Power Line News

A reader writes that he received the email message below sent by Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University and the Carter Center. Porfessor Stei

» View the article

Kudos to Professor Stein for taking this significant measure.  Emory alums who took his popular course know that Professor Stein is fair-minded and objective in his analysis and teaching of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Stein wasn’t just a nominal affiliate of the Carter Center.  He was its first executive director.  He coauthored at least one book with Carter.  The two men have been friends, colleagues, and collaborators for decades.  That Stein dissents so sharply and dramatically now speaks volumes about the merits (or lack thereof) of Carter’s new anti-Israel screed.

I think I hear the voice of someone trapped in an ivory tower calling for help.

That was a very polite slap of Carter’s face.  Sadly, I doubt that it will do any good.  The man, who was probably the worst president of the twentyth century, needs more than that to make him open his mind.  Instead he will remain lost in his dillusions.

This is hardly a surprise.  Carter drank the Michael Moore Kool-Aid long, long ago.  His endeavors with Habitat for Humanity have been admirable… little else has been in his post-White House career.

Worst president of the twentieth century & and worst ex-president of the twenty-first century.  Nice combo.

With this important resignation, and even the outrage expressed by some Dem. congressmen (black and white), it is possible that this Ramsay-Clark-like America hater may finally be getting his comeuppance.

It’s reassuring that the professor resigned, but what was he thinking all those years he was associated with the Carter Center?  Jimmy Carter didn’t suddenly become stridently anti-Israel.  He was already anti-Israel as president, and his stridency is simply a matter of degree.

Word should be getting out about this professor’s letter. I posted it to the comments area for Carter’s book on Amazon at the U.S., Canada, and all the European sites. I’d have done the same for Amazon Japan and (still small) Amazon China, but I couldn’t find my way around in those languages.

Outside the U.S., few seem to have strong opinions about the book, perhaps because anti-Israel sentiments are so strong in Europe that what Carter says isn’t controversial. But in the U.S. the debate on Amazon is hot and heavy, with virtually everyone rating the book either with one star (awful) or five stars (great).

It is quite disturbing to see many of those who praise the book claiming that Carter is “brave” for taking on a Jewish conspiracy they believe runs this country. Someone with a dark cast of mine might even began to wonder how long it will be before before the automated software of Amazon’s “Better Together” puts Carter’s book alongside Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

In the late nineteenth century, some Europeans claimed that “Anti-Semitism is the socialism of little minds.” Something similar seems true today, although I might substitute “frightened” for “little.” Blaming the Jews or Israel, as Carter does, means not having to face the real problems Mark Steyn describes so brilliantly in America Alone.

--Michael W. Perry, editor of Dachau Liberated

First, Carter is not the worst president of the twentieth century. That title goes to the current louse, GW Bush. In fact, he is probabaly the worst president ever. He has destroyed what so many before him have struggled to accomplish. He has ruined over two years of work building a democracy in a little over five years. Second, not agreeing with the status quo does not make one an America-hater. I love this country and cannot stand to see it ruined by the likes of Bush and Cheney. Thanks...see you in January, 2009.

yankee - 06 December 2006 04:15 PM

First, Carter is not the worst president of the twentieth century. That title goes to the current louse, GW Bush.

Ugh, nah ...  Too easy.

"yankee” is so steeped in Bush Derangement Syndrome that he/she doesn’t even realize what century it is!!!

Back in the seventies I worked in the Kansas City area to get Jimmy Carter elected to the presidency. He was the only candidate I ever campaigned actively for in all my years of voting eligibility.  I did so because I beleived that we needed to return to a more solid moral base in international affairs. 

I was deceived.  There was little or no morality in the Carter platform back then.  The result of his leadership was Iran, a military in disarray, vacillation rather than principle as our primary instrument of international diplomacy, and America in retreat from its responsibilities.

But, until the 80’s I mistakenly gave Mr. Carter the benefit of the doubt and blamed it all on his advisors. 

The years have proven me wrong on that account as well. Mr. Carter has proven to me over and over again that he is little more than a political opportunist who seems to delight in his deceptions.  How did Bob Dylan put it about men like him?  He described them as men who wear a cloak of decency while they spin webs of deceit. That fits Jimmy Carter to a “T.”

yankee - 06 December 2006 04:15 PM

Second, not agreeing with the status quo does not make one an America-hater.

Okay.  You missed the point.  Stein resigned from the Carter Center because he believes Carter’s current stance vis a vis Israel is predicated on lies and on ignorance of the realities of the Middle East conflict.

Thus, Carter stands accused not of “not agreeing with the status quo” in some general sense, but specifically of demonizing Israel (a democracy in which Arabs vote, serve in public office, and worship freely) while coddling and apologizing for PLO and Hamas terrorists who vociferously announce and pursue on a daily basis their goal of eradicating the Jewish people. 

Since your entire post is devoid of any reference to the topic at hand, and instead simply simmers with vague, childish hatred of the present administration, I can only conclude that the point of your post was to throw a tantrum rather than to contribute to the discussion.

Carter’s main problem must be that he just doesn’t agree with Dr. Stein.  Meanwhile, Stein, who has been so offended he must resign immediately, doesn’t bother to be very specific about the errors, omissions, inventions that led to such a momentous decision, leading me to believe there are no points other than getting 15 minutes of attention for his huff and puff.  Stein sounds like one of those scholars who is content with fixing the facts around the ideology and calling it revealed truth.

The Other Alan - 06 December 2006 06:10 PM

Carter’s main problem must be that he just doesn’t agree with Dr. Stein.  Meanwhile, Stein, who has been so offended he must resign immediately, doesn’t bother to be very specific about the errors, omissions, inventions that led to such a momentous decision, leading me to believe there are no points other than getting 15 minutes of attention for his huff and puff.  Stein sounds like one of those scholars who is content with fixing the facts around the ideology and calling it revealed truth.

In the article, Stein said, “Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. .In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.” [italics added]

The Other Alan - 06 December 2006 06:10 PM

Carter’s main problem must be that he just doesn’t agree with Dr. Stein.  Meanwhile, Stein, who has been so offended he must resign immediately, doesn’t bother to be very specific about the errors, omissions, inventions that led to such a momentous decision, leading me to believe there are no points other than getting 15 minutes of attention for his huff and puff.  Stein sounds like one of those scholars who is content with fixing the facts around the ideology and calling it revealed truth.

As a fellow poster just noted, the purpose of the letter was to publically resign and make sure intreested observers were aware of the reasons for doing so - not to make an exhaustive list of factual errors, etc.

Naturally we are interested in his analysis of Carter’s claims, and look forward to Stein’s personal experience and expert knowledge that expose’s Carter as montebank.