Must read! I already posited why Carter wrote this abomination book on my law school Democrats list serv. I stated: "I am left with three horrifying options. 1) Carter simply does not know the facts (in which case he never should have been president!). 2) Carter knew the facts at one point, but since has gone senile. (possible, though unlikely given the fact that he has been touring the world for countless years, preaching against Israel) 3) Carter knows the truth, and is purposely spouting lies against the one Jewish nation in the world, in the attempt to spread an anti-Israel attitude amongst Democrats. This would make him an antisemite."
I believe option three is the most likely.
Carter exemplifies what Jeane Kirkpatrick (RIP, she died recently) characterized as the "blame America first crowd."
UPDATE: Dersh wrote a great column on HuffPo, noting that Carter actually claimed Israel's actions are worse than the Hutus in Rwanda! He explains how this sets back human rights in this excerpt:
Indeed it is.There are real world consequences to Carter's - and the far left's - obsessive focus on Israel. What happens is that, when those entrusted with identifying and combating human rights violations around the world choose to focus largely or exclusively in on Israel, the real human rights violators, war criminals, and despots get away with murder. Indeed, the Rwandan genocide is a perfect example of what happens when the United Nations refuses to condemn any country but Israel, and the so-called international human rights organizations put so much of their energy and resources into a country with one tenth of one percent of the world's population (6 million Israelis out of the world's current population of 6 billion people) while ignoring the real and devastating atrocities happening elsewhere.
Carter's comparison can be explained in only two ways: extraordinary ignorance or a bigotry so deep-seated that it blinds one to reality. The burden is on him to explain.
15 comments:
Muslims, and Palestinains in particular, are just a trendy cause on the left right now.
Raccoon:
It is mass psychosis! And it is not strange that Israel is the focus. Antisemitism is the world's oldest hatred.
Jason:
Yes, disturbingly trendy.
Disturbing or not, I think thats what a lot of it amounts to. Dhimmitude, hatred of America, and so on, play a part with a good number of people, but only a small die hard group. I think that the majority of popular support for Palestinians and Islamic theocracy and so forth is the result of naive people following a trend without truly understanding what they're getting in to.
One could say there's even a bit of the old spectre, so long reviled by the left, of Orientalism at work. Many of the young white college activist types see the Muslims as noble savages, living in some kind of ideal utopia, or they would be if not for U.S. interference. They see the mideast as an exotic, mysterious thing, and their association with it sets them apart from others, makes them more intellectual and multicultural, but they also think the middle east needs THEM to save it.
Edward Said and his followers decried the "orientalism" of the colonialists, but intentionally or not, they ended up creating a kind of reverse orientalism in their white college student disciples.
Jason:
You are so right. I think this too plays into it.
So the thing is, Carter is the darling of the Democratic party.
Is this enough to make anyone regret their vote, or change future votes?
Is it enough to make anyone think that the liberal philosophy may be inherently flawed?
Carter has his equivalent in Baker and Gates of the Republicans.
One can make the argument that both parties have their anti-Israel hacks.
Not everyone votes solely on the issue of Israel, and I'm sure RT is no different.
When are you going to change it from "smarter" to "stupider"? Or perhaps"smrter" would be even more fitting.
Carter is totally, verifiably wrong on more than Israel.
He tried to LOSE the cold war, He helped overthrow the Shah of Iran and then showed his yellow streak with the hostage situation, He gave us both a stagnant economy AND inflation, which was considered theoretically impossible, he gave us the oil shortage, he gave the Panama canal to Panama, and he was a complete idiot with N.Korea.
Just look at his judgement on a few things, and you have to question his judgement on everything. And the judgement of those who give his positions respect that they don't deserve.
Carter is light-years of stupidity beyond Baker and Gates, and neither one of them are ready for Mensa.
And yet the Iraq Study Group, headed by Baker and with Gates as a one time member, advocates talks with Iran and Syria, and Iraq troop withdrawals - not to mention selling Israel down the river.
Your point is?
My point is, Baker and Gates are not big shots in the GOP, ask any true conservative.
Carter is a big shot in the Dhimmicrat party, ask any true liberal.
And Baker DOES make me question the current Bush-led GOP, and crap like this has made me question it for a while. The GOP is in a revolt, or at least semi-revolt against the Baker types in the GOP.
But kool-aid drinking Democrats don't question Carter, they revere him. Al Gore has many of the same views, and look how popular he is in the Dem party. Democrats don't seem to question stupidity in their own ranks, they figure the ends justify the means. Ask feminists who supported the rapist, abusive womanizer Clinton, just because they agreed with him on policy.
Or folks who support Pelosi, who is elevating incompetent and corrupt Dems, because policy and power is more important than ethics.
Smarty,
The claim that Clinton committed rape was never substantiated, and the story never held up. As far as womanizing - I don't care what a politician does in his off time. His morality is his business, not mine. If he cheats on his wife, I do not give a crap - just don't be a hypocrite and a moralizer to others. That is the view of feminists on Clinton, and my view on Clinton.
As far as Pelosi - she did not support Alcee Hastings, and he did not get the chairman position he sought. So you are wrong as a matter of course about her supporting corrupt leaders.
It is not clear how big a shot Carter is with the Dems - that issue is a matter of debate. The Baker wing was traditionally the wing with power and influence in the Repub Party - until Bush Jr took to office. His policies are a reversal of course for the Repubs - but he reversed back recently by granting him extra power.
We will see what happens in the future after this development.
The charges were by Juanita Broderick, and they were buried. The democrats REFUSED to even look at the evidence at his trial or impeachment. NOT ONE logged into the evidence room.
Her evidence is actually strong, her description of the attack included elements of a rape against a cousin of Clinton's when he was the Gov of Arkansas, a particular control technique that was used, that he would have been aware of.
Based on his sleazy behavior against other women, the report is very credible.
So you think someone can be scum in private and an upstanding man in public? Nice double standard. Clinton was a sleaze in both departments, but the media made sure the focus was only on sex. But you liberals know he was a sleaze in office, and unethical. You just excuse it because you knew he would support feminist causes.
Just because she caved doesn't mean she didn't support him. She is on record supporting him, until the end. She supported him, "Abscam" Murtha, William Jefferson still is on committees, and her intelligence committee pick thinks Al Queda is a Shiite organization.
And Carter is very much a mainstream democrat. DUH, he was a democratic president who did side jobs for Clinton, the last Dem president, and he still earns swoons from the party.
Smarty,
Look up about Hastings. You are factually wrong. In fact, Pelosi voted to impeach him. (source)
As far as Broderick goes - the claim is very suspect. Quoting Slate:
Juanita Broderick, named in the Paula Jones suit only as "Jane Doe No. 5." This is the most controversial and damning of the allegations. Paula Jones' lawyers contend that Clinton violently forced himself on Broderick 20 years ago, when he was attorney general of Arkansas and she was a campaign worker, and then bribed and intimidated her into silence. Broderick's friends, who were interviewed by the Jones lawyers and the media, claim to have heard the story first hand. But last winter Broderick signed an affidavit denying that Clinton made any sexual advances towards her. Then, a few months later, she told the Office of the Independent Counsel that the affidavit was false. Like Monica Lewinsky, Broderick was granted immunity from prosecution by Starr.
I do not care what any politician does in his personal life - only that his professional life is decent.
Don't get me wrong, I have a problem with many things Clinton did, chief amongst them NAFTA and the Oslo War Process. But I fail to see how it is my business what he does in his personal life. If he commits a crime, then he deserves to be punished. But that's it.
I agree that Carter is more mainstream than I would like amongst Dems, but it is crucial to note that the bigtime Dems condemned his recent book - including Pelosi, Dean, and even Conyers. (source)
Slate is not even remotely unbiased, they have no credibility.
Clinton's pardons ought to put proof to the lie that he was a sleaze, since pretty much everything else has been muddled of covered up.
You cannot compartmentalize sleaze.
Pelosi voted to impeach Hastings years ago, but she supported him for the comittee head until the last minute. She also supported Murtha.
Liberals know, and always knew Clinton was a sleaze, but they liked his policies and so drank his Kool-Aid. This means you too, your denials mean nothing unless you want me to think you are really just stupid. I have a bleeding heart liberal sister, who was involved in Democrat polling and other activities, and she said the same crap at the time as the mainstream feminists/liberals, but the difference is I know the look on her face when she is lieing. I bet if I saw you face as you said this stuff, I would see the same thing. I love how feminists went from "If he did it, it was sleazy, but he never did it, there is no proof", to "it's his personal life, get over it" when the proof was so solid that even the MSM couldn't ignore it. All with a straight face.
How about filegate, where 900 FBI files on Republicans were in the possession of a Clinton private eye turned Dem operative? Nixon was disgraced and impeached for much less.
Whitewater-The mysterious death in prison of the only guy who made sworn statements against Bill, and the pardons of all the rest of those that chose to serve time instead of speaking up. Let's not forget how Hillary's whitewater billing records, those that were ordered by Congress, but were "lost" suddenly turned up in the whitehouse.
Johnny Chung
Escalante National Monument, which became a monument to lock up the world's largest low-sulfer coal bed , thus making Indonesia rich off the #2 coalbed, and getting him contributions.
The Chinese army donating money to his re-election campaign.
135 democrats pleading the 5th or escaping testimony by running to China (Henry Waxman, promoted by Pelosi, actually advised witnesses to go to China to avoid congressional testimony)
Mark Rich, pardoned after a huge donation to the Clinton museum, went on to profit from oil-for-food.
There is no reason to dig it all out, I hit about 5% of his sleaze. I would think that anyone stupid enough to say you can separate private from public sleaze should pretty much be discredited by what we all know now about Clinton himself.
At least Carter wasn't too sleazy, Just incompetent, and willing to ask the USSR to help him beat Reagan.
What a pack of losers.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment