Re: Ex-President for Sale

On Mar 20, 7:13 am, "Q" <quond...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 19, 9:43 pm, "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mar 16, 7:19 pm, "Q" <quond...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 16, 2:25 pm, "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
SNIP
For a new one, how's this?

*In Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert
Relationship, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn revealed that during a March
1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing
his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the
Jewish community, snapped, "If I get back in, I'm going to [expletive]
the Jews."*

Seehttp://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/19957/Media_Monitor.html

It certainly doesn't seem to suggest that he has an opren-minded, fair
and balanced attitude now, does it?

No, it doesn't. And it's certainly not okay for a person in public
life to conduct himself this way. I'd love to know the fuller context
in which Carter made this statement because the book that cites it,
the Cockburns' "Dangerous Liaison," is -- according to the NY Times
reviewer -- an "Israel-bashing book."

The context was provided in the article -- in a conversation about the
fact that Jews were not supporting his re-election bid.

I've asked my library to get me the book, so I'll see for myself.

Enjoy.


Moreover, its directed at Jews-
qua-Jews, and accordingly cannot be dismissed as a mere disagreement
regarding Israeli policy.

Maybe. The raw words certainly suggest this, but it would depend on
the context, as to whether by "the Jews," Carter actually meant "the
Israelis." He was talking about payback, and the theme of "Dangerous
Liaisons" is that Israel sold out her American allies on numerous
occasions. In any case it was a bad thing to say.

Of course, Richard Nixon, who was widely regarded as a great friend of
Israel, famously inveighed against his supposed Jewish enemies in the
Watergate tapes. Even Eleanor Roosevelt was known to have used the
term "Jew" as a pejorative. And Hillary Clinton has been reported to
have made antisemitic remarks in private -- and semi-private (while
shouting at staff members.)
.
This is not exculpatory, but merely intended to add perspective.

I'm not exactly a fan of either of them, either. But who cares.

Nice.

Well, "who cares" to you, too.

Try reading for comprehension. Who cares about Richard Nixon (one of
the biggest disasters to befall the US) or Eleanor Roosevelt (whose
husband's dismal record with respect to Jews is already extremely well-
documented). We're not discussing them. We're discussing Jimmy
Carter. I don't think that it exculpates Carter to indicate that
other people -- for whom I have little or no respect -- have made
similar statements.

You've now been provided with proof of Carter's anti-semitism.

By you, it's "proof." You're not the only person in the room,
however.

As someone else said, what do you need? A picture of him in a
bedsheet? You're not going to get it. You have to judge him by his
actions and come to a conclusion.

Want
more? How about a note stating that there are *too many Jews* on the
Holocaust Museum Council?

Again, you provide the statement, but no context. Why did he think
there were too many Jews? Surely, the explanation was part of the
statement.

I doubt it. You've read the article. It was a note -- too many
Jews. What good explanation do *you* have for judging people's
qualfications based upon their religion?

Or another note asking that *special
consideration* be given to the request of an SS guard to come to the
US. See, eg,http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article53954.html

I'd want to know why Carter wished to limit the number of Jews who sat
on the board of the Holocaust Memorial Council, before I'd accept that
his motive was antisemitic, because I think of a number of reasons why
having a more broad-based sponsorship would be a good idea.

Again, what *good reason* can there be for judging people based on
religion, without more. And what about the statement that he rejected
another person -- who happened to be Xtian -- because that person's
name *sounded* Jewish?


The article, which ran this past January, appears to be part of the
post-book ganging up. The events Freedman describes happened almost
thirty years ago. How come this guy is coming forward now, after all
this time?

*Post book ganging up* Surely you mean part of the debate that Carter
claimed he wanted to foment. Or is the problem that his name is
*Freedman*?

I note this same h.s. web page that you like to read advertises an
appearance by Ann Coulter. It says:" Do you like hard-hitting news?
Then you should plan to attend NEWS EXPO 2007 featuring Ann Coulter!"
So tell us, are you planning to attend the Ann Coulter event? It
takes place in May.

Oh, grow up. Do you think that I'm responsible for the ads that run
on internet pages? Perhaps we should look at the ads on the pages
that praise Carter's book, or that cast doubt on the ciritcism. I'd
bet you'd find some interesting groups there, but I also doubt that if
they'd allow a Jew to attend any of their rallies unless he was
roasting over an open fire.

And, sorry, but I'm not impressed with the episode involving the SS
officer. I accept that it was done for "humanitarian" reaasons. I
hope you don't think it proves Carter is a secret Nazi.

Humanitarian reasons for permitting a Nazi murdered into this
country? Sorry. They just plain don't exist. And why do you simply
*accept* this when you reject every other detail unless you're able to
access and analyze primary sources?

Or his constant complaints that "Book reviews in the mainstream media
have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish
organizations ..." (or that other criticism is coming from Jews, which
believes makes it somehow illegitimate).

It suggests that there may be a built-in bias. I'd prefer to see book
reviews written by scholars than by advocates. When a critic clearly
has a stake in the issue a book is about, his review is not likely to
be objective.

And which reviews do you think were written by advocates, not
scholars? We're talking about reviews in virtually every major
newspaper in the US, all of which were dismissed by Carter on the
basis that they were written by Jews.

Or his repeated statements
that something -- and gosh oh golly what do YOU think it might be --
has stifled all debate in the US for years.

I have no idea. AIPAC? Some kind of pro-Israel lobby?

Bingo. Right. The Jews are controlling the media and stifling
debate. Per Carter. And your opinion on that is ....?

A lot of people think that there's more than a bit of debate-stifling
going on.

Including you, I take it.

Especially if they read SCJM.

Exactly where has debate been stifled here? I seem to be reading your
posts, although I often wonder why I bother. The fact that the
majority of posters here don't agree with you doesn't mean that debate
is stifled.

Same for Carter. He claims he wants to create debate. Great. I'm a
proponent of the First Amendment. I may not agree with him -- or you
-- but I will defend to the death his right to say what he wants. But
what happens when people don't fall into lock-step with Carter? He
won't debate Alan Dershowitz because he claims Dershowitz lacks
sufficient information. There may be dozens of reasons to choose not
to debate the guy, but that's not one of them. Criticism of his book
is dismissed as coming from Jews. The guy doesn't want to create
debate, he wants to create a chorus of *yes*

And it seems to me that's what you want as well. Now, the fact is, I
have been swayed by debate here on more than one occasion. Here's an
example. I recently posted supporting people -- including haredi Jews
-- who protect their kids from certain influences until they're old
enough to understand them. That's a 180 from a position I took when I
came here. But someone explained that its really a difference in
degree, not substance, from what I do as a parent in, eg, not allowing
my 10 year-old to listen to The Game or 50 Cent. You haven't swayed
me or, as far as I can tell, much of anyone here. I don't see that
you've tried. I certainly don't recall your posting any explanations
or defenses of Carter's theories. You'd rather spend your time
accusing people of being ignorant lemmings, or of being in lock-step
with advertising that appears on the web, than engage in any form of
real debate.

So tell us. Why does it seem to YOU that Carter's arguments are
correct. Tell us. Explain to us. Or at least tell us what points in
the book were sufficiently troubling to you that caused you to come
here and make dozens of posts.

Karen Elizabeth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: cos dla frederacjio zydowskiej
    ... Adolf Hitler and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ... Carter, our 39th President, to this violent world. ... Israel, Carter has joined that long list of vicious anti-Jewish ... million Jews in the European gas ovens, a feat Carter hopes to repeat. ...
    (soc.culture.polish)
  • Re: Tom Potter, were you slandered by the Jews ?
    ... > Were you slandered by the Jews? ... I don't like to see people like Jimmy Carter, Mel Gibson, ... he simply offers a narrative that is largely unsympathetic to Israel. ... sided with Russia in the Class Wars. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Unforgiven: Jimmy Carter (N.R.)
    ... Are we impressed by Jimmy Carter's belated apology? ... Drop Dead Jimmy Carter ... Carter's cute little "al chayt" prayer of forgiveness is as impressive as ... You cannot write books filled with outright lies about Israel and Jews, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: The Unforgiven: Jimmy Carter (N.R.)
    ... whose "Drop Dead Jimmy Carter" is making ... Carter's cute little "al chayt" prayer of forgiveness is as impressive as ... You cannot write books filled with outright lies about Israel and Jews, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • The Unforgiven: Jimmy Carter (N.R.)
    ... Are we impressed by Jimmy Carter's belated apology? ... whose "Drop Dead Jimmy Carter" is making ... Carter's cute little "al chayt" prayer of forgiveness is as impressive as ... You cannot write books filled with outright lies about Israel and Jews, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)