VIDEO: 'You're a racist and anti-Semite,' one caller shouted at Carter during C-SPAN2 broadcast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBaDfue_Rys
http://drudgereport.com/
Printable View
VIDEO: 'You're a racist and anti-Semite,' one caller shouted at Carter during C-SPAN2 broadcast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBaDfue_Rys
http://drudgereport.com/
The book was closed on that ass wipe. He spiraled our country into the toilet. His credibility is completely shot.
Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978
http://www.iranianvoice.org/article774.html
So, in your mind, some mouthbreather who managed to work out CSPAN's telephone number has more credibility than, say, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, or Harvard University, which has bestowed Carter with an honorary degree, or the Defense Department, which has named a Seawolf-class submarine for him?
And when he brokered the only successful Middle Eastern peace treaty in the last 30 years, he clearly did that because he hates the Jews.
President Carter's term certainly wasn't the most distinguished in our nation's history, but as the last six years have inarguably demonstrated, the bar for catastrophically incompetent administrations has been set pretty low.
Since leaving office, however, Jimmy Carter's unfaltering service to humanity has been an example to us all. I challenge any of you to come up with a more selfless, altruistic living person.
But, of course, your ideology is derisive of altruism, and humanity. The fact that Carter continues to drive you mouthbreathers so crazy really speaks volumes about your own values and character. Pay no attention to the manifest failure of our current President; Jimmy Carter couldn't manage the gas crisis in the 70s!
In 200 years, history will remember what a great man Jimmy Carter was. Five minutes after you're dead, nobody will remember who the fuck you were. Nor care.
Wow, that's shocking. Iranian royalist exiles hate Carter? I'm shocked! Shocked!Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Who is Chuck Morse? He has written an entirely ahistorical column here. Calling Reza Pahlavi a "progressive modern ruler" is really a sick kjoke. Google "SAVAK."
That`s a pricless piece of partisan nonsense. I had to keep a copy just in case you had second thoughts and tried erase your emotional rant. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
1979: "I have never met an Arab leader that in private professed a desire for an independent Palestinian state. Publicly, they all espouse an independent Palestinian state -- almost all of them -- because that is what they committed themselves to do at Rabat (the 1974 Arab League summit conference)."
--President Jimmy Carter
a 1979 press conference
Early 1980: …at a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, angrily snapped, "If I get back in, I`m going to f--- the Jews."
Jimmy Carter, March 1980
Late 1980: Cyrus Vance…confirmed to then-New York mayor Ed Koch that Carter, if reelected, would "sell out" the Jews
Jimmy Carter shortly before the 1980 election
2003: …had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region, we could have moved to a final solution
Jimmy Carter, 12-1-2003
2004: "We have been exclusively committed to the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel, and have made no effort to try to have a balanced negotiating position between Israel and the Palestinians,"
SAVAK were pikers compared to what Carter spawned,todays mullachracy with the A-bomb.
Stagflation,the misery index of over 20% the hostage crisis of his own making,the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,etc,etc.
Your Mr.Malaise is a joke,a sad proven pathetic anti-semite Jew hater.
Well, again, your irrational hatred of one of the finest Americans of the twentieth century isn't really relevant, since nobody gives a fuck what you think.
"Partisan" That's rich, coming from you. If Carter had an R next to his name, you'd be breathlessly proclaiming the gas crisis a Democratic plot. At least you're predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Have you ever met an Arab leader who privately professed a desire for an independent Palestinian state? The Palestinians have been screwed by every state actor in the Middle East, not just the Israelis. That's kind of the tragedy of the whole deal. What about this (unattributed) quote do you find objectionable?Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Even one (reputable) source, beyond your troubled imagination, for this highly dubious quote would be appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Do you think the Board of Governors at Tel Aviv University knew that Carter wanted to "fuck the Jews" when they awarded him an honorary doctorate? Do you think his honorary doctorate from Haifa University is in Antisemitism?
Usually, you at least link to some other rabid wingnut who is manufacturing quotes. Now, you seem to be just pulling this bizarre crap out of your own ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Not sure what's wrong with wanting a lasting peace in the Middle East. Are you objecting to the words "final solution"? Who's politically correct now?Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
This may or may not be a real quote, but it does fairly accurately describe U.S. Middle East policy in 2004. Again, what's your objection?Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Look, I understand that you're a big fan of authoritarianism and extrajudicial torture and killing. It may be OK with you and Chuck Morse that Reza Pahlavi ruled over an autocratic police state, but don't call him a "progressive modern ruler" when he clearly was not. It's dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Don't forget your mother's gout. Obviously, Carter was responsible for that, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Plus he was a veteran, and you hate those vets, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
1979: "I have never met an Arab leader that in private professed a desire for an independent Palestinian state. Publicly, they all espouse an independent Palestinian state -- almost all of them -- because that is what they committed themselves to do at Rabat (the 1974 Arab League summit conference)."
--President Jimmy Carter
a 1979 press conference
You really don`t know? Seriously? :lol:Quote:
Have you ever met an Arab leader who privately professed a desire for an independent Palestinian state? The Palestinians have been screwed by every state actor in the Middle East, not just the Israelis. That's kind of the tragedy of the whole deal. What about this (unattributed) quote do you find objectionable?
Early 1980: …at a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, angrily snapped, "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
Fuck your stupid. And here I thought the Village Idiot was a buffoon.Quote:
Even one (reputable) source, beyond your troubled imagination, for this highly dubious quote would be appreciated.
Late 1980: Cyrus Vance…confirmed to then-New York mayor Ed Koch that Carter, if reelected, would "sell out" the Jews
Jimmy Carter shortly before the 1980 election
Mayor- by Ed Koch. YOU DUMB FUCK !!!!Quote:
Usually, you at least link to some other rabid wingnut who is manufacturing quotes. Now, you seem to be just pulling this bizarre crap out of your own ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
A Jew hater using words like "final solution". Yeah,that works. :lol: We really find self-hating Jews the same as you self-hating Americans,distasteful.Quote:
Not sure what's wrong with wanting a lasting peace in the Middle East. Are you objecting to the words "final solution"? Who's politically correct now?
Even whack job Howard Dean wants nothing of Carter and his hate," On this issue Carter speaks for himself...I and other democrats will continue to stand with Israel in it`s battle against terrorism ..."
2004: "We have been exclusively committed to the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel, and have made no effort to try to have a balanced negotiating position between Israel and the Palestinians,"
“view[ed] the unarmed young Palestinians who stood up against thousands of Israel soldiers as ‘instant heroes...Buoyed by the intifada, Carter passed on to the Palestinians, through Arafat, his congratulations.”Quote:
This may or may not be a real quote, but it does fairly accurately describe U.S. Middle East policy in 2004. Again, what's your objection?
The Unfinished Presidency-Douglas Brinkley
Stagflation,the misery index of over 20% the hostage crisis of his own making,the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,etc,etc.
When thoroughly deconstructed,go for the ridiculous.Quote:
Don't forget your mother's gout. Obviously, Carter was responsible for that, too.
So this maggot wanna be village idiot thinks Ed Koch and Douglas Brinkley are "rabid wingnuts". What a fucking idiot ! :lol:
Your Mr.Malaise is a joke,a sad proven pathetic anti-semite Jew hater.
LOL Holy O`l Fuck this numbskull just falls right into it !!! :lol:Quote:
Plus he was a veteran, and you hate those vets, don't you?
ATTACK OF THE KILLER RABBITS !!!!
----------------------------------------------------------
Well, again, this quote reflects actual reality. Certainly reality is inconvenient to your arguments, but I don't know how you can fault Jimmy Carter for merely stating what is plainly obvious to anyone who reads.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
This is hilarious for a couple of reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
A) You should maybe actually read Cockburn's book. The "fuck the Jews" quote is attributed to James Baker III, not Jimmy Carter. Plus it's from an anonymous source. I actually have the book in my hands right now.
B) Cockburn is a avowed Marxist. In the past, you've been somewhat critical of Marxists. I guess Marxists are now OK, as long as you can misquote their books to attack Jimmy Carter.
Personally, I don't find Cockburn to be an entirely credible source.
I guess this is possible. I haven't read Mayor. Not a big Ed Koch fan. He is a Democrat, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Still, this is something Cyrus Vance allegedly said about Carter, and doesn't necessarily represent reality. This is called "hearsay" evidence, and it doesn't necessarily make a very strong case. Nothing that Jimmy Carter has actually said or done prior to, during, or after his term of office supports the (clearly ludicrous idea) idea that he wants to "sell out the Jews."
And you're aware that Cyrus Vance resigned from the Carter Administration in disgrace?
This is simply idiotic, Michael. I mean really.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
That's precisely what I was thinking, as well. This is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Actually, what I said was that the quote from "The Unfinished Presidency" pretty accurately described U.S. policy in 2004.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
It's a really excellent biography, though a little embarrassing, as it verges on a hagiography. I sincerely doubt that you've actually read it, as you clearly don't read books, and if you'd read this one, you might have a faintly informed opinion of Jimmy Carter.
But really, why read when you can just cut-and-paste misquotes from Free Republic? It requires so little intellectual effort.
Still looking for that proof. I've given you direct evidence that Jimmy Carter is widely respected throughout Israel. Perhaps you could counter by claiming that Israel is entirely populated by those self-hating Jews you like to talk about.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Really, this is pathetic, Michael. In our past conversations, I've found it amusing simply to point out your willful ignorance, your willingness to alter quotes and doctor photographs, and your near total unfamiliarity with the historical record. It's silly and something of a waste of time, I know, but it's a nice substitute for watching sitcoms.
However, I think this really crosses a line. Maliciously slandering a great man like Jimmy Carter solely out of banal partisanship is disgraceful. It's a disgrace.
Jimmy Carter, through his direct action, has improved the lives of literally millions of people. What have you done for humanity? Do you spend your spare time building houses for poor people, or cutting-and-pasting right-wing propaganda to a transsexual bulletin board on the Internet?
I think you should take a close look at your life, Michael. And I think you should consider making some changes that might benefit the world around you.
Well lookee here...
something from WMChickenhawk's fav website...
Kicking An 82 Year Old Man: The Right Attacks Jimmy Carter. Again
Jimmy Carter is not remembered as a great President. Most folks might even consider him a failure, the peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia. But why exactly do we hold one of the two Democratic Presidents of the last 38 years in such low esteem?
Isn't this the man that held the country together in the years after Watergate?
Didn't he bring decency and honesty back to The White House?
Yes.
Isn't it a great American success story for a man to come from such humble beginnings, serve in defense of his country and then ascend to the highest office?
Yes.
Isn't it remarkable that back in 1979 he declared "The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them." Isn't that leadership and vision?
Yes. But it was legacy destroying as well. Our memories of Jimmy Carter are memories laced with the poison of a right wing smear campaign because when Jimmy Carter encouraged us to face the facts of the energy crisis, he faced off against the Oil Companies and as the decades passed, it has become sadly clear that the nuclear physicist Naval Officer peanut farmer came out the worse for it. He was portrayed as naive and as a simpleton. He was routinely mocked. A good man's legacy was taken down.
What some would view as terrific achievements, such as reducing America's oil imports by 1.8 million barrels a day or getting the Crude Oil Windfall Profits tax passed to help fund his energy policies (Any spare copies of that bill around by any chance?) others viewed as terrific challenges to their businesses.
According to AmericanPresident.org, a "comprehensive non-partisan resource available on the history and function of the American presidency," Carter accomplished a great deal as President, particularly his energy packages, but:
"Carter gained a reputation for political ineptitude, even though his actual record in dealing with Congress belied that image. His success rate in getting presidential initiatives through Congress was much higher than that of his predecessors Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and successors Reagan and Bush. One might expect a president with a majority in Congress to do better than presidents facing the opposition party majorities. But Carter was also close to Johnson's success rates, and higher than Kennedy's record. Carter did not like to bargain and remained arrogant and aloof, but at the end of the day, he usually wound up with much of what he sought from Congress. His major problem was that the perception of his leadership did not correspond with the reality of his performance."
Let's repeat that: "the perception of his leadership did not correspond with the reality of his performance." Millions of dollars of smears and attacks will do that to a man. We see the same happening to others, over and over again, to this day. Ask Michael Dukakis or Al Gore or John Kerry or any of the multitude of victims of the right's $mear machine.
We know now that companies like ExxonMobil have created what investigative author George Monboit has called The Denial Industry, consisting of PR attack firms, phony grassroots "astroturf" organizations, think tanks, political front groups and others, all well-paid to confuse the public over the facts of global warming. According to Monboit,
"By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus."
We can see all around us the effect of this kind of operation and the tragic consequences of the resulting delay in dealing with problems like global warming. We can see the effect of similar operations on our health care policies, our disappearing pensions, our low minimum wage, our campaign finance system, our reduced job security and so many other areas.
With this in mind the question has to be asked: Does our negative perception of Jimmy Carter come from the same kind of corporate-sponsored manipulative operation? Does it come from the same kind of smear operation as the one that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the "swiftboating" of John Kerry? Was our preception of Carter formed by an attack campaign from the then-newly-forming web of right-wing "conservative movement" organizations funded by extremely wealthy individuals, corporations and foundations?
Jimmy Carter has spent his years since The White House as admirably as any former President. He's focused on hunger and poverty and promoting democracy around the world. He spent years far from the public view.
But now, Jimmy Carter has again been doing interviews and press. Now, at age eighty-two, he seems to have been moving towards a respected elder statesmen role.
So just this week, an anonymous caller called into a C-SPAN interview and ranted at Jimmy Carter, calling him "a bigot, and a racist and an anti-Semite." The caller continued, accusing Carter of "cozying up with every dictator, thug, Islamic terrorist there is."
The rantings of a lunatic who made it through the pre-call screening somehow right? Time to check the systems and make sure it never happens again? No. This was the result of a coordinated smear where the charges of Jimmy Carter being an "anti-Semite" echoed through the right wing blogs and straight to Drudge Report.
This attack was amplified by numerous current right-wing online attacks on Carter at sites such as www.frontpagemag.com. From the right came a wave of attacks, Carter's been "trying to (expletive) the Jews." He's friends with terrorists. He's this and this and isn't it a little pathetic?
Not to the far right. Not to those who have spent forty years developing a machine that sells us the myth of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and Rudy Guiliani while giving us the smearing of Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry.
No, even if Jimmy Carter is eighty-two years old, a dedicated public servant and American hero in the twilight of his career, if people are actually listening and liking what they hear, it's time to smear.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-j...a_b_35587.html
Quote:
Well lookee here...
something from WMChickenhawk's fav website...
Uh,you meant this :
This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr. John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.
Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.
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. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.
The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.
Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to inform students and the general public about the history and politics of Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures, and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history must presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way we wish it to be.
In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new year.
As ever,
Ken
Dr. Kenneth W. Stein,
Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science,
and Israeli Studies,
Director, Middle East Research Program and
Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel
Atlanta, Georgia
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:
That was code for, "Jimmy Carter is a disgrace and an anti-semite."Quote:
"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
Did you see what your new favorite author, Douglas Brinkley, said about Stein's tanturm?
Quote:
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
Welcome to academia.Quote:
“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
Uh-huh.Quote:
Quote:
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
Quote:
“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
Same article, NY Slimes:
"...That criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book, including Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard, who called the book “ahistorical,” and David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“I was just very saddened by it,” Mr. Makovsky said. “I just found so many errors.”
Mr. Carter’s use of “apartheid” in the title has attracted much of the controversy. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles released a statement on Monday saying the former president harbors bias against Israel. “There is no Israeli apartheid policy, and President Carter knows it,” the statement read."
Same article, Int. Herald Tribune:
"...Brinkley said he has read Carter's new book but could not address Stein's accusations.
the Simon Wiesenthal Center has received 6,000 signatures on an online petition rebuking Carter for his book, said spokesman Marcial Lavina.
"President Carter there is no Israeli Apartheid policy and you know it. I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding you that the only reason there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism," according to the petition at the Los Angeles-based center's Web site.
Congileo declined comment on the Wiesenthal Center's statement."
Welcome to reality :smh
You're kind of grasping at straws here, aren't you Michael? You started this thread stridently attacking President Carter as a racist and an anti-semite, and have now retreated to cuttting-and-pasting quotes from an academic pissing match over his latest book.
Do you have any direct evidence at all to support your contention that Jimmy Carter "hates Jews"? Can you make even a vaguely coherent argument to refute the documented record of Jimmy Carter's lifetime of service to the United States and humanity at large? Can you offer any reason at all to believe that he didn't rightly deserve his 2002 Nobel Peave Prize? Do you have any explanation for how an anti-semite was awarded honorary doctorates from three major Israeli universities? Can you imagine any reason why the Synagogue Council of America awarded its International Human Rights Award to a "Jew-hater"?
In short, do you have anything to say about Jimmy Carter's career that is actually supported by fact or the historical record?
And what the hell is that photo, and what does it have to do with anything? Just one time, please, use the brain that God gave you.
Not exactly a new tactic for our would-be great white hope...Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Take a look at this WMC thread...
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=12363
Look how the thread started(where he was proven to be wrong once again...)
Then look at how WMC attempts to divert and weasel out by focusing on minutiae which had nothing to do with his original thread...
He has since changed the title of the thread also...
What a surprise, he's attempting to rewrite history...
CARTER IS AN 82 YEAR OLD BUM!
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Thank you, guyone, for that thoughtful and considered contribution. You're really setting the bar for rhetorial prowess.
You might want to grab a napkin. You've got a little drool on your bib.
Why is it you think that vitriolic epithets only work one way? I only called Carter a bum (which is what I & history truly believe) compared to the names Republican politicians and others have been called on this board. Why is it that the left can constantly whine and curse at people yet get very indignant when confronted? Why? Because those on the left side of the aisle suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder(BPD). The real question is whether these sufferers of BPD have banded together and hijacked a political party or if the party infused its members with this debilitating disorder in order to create solidarity. It's a very important issue that should be studied.
You can throw around whatever vitriolic epithets you like. You just have to take responsibility for the fact that responding to a substantive case for Jimmy Carter's manifest achievements with
makes you look very silly. So does claiming to speak for "history" with an entirely ahistorical point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by guyone
I'm not trying to shut you up. On the contrary, I'm just asking that you use your brain and do a little research, rather than simply relying on what Sean Hannity tells you.
And not that it matters, since you've offered no actual examples of whatever it is that you're talking about, but unsubstantiated name-calling directed at Republican politicians is silly, too.
It's interesting that you mention borderline. Your post is fairly paranoid. And accusing the collective left of something is clearly indicative of a manichean worldview. Do you have turbulent interpersonal relationships, as well?
Man,you`re just the other pinheads in here. Get your head handed to you and still come back ignoring the goring you just took.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Jimmy a Jew hater? His own words reveal alot:
March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, angrily snapped, "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
Late 1980: Cyrus Vance…confirmed to then-New York mayor Ed Koch that Carter, if reelected, would "sell out" the Jews.
Mayor- by Ed Koch.
“view[ed] the unarmed young Palestinians who stood up against thousands of Israel soldiers as ‘instant heroes...Buoyed by the intifada, Carter passed on to the Palestinians, through Arafat, his congratulations.”
The Unfinished Presidency-Douglas Brinkley
Howard Dean wants nothing of Carter and his hate," On this issue Carter speaks for himself...I and other democrats will continue to stand with Israel in it`s battle against terrorism ..."
Nobel Peace prize:
1994 Yasser Arafat! `Nough said on said "peace prize".
Synagogue Council of America:
That left-wing group no longer exists.Hasn`t existed for about 12 years.
"major Israeli universities" ? :
Who cares about self-hating Jews and Americans.
The photo? I`ve always found the left to be dour,sour,bitter,sanctimonious,and, ill-humored.
Now your projecting your own shortcomings onto me. That doesn't settle anything but digs oneself deeper into the condition. Remember denial is not a river in Egypt. And I'm not saying the left is beyond hope. With the proper treatment the left can resume a rational and healthy lifestyle and able to make vast contributions to our society.
As far as Carter goes this was taken from Wikipedia (an accredited source on this board):
The Iranian hostage crisis was seen by critics as a devastating blow to national prestige; Carter struggled for 444 days to effect the release of the hostages. A failed rescue attempt led to the resignation, in protest, of his Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. The hostages were finally released the day Carter left office.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan marked the end of détente, and Carter moved to the right, boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, and began to rebuild American military power. He beat off a primary challenge from Senator Ted Kennedy but was unable to effectively reduce soaring interest rates and inflation rates, or to lower unemployment. The "Misery Index", his favored measure of economic well-being, rose 50% (the highest since Truman) in four years. He feuded with the Democratic leaders who controlled Congress and, as a result, was unable to reform the tax system or to implement a national health plan. He was defeated by Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980.
...and does anybody remember his brother (hic hic) Billy?
The topic was changed for a simple reason, Judicial Supremacy became the germane issue. All else became secondary.Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
Yes the thorough reveal of your boy/girl to not even be aware it was arguing in favor of Judicial Supremacy,not even aware of Article III and what it meant,let alone having even read it. Sad to see Americans either deny facts less they be embarrassed or more so,be ignorant of their own Constitution. Not willing or able to answer my specific questions your boy/girl runs off and creates his own bizarro world topic. No surprise since it began to stalk me, but juvenile,laughable,hilarious and sad all at once.
So Chef,do you adhere to the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy/oligarchy?
For God's sake, Michael. You're just going to repost the same shit I knocked down two days ago? You can't find anything new to cut-and-paste in here?
Gasp! Not those self-hating Jews again! Man, they're everywhere, running all the Israeli Universities and Jewish human rights organizations. Do you suppose there are any Jews who don't hate themselves?Quote:
Who cares about self-hating Jews and Americans.
Sigh... Yes, we have established that Carter's Presidency was lackluster (though by contemporary standards, I think we can call it a success). We covered this ground at the beginning of the thread. Could you two possibly bother to read what's already been posted a couple of pages back in the thread before posting the same shit all over again?Quote:
Originally Posted by guyone
We have further established that Jimmy Carter possess one of the most exemplary records of service to humanity of any living person. Forgive me, but how that equals BUM, I don't understand.
Don`t know what "god" you pray to but I do believe you forgot to "knock down",Quote:
For God's sake, Michael. You're just going to repost the same shit I knocked down two days ago? You can't find anything new to cut-and-paste in here?
THIS:
"If I get back in, I`m going to f--- the Jews."
THIS:
Cyrus Vance…confirmed to then-New York mayor Ed Koch that Carter, if reelected, would "sell out" the Jews.
AND THIS :
Howard Dean wants nothing of Carter and his hate," On this issue Carter speaks for himself...I and other democrats will continue to stand with Israel in it`s battle against terrorism ..."
Perhaps I`m mistaken and they`re all taken out of context.
Find the answers and let me know eh :wink:
I would refer the right honorable gentleman to the answer I gave on page 1 of the thread.
Are you you having some comprehension issues, Michael?
'lackluster'? Wow that's spinning so wildly out of control it's...Delusional.Quote:
Sigh... Yes, we have established that Carter's Presidency was lackluster (though by contemporary standards, I think we can call it a success)...blah blah blah...We have further established that Jimmy Carter possess one of the most exemplary records of service to humanity of any living person. Forgive me, but how that equals BUM, I don't understand.
The psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
16.27 on the 'Misery' Index is not 'lackluster...
16.27 = BUM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
No issues here.
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
Cyrus Vance…confirmed to then-New York mayor Ed Koch that Carter, if reelected, would "sell out" the Jews.
Mayor- by Ed Koch
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 ..."
Now the logical path to take is to read Mayor/ Dangerous Liaison and then PROVE otherwise. Conclusively prove Howard Dean,Koch and the Cockburns` were taken out of context and meant something else completely.
Get back to me when you have. 8)
So you’re going to hang your hat on a single economic indicator from a four-year period? Your position is that history’s assessment of public figures should rely solely on the Misery Index? Did you notice that the Misery Index for the Reagan Administration is only marginally higher than that for Carter’s, that he’s third from the bottom, trailed only by Ford and Carter? Did you further notice that four of the top five spots are occupied by Democratic Administrations? Why do you continually deride Reagan and the Republican Party?Quote:
Originally Posted by guyone
What you’re saying is that a poor U.S. economy during the late 1970s is of greater consequence than the Camp David Accords, Habitat for Humanity, the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter’s service to this country as a nuclear engineer in the U.S. Navy, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera… In fact, what your posts indicate is that you value partisan hackery over actual service to humanity.
As I’ve said before, the truly absurd criticism that you and Michael have leveled against Jimmy Carter really speaks volumes about you as a human being. It’s unfortunate that people like you put so much energy into tearing down good people, as opposed to actually helping to improve the world. I hope that someday you take a really close look at your own values, and what you might achieve by dedicating your life to positive endeavors, as Jimmy Carter has done with his. Good luck.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
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?
"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
You live on the wrong planet. James Baker said "fuck the jews(americans),they didn`t vote for us anyway."Quote:
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.
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
Yeah , Carter has Israel`s back.Quote:
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
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 :smh
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
How has Judaism survived for 5,000 years when, apparently, the Jews all hate themselves?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
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.
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
So according to you William Safire is wrong. Take it up with him.Quote:
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."
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.Quote:
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`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.
History unfolds and lays 4 aces on the table:Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
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