Carter Sells His Soul

Alan Dershowitz on Jimmy Carter and the appropriate response to Mearsheimer and Walt.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).

Ouch.

46 thoughts on “Carter Sells His Soul”

  1. I have to agree with Dershowitz. I have seriously questioned the present day integrity of a man I once thought to be extremely honest. It turns out that his present leanings may turn out to explain why he did not react as he should have back in 1979. That is, they may may reflect his true beliefs.

    It is sad because he has done so much for Habitat for Humanity.

    JMHO

  2. In 1980, Jimmy Carter invited a group of liberal intellectuals to the Oval Office to try to brainstorm him out of the crapper.

    After listening to Jimmy for an hour, one of those liberal intellectuals went right out to the front lawn of the White House and told reporters that she would be supporting a Republican for the first time in her life: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who became Reagan’s neoconservative paladin and a powerful voice for Israel.

    That was some well-spent Saudi money.

  3. What a bunch of crap from an arch zionist.

    Carter’s Middle East policy perspective must be discounted because of some (allaged) ties to certain oil money?

    Ha! That’s a good one. Whatever Carter’s ties to petro $, Bush’s ties to same are certainly of many orders of magnitude greater. What then, would the lawyer of wealthy murderers say about Bush’s policies?

    Nothing, I suppose because that while Bush takes oil money he also promotes hard right Israeli regional strategies.

    This is simply spurious slander of Carter’s good character by the AIPAC lobby. AIPAC has been exposed and they don’t like it. In revenge these people go right for the throat and know no shame.

    Who is Dershowitz taking money from? AIPAC? Maybe we should have that answered before we even consider him worth reading, let alone trying to decipher the motives behind his PR strategies and the veracity of his attacks.

    For that matter, who funds this blog.

    Truth in media matters……

  4. Also, a key point that Dershowitz tries to blur in all his inane ramblings is that Carter is not a governemnt official. He is not currently holding office. He is not offically formulating policy.

    On the other hand the folks that AIPAC is targeting with their lobbying are holding official office. They are developing and implementing US policy.

    This is big and meaningful difference.

  5. Hey, at least you all can read it or ignore it as you like. It’s one of my textbooks for a general history class… >_<; Naturally, the other one is a bunch of articles demonizing the US, including -three- by Chomsky and one by Ward Churchill. Something tells me this prof is not going to be happy with an honest evaluation of the after-effects of Camp David… Thank goodness I’m graduating.

  6. (and of course my gesture is interpreted as an open HTML tag…)

    Naturally, the other text is a bunch of articles demonizing the US, including -three- by Chomsky and one by Ward Churchill (which, being a unique combination done at this professor’s behest, cost almost a hundred bucks! Not even hardback.) Something tells me this prof is not going to be happy with an honest evaluation of the after-effects of Camp David…

    Thank goodness I’m graduating.

  7. Article at this link pretty much sums up why OJ Simpson’s lawyer is a hypocrite of the first order and why nothing he writes or says on this topic should carry any weight.

    “link”:http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12292006.html

    A.L., I’m pretty dissapointed – though not surprised – that you would use Dershowitz to smear Carter’s good reputation. Why do you do these things? Does Katzman make you?

    I mean here is Carter, a guy who helped broker the most signifcant peace in the Middle East (Egypt/Israel).

    And here is Dershowitz, a big mouthed hired gun – a media grandstander who defended Von Bulow and OJ, who wrote “Beyond Hutzpah”.

    Who is more credible? Why would anyone take what Deshowitz says at face value?

    OJ is innocent because Dershowitz says so???

    [Edited comment to move hyperlink below summary – A.L.]

  8. avedis – please avoid the “Katzman made you do it” crap. No one makes me write anything, and it’s a lame insult to suggest otherwise. Does Wei make you write your comments?

    Dershowitz is pro-Israel. So am I. I believe he’s anti-settlement, as am I (go read “this”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004365.php). Big deal.

    Carter doesn’t lobby? His actions aren’t an effort to sway public opinion and policy? Can I have some of what you’re smoking this weekend?

    AIPAC is at least nakedly what it is. When Carter admits what he is and drops the false mantle of ‘moral neutrality’, I’ll be happy to raise my opinion of him. Cigarette companies need lobbyists too – just watch “Thank You For Smoking” – and Carter can go have lunch with the MoD when he’s in D.C.

    And as to his peace agreement – how’s that working out these days?

    A.L.

  9. AL asks

    And as to his peace agreement – how’s that working out these days?

    Just horrible. It was bad enough when Egypt ignored it’s promises in the accord and invaded Israel. But I guess we cold see that coming when Egypt refused to repeal it’s boycott laws or send an ambassador to Israel.

    And of course, all of this lead to Jordon refusing to sign the 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.

    Oh wait, none of that occurred did it?

  10. Using Dershowitz to ‘smear’ Carter is redundant. Limp and ineffective in office, an apologist for terror supporters out of it, he’s done the job quite effectively himself.

    The Left’s continued support for this old dupe simply compound the suspicions that their heros of the moment would dish out more of the same. Back to the America of the 70s – yeah, that’s it!

  11. Enlightening!

    In the interest of fairness, Can we also have a discussion on the oil money of the Bush family, a member of which is the current US President?

  12. “….Limp and ineffective in office, an apologist for terror supporters….”

    Most of the criticism of being limp and ineffectual arose from Carter’s role as commander in cheif during the Iran hostage problem.

    However, it was Ron Reagan who negotiated with the terrorists – even supplying them with weapons systems – to obtain the hostages’ release.

    So, who is the real “aooplogist” for terrorists?

    Also, how is pointing out Israel’s piss poor human rights record, their seizure of land from Palistinians and their continued treatment of Arab Israeli citizens as second class as playing a role in the ongoing conflict an apology for terror supporters?

    Ah, I see, anyone who sees Israel as less than 100% golden is an anti-semite and a terrorist supporter/apologizer…….blah blah blah slander defame character assassinate….etc….etc.

    Don’t you see how counter productive this approach of yours is? Don’t you see how unrealistic it is?

    Unless you are prepared to commit a genocide on the Palistinians, sooner or later both sides will have to admit their responsibility, compromise and work out a functional peace.

    But maybe you, like many right wing Israel “supporters” would like to kill all the Arabs…..I’d just like to hear you say it as one does occasionally hear on blogs such as this.

  13. Sachin – there’s no question in my mind that GHB and GWB both had their policy choices influenced heavily by their financial interests in oil. One reasons we don’t have a useful energy policy might be just that.

    avedis – I’ve spoken out against the settlement policy for a long time. But it’s simple; when the Palestinian population is ruled and brainwashed by bloodthirsty kleptocrats, it’s very difficult to take the necessary steps toward peace. There’s certainly responsibility on the Israeli side, but if the Palestinians wanted peace, there’d be peace – and if the Israelis wanted genocide, there wouldn’t be any Palestinians.

    A.L.

  14. When Carter admits what he is and drops the false mantle of ‘moral neutrality’

    I doubt he thinks he’s neutral as between ethical and unethical.

  15. Did this thread title have to refer to a man selling his soul? Would it not have been sufficient to title it “Carter on the take” or something like that?

    Steven Runciman’s books on the crusades have had a large influence on the false understanding we have of them. His (admirably well-written) books still seem to sell well. I know they influenced me before the events of 11 September, 2001 and the aftermath slapped me out of my Islamophile dream.

    Runciman writes in a scholarly, objective style, but really, he likes the Eastern Orthodox Christians, he likes the Muslims, and he hates the crusaders. He sums up his series by very carefully and specifically framing the crusades as a sin against the Holy Spirit: the sin that can never be forgiven, unlike other sins.

    When Christians start saying, in various ways, even in rather clever, academic and calm ways you are damned, you will deservedly be burned forever in Hell, it’s the worst testimony for the sense of fair-mindedness and charity they are bringing to their comments.

    OK, I know people use the idea of someone selling his soul in a light, conventional, conversational way. And I don’t doubt that that was how this was meant and how it will be taken, usually. But what Carter is doing is serious enough to knock some of the light-heartedness off that.

    Having said that, I’ll be inconsistent for a moment and raise another “damning” implication… :P

    Re: #13 from Sachin Kumar:

    The reason I have not posted anything about the American political elite (not limited to but very much including the Bush family) and oil money is that I think George W. Bush’s “Brokeback Mountain” pictures (link)(link) show the truth. I don’t know what I could say that they don’t say better. And it’s too squirm-making to discuss.

    It’s not like you can accuse us of holding back something that’s secret.

