Poor Jimmy

[xrayzebra]

Poor Liberal. He just keeps getting in deeper. But he is so honest, so
they say.

Jimmy Carter Fires Back at Longtime Aide Over Book

Friday , December 08, 2006

By Melissa Drosjack

WASHINGTON — Former President Jimmy Carter faced new criticism Friday over his controversial book on Palestinian lands when a former Middle East diplomat accused him of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him.

The new charge came as Carter attempted to counter charges from a former top aide that the book manipulates facts to distort history.

Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter's book.

"I think there should be a correction and an attribution," Ross said. "These were maps that never existed, I created them."

After Ross saw the maps in Carter's book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction.

When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied: “it sure looks that way.”

Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," was released last week.

"A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title 'indecent.' Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive," Carter wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece published in Friday's edition.

Click here to read Carter's op-ed published in the LA Times.

Carter disputed alleged "lies" and "distortions" against content in his book.

"With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries," he wrote.

Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, resigned Tuesday as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University, stating in his resignation letter that "President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."

"The purpose of the book should be to try to bring people together, to try and reconcile them. He published in the LA Times because his book tour is going in that direction," Stein said. "I'm a historian, I believe in the integrity of my profession, I believe that things should be written accurately, even if you disagree with them."

Carter is scheduled to sign books at Vroman's in Pasadena, Calif., on Friday.

"I wouldn't have chosen the words I chose on my resignation letter if I hadn't read the book really closely and hadn't been reasonable familiar for a lifetime with the details associated with the conflict," Stein said.

Click here to read Dr. Kenneth W. Stein's letter.

"I just want to be sure that when people write history, people don't do it for purpose of special pleading," Stein told FOXNews.com on Thursday. "They write it the way it was. They don't try to shape a person's opinion and slide them down a path in order to come to an inevitable conclusion."

Stein leaves the center after serving as its first executive director and founder of its Middle East program.

Carter issued a statement in response to Stein's letter noting that Stein hasn't been directly involved with the center in more than 12 years and did not address specific allegations by Stein.

"If Ken has read my latest book he knows that, as the book's title makes clear, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status," according to a statement by Carter released by Deanna Congileo, Carter's spokeswoman.

Stein hasn't talked directly with Carter, but has been contacted through third parties.

"Ken is one of the finest teachers I have ever known, and has been of great help during the early years of our center, as an advisor to me on Middle East affairs, and as a personal friend. I thank him for this, and wish him well," Carter said.

Stein alleged an inaccuracy on page 131 in the book of a 1990 White House meeting where Carter cites that Washington was mostly preoccupied with the Iraq/Kuwait conflict. Stein said that was in 1980, not 1990.

"He makes it appear that the reasons people didn't pay attention to what he was saying was because of the invasion," Stein said. "How was that possible? I was there."

"Carter can disagree with me. I don't think if you're president of the United States you have a specific privilege to overstate," he added.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights group based in Los Angeles, has received more than 16,000 signatures to an online petition to "act now against President Carter's one-sided bias against Israel."

Click here to read the petition.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the center, who read the book, said people in the Jewish community are outraged at Carter's book.

"I think the point of the book is to be hostile to Israel," Hier said. "I think he deliberately did it."

Hier said the book sides with the Palestinian cause and blames Israel for troubles in the Middle East.

"The reason he wrote this book is because he has become a spokesman for the Palestinian cause," Hier said. "Having read the book, I can tell you these are not the words of a person who is objective, who is trying to see a way out of this. He has come down 100 percent on the Palestinian side."

As for more specifics on questions to the book, Stein hinted at offering more details on factual errors and challenges to Carter's book in his letter.

"In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins," according to his letter.

[BIG IRISH]

Ray

The Carter book is so filled with simple mistakes of fact and deliberate omissions that were it a brief filed in a court of law it would be struck and its author sanctioned for misleading the court.

Carter too is guilty of misleading the court of public opinion. A mere listing of all of Carter’s mistakes and omissions would fill a volume the size of his book. Here are just a few of the most egregious:

Carter emphasizes that “Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times,” but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948.


Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinians have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal, because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.

He barely mentions Israel’s acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the U.N.’s division of the mandate in 1948.

Most of the folks here Ray are to young to remember Jimmy "do nothing but appease" Carter or care less about his "glorious 444 days" Here is an article that IMO hit the nail on the head, but it doesn't include everything, just things you no longer hear about.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26028



Palestine: Peace, Not Prejudice
By Joseph Puder
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 15, 2006

Jimmy Carter, it appears, needed a scapegoat for his failed presidency and Israel served as a convenient target. His new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a shameful tract filled with factual inaccuracies, and blatant one-sidededness. His pent up frustration with his inability to influence U.S. policy on behalf of his Arab friends prompted the publication of this libelous book.

Lest the readers forget, in March 1977, just months after his inauguration, Carter made his first foreign policy speech in which he called for a “Palestinian Homeland.”



Carter’s presidency, widely renowned for its crowning achievement, The Camp David Accords, which established a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, was not however, a Carter initiative.



Carter’s intentions and policy commitments were geared towards arranging a Geneva Peace Conference with all the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute present, in addition to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.



Carter dispatched Cyrus Vance, his Secretary of State, to Moscow to get the Soviets to co-sponsor the conference. On May 21, 1977, Secretary Vance and Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko issued a joint statement that the “elimination of the continued source of tension in the Middle East constitutes one of the primary tasks in ensuring peace and international security.” The statement specified moreover the conviction of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. that in order to achieve the goal, “an important role belonged to the Geneva Conference on the Middle East.”



Carter decided to coordinate his Middle East efforts with the Soviets on the premise that keeping them out of the picture could provoke them to undermine any American sponsored moves. This typical Carteresque strategy of appeasing dictatorships and dictators (Carter never met a dictator he did not like) backfired time and again.


In the case of the Geneva Conference, Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s President, who five years earlier expelled the Soviets from Egypt, did not want the Soviets involved in negotiations, much less in a multilateral negotiations. Sadat understood that the Soviets would press the Arabs to be uncompromising (he also knew that Carter would press Israel for concessions) and was turned off by the thought that radical voices in Syria and Iraq would undermine Egypt’s position as the leader of the Arab world.



Sadat was dead-set against going to Geneva. And, in order to scuttle the idea he had to get Israel to reject it.



On November 7, 1977, Anwar Sadat made an historic trip to Jerusalem providing Israelis with one of the most euphoric days in their collective memory. Sadat’s dramatic move and Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s personal opposition to Geneva and Soviet participation scuttled the idea of the conference. Carter quickly jumped on the Begin-Sadat bandwagon and the rest is history. It is important to acknowledge that the Camp David Accords – Carter’s premier presidential achievement – happened in spite of his misjudgment.


In a recent interview with NPR’s Terry Gross, Carter claimed, rather unconvincingly, that the title Palestine: Peace not Apartheid only pertained to the “West Bank and Gaza and not to Israel itself.” If that is the case, it must be Carter not George Bush who does not read newspapers. Apparently Carter forgot about Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip for which Israel has been rewarded with increasing and continual Kassam rocket attacks on Israeli towns in the western Negev.



Palestinian-Arab terrorism with its strain of suicide bombers that targeted Israeli civilians, particularly children, is of no interest to “human rights Jimmuh.” Carter, it seems, has amnesia when it comes to recalling the murderous actions of Palestinian terrorists led by his late friend, Yasser Arafat. (Carter volunteered to serve as his advisor on how to deal with the U.S.).



As far as Carter is concerned Israel has contravened all UN resolutions and other agreements, in its eagerness to grab Palestinian lands. The fact that suicide-bombers killed nearly 500 Israelis, in 2002 alone, forcing the Israeli military to reoccupy most of the major cities Israel handed over to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo Accords, in order to protect its civilians, is not within Carter’s scope of understanding.



Israeli closures and security checks as well as the security barrier are meant to forestall Palestinian-Arab terrorism. The Palestinian hardships Carter bemoans were instituted after the al-Aqsa intifada that meant to destroy the Jewish State. Until the late 1980’s hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers had easy access to Israel and to the jobs they held in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, and elsewhere throughout the country. Israel was forced to close its doors to Palestinian wage earners for the sake of self-preservation. Suicide-bombings engineered by Arafat and his henchmen ended a long period of growing prosperity among Palestinian-Arabs.



Carter’s deep and irrational bias against Israel is illuminated by his charges that the Palestinians-Arabs have always been ready to settle for a two-state solution and that UN Resolution 242 called upon Israel to return to the 1949 ceasefire lines. Israel, in fact, accepted the Peel Commission recommendation in 1938; it accepted the UN Partition Plan of 1947, and called for the implementation of Resolution 242 in 1967. All three were rejected by the Arab states then, and Arafat rejected the far-reaching concessions Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered at Camp David II in July 2000. In each case the Arabs and Palestinians responded with terrorism.



In 1937, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, Hitler’s friend and a partner in the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, incited the Arab Revolt - terrorism a la 1936-1939. In 1947 the Palestinian Arabs rejected Partition and conspired war against the nascent Jewish State. And, in 1967, the Arab Summit in Khartoum answered Israel’s call for peace with the Three No’s: to peace, negotiation, and recognition of Israel.



At Camp David II President Bill Clinton recognized Barak’s concessions of more than 95 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, in addition to territories Israel was prepared to give the Palestinians on the Negev’s border with Egypt, and East Jerusalem as the capital of Arab Palestine. Arafat rejected Barak’s offer, predicated on Arafat’s end-of-conflict declaration, much to the dismay of President Clinton. Arafat, believing Israel lacked the will or resolve to fight, launched the al-Aqsa Intifada, hoping to bring down the Jewish State.



Jimmy Carter totally misread UN resolution 242 and NPR’s Terry Gross let the interview, replete with this and other inaccuracies, unfold without a word of contest. According to former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”



Arthur Goldberg, U.S. Ambassador to the UN at the time stated that, “The notable omissions – which were not accidental – in regards to withdrawal are the words “the” or “all” and the June 1967 lines…the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal.”


The resolution is steadfastly clear in its call for the Palestinians to make peace with Israel. When Egypt and Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel they received all the territories demanded.

The Palestinian Arabs insist today, as yesteryear, on “all” of Palestine or “none.” They prefer to destroy the Jewish State rather than legitimately come to a peaceful resolution with Israel.


For the Palestinians today it is about a religious war - Jihad against the infidels - and not a territorial claim. Carter has yet to discover that calls for Jihad are not comparable to Sunday school teachings of love and tolerance in the Bible belt or in Plains, Georgia :clap :clap :clap

Sarcasm= Yep it's all the fault of those JEWS. Let's make nice and talk with these folks it will work about as well as when Chamberlain talked with Hitler.

[smeagol]

But he is a Christian, isn't he?

Where is boutons and his bashing of Jimbo ?

[boutons_]

You'e an asshole, smegma.

xz should sympathize with Jimmah Cahteh as fellow sufferer from senility.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well I think Bush 43 will rank right next to Carter when all is said and done. 30 years from now they will talking of Bush just like they do about Carter today. I guess that's som ething for Ray and the boys to be proud of.

[boutons_]

"Bush 43 will rank right next to Carter when all is said and done."

nope, starting a fucking unnecessary war of choice, and then losing it, placing the USA at great risk for decades, will place dubya in the lowest rank of worst presidents. Anybody who looked closely in the 2000 could see he was a personal loser, now he is a offical, public, national/international loser and liar.

I don't think Jimmy was willfully incompetent as dubya is, just incompetent.

He probably had his heart in the right place, was a smart man, tried to the job in good faith, none of which applies to dubya.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"Bush 43 will rank right next to Carter when all is said and done."

nope, starting a fucking unnecessary war of choice, and then losing it, placing the USA at great risk for decades, will place dubya in the lowest rank of worst presidents. Anybody who looked closely in the 2000 could see he was a personal loser, now he is a offical, public, national/international loser and liar.

I don't think Jimmy was willfully incompetent as dubya is, just incompetent.

He probably had his heart in the right place, was a smart man, tried to the job in good faith, none of which applies to dubya.


Well I do find it quite humerous to hear the GOP talking point referring to Carter's allowing for radical Isalm to be born..and that he was completely responsible for Iran being taken over by the radicals.. he did nothing they clamor.. !!!

Well if my history knowledge serves me correct our country had just gotten out of a costly military conflict that took it's toll in lives and spirit. I think most would agree that any President would have had a very difficult task of committing out troops for further conflicts at this point in time...... So I ask my GOP bretheren what exactly should have Carter done in that atmosphere? He did try and rescue the hostages with as small force as possible yet , according to his critics,he did nothing. The mission failed primarily to our equipment not holding up in the dessert but that was his fault also. So now Jimmy gets heat for not doing anything yet he did. Now the mission failure is laid at his feet yet today .......

Bush gets zero heat for a far bigger mess by the same folks who hammer Jimmy carter... I smell hypocrisy..

[boutons_]

"GOP talking point referring to Carter's allowing for radical Isalm to be born"

The US invading Iran to defend the Shah vs the Ayotallah and his mullahs would have been worse than Iraq. And would have fed and accelerated the Muslims' perception of the (Christian) West dominating and defiling Muslims countries and populations and stealing their oil while West-friendly corrupt regimes kept the common Muslims in oppressed poverty.

For you radical assholes and dicks who tar me as a peacenik or liberal, I think the US, specifically St. Ronnie the Repug Wimp, chickened out in not punishing Iran for the embassy (an invading-of-soveriegn-territory act of war by any definition) and Lebanon for the Marine bombing.

[ChumpDumper]

So I ask my GOP bretheren what exactly should have Carter done in that atmosphere?He should have sold the radical Islamists missles. Isn't that obvious?

[smeagol]

You'e an asshole, smegma.
You critizice Christians simply for being Christians and I'm the asshole?

Very funny indeed.

[boutons_]

"You critizice Christians simply for being Christians"

false, but par for your course.

[johnsmith]

I wonder when Smeagol will be added to Boutons ignore list?

[Yonivore]

Well I think Bush 43 will rank right next to Carter when all is said and done. 30 years from now they will talking of Bush just like they do about Carter today. I guess that's som ething for Ray and the boys to be proud of.
I hope we're both around in 30 years to talk about this, George.

[ChumpDumper]

Well I think Bush 43 will rank right next to Carter when all is said and done.Right next to each other on Mt. Rushmore?

[xrayzebra]

He probably had his heart in the right place, was a smart man, tried to the job in good faith, none of which applies to dubya.

But you are no liberal. Yeah right. All if forgiven, because he meant well.
And, well, he was a smart man of good faith.:donkey

But now Bush, he is a mean old Christian. And a Republican.:elephant :madrun

[George Gervin's Afro]

I hope we're both around in 30 years to talk about this, George.


Ok Yoni so what exactly has he done to merit praise?

[BIG IRISH]

Jimmy still speaking out of both sides of his mouth or is it both ends

"Carter insists that many in the U-S are unwilling to hear an alternative view on what he believes is the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory."


http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5822771&nav=menu20_3




Former President Carter says he won't visit Brandeis although it would give
many in the U-S a chance to hear an alternative view on what Jimmy Carter believes is the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue.

http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5819646&nav=menu20_3
BOSTON Jimmy Carter has decided not to visit Brandeis University to talk about his new book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

The former president says he doesn't want to debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as the university had requested. Carter tells the Boston Globe that Dershowitz -- in his opinion -- "knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."
:bang :bang
this is like saying Jessie Jackson knows nothing about being black.

Carter's book is controversial because the title's inclusion of the word "apartheid" appears to equate the treatment of Palestinians with the state-sanctioned racial segregation that once divided South Africa.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner who brokered the 1978 Camp David peace accords says the goal of his book is to provoke dialogue and action.

:nope I think not.

Dershowitz asks if Carter wants to encourage more debate, "then why won't he debate???

IMO 2 things would happen
1. Mr Caugh tur would slip and folks might just see the man for his bigtory
toward the JEWS (IMO), after all they Killed Jeesus, according to the Preachers when I was growing up in the south.

2 Because he would get his head served to him on a tarnished platter :king
The peanut farmer would get creamed by the Jewish Lawer.

[Nbadan]

It was Paul Volkner, a Carter appointee, who first raised intrest rates as a warning shot to traders skeptical about the then weak dollar, and consequently started the long-term pattern of lowering intrest rates from record highs, when combined with the Reagan taxcuts and the cold-war subsidy, led to the Reagan and Clinton era expansions. Bush41 exasterbated the 91 natural recession by raising military spending and watering down tax cuts.