So, Jimmy Carter.
One of my Jewish friends just emailed me, absolutely freaking out about some book Jimmy Carter wrote. Something about calling Israel "Afrikaaners". I wasn't entirely clear on this, the email was barely legible.
So I looked it up, Every news article I saw talked about how controversial his book was, while avoiding saying what he actually wrote. In fact, the only thing I could gather about the book was the title. It seemed like it was a bit inflammatory, but I didn't think the title alone was the reason fourteen advisors resigned from the Carter Center. In the end, I found some extensive reviews of the book on Amazon.com, which cleared things up quite a bit. While it seems a bit like our fomer president has a somewhat one sided view of things (I'll still have to pick it up at some point), it seems like everyone in the political community is overreacting. Again. Also interesting to look at the tags it recieved on Amazon. Quote:
On a similar note, checking up on the book did allow me to find this freak's website, which is almost as amusing as godhatesfags.com. |
Jimmy Carter is an idiot.
|
An undisputed point. I still feel that the book is getting a ridiculously overblown response.
|
So what did he write about?
|
Quote:
|
EDIT: Screw it, a bare bones summary just doesn't work. Here's one of the negative reviews.
Quote:
|
Quote:
What are some things Carter has done that you like so much, Mowler? |
The dude is cleary a humanitarian. He is old and still lives in his hometown, why the hell would he care about money? :rolleyes
|
Quote:
|
Here's why Carter is an idiot.... he writes a book under the premise that the Israeli-Arab conflict is one which is never gets discussed for politically correct reasons (or Jews control the media) ...and.... wait, stop there. What planet does he live on?
Then when Alan Dershowitz breaks down his book, lists the blatant mistakes and challenges him to debate the material, Carter, who claims he wrote the book to stir debate, refuses to debate it. If that's not enough, you have one of Carters long time mid-east advisors quiting, a map in the book which was plagerised, and Carter himself can't seem to stand behind the title of his book when challenged in interviews. So what you have is an idiot who published an inflammatory bookk full of sophomoric mistakes he copied from anti-semitic websites, because he was hoping he'd become the hero of the Code Pink/New Left crowd. Edit: 14 more Carter Center advisots quit. Not because Carter dared to talk about Israel, but because the hateful manner in which he did it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1168..._whats_news_us |
The guy is old...do you really think if he wrote a book that didn't have something to stir up a debate anyone would pay attention. Maybe hes doing the Janet Jackson thing except you already have an exposed boob so it couldn't possibly work :(
|
When will the world learn not to take old people's opinions seriously? He probably has a thyroid condition and is teetering his way through Alzheimers.
|
The only opinions not to be taken seriously are your own. Oh, and everyone else's.
|
peanuts.
|
He has really nice teeth and a drunken brother :) How more american can you get?
|
http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/carte...signations.htm
January 11, 2007 Dear President Carter, As members of the Board of Councilors each one of us has been proud to be associated with the Carter Center in its noble struggle to repair the world. However, in light of the publication of your latest book Palestine; Peace Not Apartheid and your subsequent comments made in promoting the book, we can no longer in good conscience continue to serve the Center as members of the Board of Councilors. In its work in conflict resolution the Carter Center has always played the useful and constructive role of honest broker and mediator between warring parties. In your book, which portrays the conflict between Israel and her neighbors as a purely one-sided affair with Israel holding all of the responsibility for resolving the conflict, you have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side. The facts in dealing with the conflict are these: There are two national narratives contesting one piece of land. The Israelis, through deed and public comment, have consistently spoken of a desire to live in peace and make territorial compromise to achieve this status. The Palestinian side has consistently resorted to acts of terror as a national expression and elected parties endorsing the use of terror, the rejection of territorial compromise and of Israel's right to exist. Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts. Your book has confused opinion with fact, subjectivity with objectivity and force for change with partisan advocacy. Furthermore the comments you have made the past few weeks insinuating that there is a monolith of Jewish power in America are most disturbing and must be addressed by us. In our great country where freedom of expression is basic bedrock you have suddenly proclaimed that Americans cannot express their opinion on matters in the Middle East for fear of retribution from the "Jewish Lobby" In condemning the Jews of America you also condemn Christians and others for their support of Israel. Is any interest group to be penalized for participating in the free and open political process that is America? Your book and recent comments suggest you seem to think so. In the past you would inject yourself into this world to moderate between the two sides in the pursuit of peace and as a result you earned our admiration and support. Now you repeatedly make false claims. You wrote that UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that "Israel must withdraw from territories" (p. 38), but you know the word "must" in fact is not in the resolution. You said that since Mahmoud Abbas has been in office there have been no peace discussions. That is wrong. You wrote that Yassir Arafat told you in 1990 that, "The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel" (p. 62). Given that their Charter, which explicitly calls for Israel's destruction, was not revised until the late 1990s, how could you even write such a claim as if it were credible? You denied on Denver radio on December 12 that Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyah said he would never accept or negotiate with Israel. However the BBC monitoring service reported just the opposite. In fact Haniyah said: "We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihadist movement until Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are liberated. When presented with this fact you said, "No he didn't say that, no he did not do that, I did not hear that." These are not points of opinion, these are points of fact. And finally, it is a disturbing statement to write: "that it is imperative, that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." In this sentence you clearly suggest that you are condoning violence against Israelis until they do certain things (p.213). Your use of the word "Apartheid," regardless of your disclaimers, has already energized white supremacist groups who thrive on asserting Jewish control of government and foreign policy, an insinuation you made in your OPED to the LA Times on December 8, 2006: "For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts." According to Web site monitoring by the Anti-Defamation League, U.S. white supremacists have enthusiastically embraced your suggestion that the Israel lobby stifles debate in this country, saying it confirms Jewish control of government and foreign policy as well as and the inherently "evil" nature of Jews. If you doubt the support you are giving and receiving, please refer to the Anti-Defamation League web site. From there you can get to the postings of four different White Supremacist organizations that both support and make use of the contents of your book and what you have said in public. As a result it seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, including even malicious advocacy. We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately. |
Playing skittles with Saddam
The gameplan among Washington's hawks has long been to reshape the Middle East along US-Israeli lines Brian Whitaker Tuesday September 3, 2002 Guardian Unlimited In a televised speech last week, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. "We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region," he said. Mr Mubarak is an old-fashioned kind of Arab leader and, in the brave new post-September-11 world, he doesn't quite get the point. What on earth did he expect the Pentagon's hawks to do when they heard his words of warning? Throw up their hands in dismay? - "Gee, thanks, Hosni. We never thought of that. Better call the whole thing off right away." They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr Mubarak and the hawks do agree on one thing: war with Iraq could spell disaster for several regimes in the Middle East. Mr Mubarak believes that would be bad. The hawks, though, believe it would be good. For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan. In their eyes, Iraq is just the starting point - or, as a recent presentation at the Pentagon put it, "the tactical pivot" - for re-moulding the Middle East on Israeli-American lines. This reverses the usual approach in international relations where stability is seen as the key to peace, and whether or not you like your neighbours, you have to find ways of living with them. No, say the hawks. If you don't like the neighbours, get rid of them. The hawks claim that President Bush has already accepted their plan and made destabilisation of "despotic regimes" a central goal of his foreign policy. They cite passages from his recent speeches as proof of this, though whether Mr Bush really knows what he has accepted is unclear. The "skittles theory" of the Middle East - that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes - has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the "war against terrorism". Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism ..." Among other things, it suggested that the recently-signed Oslo accords might be dispensed with - "Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfil its obligations" - and that "alternatives to [Yasser] Arafat's base of power" could be cultivated. "Jordan has ideas on this," it added. It also urged Israel to abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Arabs, which it described as "cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat". "Our claim to the land - to which we have clung for hope for 2,000 years - is legitimate and noble," it continued. "Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, 'peace for peace', is a solid basis for the future." The paper set out a plan by which Israel would "shape its strategic environment", beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and "roll back" Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by "weaning" the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them", the paper concluded. To succeed, the paper stressed, Israel would have to win broad American support for these new policies - and it advised Mr Netanyahu to formulate them "in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war which apply well to Israel". At first glance, there's not much to distinguish the 1996 "Clean Break" paper from the outpourings of other right-wing and ultra-Zionist thinktanks ... except for the names of its authors. The leader of the "prominent opinion makers" who wrote it was Richard Perle - now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon. Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy. Mr Feith has objected to most of the peace deals made by Israel over the years, and views the Middle East in the same good-versus-evil terms that he previously viewed the cold war. He regarded the Oslo peace process as nothing more than a unilateral withdrawal which "raises life-and-death issues for the Jewish state". Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy, August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security. A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) - a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas Feith. One of Jinsa's stated aims is "to inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". In practice, a lot of its effort goes into sending retired American military brass on jaunts to Israel - after which many of them write suitably hawkish newspaper articles or letters to the editor. Jinsa's activities are examined in detail by Jason Vest in the September 2 issue of The Nation. The article notes some interesting business relationships between retired US military officers on Jinsa's board and American companies supplying weapons to Israel. With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it. The six-year-old plan for Israel's "strategic environment" remains more or less intact, though two extra skittles - Saudi Arabia and Iran - have joined Iraq, Syria and Lebanon on the hit list. Whatever members of the Iraqi opposition may think, the plan to replace Saddam Hussein with a Hashemite monarch - descendants of the Prophet Muhammad who rule Jordan - is also very much alive. Evidence of this was strengthened by the surprise arrival of Prince Hassan, former heir to the Jordanian throne, at a meeting of exiled Iraqi officers in London last July. The task of promoting Prince Hassan as Iraq's future king has fallen to Michael Rubin, who currently works at the American Enterprise Institute but will shortly take up a new job at the Pentagon, dealing with post-Saddam Iraq. One of the curious aspects of this neo-conservative intrigue is that so few people outside the United States and Israel take it seriously. Perhaps, like President Mubarak, they can't imagine that anyone who holds a powerful position in the United States could be quite so reckless. But nobody can accuse the neo-conservatives of concealing their intentions: they write about them constantly in American newspapers. Just two weeks ago, an article in the Washington Times by Tom Neumann, executive director of Jinsa, spelled out the plan in clear, cold terms: "Jordan will likely survive the coming war with US assistance, so will some of the sheikhdoms. The current Saudi regime will likely not. "The Iran dissident movement would be helped enormously by the demise of Saddam, and the Palestinians would have to know that the future lies with the West. Syria's Ba'athist dictatorship will likely fall unmourned, liberating Lebanon as well. "Israel and Turkey, the only current democracies in the region, will find themselves in a far better neighbourhood." Would anyone like to bet on that? http://newamericancentury.org/ |
Well there you have it. The Geggys think Carter's the coolest President ever.
Does he think that article from 2002 with all it's prophetic failures gives Carter vindication from running around the country pushing David Duke's platform against Israel? |
I don't understand you. A lot of things said in the article has come and might as well will come true with the military build up in a strike against iran. Do you suffer from full blown amnesia and have forgotten what has happened in the last 6 years??
|
Israel hasn't stopped trading land for peace, Oslo was never reversed, Israel is no more secure, Jordan holds little influence on Iraq...And I could keep going but...
Let's jump to the big prediction and stop goose stepping around it.... Jews still don't run the world, and Israel doesn't dictate Americas foriegn policy. If you want to deduct anything else from the article then feel free to post again....otherwise, you're a worthless Jew hater who needs to learn some shame. p.s. What's happened since 2002? Did Iran elect a hardliner as their President by chance? |
Before I go on, I need to know one thing for the sake of my own security...do you work for jack abramoff to say things like these? Did he shower you with drugs, sex and free game of golf?
|
Uh, Geggy... most people don't find the idea of sex with Jack Abramoff appealing.
I'm not judging, I'm just sayin'. |
Ex-President For Sale (Dershowitz on Carter)
familysecuritymatters.org ^ | 1/10/2007 | Alan Dershowitz http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts?page=16 Quote:
|
Maybe I'm just one of those types of people, but considering the source of that article, I doubt that it's 100% accurate. Mainly because the Right is/will rip any democrat they possibly can when thinking about recent events. The obvious one being the newly elected democrats, the death of the now "underrated" Gerald Ford, and Bush's latest Iraq policy. Anytime the right finds anything linking anyone to the "towelheads" they claim unamericanism and the hatred of freedom.
Also, Quote:
|
So what is it that you doubt, Carter's ties to Saudi cash, or Carter's anti-semitism? The former is an undeniable fact.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:57 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.