    Once I had a secret love that lived within the heart of me,
    All too soon my secret love became impatient to be free.
    So I asked a friendly star the way that lovers often do
    Just how wonderful you are and why I’m so in love with you.
    Now I shout it from the highest hill, even told the golden daffodils,
    And now my heart’s an open door, and my secret love’s no secret any more.

  16. One of the most reliable sources for votes for the Democratic Party are Jewish Americans. In the last Federal election 87% voted Democrat.
    As far as Carter being beholden to big oi: yeah I will believe that when I actually see him spending heavy cash lol

  17. Avedis is Exhibit A of the moral, intellectual, and political bankruptcy of the Democratic Party and the Left. He supports Carter’s pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Iranian, pro-Terror policies. As did the Media, supporting Hezbollah (the #2 terrorist killer of Americans) during the Israel-Lebanon War. No mention of Hezbollah’s kidnapping Israeli soldiers inside Israel and killing of Israeli soldiers (itself acts of war and violations of the Lebanon-Israel agreement). No mention of Hezbollah’s rocket assaults on Israeli civilians, hiding behind civilians in violation of every international treaty or simple human decency. No mention of Hezbollah’s refusal to allow the IRC or other organizations to see the captured soldiers and insure their rights as combatants.

    Carter was a fool on Iran, groveling and showing weakness in response to acts of war. Carter assumed that some “peace deal” with the Egyptians and Israelis would “achieve peace.” Carter, Dems, Liberals, the Left all assume there is a “deal” to be made if we demonize Jews, Israelis, and Constitutional Democracy in favor of craven praise for dictators, terror, murder, and tyranny. [Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton were also tools, however Reagan-Bush 1 were at least non-public tools. Clinton groveled like Carter to Tehran, and it got him … Khobar Towers. Conclusion: groveling like a tool gets you bombed by the Iranians who despise weakness.]

    NO ZILCH ZERO peace can come until the Palestinian people themselves and their foreign patrons in Riyadh and Tehran give up the fantasies of a second Holocaust, which Carter himself back-handedly endorses IMHO. He’s silent on the longstanding Iranian promise to “wipe Israel off the map.”

    Cater calls Israel an “apartheid state” because it wishes to remain both intact and majority Jewish and the last refuge for (once again) European Jews fleeing murder and oppression (by Muslims in Europe). Not a word about the Muslim oppression in the Palestinian territories of women, Christians, and Jews (echoing the Left’s excuse making or endorsement of these “authentic” murders). Like Norman Mailer swooning over Jack Henry Abbott, Carter loves him some “authentic” murderers who kill Jews.

    If anything the Israeli Govt from Barak to Sharon to Olmert deserves condemnation for not responding with overwhelming military force to provocations to force acceptance of reality (Israel will not be destroyed in a second Holocaust without the Palestinian people and much of the surrounding people’s destruction also). No amount of Jihad and terror will accomplish this, the nuking of Israel by Iran that Carter in my view implicitly endorses will leave everyone dead.

    IMHO both Carter and the Left implicitly endorse a second Holocaust. They respond to promises of same by Iran’s leaders from Khomeni to Khameni to Rafsanjani to Ahmadinejad with calls for “dialog” and “negotiation.” Efforts harmful to Iran’s national interests, the largest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust, i.e. the bombing by Iran of the Buenos Aires Jewish Cultural Center, as indicted by the Argentine Govt (who’s indicted that “moderate” Rafsanjani and the commanders of Qods Force, et al) elicts not a condemnation.

    Is Carter and the Left anti-Semitic? Yes if they condemn Israel for minor issues while ignoring atrocities, massive crimes against humanity, and openly planned Genocide against Jews by Israel’s enemies. Which they do.

    I will never forget the Palestinian People celebrating 9/11. Handing out sweets, dancing in the streets, shooting guns in the air in celebration. Americans should realize these thuggish barbarians ought to receive no help and some special consideration for example making to focus every Muslim’s mind on the folly of terrorist attacks on the US. We ought to drop our financial contributions, and start imprisoning terrorist organizers whenever and wherever we can catch them.

    Of all the peoples in the world, the Palestinians are among the most revolting (considering their murders of gays, honor killings, repression of Christians, thuggish criminal gangs, celebration of suicide bombings, killing of children, and nearly every revolting and disgusting behavior the mind can imagine). That Carter and Avedis single them out for the Jack Henry Abbott celebration speaks volumes about their moral and intellectual judgement IMHO.

  18. Jim Ryan; Thanks for pointing out that most Jewish voters are not as craven as those in AIPAC and represented by people like Dershowitz (and the proprietors of this website).

    Too bad they’ve not been as influential inside Republican circles over the last 6 years.

    But the good news is that I believe their game is up finally…Dershowitz’ efforts to smear Carter over his alleged connections to them Dirty Arabs is a weak and meaningless swipe in the air. The monumental FU that is the Iraq war has finally revealed to the American Public that this small but aggressive cadre of Neocon/Zionists always put Israel’s interest far above America’s. Their war, our money and kids. No more.

  19. To see the Neocons in all their post-9/11 glory, I recommend watching the first chapter of Bill Moyers Journal “Buying the War” on PBS this past week.

  20. Dude, I’m going to be pissed if I find out there’s Zionist Neocon money flowing to the “proprietors of this website,” and none of it is filtering back to me.

    If I can speak as a Georgian for a moment, though, you don’t need Dershowitz to convince me. In fact, Dershowitz has nothing to add to it. The Man from Plains has had the rest of us wondering for a generation.

    Now, Zell Miller, _that’s_ a Georgian. And a Marine.

  21. Grim –

    Damn it, don’t tell me you forgot the number of your Swiss account again. You call yourself a Zionist Entity? Granted, the opposition is pathetic, but let’s try to make this look like it’s a job or something.

  22. “The reason I have not posted anything about the American political elite (not limited to but very much including the Bush family) and oil money is that I think George W. Bush’s “Brokeback Mountain” pictures (link)(link) show the truth.”

    Not good enough David Blue.

    So we all know that the Bush family has ties to Arab oil money. This is illustrated in the photos. So what?

    What we need to know is to what extent this relationship impacts policy formulation. Which decision has the relationship effected in the past, what current efforts are a result of the policy, what are potential future ramifications?……….what are the costs and benefits to our nation? Is the Bush family putting its personal gain ahead of that of the American people?

    These are the questions that are raised by the relationship alluded to by the photos at your link. These are the questions that must be answered.

    Jim Roquefort, is there any way you could have someone replace your tape with something new so that next time the string is pulled the gears will crank out fresh – and hopefully more intelligent – material?

    Gabriel, you want a self-confirming echo chamber?

  23. #27 from avedis at 2:02 pm on Apr 29, 2007

    “The reason I have not posted anything about the American political elite (not limited to but very much including the Bush family) and oil money is that I think George W. Bush’s “Brokeback Mountain” pictures (link)(link) show the truth.”

    Not good enough David Blue.

    So we all know that the Bush family has ties to Arab oil money. This is illustrated in the photos. So what?

    What we need to know is to what extent this relationship impacts policy formulation. Which decision has the relationship effected in the past, what current efforts are a result of the policy, what are potential future ramifications?……….what are the costs and benefits to our nation? Is the Bush family putting its personal gain ahead of that of the American people?

    These are the questions that are raised by the relationship alluded to by the photos at your link. These are the questions that must be answered.”

    I don’t think so. Questions that must be answered are first questions that can be answered. Long term family ties, friendships, profitable connections, attitudes, and a sense of who the good guys are – these things are important, but don’t lend themselves to the kinds of answers you demand.

    It’s completely unlikely that a man like George W. Bush would ever put anything ahead of America’s best interests, as best he can determine them. (And even if he did, you’d never come up with proof of it.) Rather, what might be swayed is his sense of what conflicted with America’s best interests, and what did not. He might assume that America’s interests could not be in a fundamental conflict with Saudi interests, because a simple, genuine belief that guys like Prince Bandar are AOK. The question is how that genuine belief first came about.

    Also, I would not expect to find George W. Bush doing any thing remarkable due to his friendship with the Saudis. Because oil money is spread around so well that irrational policies that suit the Saudis are the “realist” conventional wisdom. George W. Bush has defied and still does defy that bipartisan wisdom, as represented for example by James Baker. But maybe not as much as he would have without those family ties.

    There are two important biases in effect here. One is, people who take favors, trips and so on consistently underestimate how much they are being influenced. On the other hand, other people overestimate how much they are being influenced.

    I don’t think that Washington, including and by no means limited to the Bushes, is as bought and paid for as we would likely think if we knew where all that oil money was going.

    But I think that Washington, including and by no means limited to the Bushes, is vastly more bought and paid for than it thinks itself. A multitude of people, including and not limited to President George W. Bush, are sliding and shuffling unconsciously and semi-consciously always in the same direction. A herd movement like that is a powerful thing in politics.

    So what I want to know is where all the money goes. I don’t care about speculations on who has done exactly what for it.

  24. Back on topic, I see no use for speculation on exactly what James Earl Carter has done for his money. I think the honest answer would be: nothing. Rather it’s his whole cast of mind that’s cultivated in a certain direction, shaping all sorts of attitudes, always on one direction.

  25. avedis:

    Gabriel, you want a self-confirming echo chamber?

    You are an echo chamber, avedis, and I know where those echoes come from because I’ve heard every one of them before. I’ve never known anyone to fall down that well and climb back out of it again, but good lock.

  26. “It’s completely unlikely that a man like George W. Bush would ever put anything ahead of America’s best interests, as best he can determine them.”

    Bah ha ha haha …… of stop already….you slay me…….but, seriously, Bush wouldn’t do this, but Carter would????????

    Based on what do you weigh the character of these men? Your own long term personal relationship with both of them????

    Please…stop already…

    “No avedis, I want critical thinking and analysis thats rooted in logic. That excludes conspiracy theories and innuendo.”

    Oh god…..the lunatic right is in rare form today…isn’t it Dershowitz that is indulging in exactly that which you claim to eschew?????

    “….. I know where those echoes come from because I’ve heard every one of them before…..”

    This is one of aspects of this blog that fascinates me the most. Anyone who disagrees with the black and white hard right talking points and idolitrous worship of GWB is lumped in with left wing stereotypes like Michael Moore, etc. So many times I have been accused of saying all sorts of things that I have never said (see up thread Jim Roquefort’s typical comment) because rather than listen to and evaluate an argument that counters your position your approach is to, instead, shut down and resort to inappropriate stereotyping and demonization.

    Your are close minded belligerent meat head bigots. This is why Mr. I don’t do nuance GWB appeals to you. You aren’t intelligent enough to comprehend nuance.

  27. IMHO both Carter and the Left implicitly endorse a second Holocaust.

    DU trolls? Hey, they’ve got nothing on Rockford!

    I’d like to add that I also endorse eating Israeli children and boiling the older ones alive.

    But seriously, David Blue asks

    What we need to know is to what extent this relationship impacts policy formulation.

    Well let’s see, a group almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia pull off the most spectacular attack against America in history.

    And the Bush family decides to overthrow one of Saudi Arabia’s arch enemies in retaliation.

    I’m thinking there’s a clue there.

  28. Honestly Avedis, I’m trying to find any aspect of the Bush foreign policy in regards to Israel, and Saudi Arabia that is all that different from the last 4 Presidents. About the only thing I see different is that Bush dropped Arafat because he was a thug dictator who had no intention of ever negotiating in good faith with Israel or America.

    Clinton was a good friend to the Saudi’s even though he had no family history, yet he still managed to hit them up for cash for his Library (under the auspices of discussing the Khobar Towers attacks). Granted, the money came a few years later. I think it would be safe to say that Clinton’s ME policy ranks up in the top 5 forign policy goals that he wanted to be highlighted as positive marks on his Legacy. Sadly, he never approached the problem correctly, and spent far too much time coddling petty tyrants like Arafat, and defering to the Carter style of Israel/Palestinian diplomacy.

    Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, will always play up to Saudi Arabia and Israel, one for oil, and one because of a longstanding tradition of supporting democracies and semi-free states in the Arab world, however corrupt they may be (Turkey, Egypt).

    If anything I’m far more concerned with the wahhabist movement in Saudi Arabia that seems to get zero to no media attention, and the fact that we’ve given Egypt something like 60 billion dollars in aid over the last decade or so, and it continues to stir up anti-American sentiment at every turn.

    For the record, I would be totally in favor of dropping all foreign aid for ME nations, that inculdes Turkey, Egypt, and Israel. Its long time we quit propping up their failing economies.

  29. Because oil money is spread around so well that irrational policies that suit the Saudis are the “realist” conventional wisdom. George W. Bush has defied and still does defy that bipartisan wisdom, as represented for example by James Baker.

    What conventional wisdom is being defied with James Baker?

    Seriously, you’d have a hard time finding public officials more in debt to Saudi Oil (and banking) money than James Baker. He and his family makes the Bush family look like pikers when it comes to taking cash from private Saudi families.

  30. Gabriel #35,

    “Honestly Avedis, I’m trying to find any aspect of the Bush foreign policy in regards to Israel, and Saudi Arabia that is all that different from the last 4 Presidents.”

    Well, the none of the last four Presidents invaded one of Israel’s enemies and then proceeded with a prolonged occupation.

    Now I suppose it is debatable whether or not our invasion of Iraq had anything to do with helping out Israel. However, as Wolfowitz – one of the primary architects of the invasion – has admitted WMD was just one point advanced because concensus could be reached on it. What other points existed prominently? Aligning with hard right Zionist strategies? I don’t think this can be easily dismissed.

    Otherwise, I don’t totally disagree with you.

    But the point here is that Carter is being accused of “selling his soul” for taking Saudi $, whereas Bush is being said to be able to fill his trough with Saudi $ and remain unbiased. Is this reasonable? Why is one man disparaged for this and the other idolized (by certain elements present here)?

  31. avedis –

    Can you make up your mind whether Bush is working for the Saudis or the Zionists, or are they all in it together?

    You may use as much nuance as you wish in explaining, and I will do my best to understand you.

  32. He can’t sell it – it’s mine. Mine, I tell you!

    Too bad he wasn’t smart enough to say he wanted to be a _good_ President when we made our little deal. Muahahahahahahaha!!!!

  33. #38:

    You insist on making this a Bush/Carter issue when its really a Carter/Dershawitz issue.

    When Bush leaves office, and makes a center devoted to human rights and ignores nearly every despotic regime on the planet, yet focueses on the only true Democracy in the Middle East, then you can compare the two.

    The issue remains, Carter’s actions, statements, and the actions of his center speak volumes. Even the staff of his center have criticzed his latest work, followed by leaving the center alltogether, are they in the Zionists pockets as well?

    Carters record on diplomacy is about as stellar as George Tenets record on thwarting al Qaida.

  34. Sorry, I mean #37. Sure wish we could edit comments.

    AL you should bust a move on a forum, perhaps VBB. The powerline guys have, though I’ve never visited it.

  35. When Jimmy Carter ignores, to the point of idiocy, along with the Left, the repeated calls, from Ayatollahs Komeni, Khameni, and Presidents Rafsanjani to Ahmadinejad, for the destruction and genocide of Israel, and Iran sponsors “A World without Israel (and America)” Conference and sponsors a Holocaust Denial conference …

    And Jimmy Carter, the Left, the NGOs such as Amnesty, HRW, etc. the EU, the UN, etc. cannot even work up condemnation for such threats …

    While assailing the sole constitutional democracy in the ME, which has Gay Pride festivals and topless beaches and has given the world gene therapy, cell phone technology, and software development …

    The only conclusion I come up with is that Carter, the Left (and the paleocon Right btw such as Buchanon) would be more than happy to see Israel disappear in a second Holocaust in the assumption that this will settle the “Muslim Anger.” I.E. the Crocodile will “eat them last” and they are an “inconvenient people” like the Serbs, the Rwandans, the Darfurians, and Cambodians not worth the trouble of those sophisticated in such understandings.

    Look at Avedis assumption that the NATION of Iraq is one of Israel’s enemies (Saddam was, the Iraqi people?) Other of course than Israel being inhabited by Jews and therefore the duty of every Muslim to wipe them out. If you accept that view (all Iraqi Muslims must wipe out Israel for religious reasons) you also have to accept a war of civilizations that will not be over anytime soon.

    At no time and at no place has Israel ever invaded sovereign Iraqi (or Iranian for that matter) territory. Israel is a tiny country of less than 6 million that can pose no conceivable threat to either people, is not even territorially contiguous, and absent threats to “wipe them off the map in fire” of no conceivable interest to attack those peoples.

    You see it’s all “the Joooooooooooooooosssssssssssss!!” which is standard among the DU and IMHO the Dem Party now. It’s a sickness. It’s “Wolfowitz the JEW!!!!” who put Zionism ahead of his country or so I read Avedis claim. It’s AIPAC or evil “neo-cons” (read: Jews) and so on who form some sort of treasonous lobby (never mind CAIR). I see the same rhetoric from Saudi Arabia into the Left. Which is not surprising since from the effort to free terrorists at Gitmo, to civil rights for terrorists, to anti-War efforts, Gulf Oil Sheik money has funded all of this. Including Carter’s career.

    No one on the Left would ever criticize CAIR and it’s proven support for Jihad. No one on the Left would ever support Israel and it’s open society. What does that tell you?

    Israel is not beyond criticism. Among them the naive and utopian belief that a “deal” can be struck to avoid a tiny, manpower low nation avoid fighting and casualties. It seems to me that Israel has gone the extra ten miles since Oslo and has achieved nothing but demonization among Eurabians, and those who seek “moral superiority” by embracing thugs and thug nations: see Zimbabwe, Castro’s Cuba, North Korea, and yes the Palestinians.

    This includes Carter, and yes the Left.

    The alternate criticism of GWB on Iraq is that he carried the Saudis water on that: getting rid of Saddam got rid of a SAUDI problem not an Israeli. Saddam absent nuclear weapons or other WMDs could pose little threat to Israel as long as the no-fly zone existed and would wipe out Saddam’s advancing conventional army.

    Meanwhile the no-fly zone and presence of US troops was destabilizing Saudi, Saddam a continued threat on THEIR direct border, a rival for power within Sunni circles in the Gulf, and dangerous rival for leadership in the Nasser mode vs. Saudi Wahabbism.

    I would expect the Left to make this critique: that getting rid of Saddam was a Saudi inspired enterprise that benefited mainly Saudi and Israel only marginally (Sharon for the record advised against it). But then the funding for organizations like ANSWER, UFPJ, Code Pink, etc. seems to come from the Magic Kingdom.

    Once you understand the “rules” for the Left and Saint Jimmy it all makes sense:

    1. Money comes from the Magic Kingdom, not Israel.
    2. Israel and the US can never have the moral right to defend themselves or ever use military force.
    3. Any horrid third world brutal thugocracy can of course use whatever force it wants.
    4. Israel and the US are always wrong.
    5. Third World kleptocrats and thugs are always right.

    These are religious beliefs, no use arguing with them.

    Who benefited the most from Saddam being toppled? Saudi. But yes by all means let’s blame Israel for everything.

  36. (Bush) might assume that America’s interests could not be in a fundamental conflict with Saudi interests, because a simple, genuine belief that guys like Prince Bandar are AOK.

    Bush Sr. is friends with the Saudis. GWB is another matter. His father and Baker were pretty upset when he upset the increasingly untenable “balance” in the Middle East.

    With regard to oil … it would be enormously irresponsible of any president not to consider the impact on international finances of disruptions to oil supply. Note that I said “international” finances. Europe is MUCH more dependent on middle eastern oil than we are. Anyone in the oval office has to take the impact on global trade into account when choosing geopolitical actions. That doesn’t mean being in the pocket of the oil aristocrats there. It DOES mean that this is a factor that WILL be in play so long as oil is central to the global economy.

    It is naive to think this is an issue that starts and stops with personal bank accounts.

    As far as Carter’s wimpiness goes, it predated the Teheran hostages by a good bit. Whiny talks about thermostats were the highest part of his energy strategy in response to the Saudi-led OPEC throttling of oil. And let’s not even mention the killer swimming rabbit …..

  37. That said, it is not Carter’s wimpiness but his insufferable sense of moral superiority that sets off all my alarm bells.

    If he were a dog, he’d be called “shy-sharp” — cringing, but likely to bit without warning just as you’re being nice to him.

  38. “Can you make up your mind whether Bush is working for the Saudis or the Zionists, or are they all in it together?”

    The point here, Glen, is that Dershowitz uses Carter’s receiving of Saudi funding as evidence that, in exchange for the money, Carter has necessarily entered into some sort of anti-Israel pact with the Saudis.

    I have brought up Bush’s ties to the Saudis as a way of countering Dershowitz’s lame conspiracy theory. I believe that the case of Bush is a good counter because here we have a man who is clearly dedicated to the cause of Israel and yet is also able to be dedicated to the cause of the house of Saud.

    The Bush situation calls into serious question Dershowitz’s use of Carter being funded by Arabs as evidence – prima facea – of Carter’s anti-Israel tendencies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>