Once again, Jimmy Carter has shrunk from debate. Despite having written a book whose purpose he claims was to promote dialogue and discussion, he has consistently dodged appearing with anyone who could challenge him on the numerous factual errors that fill the pages of his slim book.
First it was at Brandeis University, where he was invited to appear with professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, who has written two books and numerous articles on the topic (not to mention being a respected First Amendment scholar and one of America's most distinguished attorneys), was not even allowed into the building until Carter had left.
When it became known that Carter was anxious to speak at Emory, the administration consulted a group of faculty and was advised that the most fair and academically valuable format would be to have Carter appear with someone who could engage in a productive interchange and discussion on the topic. This clearly would be the only way for the event to meet the educational standard of a leading university.
Everyone agreed that the best person for this interchange was Ambassador Dennis Ross, who was the main negotiator on the Arab-Israeli situation in both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration. He was responsible for organizing Camp David II, Clinton's last-ditch effort to find a resolution to the situation. Ross agreed to appear, but Carter pointedly refused to appear with him or with any other expert. No explanation was given.
As I've said before, what bothers me significantly is that I respected Carter for seven years, from 1985-1992, from the time he spoke to the Cadet Wing at the Air Force Academy until his speech at the 1992 Democrat Convention. I don't like being made the fool, but I bought into what he told us.
Carter's actions since '92 lead me to a few conclusions, none of which is very favorable to him:
1. He's never met a dictator he didn't like, unless that "dictator" is a Republican American president.
2. He belongs to that sad strain of Christianity that's anti-semitic.
3. He'll do anything to try to recover some of the glory he lost by getting trounced by Reagan in 1980.
He may at one time have been a good man, worthy of that respect I heaped on him. But no longer. He's a sad shell of a man, haunted by demons and tormented by a hatred that most of us probably cannot fathom. In some respects, he reminds me of Cindy Sheehan.
Is this the behavior of a man who wants to promote dialogue? What precisely is Carter afraid of? Could it be that Dennis Ross - who, like President Clinton, places the blame for the failure of the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis at Camp David II squarely on the shoulders of Yasir Arafat - would tell the former president, who blames Israel for everything, that he is simply wrong? Remember Ross and Clinton were there; Carter was not.
There's plenty more, of course. Go read the whole thing.
1 comment:
Like you, I at one time though Jimmy Carter an honorable man. Then came the hostage crisis. Then came his unconditional support bordering on worship for terrorists (there are dozens of other anti-American acts and omissions, but why go on?). The final straw was his acceptance of the Nobel Prize after the Nobel committee announced that it was being given to him to spit in the face of President Bush and America. During a war. That he would willingly accept the prize under those conditions told me all I need know about Jimmy Carter.
Post a Comment