, Carter expects his drive-by punditry to serve as the definitive view on the topic without discussion or debate… typical liberal strategy.

So why is Carter afraid to debate and defend the positions in his book?

texasrainmaker.com

adl.org

latimes.com

media.nationalreview.com

breitbart.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)1/11/2007 11:58:26 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
MORE TROUBLE FOR JIMMY CARTER

Instapundit.com
    Fourteen members of an advisory board at the Carter Center
resigned today, concluding they could "no longer in good
conscience continue to serve" following publication of
former President Jimmy Carter's controversial
book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
    "It seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, 
including even malicious advocacy," the board members
wrote in a letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The
Wall Street Journal. "We can no longer endorse your
strident and uncompromising position. This is not the
Carter Center or Jimmy Carter we came to respect and
support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we
hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors
of the Carter Center effective immediately."
I have never been a fan of Carter's myself, but he does seem to have gone off the deep end in recent years.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader John Palmer, here's a link to another story that doesn't require a subscription.
iht.com

feeds.feedburner.com

online.wsj.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)1/16/2007 2:51:39 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
JIMMY FOR TERROR

NEW YORK POST
Editorial
January 15, 2007

Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?

Sure looks that way.

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter's new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?

To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)

You don't have to read between the lines here.

Carter isn't calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they've achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.

Certainly, that's how 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board read that paragraph. Indeed, it's why they angrily submitted their resignations last week.

That's also how Melvin Konner read it. He's a respected anthropology professor at Emory University and had been asked to be part of an academic group meant to advise the former president and the Carter Center on how to respond to criticism of the book.

As Konner wrote to John Hardman, the center's executive director, in declining the invitation:
    "I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not
condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel
unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for
peace. The sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an
apologist for terrorists and places my children, along
with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger."
Konner, by the way, is no Carter-basher; he describes the former president as "one of my greatest heroes."

But he is troubled by what he calls Carter's "rigid and inflexible views" that render him "no longer capable of dialogue" on the issue. He is deeply bothered by Carter's "complete failure to engage criticism from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors" of fact in the book.

And he's understandably offended by Carter's "repeated public insinuations that the Jews control the media and the Congress - well-worn anti-Semitic slurs that, especially coming from President Carter, present a clear and present danger to American Jews."

How did this man ever become president of the United States?

He's gone from failed president to friend of left-wing tyrants and global scold of anything that represents America's legitimate interests.

Now, in his bid to demonize Israel (recall that he secretly gave PR and political advice to Yasser Arafat), Carter has turned mythmaker - distorting history and misrepresenting facts, when he isn't making them up altogether.

That's bad enough, of course.

But when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale.

It's time for the Democrats to finally cut all their ties to Carter, who was rehabilitated as a party icon at the 2004 convention. If they don't, Americans should consider the implications.

nypost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)1/16/2007 6:32:18 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Jimmy Carter's irresistible urge

Power Line

Kenneth Stein is the Emory University professor who resigned from the Carter Center in protest against the "gross inventions, intentional falsehoods and irresponsible remarks" contained in Jimmy Carter's latest book. He has now elaborated on what some of the falsehoods are. One involves Carter's misquotation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Stein says that Carter inserted the word "the," which did not appear in the original, and thus made the resolution appear more specific than it was in requiring Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories.

But Stein's main complaint is that Carter reports falsely about a meeting he had with Syrian dictator Hafez Assad in 1990, which Stein also attended. In Carter's version, Assad said he was willing to negotiate with Israel on the status of the Golan Heights. But according to Stein, Assad was not willing to accept a demilitarized Golan. Stein also disputes Carter's claim that Assad expressed willingness to move Syria's troops farther from the border than Israel would be required to do. According to Stein, Carter's falsehoods are intended to make Syria look more reasonable, and Israel more intransigent, than was actually the case. So, as one might have guessed, Carter's irresitible urge to cast anti-American dictators in a favorable light (coupled, of course, with his hatred of Israel) has landed him in this latest spot of bother.

Finally, Stein takes issue with Carter's claim that the Bush I administration was too focused on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to pay attention to Carter's report on the alleged progress he had made with Assad. Stein notes that Carter's briefing occurred before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The first Pres. Bush must have ignored Carter for other good and sufficient reasons.

Stein agrees with many of Carter's positions on issues pertaining to Israel. That may not be anything to brag about, but it reinforces his claim that he hasn't parted company with Carter over policy, but rather because Carter is misrepresenting the facts.

Via No Left Turns
noleftturns.ashbrook.org

powerlineblog.com

calendarlive.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)1/18/2007 10:33:48 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Jimmuh terrror not peace, part 3

Power Line

Today's continuing series is brought to you courtesy of the Washington Post and Jimmuh himself: "A new chance for peace." Jimmuh writes:

<<< I am concerned that public discussion of my book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" has been diverted from the book's basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book's title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel's status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors. >>>


Is there a truthful sentence in this opening paragraph? Jimmuh seems well on his way to achieving the perfect vacuum that Mary McCarthy credited to Lillian Hellman: "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the."

Not to mention Jimmuh's omissions.
He can't bring himself to call for the cessation of the tragic murder of Israelis by the terrorist groups operating as political parties within the PA, or to recognize the object of those parties as the causal factor in what he describes as "the tragic persecution of the Palestinians." Jimmuh's refusal to acknowledge the causal relationship between Arab murder and Israeli self-defense provides powerful evidence on which to base "allegations" that Jimmuh is hostile to Israel, or not committed to its survival in the same sense that he is committed to enabling Palestinian Arabs to achieve their homicidal objectives without impediment.

The rest of Jimmuh's column today, which proceeds to resolve the pending issues in Iraq and the broader Middle East as well as those between Israel and the PA, is every bit as good as his opening paragraph.

To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com

powerlineblog.com

washingtonpost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24379)1/25/2007 9:52:23 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Thugocracy

Cox & Forkum



coxandforkum.com