Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
More Jimmy Carter
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Anyone getting tired of defending this guy yet?
“Also around that time, in the spring of 1987, we deported a series of SS guards from concentration camps, whose names nobody would know. One such character we sent back to Austria was a man named Martin Bartesch.”

Bartesch, who had immigrated to the U.S. and lived in Chicago, admitted to Sher’s office and the court that he had voluntarily joined the Waffen SS and had served in the notorious SS Death’s Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp where, at the hands of Bartesch and his cohorts, many thousands of prisoners were gassed, shot, starved and worked to death. He also confessed to having concealed his service at the infamous camp from U.S. immigration officials.

“We had an extraordinary piece of evidence against him – a book that was kept by the SS and captured by the American armed forces when they liberated Mauthausen,” Sher said. “We called it the death book. It was a roster that the Germans required them to keep that identified SS guards as they extended weapons to murder the inmates and prisoners.”

An entry in the book for October 10, 1943 registered the shooting death of Max Oschorn, a French Jewish prisoner. His murderer was also recorded: SS guard Martin Bartesch. “It was a most chilling document,” Sher recalled.

The same evidence was used by the U.S. military in postwar trials as the basis for execution or long prison sentences for many identified SS guards.

“We kicked him out and he went back to Austria. In the meantime, his family – he had adult kids – went on a campaign, also supported by his church, to try to get special treatment. In so doing they attacked the activities of our office and me personally. They claimed we used phony evidence from the Soviet Union – which was nonsense. They claimed he was a young man of only 17 or 18 when he joined the Nazi forces, asking for some sympathetic treatment and defense from our office, which they claimed was just after vengeance.”

The family approached several members of Congress. “The congressmen would, very understandably, forward their claims over to our office and when they learned the facts they would invariably drop the case,” Sher recalled.

But there was one politician who accepted the claims without asking for any further information.

“One day, in the fall of ’87, my secretary walks in and gives me a letter with a Georgia return address reading ‘Jimmy Carter.’ I assumed it was a prank from some old college buddies, but it wasn’t. It was the original copy of the letter Bartesch’s daughter sent to Carter, after Bartesch had already been deported.

[...]

“On the upper corner of the letter was a note signed by Jimmy Carter saying that in cases such as this, he wanted ‘special consideration for the family for humanitarian reasons.’
Right ... no mention of his concern about the "special consideration ... for humanitarian reasons" the animal in question imposed on the inmates of Mauthausen. If you're not familiar with Mauthausen, check out this.
Another killing method, favored by the SS during the winter season, was to gather a group of prisoners in the garage yard and order them to undress. A guard then sprayed water over the group which was left to freeze to death. This was quite effective in a region where the winter temperature usually was around minus 10 degrees Celsius.
Obviously someone complicit in such barbarity deserves "special consideration" wouldn't you say?

And under the category of "lies, damn lies and statistics" more Carter dissembling and distortion here.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Man, you’re dipping to silliness in trying to attack someone almost universally respected and admired for his humanitarian work and numerous efforts at conflict resolution. Face it, except for a few on the fringes, Carter will be remembered almost certainly as a poor President, but a superb ex-President, with his Nobel Prize, humanitarian successes (and those cannot be denied) and willingness to speak out on important issues drowning out the shrill attacks from a fringe of the political spectrum.

You’re trying to hard. This "attack" is laughable, it’s like your grasping at anything you can find. A cadre in a small section of the political spectrum will share insults of Carter, but just watch — he’ll march on, respected across the planet as one of the great humanitarians of this era.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
respected across the planet as one of the great humanitarians of this era.

Certainly feted by every left-wing dictator he has ever met....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
almost universally respected and admired for his humanitarian work and numerous efforts at conflict resolution
Spare me.

Do you have a poll of some type to back up that assertion?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Yes, Yassir Arafat got a Nobel as well Gunter Grass who was actually in the SS. Sorta takes the shine off that as a recommendation.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Face it, except for a few on the fringes, Carter will be remembered almost certainly as a poor President, but a superb ex-President
,

You don’t get out of the University scene much, do ya?
with his Nobel Prize, humanitarian successes (and those cannot be denied)
I certainly do deny or dispute these alleged "humanitarian successes" - what are they exactly? That he built houses?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Do you have a poll of some type to back up that assertion?
I’m sure if we poll the French, or the Palestinians . . .
Face it, except for a few on the fringes, Carter will be remembered almost certainly as a poor President, but a superb ex-President, with his Nobel Prize, humanitarian successes (and those cannot be denied) and willingness to speak out on important issues drowning out the shrill attacks from a fringe of the political spectrum.
Not if Carter doesn’t shut up.

Respect for Carter is largely based upon ignorance of Carter and his actions.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
No man who advocates terrorism can be great.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Face it, except for a few on the fringes, Carter will be remembered almost certainly as a poor President, but a superb ex-President

I’m guessing that he will filed with Ramsey Clark in future history books.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Face it, except for a few on the fringes, Carter will be remembered almost certainly as a poor President, but a superb ex-President, with his Nobel Prize, humanitarian successes (and those cannot be denied)
Wow. Where to start?

Let’s see. Scott didn’t define "humanitarian" but I’d be willing to bet that Carter considers his negotiation of the "agreed framework" with North Korea as one of his great "humanitarian" works. Maybe that was a success in fantasy land where Scott lives but not in reality. The agreed framework negotiated by Jimmah was signed in 1994 and by 1997 the North Koreans were busily enriching uranium. That was an abject failure.

How about Jimmah validating Hugo Chavez’s stolen election? Even Jimmah’s statistical expert from Stanford University recanted and said the election was stolen. How about Jimmah’s favorite charity that fails to help poor people and wastes money.

In short Scott, you are deluded. I don’t know about the ivory tower but out here in reality you might find a small percentage of Americans who respect Carter but the vast majority of Americans roll their eyes at him. When you say Carter is "universally respected and admired" I guess you mean by communist dicators, socialists in Europe who want a weak America and middle eastern terrorists.

Carter was a cynical failure and a joke when he was the president and he is an even bigger failure as an ex-president. I think he is angry at the American people for having the audacity to vote him out of office and he is going to make us pay until the day he dies. Jimmy Carter is a horrible human being which begs the question what kind of person an admirer like Scott is. You are either incredibly stupid or incredibly evil.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
If you guys don’t know the work Carter has done in Africa, especially on health care, in helping new democracies, in habitat for humanity, in the myriad of ventures that has yielded him nearly (spare a few fringe elements in the US) universal admiration, even from political opponents, that’s your problem.

What this really represents, however, is the fact that some people cannot disagree with others without having to personally attack them. Some people take political disagreement as a reason to hate, a reason to try to tear down someone else personally, a reason to try to go on an ad hominem rampage against someone else. If one said, "I think Jimmy Carter’s argument about Israel and Palestine is wrong, and here’s why..." that’s legit. But the personal attacks is an over the top over reaction, suggesting that some people have lost the capacity for political debate and disagreement absent a kind of jihad mentality. That’s too bad.

I see that on the left too — people attacking Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, etc., with the same kind of personal hatred. It would be ridiculously funny — people caught up emotionally in politics as if it were a wrestling match with one side good the other side evil — if not for the fact it really is contrary to the spirit of what makes democracy work.

Disagree with Carter. Make arguments against his position. But when one goes into the personal attack mode, it really is a sacrifice of reason to emotion, with irrationality trumping rational discourse.

But maybe that’s what drives the blogosphere — emotion.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But maybe that’s what drives the blogosphere — emotion.
Or snotty intellectuals in ivory towers...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
He advocates terrorism. It’s that simple.

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter’s new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?
"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."
(Emphasis added.)
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
someone almost universally respected

I guess you haven’t seen that much of the universe.
 
Written By: Bandit
URL: http://
If you guys don’t know the work Carter has done in Africa, especially on health care, in helping new democracies, in habitat for humanity, in the myriad of ventures that has yielded him nearly (spare a few fringe elements in the US) universal admiration, even from political opponents, that’s your problem.
I tend to view such efforts as mostly masturbating one’s ego or feeling of moral superiority rather than real work improving the world.
What this really represents, however, is the fact that some people cannot disagree with others without having to personally attack them. Some people take political disagreement as a reason to hate, a reason to try to tear down someone else personally, a reason to try to go on an ad hominem rampage against someone else.
Oh, we can disagree and still respect our opponent. However, there comes a point where a political opinion is simply evil, and some of those defending that opinion are also evil.

The Soviet Union, for example, was evil. That doesn’t mean that Russians were evil, even those who defended the Soviet Union. Some—Stalin for example (picked as someone we can all probably agree on)—were evil, but not all of them were. Western defenders of the USSR were often evil—at least, those who knew enough about the USSR and still defended it.
If one said, "I think Jimmy Carter’s argument about Israel and Palestine is wrong, and here’s why..." that’s legit. But the personal attacks is an over the top over reaction, suggesting that some people have lost the capacity for political debate and disagreement absent a kind of jihad mentality.
But it isn’t simply that Carter is wrong. He defends tyrants in North Korea, Cuba, and throughout the world, issuing anti-American and anti-Israeli statements that often verge (and sometimes clearly cross into) hate and anti-semitism.

Carter defends evil.
I see that on the left too — people attacking Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, etc., with the same kind of personal hatred. It would be ridiculously funny — people caught up emotionally in politics as if it were a wrestling match with one side good the other side evil — if not for the fact it really is contrary to the spirit of what makes democracy work.
It is more fair to compare Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice et al with the Clinton’s, Feinstein, Boxer, Albright, and so on. I very much oppose most of Feinstein’s and Boxer’s (my Senators, BTW) positions, including gun control, economic views, ecology (Feinstein shutting down the CA desert), and so on, but I don’t hate them or think they defend evil. In some cases I hate their policies, but I understand that they believe their policies to be right. I anticipate that they will defend the US when and where they realize the US needs defending, for example when Boxer defended arming of airline pilots (and consequently I found myself agreeing with her and not the Bush administration).

You can’t compare views of an evil little man like Carter with views of people like Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, the Clinton’s, Feinstein, Boxer, and so on. Hatred of Carter is largely based on his words and actions after leaving office: I thought he was a failed president when I voted for Reagan in 1980 (my first time voting: just turned 18 a few months prior), but I thought he was a decent fellow. Most people I know who hate Carter now developed that belief by listening to him over the last 20 years or so. Most thought he was a bad president, some supported him as president, but his words eventually revealed him as a very hateful, small man who defends evil.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."
Carter also helped Arafat write his speeches to appeal to Western audiences. In other words, he knew what Arafat wanted, what Arafat was getting ready to say, and what Arafat should say instead to appeal to Western sensibilities.

In a sense, the Carter quote above is the same thing: telling the Arabs what they need to tell the west to get sympathy and support.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
He advocates terrorism. It’s that simple.
You are, of course, lying. You quote him saying that terror attacks must be ended when an agreement is reached, and you say he’s advocating terrorism? That is absurd. He realistically knows that these attacks won’t simply be ended without some kind of settlement, just as Israeli military action won’t end without a settlement. It’s pragmatic conflict resolution, recognizing the reality.

I also find it absurd when Don dismisses decades of humanitarian work as masterbating ones’ ego. It seems that if someone one dislikes does something good, you have to simply dismiss it or make up an excuse not to respect it. That is really lazy.

I also do not believe your claim that Carter defends evil. Show me where he defends the political systems of North Korea and Cuba. You can’t. Carter simply has the gift of moral clarity, and that defies the relativism of people who want to say the Palestinians are all bad and the Israelis all good, or rationalize all the violence done in our name, and demonize anything done by others. He sees clearly that a lot of Americans are caught up in the trap of simply finding ways to define themselves as good and their opponents as evil, without asking the morally difficult questions. He is, I believe, a force against the moral relativism and nihilism that underlies a lot of current post-modern politics.

Carter is one of the great men of the 20th century, and if you get away from a fringe of the political spectrum, he’s one of the few figures that gain world wide respect and admiration. And nobody here has pointed to anything real that he’s said or done that is evil, and the effort to do so shows a kind of desparation. I think you realize he’s remarkably effective and respected, and that just irks you so you want to insult him and dismiss him. You can’t. His works and efforts have made him immune to that. I suppose people who disagree with him can stroke their egos by attacking him on internet sites though ;-)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Disagree with Carter. Make arguments against his position. But when one goes into the personal attack mode, it really is a sacrifice of reason to emotion, with irrationality trumping rational discourse.

But maybe that’s what drives the blogosphere — emotion.

Written By: Scott Erb
I could share your sentiment on almost every person, but not Carter,

I do indeed loath him for the horrible deluded far left-wing scold that he is. He is a man who always thought he was right about everything and wanted everyone else to do as they were told. So he did some humanitarian work eh? Well so has Bill Gates, funny I don’t see left wing academics jumping on the Bill Gates bandwagon.

One thing he did that can NEVER EVER be forgiven. He broke 200 years of wise American tradition by being the first ex president to criticize a sitting president’s foreign policy, and he did it on foreign soil, and he did it to pander for and receive an award by a bunch of American bashing Scandinavian leftists.

His deal with North Korea was a sham, his signification of stolen left wing elections, and now his anti-antisemitism are pulling him down into Chomsky, Ramsey Clark territory. He is a joke.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Carter simply has the gift of moral clarity
LOL
 
Written By: Twizz
URL: http://
Scott, you keep saying that Carter is respected by everybody except for "the fringe." Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what percentage represents a "fringe," but surely reasonable people would agree that a "fringe" would be a very small percentage.

Maybe within the group of people you interact with regularly, Carter critics are a "fringe," but you should widen your scope. I promise you that even many Democrats consider Carter an embarrassment for reasons that have nothing to do with his actions as President. Whatever the percentage may be, I would bet that Carter critics are closer to the "center" than the "fringe." That could be wrong, but I base that opinion on having lived in both red and blue states and having worked both inside and outside academia.

If Carter is so universally respected, as you claim, the Democrats should be hustling him out there on the campaign trail, giving him the keynote speech at their convention, that sort of thing. I wonder why that hasn’t happened?
 
Written By: Robby
URL: http://
I also find it absurd when Don dismisses decades of humanitarian work as masterbating ones’ ego.
Fine, Ace. Give us a list of the things President Carter accomplished.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
You are, of course, lying. You quote him saying that terror attacks must be ended when an agreement is reached, and you say he’s advocating terrorism? That is absurd. He realistically knows that these attacks won’t simply be ended without some kind of settlement, just as Israeli military action won’t end without a settlement. It’s pragmatic conflict resolution, recognizing the reality.
Now who’s making personal attacks? No, he’s telling the Palestinians that the attacks are justified and should be continued to be used until they get concessions. He’s saying that terror attacks must be ended when an agreement is reached. Exactly, he’s saying they are a valid tool for getting what they want, that they should make sure they don’t stop killing women and children until they get the Israelis to give in to the Palestinian demands. This isn’t an acknowledgment of reality, it’s his personal advice to them.

from the ny post piece
Carter isn’t calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they’ve achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.

...

As Konner wrote to John Hardman, the center’s executive director, in declining the invitation: "I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter’s prescription for peace. The sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger."

Konner, by the way, is no Carter-basher; he describes the former president as "one of my greatest heroes."
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
You are, of course, lying. You quote him saying that terror attacks must be ended when an agreement is reached, and you say he’s advocating terrorism?
So, until then, they can bomb Israel back to the table, is that it?
When an agreement is reached, on who’s terms?

Last time they tried to reach an agreement the Israelis were willing to give them most of what they asked for, and Arafat rejected it. Bargaining is only effective if someone is willing to bargain.
I believe we’re still technically bargaining with North Korea to negotiate an end to the Korean War.

How about this - "The Arab community must reject terrorism as a means of negotiation."
That’s not what he said. He is implicitly saying they can continue terrorist acts until Israel agrees to their demands, and once it does so, THEN they must eschew terrorist acts. He very clearly links the end to their acts of terror to an agreement to their demands.
That’s how terrorism works as a negotiating tool.
He’s smart enough, according to you, to see the nuance in his statement. He’s a great stateman, remember, not GWB, stumbling around over his words. He’s third in his class at Annapolis, a former Governer, President and winner of the Nobel Prize! He must understand logical sentence constructs, he’s a world statesman, recognized by all but a few of us on the fringe!
"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."
Very clearly, when you get what you want, you must stop what you’re doing, and that isn’t the same at all, as ’you must not do what you’re doing, it’s not a viable tool for reasonable negotiation’.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The idiocy of Jimmy Carter’s positions on everything from economics to foreign policy should be self evident to anyone with a double digit IQ or higher. But that isn’t what people on this thread are getting at. Carter has gone way beyond the advocacy of bad ideas. He has gone out of his way to do things that hurt the United States. One example of many is his certification of Chavez’ election. His own statistical expert (originally cited on the Carter Center website to vouch for the accuracy of the results) recanted and said that the election results were faulty. Did Carter ever change his stance publicly? Better yet has he publicly stated what his own expert now says: Chavez manipulated the election results? Carter can’t claim ignorance or a lack of confidence in the expertise of the statistician because he chose him to verify the results in the first place. He is obviously well aware that Chavez is busily injecting socialism back into South America and is fomenting anti-Americanism in service of his desire for power. Helping legitimize him is directly contrary to the interests of this country, yet Carter went out of his way to do so.

Anyone can choose to respect Jimmy Carter even though he is a vindictive, spiteful anti-semite. In typical liberal fashion Scott looks to the initiatives themselves rather than the goal they were supposed to achieve in order to claim success for liberals like Carter. How well has poverty been tackled in Africa? How about AIDS or war? How peaceful has the middle east been since Jimmah got his Nobel prize (yeah, yeah I know that Egypt hasn’t attacked Israel since, but Syria, Hezbollah controlled southern Lebanon, Iraq, etc. have. Habitat for Humanity wastes money to that could be better spent on helping the poor in order to stroke the egos of the people who participate in it. Carter goes through the exercise of good deeds that don’t seem to accomplish much.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
From NRO:
Much has been made over the last 24 hours of the revelation that Jimmy Carter "interceded on behalf of a Nazi SS Guard."

But is that really what he did?

The NY Sun republishes the letter written by Ann Bartesch Bresnen, daughter of Martin Bartesch, along with Carter’s handwritten note at the top of the first page.

The plain language of Carter’s note makes clear he is not intervening on behalf of Martin Bartesch, but on behalf of Bartesch’s children and grandchildren. "I hope that in cases like this, that special consideration can be given to affected families for humanitarian reasons."

Carter’s not suggesting that OSI give any consideration at all to Mr. Bartesch. Rather, he’s asking that OSI consider the concerns of Mrs. Bresnen, who states that "My children and three other grandchildren will not have their grandparents around for birthdays, graduations, weddings and all those important occasions that we all cherish spending with our loved ones."

Is that a backdoor way of supporting Mr. Bartesch? I think it’s strained to read it that way...Carter’s not suggesting that Bartesch is innocent, or wrongly deported. There is a real-life impact that the deportation has on the family Mr. Bartesch created in America, the family which does not know him as the evil SS Guard, but knows him as "dad" or "grandpa." Perhaps there could be a work-around by which OSI allowed Mr. Bartesch to attend his grandchildren’s wedding with US Marshall escort, for example, with the Bartesch family picking up the tab.
Maybe McQ should hold off on accusing ex-presidents of coddling Nazis until all the facts are in.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Perhaps there could be a work-around by which OSI allowed Mr. Bartesch to attend his grandchildren’s wedding with US Marshall escort, for example, with the Bartesch family picking up the tab
Perhaps Osama could re-enter the country under US Marshall escort if one of his nieces or nephews marries an American and he wants to attend the ceremony too, the Bin-ladens could pick up the cost of the Marshall escort.

I’m very concerned that Granpa NAZI be allowed to go to his grandchild’s birthday. Screw the people he whacked, and the grandchildren they never had as a result, or the grandchildren that never saw their grandparents because Granpa NAZI whacked them.

Yep, all sounds warm and fuzzy to me.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Honestly Badger, the nazi story this post started with is really the least of the things Carter has done wrong, and perhaps the most justified on an emotional level.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
ChrisB,

Really? So it’s okay to slander people if you think they’ve done other things that are worse than what you’re accusing them of? What a pathetic dodge. It’s either responsible to make such insinuations or it isn’t.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Anyone can choose to respect Jimmy Carter even though he is a vindictive, spiteful anti-semite.


That kind of damnable lie helps real anti-semites because it makes that charge seem pointless — that anyone who is against right wing Israeli policies is an anti-semite. Most of the Israeli peace movement would be anti-semetic if Carter is. Sheesh.

The only substantive complaint you make about Carter other than what seems to be a silly rant is that he didn’t speak out more strongly about anomolies in Chavez’s election. But I do recall the story being out there and Carter’s group making the report, so I don’t really think even that is accurate.

You’ve got name calling, but nothing in the way of fact. That’s typical for smear artists.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So, until then, they can bomb Israel back to the table, is that it?
Don’t be silly, of course Carter would prefer they didn’t, but he knows they will, and at the very least he wants them to absolutely commit to stopping any of that when certain conditions are meant.

It’s called dealing with reality rather than fantasy. The two sides are fighting, neither side is going to unilaterally stop while the other is active, thus they need a process and a framework for having an agreement to stop.

Also, Carter never told the Palestinians that the attacks were justified as Chris B. claims. That is an absolute lie, and you know it. That’s the kind of thing that discredits completely the kind of smears launched against Carter. Seriously, you guys haven’t come up with anything of substance yet! It’s breathtaking how in general you all can accuse and insult, but nobody comes up with anything real, except an obvious lie (a claim he supports terrorism) and a rather mild claim that he should have said more about problems in Chavez’s election.

He is arguing for morality and reason in foreign policy. That’s something we’ve not had for awhile!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Don’t be silly, of course Carter would prefer they didn’t, but he knows they will, and at the very least he wants them to absolutely commit to stopping any of that when certain conditions are meant.
Don’t be silly? So, wow, the world class leader tells the Palestinians to stop blowing things up if their demands are met? Nay! They must commit to it!
Well, yeeeeeee-haaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwww! Wow, what a world shaking revolutionary idea that is!
Sort of like saying - "The sun rises in the east!", it’s so profound.

What he hasn’t done is told them that terrorism isn’t a bargaining method.
There’s no framework in ’stop blowing things up if you get what you want’.
If that’s your world class negotiator at work then I’m in the wrong line of work here.
I mean what alternative is there to "when you get what you want, stop blowing things up" - "when you get what you want, continue to blow things up"?

And suppose (as they’ve proven, via elections in the last couple of years,) they want something they can’t possibly have?
You know, like all the nice Jews migrate west until they have 20 feet of seawater between them and the surface, leaving all the land to the nice Palestinians.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Carter never told the Palestinians that the attacks were justified as Chris B. claims.
Really? Cause I provided you with his own words stating the opposite.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Carter never told the Palestinians that the attacks were justified as Chris B. claims.
Really? Cause I provided you with his own words stating the opposite.
No you didn’t. You are lying.

This is what you posted from Carter:

"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."
Saying they must make it clear they will end something if conditions are meant is not the same as saying the attacks are justified. You are completely and utterly dishonest in your claim. Face it, Carter is arguing on moral and ethical grounds, and he recognizes that the Israelis and Palestinians have linked destinies. Neither one can "win" a military struggle, they have to find a way to live together. He’s looking for that solution, with great wisdom. But hey, if you don’t like what he says, you can always post lies on the internet. There is no accountability.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Lying - ah, the magic trump card.

No Scott, he just sees the Nimitz Class Carrier hole in Carter’s choice of words, as do many others here.
You just chose to read Carter’s intent to mean he’s saying something he didn’t say in this quote.
Even if it can be argued that Carter isn’t specifically condoning terrorism with this statement, it certainly cannot be argued that he is forthrightly telling them it isn’t acceptable.

If you believe it does, I encourage you to demonstrate that before you continue to tell them their interpretation is not as valid as yours.

No matter how I read Carter’s phrase, I can’t get out of the IF/THEN condition he’s established.
There’s always a possible ELSE condition for an IF. In the real world where things aren’t on or off, there’s usually more than one, and one ELSE condition here is that things continue to blow up until Israel agrees to what Palestine wants.

Show me how it cannot be before you throw the word lie around again.

Or not, as you said, there’s no accountability.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You’re arguing with a person who finds it "laughable" that Carter asked the US government to "give special consideration" for leniency to a Nazi SS guard who, according to German documents, personally killed Jews at the Mauthausen concentration camp.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
anyone who is against right wing Israeli policies is an anti-semite.
No, Jimmy Carter is. No one said anything about anyone else. See the multiple, purposeful falsehoods slandering Israel in his new book in support of the charge that he is an anti-semite.
what seems to be a silly rant is that he didn’t speak out more strongly about anomolies in Chavez’s election. But I do recall the story being out there and Carter’s group making the report, so I don’t really think even that is accurate.
What are you talking about? Can you read? You obviously need to be spoon fed. Carter explicitly certified the Chavez election as fair and accurate. The title of his August 2004 WSJ op-ed piece is "Venezuela’s Voters Have Spoken: Hugo Chávez won fair and square." The Executive Summary of his report entitled, "Observing the Venezuela Presidential Recall Referendum: Comprehensive Report" claims that "It is the Carter Center’s finding that the official results reflect the will of the Venzuelan electorate as expressed on Aug. 15, 2004" (look on page 14). That report is dated February 2005, which was five months after his own expert publicly stated that the election results were invalid and it is still on the Carter Center website as of January 19, 2007. It is still there in spite of the fact that there is real evidence that the election was stolen (see the findings of two ivy league statisticians who claim that there is a 99% chance that the results were manipulated by Chavez). Carter hasn’t recanted or acknowledged these problems. He continues to vouch for the validity of an election stolen by a virulently anti-American dictator. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for Carter to continue to sanction Chavez’s malfeasance. It is merely one example of many showing how Carter willfully and purposefully undermines the interests of this country.

In the real world that is called a factually supported argument. In the ivory tower it is called a "silly rant."

 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
See the multiple, purposeful falsehoods slandering Israel in his new book in support of the charge that he is an anti-semite.
I haven’t seen any "slanders," and hurling the charge of anti-semitism because of criticisms of a state’s policy is pathetically ridiculous. And again, it only helps the real anti-semites because it makes it look like a thuggish gang is out to attack anyone who dares criticize Israel and Israel’s influence on US policy — the rather large Israeli peace movement is far more radical in its criticism of Israeli policy than Carter, are they anti-semetic? Calling Carter an anti-semite is dishonest and ridiculous.

And so all you can say against him is that he should not have verified Chavez’s victory? But even with anomalies, nobody I know of doubts that Chavez won fair and square. He’s relatively popular. Face it, you have nothing against Carter except you disagree with him, and because of that you launch vicious dishonest attacks. I find that pathetic and out of touch with reality.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Congratulations Scott. You just proved once again that facts don’t matter to liberals.

Perhaps nobody you know doubts that Chavez won fair and square, but the statistics expert retained by Carter himself does. While Chavez may be "relatively popular", he apparently wasn’t popular enough to win the recall election. Now that he has consolidated his power he’s not going away any time soon and we have Mr. Carter to thank in part for that. As for "vicious dishonest attacks" I don’t know what you are referring to. I merely cited factual evidence showing that Chavez stole the recall election and that Carter has offically vouched for it despite his own expert’s analysis. And far from being "anomalies", statisticians who have analysed the results say that there is a 99% chance the official election returns were fraudulent.

And yes, I admit, I don’t like Chavez. Unlike Carter, I don’t like power hungry communist dictators who seek to emulate Fidel Castro.

And no, the Chavez nonsense is not even remotely "all I can say" about Carter. I only mentioned that one example because it requires so much effort to explain the obvious to you. And now it is clear that the effort was expended to no avail. Your mind is made up and the facts can’t change it. You didn’t provide a single fact supporting your claim that there were mere "anomalies" in the recall election. Nor did you provide any factual, logical basis for Carter continuing to vouch for the fairness of an election that his own expert has determined to be fraudulent. You claimed that the original comment in this thread criticising Carter for his role in this mess wasn’t accurate and yet I spelled out the obvious irrefutable facts that show it was accurate. On his website, Carter continues to knowingly and fruadulently vouch for a communist dictator who stole an election

I am always surprised when people sacrifice their own credibility to defend the indefensible (see Bill Clinton and his defenders). Instead of finding the factually surported argument that I laid out for you and (to which you failed to substantively respond) "pathetic" why don’t you reflect on why you feel the need to deny reality in defense of such a small and petty man like Jimmy Carter.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
Perhaps nobody you know doubts that Chavez won fair and square, but the statistics expert retained by Carter himself does.
Your "proof" had one statistical expert supposedly recanting his support for a position. If that’s the best attack you can make against Carter, then you really have nothing! Your links don’t make the case you claim they make.

And, of course, you can’t show any slander against Israel. The real tragedy is that there is a group of attack dogs in the media punditry that will go after anyone who dares criticize Israel. The fact is that Israel shares a lot of blame with Palestinian groups for the problems, and Israeli treatment of Palestinians has been humilitating, denied basic human rights, and has bred a situation where terrorism is probably an inevitable result. Ultimately if the Israelis and Palestinians don’t recognize their mutual blame in the situation, and embrace the fact that they need to find a way to live together, neither can live in peace.

Israel’s continued existence is not a sure thing if Hezbollah and other groups continue to gain in strength, and if Islamic extremism develops more sophisticated terror tactics, perhaps with WMD. But if Israel is destroyed, the Palestinian people will be destroyed as well, and so will much of the Mideast. Their destinies are linked, they share blame, you can’t say one side is to blame and the other the victim — yet both sides want to whitewash themselves and blame the other side. They’ll get the reality they deserve if they keep on with this, and I think the US should stay out of it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Your links don’t make the case you claim they make.
You’re kidding right? Did you read them? I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you are just BS-ing when you say that because the only other alternative is that you really can’t read. I quoted the executive summary from the Carter Center report on the Venezulean election and provided a link. I also quoted from Carter’s op-ed piece regarding the election. Again, that link says exactly what I said it does.
Your "proof" had one statistical expert supposedly recanting his support for a position.
Wrong, the American Thinker article to which I linked specifically names four experts who have analyzed the election results and determined that they were fraudulent. Open up, here comes the spoon. That AT article specifically says, "And two Venezuelan professors, including one from MIT, and another from Harvard have issued their own report, concluding that there is at least a 99% chance that the election result was a fraud" (they were Ricardo Hausmann and Roberto Rigobon) and cites Bill Clinton’s pollster, Doug Shoen, as an expert who gathered data that showed Chavez lost. Specifically, AT says "Schoen’s firm, which was hired by an opposition group in Venezuela, conducted pre—election surveys, and also undertook a large exit poll on the day of the Chavez recall. His pre—election surveys indicated that those who wanted to recall Chavez were ahead by at least 10%, and gaining momentum. In his exit poll, the margin for the anti—Chavez side grew to 18%. Schoen expressed disbelief when the results showed that Chavez retained his office by the same 18% margin." This WSJ story says
An exit poll done by the prominent U.S. polling firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates showed 59% of voters opposed to Chávez and only 41% in favor. (Messrs. Penn and Schoen both worked for Bill Clinton in his 1996 re-election bid.) Raj Kumar, a principal at the polling firm, told me Thursday that the firm has gone back to try to explain the 34-point spread between the PSB poll and the results announced by the government. "While there are certainly biases that can impact any exit poll, we do not see any factor that could account for such a significant difference," he said.
AT also lists Carter’s own expert, Jonathan Taylor, and he didn’t "supposedly" recant. He did in fact recant. He also demanded that the Carter Center remove his name from their website. The American Thinker article links to this article which says
A group of Venezuelan engineers and experts in mathematics rebutted the statement of U.S. statistician Jonathan Taylor, on whose researches The Carter Center based to claim that no fraud was committed in the August 15 revoking referendum on President Hugo Chávez, and Taylor publicly backed down in his web page (www.stat.standford.edu/jtaylo/) and admitted he was wrong. Jorge Rodríguez, a spokesman for the group, previously said they sent Taylor a mathematic model the engineer Elio Valladared developed to show Taylor that is was highly unlikely that similar results were obtained in 336 different voting stations, as Taylor ensured. Rodríguez added that Taylor sent him an e-mail admitting: "I have realized my model was wrong."
The WSJ article linked above also says
A Venezuelan who is a former U.N. deputy high commissioner of human rights wrote of his suspicions in Wednesday’s International Herald Tribune (right beside a pro-Chávez New York Times editorial, by the way). Enrique ter Horst cited as cause for concern the fact that "the papers the new machines produced . . . were not added up and compared with the final numbers these machines produce at the end of the voting process, as the voting-machine manufacturer had suggested."
This Wikipedia entry also lists an analysis by U.S. News and World Report and the Center for Security Policy as finding fraud as well.

So you’re wrong again. The links I provided support my case if you actually read them and there is more than one "expert" who disputes the recall election. Here comes the spoon again. Outside the ivory tower, Taylor, Hausmann, Rigobon, Schoen, ter Horst, the group of Venzuelan engineers, USNWR, CSP add up to more than "one statistical expert." I’m done. I can be just as persistent as you but I’ve wasted enough time on this nonsense so I refer to the link provided in McQ’s post listing several of Carter’s slanders against Israel. Kenneth Stein mainatains that there are many others but I no longer have the desire to continue. Don’t read that article either and then you can pretend they don’t exist. We know your story and you’re sticking to it.

 
Written By: Jt007
URL: http://
So all you can do is claim that some people found fraud in Venezuala’s election (though not necessarily enough to shape the outcome), and that’s the best attack you can make on Carter? There are also many experts that claim fraud in America’s 2000 and even 2004 elections.

But really, if that’s the most powerful evidence against Carter you can find — that he didn’t believe those who claimed fraud in Venezuala, and believed those who thought the election generally fair — it’s a pretty meager attack. Don’t you have anything else? I haven’t seen any slander against Israel; indeed, most of what Carter says about Israel is accurate. Perhaps some take an opinion about the nature of Israeli actions as slander (the idea that any criticism is a slander), but I find that absurd.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
(though not necessarily enough to shape the outcome)
Wrong again. You really are like Monty Python’s Black Knight. First, you said that the articles I linked to didn’t say what I claimed they said so I provided quotes that showed they did. You then said that only one expert challenged the election results and I provided you with the names of five individuals, one group of Venezuelan citizens and two organizations that challenged the results (there are more, but I only had time for a cursory search). Every lame argument you have made has been refuted.

Read what Schoen’s company found. Read the Wikipedia entry. Read what Hausmann and Rigobon found. Read the WSJ and the AT articles linked above. The analyses showed not just that there was fraud but that the fraud was significant enough that it altered the outcome of the election. Read them. Don’t just pretend that you did. These critics say that the "audit" that Carter signed off on was a joke and that they didn’t follow the standard procedures established by the manufacturer of the voting machines so they didn’t really audit anything.

That is why Carter’s certification was a joke. He just took Chavez’s and his cronies’ word for it and then went out to the world and vouched for the accuracy of the election. You’re wrong on this one. Maybe your not wrong all the time, but you are on this one.

And as far as slandering Israel, Carter’s statements of "opinion" clearly meet the definition of libel. I am too tired to go into libel law but I just got done litigating a multi million dollar trade libel suit against Aetna insurance and I know libel law better than I ever thought I would. There are multiple reasons that Israel could not sustain a libel action here, but it isn’t because Carter is expressing "opinion." And yes you could find a lawyer who would argue the opposite because that is what we do. I’d clean their clock on that one though. Just go enjoy your weekend. Donate some money to the Carter Center while you’re at it. But, Carter is not a great man and he really has done this country harm even if you refuse to admit it.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
I don’t agree with your interpretation, and the fact you just look to a few sources who didn’t agree with the general consensus on the Chavez election, but really the fact you hang on this issue proves my point.

All the venom against Carter, all the wild claims, and all you have is a dispute about an election in South America which he and many experts thought fair, and some experts disputed? That’s it?!

I’ve been asking the anti-Carter attack dogs to justify their claims, and that’s all you can find?! Sheesh.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
he and many experts thought fair,
Which ones? More importantly what do those experts base their opinion on? Why is their analysis more accurate than Schoen’s? Also, Carter didn’t audit the election, he just took Chavez’s cronies word for it.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider