Prez Carter Gets Pwned on CSPAN

[thombergeron]

Michael, this thread is moving beyond merely irritating to boring. I’m going to reply to this silliness once more. If you need it repeated for a third time, then you’re going to have to find somebody else. I don’t have the patience to work with the developmentally disabled.

OPINION is not FACT. Your opinion is irrelevant,and that is exactly what you gave concerning these quotes :

"If I get back in, I`m going to f--- the Jews."
Jimmy Carter, March 1980

Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn

As I said before, I have read this book. I own it. Cockburn attributes the “Fuck the Jews” quote to James Baker, not Jimmy Carter. Someone has misinformed you.

Moreover, it is ironic that you’re quoting an avowed Marxist, given that it is one of your favorite epithets. Personally, I don’t find Cockburn entirely credible. The Baker quote is from an anonymous source quoting the proceedings of a private meeting. There is no documentary evidence that this exchange actually took place.

Cyrus Vance…confirmed to then-New York mayor Ed Koch that Carter, if reelected, would "sell out" the Jews.

Mayor- by Ed Koch

Again, to repeat, it is conceivable that Cyrus Vance said this to Ed Koch. But this is called hearsay, not fact. Neither Vance nor Koch is talking about anything that actually came out of Jimmy Carter’s mouth nor anything that Carter actually did. One must remember that Vance resigned as Carter’s Secretary of State in disgrace. Any speculation that he may or may not have committed about Carter’s aspirations must be viewed from this context.

Howard Dean," On this issue Carter speaks for himself...I and other democrats will continue to stand with Israel in it`s battle against terrorism ..."

I actually didn’t rebut your Dean quote in any prior posts because it’s just irrelevant. What you’re alleging is that Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite, that he’s out to get the Jews, and that his entire career has been a disgrace. None of those things is supported by Dean’s quote. That a current Democratic Party official disagrees with Carter over the Middle East peace process is hardly surprising. What Dean pointedly did not say is that Carter "hates the Jews" or that his career has been anything short of exemplary.

It hasn’t gone unnoticed that you’ve cited a Marxist and three Democrats in your desperate quest to smear Jimmy Carter. Your prior “standards” for credibility seem to have loosened a bit.

So your dismissal of Jimmy Carter’s 45-year career in the public eye rests entirely on a misquote and hearsay evidence of a single instance of idle speculation. Do I need to point out that that’s not a real strong case?

[White_Male_Canada]

"If I get back in, I`m going to f--- the Jews."
Jimmy Carter, March 1980

Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn

As I said before, I have read this book. I own it. Cockburn attributes the “Fuck the Jews” quote to James Baker, not Jimmy Carter. Someone has misinformed you.

You live on the wrong planet. James Baker said "fuck the jews(americans),they didn`t vote for us anyway."

Carter said,"If I get back in I`m going to fuck the Jews."

William Safire NY Times



Cyrus Vance…confirmed to then-New York mayor Ed Koch that Carter, if reelected, would "sell out" the Jews.

Mayor- by Ed Koch

Again, to repeat, it is conceivable that Cyrus Vance said this to Ed Koch. But this is called hearsay, not fact. Neither Vance nor Koch is talking about anything that actually came out of Jimmy Carter’s mouth nor anything that Carter actually did. One must remember that Vance resigned as Carter’s Secretary of State in disgrace. Any speculation that he may or may not have committed about Carter’s aspirations must be viewed from this context.

Yeah , Carter has Israel`s back.

More from Brinkley: Carter to Arafat " . . . you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis."

"The intifada exposed the injustice Palestinians suffered, just like Bull Connor’s mad dogs in Birmingham."

Carter himself drafted Arafat`s speech," “On May 24 Carter drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears . . “The audience is not the Security Council, but the world community. The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum sympathy and support of other world leaders . . . The Likud leaders are now on the defensive, and must not be given any excuse for continuing their present abusive policies....A good opening would be to outline the key points of the Save the Children report. . . . Then ask: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren? As the Palestinian leader, I share the responsibility for them. Our response has been to urge peace talks, but the Israeli leaders have refused, and our children continue to suffer. Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by the Israeli bulldozers.” . . . Then repeat: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren?” . . . This exact litany should be repeated with a few other personal examples."

Clear enough now who`s side he`s on? No? Read the reviews on Carter`s new book. If it isn`t clear after all this then you`re simply biased and this conversation is over.

[chefmike]

Jimmy Carter speaks about these matters in the following interview:

Jimmy Carter takes on Israel's apartheid policies and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US


Nathan Gardels


There is not much room in American political life, whether Democratic or Republican, for trying to save Israel from its mistakes and the mistakes of AIPAC, its impressively effective lobbying arm in the United States. Former president Jimmy Carter is virtually the lone voice, along with his former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, willing to criticize Israel for its own good, in the name of American interests and for peace in the region.


Here is what Jimmy Carter had to say when I talked with him recently about his new book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid."


Nathan Gardels: Otherwise revered figures like yourself or fellow Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu are accused of anti-Semitism when you describe the Israeli occupation under which Palestinians live as "apartheid." Why is this description so inflammatory in the U.S. when it is so readily accepted everywhere else in the world?

Jimmy Carter: If you look at the record, the Israeli attorney general who served under the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and even Benjamin Netanyahu have used this same phrase, "apartheid." But I didn't get it from him.
I'm talking about Palestine, not Israel. Everyone knows Israel is a democracy, with equal rights guaranteed under the law for both Arabs and Jews. But the persecution and rigid separation of the Palestinians from the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories is indeed as penetrating as anything that happened in South Africa. There are differences: This apartheid is not based on racism, but on the desire of a small minority of Israelis to acquire and hold Israeli land.
Now, people in the United States, including me, are naturally inclined to support Israel. I'm an evangelical Christian who teaches the Bible every Sunday at my church. I teach half the Old Testament and half the New Testament. We Americans identify the Hebrews, the Israelites, with ourselves.
But there is something else. The Israelis want to prohibit any sort of overt criticism of their abuse of Palestinians under this system. As I wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently, reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government in the U.S. is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. For the last 30 years, I have personally witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts due to their influence.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. If they did so, they couldn't be re-elected. As a result of this AIPAC influence, there haven't been any serious peace talks sponsored by the U.S. in six years.

Gardels: Isn't the apartheid-type separation also out of fear of Israeli security?

Carter: I don't agree with that. It is not about security. Take Hamas, for example. It is usually accused of being the most radical group. But it declared a self-imposed cease-fire -- a hudna. Not a single Israeli life has been lost to so-called Hamas terrorism since August 2004. Since they have won political office, Hamas has stopped its terrorist activity.

Gardels: The neo-cons who took the U.S. into war in Iraq were fond of saying the road to Middle East peace was through Baghdad, not Jerusalem. Now the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker says the opposite -- the road to peace in Baghdad and the rest of the Middle East must go through Jerusalem.
Is the Israel-Palestine conflict still the key to peace in the whole region? Is the linkage policy right?

Carter: I don't think it's about a linkage policy, but a linkage fact. There is no doubt: The heart and mind of every Muslim is affected by whether or not the Israel-Palestine issue is dealt with fairly. Even among the populations of our former close friends in the region, Egypt and Jordan, less than 5 percent look favorably on the United States today. That's not because we invaded Iraq; they hated Saddam. It is because we don't do anything about the Palestinian plight. Without doubt, the path to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem.

Gardels: Even if the U.S. did sponsor a major peace initiative, does Israeli have a partner for peace? It can't deal with Hamas, can it?

Carter: Mahmoud Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority as well as the leader of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization.) Hamas has nothing to do with the PLO -- the only organization recognized officially by Israel in exchange for its recognition of Israel as a legal entity.
If they want to, right now, Israel can negotiate both with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. Moreover, the Hamas prime minister has said he favors direct peace talks between Mahmoud Abbas, representing the Palestinians, and Israel. If they reach a peace agreement, and it is approved by the Palestinians at large in a referendum, then he says Hamas will accept it.
Further, in my talks with Hamas leaders, they've told me a hudna -- or
unilateral truce with Israel under Islamic law -- could last two, 20 or even 50 years.

Gardels: "No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over others," Kofi Annan said in his final address as U.N. secretary-general on Monday.
Speaking with me during the Israeli war with Hezbollah, your former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said something similar: "Neocon prescriptions of security through supremacy, of which Israel has its equivalent, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the U.S. Eventually, the U.S. will be expelled from the region, and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well." Do you agree?

Carter: I wouldn't go that far. True, these policies have already turned the Middle East against the U.S. and Israel. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it will cause the downfall of Israel. It is not too late for Israel to have good-faith talks with the Palestinians or, for that matter, with Syria about the Golan Heights.
Having said this, there is no doubt in my mind that Israel will never have peace unless it agrees to something similar to the Geneva Initiative -- endorsed by myself, by Bill Clinton and by Jacques Chirac among many others -- which, in essence, completed the Taba talks which fleshed out the proposals that Ehud Barak and Clinton worked out during Clinton's last days in office. The Geneva Initiative was in fact put together by the same negotiators of Oslo and Taba.
The initiative provides for secure borders and overwhelming recognition by the Arab world for Israel and a sovereign, contiguous, viable state for Palestinians recognized by the international community. The dividing border would be based on the 1967 lines but with a mutual exchange of land, giving Israel some of its largest settlements, Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City.
An international religious authority would control central holy sites, with the Temple Mount officially under Palestinian sovereignty and the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter of the Old City under Israeli sovereignty. Israel would decide unilaterally how many Palestinian refugees would be admitted to Israel, and other refugees could return to Palestine or receive appropriate compensation as a fulfillment of U.N. Resolution 194.

Gardels: One of the paradoxes of the U.S. intervention in Iraq is that it has, in effect, helped complete the Iranian revolution -- that is, it has undermined moderate Sunni regimes and expanded Shiite influence throughout the Middle East. Do you see it that way?

Carter: There is no doubt that Iran's influence has become enormously elevated in the region. There is no doubt about the esteem with which they are now addressed by other countries in the area. They have been boosted in every way by the Iraq war, not least because the empowered majority in Iraq now is Shiite.

Gardels: Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, died over the weekend. So did Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's U.N. ambassador who famously called for tolerance of Latin America's dictators in her famous "Dictatorship and Double Standards" essay that distinguished between totalitarian leaders and Latin America's brand of authoritarianism. Kirkpatrick's argument was in response to your policy of promoting human rights in the hemisphere.
Do you feel vindicated now that Latin America has gone democratic and Pinochet has died in disgrace?

Carter: I never felt the need for vindication. Espousing human rights was, for me, part of my American heritage and American duty. But I do remember with anguish that, as soon as I left office, Reagan sent Kirkpatrick down to Chile and Argentina to tell those dictators that "Carter's human-rights policy is over." I know she was angry that Somoza had been overthrown in Nicaragua by the Sandinistas.
However, three or four years later, Reagan himself began to understand the importance of human rights and became less ideological. Ultimately, I know that the policies initiated under my presidency helped end the military regimes not only in Chile and Argentina, but in Brazil, Ecuador and other places.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan...r_b_36134.html

[White_Male_Canada]

Jimmy Carter speaks about these matters in the following interview:

Jimmy Carter takes on Israel's apartheid policies and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US


Nathan Gardels

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan...r_b_36134.html

I expect no less from the Fluffington Post to allow a leftist like Gardels to post there. Of course we know it`s Da Joozs` fault.

When Venezuela`s Chavez and Iran`s Ahmadinejad went on their rants at the UN Gardels was one of the first to support them, " When Ahmadinejad railed against US and UK attempts to dominate the world through the Security Council as if this were the early post-WWII era instead of the 21st century it was a message that resonated globally...it would be a big mistake to dismiss their comments as the ravings of mad men..."

All Ahmadinejad did was express what , “rest of the world…actually thinks.”

Sheesh

[thombergeron]

You live on the wrong planet. James Baker said "fuck the jews(americans),they didn`t vote for us anyway."

Carter said,"If I get back in I`m going to fuck the Jews."

William Safire NY Times

Nope, nice try. I'm afraid you're actually going to have to read a book. Careful, though. Cockburn's book is stridently anti-Israel. All the "anti-semitism" might give you the vapors. Get back to me in six months when you've worked your way through it.

Yeah , Carter has Israel`s back.

More from Brinkley: Carter to Arafat " . . . you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis."

"The intifada exposed the injustice Palestinians suffered, just like Bull Connor’s mad dogs in Birmingham."

Carter himself drafted Arafat`s speech," “On May 24 Carter drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears . . “The audience is not the Security Council, but the world community. The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum sympathy and support of other world leaders . . . The Likud leaders are now on the defensive, and must not be given any excuse for continuing their present abusive policies....A good opening would be to outline the key points of the Save the Children report. . . . Then ask: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren? As the Palestinian leader, I share the responsibility for them. Our response has been to urge peace talks, but the Israeli leaders have refused, and our children continue to suffer. Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by the Israeli bulldozers.” . . . Then repeat: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren?” . . . This exact litany should be repeated with a few other personal examples."

Ummm, yes. Carter advocates Palestinian statehood. So, in your tiny mind, support for Palestinian statehood is anti-Semitic? You're going to have to add Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Shimon Peres to your ever-expanding list of self-hating Jews. All have spoken in support of establishing a Palestinian state.

How has Judaism survived for 5,000 years when, apparently, the Jews all hate themselves?

Clear enough now who`s side he`s on? No? Read the reviews on Carter`s new book. If it isn`t clear after all this then you`re simply biased and this conversation is over.

Aww, the conversation is over? So you have no substantive argument to offer at all, just baseless slander? That's shocking, Michael. I'm shocked.

Again, that you would spend so much time slandering a man who has spent his life serving this country and humanity, whose selfless dedication has demonstrably improved the lives of literally millions of people, pretty clearly illustrates your total lack of character.

I would say that you should be ashamed, but we've all seen clearly that you have no shame at all.

[White_Male_Canada]

You live on the wrong planet. James Baker said "fuck the jews(americans),they didn`t vote for us anyway."

Carter said,"If I get back in I`m going to fuck the Jews."

William Safire NY Times

Nope, nice try. I'm afraid you're actually going to have to read a book. Careful, though. Cockburn's book is stridently anti-Israel. All the "anti-semitism" might give you the vapors. Get back to me in six months when you've worked your way through it.

So according to you William Safire is wrong. Take it up with him.


Yeah , Carter has Israel`s back.

More from Brinkley: Carter to Arafat " . . . you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis."

"The intifada exposed the injustice Palestinians suffered, just like Bull Connor’s mad dogs in Birmingham."

Carter himself drafted Arafat`s speech," “On May 24 Carter drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears . . “The audience is not the Security Council, but the world community. The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum sympathy and support of other world leaders . . . The Likud leaders are now on the defensive, and must not be given any excuse for continuing their present abusive policies....A good opening would be to outline the key points of the Save the Children report. . . . Then ask: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren? As the Palestinian leader, I share the responsibility for them. Our response has been to urge peace talks, but the Israeli leaders have refused, and our children continue to suffer. Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by the Israeli bulldozers.” . . . Then repeat: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren?” . . . This exact litany should be repeated with a few other personal examples."

Ummm, yes. Carter advocates Palestinian statehood. So, in your tiny mind, support for Palestinian statehood is anti-Semitic? You're going to have to add Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Shimon Peres to your ever-expanding list of self-hating Jews. All have spoken in support of establishing a Palestinian state.

Carter does more than advocate, he`s a cheerleader who sat down and wrote Arafat`s speeches. In 2000 the arab palestinians were offered the Clinton/Israel proposals that would have resulted in a state on all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank. Arafat walked out.


Carter`s book Palestine:Peace Not Apartheid , is so biased, it`s beyond debate. A quick sampling of his false claims,

- Israel stole money sent to the arab palestinians for humanitarian purposes. Completely unsubstantiated.

-Arab palestinians were forcibly evicted from their homes in 1967.False, the arab invaders` radio broadcasts told the arab palestiains to vacate the battlefield and were promised all the land won.

-Israel took 77% of the disputed land. False, arab palestinian land includes Jordan.

- Carter`s description of UN Resolution 242 “mandates Israel’s withdrawal.” False,the resolution never used the word 'all'.

-Carter`s bigotry towards Israel leads him to state he understood why ," “there was such a surprising exodus of Christians from the Holy Land.”

Laughable,but thanks for shilling for Carter who didn`t like Israel when he visited it in 1973,and dislikes it to this day.

[White_Male_Canada]

Right, obviously Professor Stein felt that Jimmy Carter was a disgrace and an anti-semite for the entire 23 years he spent at the Carter Center. That must also be why he co-authored The Blood of Abraham with Carter, to highlight Carter's hatred of the Jews.

In 2002, when Stein said:

"The sheer dent of his determination made the Camp David Peace Accords happen. I know that he believes to this day that the Israelis and the Arabs can resolve their problems and achieve a comprehensive peace.... Carter is never afraid to venture into areas that others find too risky. He’s willing to harness the resource of moral persuasion to make a difference."

Emory University press release, 10/11/2002

That was code for, "Jimmy Carter is a disgrace and an anti-semite."

Did you see what your new favorite author, Douglas Brinkley, said about Stein's tanturm?

It's not the first time Carter and Stein have disagreed over Middle East policy, said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Tulane University and the author of the 1988 Carter biography, "The Unfinished Presidency."

"They've never been on the same page in the Middle East. They've been in an almost constant state of disagreement. Carter has used him as a sounding board but apparently Carter went too far and the sparring partner decided to bloody him up," Brinkley said. "Ken Stein ... doesn't trust the Palestinians as much as Carter."

International Herald Tribune, 12/06/2006

“He feels snubbed he wasn’t given any kind of acknowledgment for the work he’s done with Carter,” said Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It’s a bit of bruised ego and philosophical difference being displayed in public here.”

New York Times, 12/07/2007

Welcome to academia.

History unfolds and lays 4 aces on the table:

Thursday, January 11, 2007
Story last updated at 3:47 p.m. on Thursday, January 11, 2007

14 Carter Center advisers resign in protest over book


By GIOVANNA DELL'ORTO
Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - Fourteen members of an advisory board to Jimmy Carter's human rights organization resigned on Thursday to protest his new book, which criticizes Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories.

The resignations from The Carter Center board are the latest backlash against the former president's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," which has drawn fire from Jewish groups, been attacked by fellow Democrats and led to the resignation last month of Kenneth Stein, a center fellow and a longtime Carter adviser.

"You have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side," the departing members of the Center's Board of Councilors told Carter in their letter of resignation.

http://www.jacksonville.com/apnews/s...8MJ67SG6.shtml