Jimmy Carter

My view of Jimmy Carter is well known so I was interested to read this:

Dershowitz: I Challenge Carter to Human Rights Debate at Cardozo

 

I will come, at my own expense, to debate Jimmy Carter on Carter's own human rights record. If Cardozo will have me, I will come and provide the students, the administration and anyone else that is interested, with a first rate debate about the meaning of human rights and they can decide whether what Jimmy Carter has done, constitutes human rights or human wrongs.

Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School, has challenged former president Jimmy Carter to a debate on his human rights record.

Dershowitz spoke by telephone to a reporter with The Jewish Press, on Monday, April 8, in response to the news that the Cardozo School of Law’s Journal of Conflict Resolution will be honoring Carter with the “International Advocate for Peace” Award this Wednesday, April 10, as reported that morning.

During the course of the interview, the law professor recounted the widespread death and devastation caused by Carter’s efforts at “human rights.”

“What should be discussed is not Jimmy Carter’s role as a peacemaker, but instead it should be his role as a deal breaker,” said Dershowitz.  He then proceeded to tick off the bases for his reasoning.

“First, it was Carter who advised Yassir Arafat not to accept the peace deal offered in 2000-01.  That failure led to the deaths of more than 4000 Israelis and Arabs.”

“Secondly, by encouraging and supporting Hamas, and always placing the blame on Israel, Carter has guaranteed the continuation of terrorism.”  Indeed, “Carter has embraced Arafat, he’s embraced Mashaal, why, he’s never met a terrorist he didn’t love, and never met an Israeli whom he did.”

“And third,” the professor said, “it was Carter who was responsible for not acting to prevent the death of two million Cambodians at the hands of Pol Pot.  Carter was the president of the United States and yet he did not intervene in that slaughter, he did not lead and prod the United Nations to take action.”

Dershowitz paused, to sum up, “Carter has prevented peace, encouraged terrorism and done more than anyone else to isolate and demonize the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel.”

But Dershowitz wasn’t finished.

“Jimmy Carter has distorted the very meaning of human rights, he has turned the concept on its head, what he does should be called ‘human lefts.’”

What does that mean?

“The way human rights should be addressed is based on ‘worst, first,’ you deal with the most egregious wrongs, the worst kind of abuses committed by governments first,” Dershowitz explained.  “He’s turned everything upside down.  Instead of Israel, just look over a little to the south, “Saudi Arabia is the worst human rights violator in the world: sex segregation, gender preference discrimination, religious discrimination,” that’s where a real human rights activist would focus, said the law professor.

“But Jimmy Carter was bought and paid for by the Saudis.  The Carter Center stopped criticizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia when the Saudis started funding it.”

I'd love to see Jimmy Carter try and answer those points but it will never happen. He's a coward as well as a nasty piece of work.

Obama or Carter

Thanks to Theo Spark and PolitiZoid for the video spot.

Jimy Carter - again

Jimmy Carter, former US President and current disgrace to humanity, appeared on Piers Morgan's CNN Tonight show last week. The whole interview was full of inaccuracies, you can see the whole transcript here, but the one that I want to concentrate on is this:

'When I first went to Israel, about 15 percent of the Palestinians were Christians and they were my friends and they were my soul mates in the worship of the same god in the same way. Now they've almost been removed from Palestine because of some pressures and encouragement from the Israelis.'

So Jimmy Carter blames Israel for the reduction in the percentage of Palestinians that are Christian. Jimmy Carter blames Israel, now that's hardly news, the man persistently attacks Israel for one thing or another, but he blames Israel for the diminishing percentage of Christians amongst the Palestinians. First of all Israel does not run the Palestinian Territories, if it did there would be less rocket attacks launched against Israeli civilians from Gaza. Second the real reason for the diminishing number of Christians in the Palestinian Territories is that Islamists have been seizing land from Christians, demanding jiyza (protection money) from them and assaulting those who choose to stay behind in their Holy Land. It should also be notes that the Christian population of multi-faith Israel is increasing not diminishing.


Jimmy 'Dhimmi' Carter gets away with making statements like the above because he was US President, why does nobody ask Jimmy carter about the money he has received from Islamists and whether that money has any bearing on the opinions he spouts so freely?

'What money, I don't know anything about Jimmy Carter receiving money from Muslim countries and organisations? ' I hear you ask. Well take a read of this article by Alan Dershowitz from 2007, here's a few extracts:

'Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections  to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a  monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How  could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money  from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source.  Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money  for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.  
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first  century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan  al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable  anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

...

The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even  dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of  dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and  virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."

Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank, ostensibly the source of his funding, "the best way to fight the  evil influence of the Zionists." BCCI isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center "in 1993 alone...$7.6  million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family,  as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh  Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.  It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human  rights abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. 

...


By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on  whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as  Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is  fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views as Carter insists "Jewish money" does, Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have  been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter.  The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.'

Remember those facts about Jimmy Carter the next time his 'expert & impartial' views are sought  about Israel and the Middle East.
 

Dear Jimmy

Following this morning's piece about Jimmy Carter's report on his trip to Egypt, I thought that I would ask the former US President for an explanation, so I emailed him:

'A query regarding your report on your visit to Egypt

Nota Sheep	09:58 (2 minutes ago)
				to carterweb

Your report on your recent trip to Egypt (http://www.cartercenter.org/news/trip_reports/egypt-011712.html) included this section:

'Tuesday morning we received detailed analyses by experts on the election process and political affairs, and then had a thorough discussion with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the SCAF and acting as de facto president of Egypt.

I was received with a friendly welcome as I congratulated the military leaders for what seemed to be a successful election, and then asked a number of questions. It seemed that the SCAF had full confidence that there would be accommodation to their demands by the Muslim Brotherhood and their coalition partners as the new government is formed. Instead of the reported 12,000 mostly political prisoners being held for trials in military courts, the Field Marshal stated that there were no more than 3,000, all of whom were guilty of criminal acts and being tried in civilian courts. He stated that the widely promulgated videos showing military attacks on demonstrators and a woman "with the blue brassiere" were all falsified. He said the soldiers were actually helping the woman re-clothe herself with what was provocative attire. '

You don't seem to question that which the Field Marshall said to you. Perhaps you could spare less than a minute to look at this YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vf_0p4a_GwI) of the girl in the blue bra and let me know whether you think the video was falsified or shows the woman being repeatedly beaten by Egyptian soldiers.

Your thoughts on this matter would be welcomed.

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat'

I wonder if I will get a reply and if it will be any more informative than a reply to a complaint to the BBC?

What is wrong with Jimmy Carter?

Watch the above video, it's fairly obvious what the members of the Egyptian army are doing to that poor girl isn't it? Not if your former US President Jimmy Carter it isn't.

The video's description runs thus:

'Egypt. beating of a veiled woman in Cairo helmeted officers charging toward a woman in Tahrir Square, drag her on the ground, beat her with clubs and kicking her in head stomp on her stomach and breast drag her by hair also kick and clubbed people in the head ripped off the top clothing grabbing by veil... One soldier even pulled her veil over her head stomps on her breasts, the overthrow of former dictator Hosni Mubarak was in February.'

Jimmy Carter, however, knows better:

'Tuesday morning we received detailed analyses by experts on the election process and political affairs, and then had a thorough discussion with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the SCAF and acting as de facto president of Egypt.

I was received with a friendly welcome as I congratulated the military leaders for what seemed to be a successful election, and then asked a number of questions. It seemed that the SCAF had full confidence that there would be accommodation to their demands by the Muslim Brotherhood and their coalition partners as the new government is formed. Instead of the reported 12,000 mostly political prisoners being held for trials in military courts, the Field Marshal stated that there were no more than 3,000, all of whom were guilty of criminal acts and being tried in civilian courts. He stated that the widely promulgated videos showing military attacks on demonstrators and a woman "with the blue brassiere" were all falsified. He said the soldiers were actually helping the woman re-clothe herself with what was provocative attire. '

No questioning of the Field Marshall's claims, no wondering at how his claims fit with the evidence? Just what I would expect from Jimmy Carter.


Thanks to Elder of Ziyon for the heads up.

By your friends you shall judge them

Daily Caller reveals that:

'According to a column in the Feb. 24 edition of the Falls Church News-Press by Nicholas F. Benton, the editor-in-chief of the publication, the paper’s newest columnist Helen Thomas had a surprise waiting for her after an extraordinary interview she gave to HLN’s Joy Behar last week. That was flowers from Rosie O’Donnell, who had been on the record for defending Thomas in the past.

However, as Benton noted, at the time of the Thomas’s infamous remarks, there were very few willing to defend her other than O’Donnell and the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter'

Jimmy Carter a truly nasty man who cheerfully supports some of the nastiest people and most evil regimes in the world.

Jimmy Carter, until recently, the worst American President in my lifetime, explains why the Muslim Brotherhood are no threat in Egypt

Only someone who hates Israel could think that an Islamic organisation with strong links to Hamas and Hezb'allah will present no threat in Egypt.


Thanks to A Tangled Web for the spot.

I think this should be filed under - Good, about time

The JC reports that:

'The former US President Jimmy Carter is facing legal action from readers who claim he misrepresented Israel in a book about the Middle East conflict.

Mr Carter, who was president between 1976 and 1980, could have to pay more than £3 million if the case is successful.

The dispute is over his 2006 work “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, in which Mr Carter compared the Israeli government to the leaders of apartheid South Africa.

He wrote: “When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements … with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa”.

The case, filed at the Manhattan Federal Claims Court by a group of readers, accuses Mr Carter of filling his book “with demonstrable falsehoods, omissions and knowing misrepresentations intended to promote [his] agenda of anti-Israel propaganda".

According to court papers quoted by the New York Post, the group who filed the case said Mr Carter was wrong to have promoted the book as “non-fiction".

The papers added: “This lawsuit challenges the defendants' actions in attempting to capitalise on Carter's status as a former president of the United States to mislead unsuspecting members of the reading public who thought they could trust their former president to tell the truth."

Mr Carter, who as president oversaw the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, is a prominent critic of the Israeli government. In 2008 he described Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip as “one of the greatest human-rights crimes on earth”.

The lawsuit is directed at both Mr Carter and his publishers, Simon & Schuster.

A spokesperson for the company said the lawsuit was "frivolous".'

Until recently I had always believed Jimmy Carter to have been the worst American President since the end of World War II. Of course Barack Obama is providing strong competition now...

Jimmy Carter = Barack Obama. Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter

Not an original thought I know but this Dry Bones cartoon summarises it well:

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

'the moral compass of the State-Controlled Media'

'The moral code, the moral compass of the State-Controlled Media is something to behold. Now, some of you may not know the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner hosted a state dinner last night for Hu Jintao of China. Hu Jintao is holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in prison in China. Not making it up. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner hosted a dinner for the guy holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in prison, and the media does not get the irony of this at all. They're too busy running around chasing Sarah Palin and radio talk show hosts over "civility." Our media is so fraudulent. No talk about the political prisoners. No talk about the gulags.

A question about human rights, the ChiCom leader is allowed to slither out of the answer by saying, "I did not hear the question. I thought President Obama was going to answer that." There's no talk about how they harvest organs from prisoners in China -- and there's Obama, telling the head of this depraved society that we're all pleased with his country's progress. Meanwhile, the very same media is attacking innocent American citizens who have nothing to do with a horrible crime. The moral compass of our media is just stunning -- and, by the way, the media laughed when Hu Jintao side-stepped the question about human rights. Jimmy Carter has won a Nobel Peace Prize as well, and Jimmy Carter also attended Hu's dinner.

So you had two American Nobel Peace Prize Winners effectively honoring the head of a country who's holding 2010's Peace Prize Winner in prison -- and we had to listen to our fearless leader talk about aaaaall the great progress the ChiComs are making and how pleased we are with all that progress.'

Not a word on the BBC about the discgusting lack of moral courage expressed by the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama and his predecessor Jimmy Carter; but who would expect any?

The quotation is from Rush Limbaugh.

Protecting their heroes

Can you imagine the BBC's coverage if it emerged that George W. Bush had mislaid the card with the codes to open the nuclear briefcase? Headline news and the source of much hilarity on the News Quiz. However whilst The Telegraph manage to report that

'For several months during Bill Clinton's administration, a former top military officer says the White House lost the card with a set of numbers for opening the briefcase containing the codes for a nuclear attack.

Gen Hugh Shelton, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, said in his new memoir, "Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior" that "the codes were actually missing for months. That's a big deal -- a gargantuan deal."'

On the BBC not a word about this story of Democrat President negligence.


Interestingly The Telegraph also report that:

'Former president Jimmy Carter was rumoured to have once left the '"biscuit" in a suit that was sent to the dry cleaners.'

What is it with Democrats and national security/being responsible?

Conservative Bloggers Select The 25 Worst Figures In American History

Right Wing News lists the 'The 25 Worst Figures In American History' according to Conservative Bloggers.

Take a look, I feel that Barack Obama (2nd) will overtake Jimmy Carter (1st) and be the worst Figure in American History.

Is it a "lefty leader" thing

Sean Linnane reports the words of Ronald Kessler about the men who guarded US Presidents from JFK to BHO. Apparently Jimmy Carter was the "least likeable" president. Carter was "moody and mistrustful" and sought to micromanage everything, agents told Kessler.

"Moody and mistrustful"; does that remind you of a certain UK Prime Minister?

"Kessler discloses that Carter "would regularly make a show of going to the Oval Office at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. to call attention to how hard he was working for the American people."

In fact, "he would work for half an hour, then close the curtains and take a nap," Robert B. Sulliman Jr., who was on Carter's detail, told Kessler.
"His staff would tell the press he was working.""

I wonder if the same is true of the same UK Prime Minister, renowned for being a hard worker and "getting on" with the job.

"GSA managers found that when Carter stayed at the townhouse, he would take down the photos of Republican presidents Ford and Nixon and put up a half-dozen large photos of himself."

Vanity as well, this sounds more like the aforementioned Prime Minister's predecessor, or maybe his wife.


Ronald Kessler's book "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect" sounds like a good read.

Jimmy Carter the question that should be asked

For context read this.




Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Who's a racist Jimmy?

Jimmy Carter was accusing some opponents of Barack Obama as being motivated by racism, so I was interested to read at Donal Blaney's blog this from The National Review:

"When former president Jimmy Carter accuses the opponents of Barack Obama’s policy of nationalizing broad aspects of our economy and spending us into bankruptcy of being “racists,” perhaps he should look in the mirror. In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he “was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.” No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation. When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown.

As Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, relates in his book A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia, Carter’s board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school. As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found. The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”

I am not aware that Rep. Joe Wilson has ever supported segregation or engaged in the same type of reprehensible, racist behavior. The idea that opposition to Obama’s policies reflects “racism” is absurd; even the White House has rejected it. All of this raises a larger issue about Carter’s remarks. When he makes such a claim, is he projecting his own inner racial beliefs? Is he so guilt-ridden over his past racist behavior that he wants to make amends to the race-baiters that today populate the Left? Or is he just cynically helping them score political points?"

Who's a racist? Who was a racist?

Another great Barack Obama appointment

I realise that the Obamemessiah is running out of people he can appoint as so many of his preferred appointees seem to have problems remembering to pay tax, but his latest appointee is wild even for him. Barack Obama has appointed as an adviser to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Fluornoy, one Rosa Brooks. Rosa Brooks has, as they say, form and plenty of it. She described George W. Bush as "our torturer in chief" and compared the Bush Administration's legal arguments on the war on terror with Adolf Hitler's use of political propaganda. Writing in the LA Times, Brooks compared being a citizen in George W. Bush's America "to being a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver," and compared the Bush Administration ("our local authoritarians") to the leaders of North Korea or Iran.

Another great appointment by the man who is exceeding even my expectations for how poor a President he would be. I think within a few years even I may even remember the incompetent that was Jimmy Carter with fondness. Jimmy Carter was a fool and many of his views still disgust me but he was not as dangerous as Barack Obama is.

Jimmy Carter does it again

Just when you think that Jimmy Carter must have said all the rubbish one man was capable of, he proves you wrong... World Net Daily report that:

"The Lebanese Hezbollah terrorist organization lacks missiles to "defend" itself from Israeli aircraft, former President Jimmy Carter claimed upon returning from a trip last week to Lebanon.

"The general showed us a graph of the many flights of Israeli planes over all parts of Lebanon, averaging about a dozen each day. Neither Hezbollah nor the Lebanese Armed Forces have any anti-aircraft weapons for defense," wrote Carter in a first-person report posted on his Carter Center website.

Carter was recounting how upon his trip to the region, Italian General Claudio Graziano, chief of the UNIFIL international forces deployed in southern Lebanon, brought him on a tour of the Israeli-Lebanese border.

"At one site near the border, two different Israeli tanks came about 70 yards from us to observe our group," Carter wrote, before claiming Hezbollah lacks anti-aircraft weapons for "defense" against Israeli over flights. "

Jimmy Carter never happier than when he is shilling for his Arab friends and trying his best to destroy Israel.

"big brain and a good heart"

According to the BBC, the adulterer-in-chief Bill "give her a cigar" Clinton has said that our beloved prime minister has a "big brain and a good heart". Maybe someone should tell Bill Clinton that size isn't everything and that if Gordon Brown has a big brain then it is more likely due to hydrocephalus or raised intracranial pressure than to increased intelligence.

Why the BBC continue to pay such attention to the words of a serial liar and the second most incompetent US President of the last 40 year I do not know. Here is a summary of Bill Clinton's record as US President from Discover the networks:

"Clinton's presidency was marred by a long succession of scandals, including sexual harassment allegations, lawsuits, an accusation of rape, and, most famously, revelations that he had carried on a sexual affair with 21-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On December 19, 1998, after having perjured himself repeatedly before a grand jury, Clinton - on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice - became only the second President (after Andrew Johnson in 1868) in American history to be impeached, though he was not removed from office. In October 2001 he was disbarred from practicing law before the United States Supreme Court. He had previously had his Arkansas law license suspended for five years as a result of a disbarment lawsuit brought by a committee of the Arkansas State Supreme Court.... Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts..... Osama bin Laden and his terrorist-related activities were well known to the United States by 1995. Clinton had an opportunity to capture him in the fall of 1998, but was unavailable. When he was finally reached, further consultation was needed with various secretaries. The two-hour window in which bin Laden could have been caught was lost. Says Patterson, "This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration's ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for 'show' than for honestly eliminating a threat.""

In case you are wondering which US President might be more incompetent than Bill Clinton, the answer is of course the arch-dhimmi himself Jimmy Carter.

You can't argue with his mum

I am not a fan of ex US President Jimmy Carter as some of my previous posts should have made clear. Hence my joy at seeing this quotation from Jimmy Carter's mother, Lillian, on Last of the Few -

"Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself ~~"Lillian, you should have remained a virgin.""

You said it Mrs Carter...

Jimmy Carter dishonesty

My article about media dishonesty was based upon this report and it contains an example about my "favourite" ex-US President Jimmy Carter. This story concerns Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" which traces the ups and downs of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, beginning with Jimmy Carter's 1977-1981 presidency and the historic peace accord he negotiated between Israel and Egypt and continuing to the time the book was published in 2006. According to the American Thinker "His book was so full of errors, including doctored maps, that his chief collaborator, Kenneth Stein of Emory University, resigned his position with the Carter Center. Carter's book was condemned by Alan Dershowitz and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others." According to The Washington Post "A veteran Middle East scholar affiliated with the Carter Center in Atlanta resigned his position there Monday in an escalating controversy over former president Jimmy Carter's bestselling book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University, accused Carter of factual errors, omissions and plagiarism in the book. "Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information," Stein wrote in a harshly worded e-mail to friends and colleagues explaining his resignation as the center's Middle East fellow...In a telephone interview yesterday, Stein said that Carter had "taken [material] directly" from a published work written by a third party but that legal action was being contemplated and he was not yet at liberty to make the details public. He said accounts in the book about meetings he had attended with Carter between 1980 and 1990 had left out key facts in order to "make the Israelis look like they're the only ones responsible" for the failure of peace efforts."

The list of news outlets that have criticised this book is longer than I care to repeat on this blog, you can find them easily enough on the web if you want, one example is this article which lists many examples of the books, and Jimmy Carter's subsequent interviews, factual errors - here are just five examples:

1) "CARTER:

Pages 51-52: ...[I]mportant provisions of our [1978/79] agreement have not been honored since I left office. The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians ...

FACT:

Obviously, after 1993 the Palestinians gained "appreciable autonomy." The Oslo process created the Palestinian Authority and gave Palestinians control of political, civic, security, medical, educational and media institutions. Israel ceded 40 percent of the West Bank and eventually the entire Gaza Strip. About 98 percent of the Palestinian population lived in the areas of Palestinian self-rule.

Any subsequent Israeli military incursions into these areas have been in response to their use by Palestinians as bases for terrorism.

Moreover, Carter omits that Palestinian autonomy as envisioned in the agreements was bitterly opposed by the very PLO he defends. Yasir Arafat and his lieutenants publicly denounced autonomy efforts, and Palestinians who supported them were killed. The New York Times reported on one such murder on Dec. 21, 1977, recounting the gangland style execution of a Christian Arab whose only crime was supporting reconciliation with Israel."


2) "CARTER:

Page 62: When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated, "The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel. The Zionists started the 'drive the Jews into the sea' slogan and attributed it to the PLO."

FACT:

The original PLO founding charter speaks almost exclusively of "the liberation of Palestine," and calls on Palestinians to "move forward on the path of jihad until complete and final victory has been attained." (Note that this was written in 1964, before Israel's entrance into the West Bank and Gaza Strip.) It adds: "The partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void ..."

Likewise, the 1968 version of the charter describes "Palestine" as the area encompassing the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel, then states: "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase."

Arafat himself frequently called for destroying that nation, as in: "The goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, and there can be no compromise" (Washington Post, March 29, 1970) and "[p]eace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations" (El Mundo [Venezuela], Feb. 11, 1980).

And Israel’s enemies have indeed referred to driving Jews into the sea. For example, the New York Times quoted speakers at a July 13, 1947 meeting held by the Palestine Arab High Committee and "attended by leading sheikhs, mukhtars and other persons of consequence in the Palestine Arab world" calling for Jews to be "thrown into the sea" ("Young Arabs Defy U.S., Britain, Jews," July 14, 1947). And in a 1948 interview with the New York Times, Muslim Brotherhood head Sheikh Hassan el-Bana said: "If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea" ("Aim to oust Jews pledged by sheikh," Aug. 2, 1948).

More recently, Lieutenant-Colonel Munir Maqdah, who had commanded Arafat's Fatah army in Lebanon before being suspended, said his forces would continue fighting "the Jews and their agents" despite any peace talks, promising that "[s]ooner or later we will throw the Zionists into the sea." (Reuters, Oct. 8, 1993)"


3) "CARTER:

Page 179: Hamas was now [January 2006] holding many local posts, and their incumbent officials had been free of any allegations of corruption and, for sixteen months, had meticulously observed a cease-fire commitment, which they called hudna.

page 184: When I questioned him about the necessity for Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel, [Hamas member Dr. Mahmoud Ramahi] responded that they had not committed an act of violence since a cease-fire was declared in August 2004 ..."

CNN, Larry King Live, Nov. 27, 2006:

... since August of 2004 ... Hamas has not been guilty of an act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life."

PBS, NewsHour, Nov. 28, 2006:

Carter: "... since August of 2004, has not committed a single act of terrorism that cost an Israeli life, not a single one."

Judy Woodruff: "I think many Americans would be surprised to hear that."

Carter: "I know. They would be surprised, but it's an actual fact."

FACT:

On Aug. 31, 2004, Sixteen people were killed and 100 wounded in two nearly simultaneous suicide bombings aboard two city buses in Beer Sheva. Hamas claimed responsibility.

On Sept. 29, 2004, two preschool children were killed by a Qassam rocket fired from Gaza. Hamas claimed responsibility.

On Jan 13, 2005, Palestinians terrorists attacked the Karni crossing between the Gaza Strip and Israel, killing 6 civilians. Hamas claimed joint responsibility.

On July 14, 2005, a woman was killed by a Qassam rocket fired from Gaza. Hamas claimed responsibility."


4) "CARTER:

Page 147: Unfortunately for the peace process, Palestinian terrorists carried out two lethal suicide bombings in March 1996, a few weeks after the Palestinian election. Thirty-two Israeli citizens were killed, an act that probably gave the Likud’s hawkish candidate, Binyamin Netanyahu, a victory over Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

FACT:

This, too, is an error of omission, as Carter fails to mention significant Palestinian attacks that immediately preceded the March attacks. On February 25, 1996, a Hamas bomber killed 26 at the central bus station in Jerusalem, and a separate bombing claimed the life of another Israeli. "


5) "CARTER:

Page 168: Living among 1.3 million Palestinians, the 8,000 Israeli settlers [in the Gaza Strip] were controlling 40 percent of the arable land and more than one-half the water resources ..."

FACT:

Settlers lived on roughly 15-20 percent of Gaza land, and controlled little of its water. In fact, Israel has supplied, and continues to supply, large amounts of water to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The American Journalism Review in August/September 2004 published the following correction after similarly misstating Gaza statistics:

In "Caught in the Crossfire" (June/July), Barbara Matusow wrote that Israeli settlers occupy 25 percent of the land in the Gaza Strip and control most of the water resources. According to the Institute of Applied Research in Jerusalem, the Palestinians control 95 percent of the water resources in Gaza. Estimates vary widely when it comes to control of the land, however. A June 2004 report on Gaza by the World Bank states that 15 to 20 percent of the land is occupied by settlements."


You can find more links to articles regarding the anti-Israel bias in this book here



Wikipedia has a carefully worded article on the book and the reaction to the book.


You might care to read this article on Jimmy Carter's position on the Arab-Israeli conflict and his part in the rise of Iranian fundamentalism.

You might also care to read this article from Philowiki includes the following "Fact is, Carter has long since joined the Israel-hating left — where true anti-Semitism resides today. In so doing, Carter has joined a long line of those who, like ex-Attorney General Ramsey Clark, linguist Noam Chomsky and faux-documentarian Michael Moore, see Israel as the root of all evil. Any ill found in the Mideast — poverty, inequality, corruption, human rights abuses — can somehow be traced to Israel’s supposed mistreatment of Palestinians, they say... "
It also includes the full statement from Kenneth Stein which includes this passage which I think says a lot "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. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary."