[marden]

C-SPAN caller bashes former President Carter as 'racist, bigot, anti-Semite'

RAW STORY
Published: Monday December 4, 2006

During an appearance on C-SPAN's Book TV to promote his new book about Israel, former President Jimmy Carter was bashed by a call-in viewer as a "racist, bigot, and anti-Semite."

"Aurora" from Illinois thanked Carter for "making" her a Republican, due to his "incompetence in handling the Iranians" and by "cozying up with every dictator, thug, Islamic terrorist there is."

"But more importantly, I find it to be vile because of your blackest heart, because you’re an anti-Semite," the caller continued. "And let me explain why I think you’re a bigot and a racist and an anti-Semite…"

Aside from the "namecalling," the C-SPAN host said that these are the "strong questions coming from people," who have heard Carter talk about his controversial book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.

Carter has dismissed criticism by some Democrats that his book comes down too harshly on America's key ally in the Middle East.

Carter said that he rejected the notion that he was an anti-Semite "with enthusiasm."

In his book, Carter argues that "peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens and honor its own previous commitments by accepting its legal borders."

An excerpt from Carter's book can be read at this link.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/CS...rter_1204.html

I have no problem with his trying to be fair minded and neutral, even sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, as David Bernstein of the American Jewish Committee said on MSNBC. But I do have a problem with his going so far overboard that he ignores (conveniently or due to senility or what???) the fact that Arafat rejected a SIGNIFICANT opportunity for peace in Oslo during the Clinton administration. Terms the Palestinians won't see again.

Nor does Carter, as Joe Scarborough commented, say much about the Palestinian people voting HAMAS into power; a group that has been murdering Jews for years and years.

[macintologist]

Israel/Palestine is irrelevant and you know it. This government shouldn't be wasting our tax dollars trying to solve other country's problems.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Israel/Palestine is irrelevant and you know it. This government shouldn't be wasting our tax dollars trying to solve other country's problems.

I fear they are not as much trying to help solve the problem as to maintain it. It is in the best interest of the US for the foreseeable future to have the middle-east all screwed up in conflict..

The oil must flow.

V

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Israel/Palestine is irrelevant and you know it. This government shouldn't be wasting our tax dollars trying to solve other country's problems.

There are few 'islands' in this world.

If we can help bring peace to the Palestinians that would be a good thing for us.

There is something for us to gain in most every instance of our foreign aid. And lest some dummy come along and say we only do things when we can benefit, I ask them how did we benefit from Bosnia & Kosovo when we kept Muslims from being ethnically cleansed? How did we benefit from sending food and troops to Somalia in 1993?

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I fear they are not as much trying to help solve the problem as to maintain it. It is in the best interest of the US for the foreseeable future to have the middle-east all screwed up in conflict..

The oil must flow.

V

The oil was flowing when there was peace. So maybe there is some OTHER reason, hmm?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by marden 

The oil was flowing when there was peace. So maybe there is some OTHER reason, hmm?

No, there has never been peace in the middle-east after the colonial powers gave those lands up. Puppet leaders were installed and Israel created.

No peace, just conflict. Much to the pleasure of the USA, UK, France and any country with oil interests in that area.

Never has there been peace. The oil flows and the people who 'own' it never get to reap the profits. Just their puppet leaders. When the oil is finished the sand will claim them again.

V

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

No, there has never been peace in the middle-east after the colonial powers gave those lands up. Puppet leaders were installed and Israel created.

No peace, just conflict. Much to the pleasure of the USA, UK, France and any country with oil interests in that area.

Never has there been peace. The oil flows and the people who 'own' it never get to reap the profits. Just their puppet leaders. When the oil is finished the sand will claim them again.

V

The violence that existed there prior to the invasion had nothing to do with us and nothing to do with making the oil flow.

But the sand part is right, I think.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by marden 

The violence that existed there prior to the invasion had nothing to do with us and nothing to do with making the oil flow.

But the sand part is right, I think.

Nothing to do with us? Define 'us'. Who are you talking about? Your definition will show if you're smarter than Gwyneth Paltrow.

V

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

The violence that existed there prior to the invasion had nothing to do with us and nothing to do with making the oil flow.

Of course it did. How long has the US been picking and supporting sides in Middle East conflicts?

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Nothing to do with us? Define 'us'. Who are you talking about? Your definition will show if you're smarter than Gwyneth Paltrow.

V

Originally Posted by marden

The violence that existed there prior to the invasion had nothing to do with Apple and nothing to do with making the oil flow.

There. Am I smarter than Gwennie?

Seriously, I know we were behind Saddam's fighting the spread of Iran's Islamic revolution which resulted in the Ir/Ir War. But there is a history of violence in the region which had nothing to do, directly, with America.

It is this instability that prompted our increasingly greater presence and involvement and eventually spilled out from the M.E. and onto our shores that caused our current situation.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course it did. How long has the US been picking and supporting sides in Middle East conflicts?

Stick to what voodoo said, please?

Originally Posted by voodoo

No, there has never been peace in the middle-east after the colonial powers gave those lands up. Puppet leaders were installed and Israel created.

No peace, just conflict. Much to the pleasure of the USA, UK, France and any country with oil interests in that area.

Never has there been peace. The oil flows and the people who 'own' it never get to reap the profits. Just their puppet leaders. When the oil is finished the sand will claim them again.

V

Originally Posted by marden

The violence that existed there prior to the invasion had nothing to do with us and nothing to do with making the oil flow.

But the sand part is right, I think.

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by marden 

C-SPAN caller bashes former President Carter as 'racist, bigot, anti-Semite'

Carter is a fool but the institution of the Presidency deserves more respect than childish calls like that. I don't think Carter has acted much differently than the caller himself though in his own childish remarks about the current President, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Big Mac]

I congratulate that caller (no surprise there). Jimmy Carter is definitely a vile human being and one of the biggest disgraces in this nation's history.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Stick to what voodoo said, please?

I prefer to deal with what you said:

Originally Posted by marden 

The violence that existed there prior to the invasion had nothing to do with us and nothing to do with making the oil flow.

Now, you're backpedaling to say "there is a history of violence in the region which had nothing to do, directly, with America". That "directly" is an important add. The US has never been the cause of conflict in the region, but it has certainly made significant contributions to the perpetuation of those conflicts.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I congratulate that caller (no surprise there). Jimmy Carter is definitely a vile human being and one of the biggest disgraces in this nation's history.

Care to elaborate? What justifies such strong language?

[Spliffdaddy]

Care to elaborate a bit on what doesn't make him a disgrace? Maybe point to one of his successes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Care to elaborate a bit on what doesn't make him a disgrace? Maybe point to one of his successes.

Hehehe... I'm not falling for your deflection. Have you seen "Thank You For Smoking"?

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Puppet leaders were installed and Israel created.


V

Since you make the claim that "puppet leaders were installed", would you care to explain just who installed the "puppet leaders", where they were installed, and how this was pulled off?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Since you make the claim that "puppet leaders were installed", would you care to explain just who installed the "puppet leaders", where they were installed, and how this was pulled off?

Either you are as naive as a five-year-old or just being a smartass. Either way, I can't be bothered to educate you on this matter now. I have better things to do.

V

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Either you are as naive as a five-year-old or just being a smartass. Either way, I can't be bothered to educate you on this matter now. I have better things to do.

V

LOL...........IOW: You cant disown your claim now that you've made it. You can't support it with any facts because it's a lie, so you resort to acting like a bratty 14 year old girl who can't handle actually having to explain herself when she makes groundless arguments.

You want to make the charge that the U.S. is responsible for installing heads of states of Muslim nations but you can't explain how? I don't think that having to back up such a charge with a little bit of facts is too much to ask for.

Who did we install? Arafat? The ayatolla Khomeni? Amawannajihad of Iran? Who? How was this pulled off? Should be really easy questions to answer if you are sure enough to make the claim in the first place.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

LOL...........IOW: You cant disown your claim now that you've made it. You can't support it with any facts because it's a lie, so you resort to acting like a bratty 14 year old girl who can't handle actually having to explain herself when she makes groundless arguments.

You want to make the charge that the U.S. is responsible for installing heads of states of Muslim nations but you can't explain how? I don't think that having to back up such a charge with a little bit of facts is too much to ask for.

Who did we install? Arafat? The ayatolla Khomeni? Amawannajihad of Iran? Who? How was this pulled off? Should be really easy questions to answer if you are sure enough to make the claim in the first place.

I just have better things to do. Look up the history of Iran, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Israel and the colonial powers after WWI if you're so inclined.

On a tangent: what is with the dislexia many Americans seem to have when the middle-east is mentioned?

V

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Since you make the claim that "puppet leaders were installed", would you care to explain just who installed the "puppet leaders", where they were installed, and how this was pulled off?

A good place to start is with the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour Declaration, etc.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I just have better things to do. Look up the history of Iran, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Israel and the colonial powers after WWI if you're so inclined.

On a tangent: what is with the dislexia many Americans seem to have when the middle-east is mentioned?

V

While not a historian, I've read about the history of those nations and somehow I'm pretty certain that you are not a historian yourself. You do however, want the right to make baseless claims in order to bolster your point of view, but don't want to have to back them up.

Instead of looking up just the history of Iran, Iraq, et cetera, how about we look up history that goes back a bit futher? Islam has been an expansionist power for 1400 years. Christianity was in retreat for about 300 years before the first Crusade and Christians were slaughtered or forceably converted by the tens of thousands and everything the Islamists have done over the past 50 years bespeaks a confident, expansionist power willing to shed enormous amounts of blood because they are pissed off about the Crusades that happened over 1000 years ago. Listen to what Bin laden says. He is pissed off that the Islamic Caliphate was fractured by the colonial powersand that they lost once conquered territory in the crusades.

We did NOT install Sadam, or Assad, or Arafat, Amawannajihid, Komeni, Et Cetera. What we did was to develop their entire economic infrastructure that has given them trillions in wealth that was basically handed over to local sheiks. And what have they done with all their oil wealth? They've funded the further expansion of fundamentalist Islam and aggressive pan-Arabism that is what.

If not for the colonial powers, the Islamic caliphate would not have been weakened and I find it interesting that the whole discusion of whether or not we have the right to fight against the expansion of Radical Islam always is done through the prism of the poor oppressed cultures by the colonial powers and American hegemony. Does anyone argue that those cultures have ever been morally superior on any basis other than the fact they've lost against Western powers? By the standards we judge our own culture by, the cultures that have historically come out on the losing side of Western powers were generally bigoted, tribalist, misogynistic, oppressive, and cruel. The only way you can assert their superiority is through the simultaneous glorification of victimhood and denial of objective moral standards and I'm not willing to try to make nice with them over some misplaced guilt over the Crusades or the Shah of Iran or whatever fashionably America-bashing reason someone comes up with tomorrow.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

While not a historian, I've read about the history of those nations and somehow I'm pretty certain that you are not a historian yourself. You do however, want the right to make baseless claims in order to bolster your point of view, but don't want to have to back them up.

Instead of looking up just the history of Iran, Iraq, et cetera, how about we look up history that goes back a bit futher? Islam has been an expansionist power for 1400 years. Christianity was in retreat for about 300 years before the first Crusade and Christians were slaughtered or forceably converted by the tens of thousands and everything the Islamists have done over the past 50 years bespeaks a confident, expansionist power willing to shed enormous amounts of blood because they are pissed off about the Crusades that happened over 1000 years ago. Listen to what Bin laden says. He is pissed off that the Islamic Caliphate was fractured by the colonial powersand that they lost once conquered territory in the crusades.

We did NOT install Sadam, or Assad, or Arafat, Amawannajihid, Komeni, Et Cetera. What we did was to develop their entire economic infrastructure that has given them trillions in wealth that was basically handed over to local sheiks. And what have they done with all their oil wealth? They've funded the further expansion of fundamentalist Islam and aggressive pan-Arabism that is what.

If not for the colonial powers, the Islamic caliphate would not have been weakened and I find it interesting that the whole discusion of whether or not we have the right to fight against the expansion of Radical Islam always is done through the prism of the poor oppressed cultures by the colonial powers and American hegemony. Does anyone argue that those cultures have ever been morally superior on any basis other than the fact they've lost against Western powers? By the standards we judge our own culture by, the cultures that have historically come out on the losing side of Western powers were generally bigoted, tribalist, misogynistic, oppressive, and cruel. The only way you can assert their superiority is through the simultaneous glorification of victimhood and denial of objective moral standards and I'm not willing to try to make nice with them over some misplaced guilt over the Crusades or the Shah of Iran or whatever fashionably America-bashing reason someone comes up with tomorrow.

Wow... I'm.. pleasantly surprised.

I completely agree with all of the above. Well said, friend

V

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise 

A good place to start is with the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour Declaration, etc.

So...........what is your point? That Europe partitioned the Ottoman empire after that empire finally met its demise following centuries of threatening Europe, invading Central Europe, and taking control of Southeastern Europe, the Middle-east, and North Africa by force for 600 years? Should Christians still be pissed off about the siege of Vienna? For Constinapole? That's what happens in war. The victorious powers take away land and resources from their conquered enemies. Except when did the U.S. last gain a new state? Was our last entry for statehood France? Japan? Germany? Iraq? Because the U.S. has been involved in some wars since our last state joined the union and notice that we haven't gained any new territory since then simply by being victorious in a war. For being the nation that gets accused the most of being aggressors, I can think of no nation that has had as much military capability to completely crush it's enemies, that has shown as much restraint and mercy towards their enemies as we have. We go in and try to rebuild countries rather than roll in and take as much territory as we can as a dividend for winning.

[marden]

Longtime Aide Tells FOX News Why He Cut Ties to Carter

Thursday , December 07, 2006

By Melissa Drosjack

WASHINGTON — A longtime aide to former President Jimmy Carter told FOXNews.com Thursday that he cut ties with the Carter Center in protest of a new book on Palestinian lands because it distorts history to shape the reader's opinion to one side of the issue.

"I just want to be sure that when people write history, people don't do it for purpose of special pleading," said Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel of Emory University. "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 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."

"I think he's become increasingly frustrated that the Palestinians don't have a voice," Stein said. "I just don't think this is the way you do that."

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

FOXNews.com - Longtime Aide Tells FOX News Why He Cut Ties to Carter

Alan Dershowitz said this about his old friend Jimmy Carter on CNN's Glenn Beck show.

(Carter is) "a decent man who wrote a very indecent book."