December 21, 2006

Jimmy Carter -- Bought And Paid For

I once believed that Jimmy Carter was the most decent -- and least competent -- president of my lifetime. Sadly, only the latter judgment now stands in light of the despicable book he has recently published, a work that can only be labeled as anti-Semitic.

Now we find out a possible motivation -- Jimmy Carter has been beholden to Arab and Muslim money for his personal financial prosperity, as well as the ongoing support of his Carter Center. And these connections date back to the earliest days of his failed presidency.

Between 1976-1977, the Carter family peanut business received a bailout in the form of a $4.6 million, "poorly managed" and highly irregular loan from the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). According to a July 29, 1980 Jack Anderson expose in The Washington Post, the bank's biggest borrower was Mr. Carter, and its chairman at that time was Mr. Carter's confidant, and later his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.

At that time, Mr. Lance's mismanagement of the NBG got him and the bank into trouble. Agha Hasan Abedi, the Pakistani founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), known as the bank "which would bribe God," came to Mr. Lance's rescue making him a $100,000-a-year consultant. Abedi then declared: "we would never talk about exploiting his relationship with the president." Next, he introduced Mr. Lance to Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon, who fronted for BCCI and the Saudi royal family. In January 1978, Abedi paid off Mr. Lance's $3.5 million debt to the NBG, and Pharaon secretly gained control over the bank.

Mr. Anderson wrote: "Of course, the Saudis remained discretely silent... kept quiet about Carter's irregularities... [and] renegotiated the loan to Carter's advantage."

There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from the Saudis. But "according to... the bank files, [it] renegotiated the repayment terms... savings... $60,000 for the Carter family... The President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest beneficiary." Pharaon later contributed generously to the former president's library and center.

When Mr. Lance introduced Mr. Carter to Abedi, the latter gave $500,000 to help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later, Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects. Even after BCCI was indicted — and convicted -— for drug money laundering, Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his "good friend."

Such a connection is clearly scandalous, carrying with it an appearance of impropriety if not an actual impropriety in the dealing of preferential treatment to Carter and his family.

And the financial connections continue with the founding and support of the Carter Center.

Carter is a major recipient of aid from the Saudis, for instance. Before his death in 2005, King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center and gave Carter several million-dollar donations. In 1993 alone, King Fahd presented Carter with a gift of $7.6 million. And the king was definitely not alone in his largesse. As of 2005, the kingÂ’s high-living nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, has donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center...that we know about.

The Saudi Fund for Development, the kingdomÂ’s leading loan organization and one of the sources of money for all those hardline mosques and madrassahs shows up repeatedly on the Carter centerÂ’s list of supporters. Carter has also taken money from the Bin Laden family - in 2000 he secured a pledge from the bin-Laden family for a $1 million contribution to his center.

Another big source of funds for Carter has been the United Arab Emirates. In 2001, Carter went to Dubai - a country where Jews are not permitted by law, incidentally - to accept the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, named for Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the late UAE sheik and founder of the government funded Zayed Center, the source of some of the most virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda in the world. Among other things, the Zayed Center took a book written by a French author claiming that 9/11 was an inside job by the CIA and the Mossad, translated into Arabic and distributed it throughout the entire Middle East. And the Zayed Center is a prime benefactor and host to Holocaust deniers of all persuasions.

Carter got a $500,000 prize from these people, and when he spoke at the awards ceremony,he gushed that the "award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan."

Carter still receives an annual personal stipend from the Zayed Center.

Carter's book has been panned by most reviewers -- indeed, the only positive reviews I have read have come to me from my former troll, KKKen Hoop (whose rampant anti-Semitism and general hate-mongering finally got him banned). Carter, of course, complains that this is due to the influence of Israel and Jews in American politics and publishing. Indeed, Carter claims that he is just seeking to promote debate on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians, and that no college or university with a large Jewish enrollment will invite him to speak.

The former complaint, of course, is an anti-Semitic canard of long-standing -- and the latter is a lie.

Which brings us to Alan Dershowitz's piece in today's Boston Globe, challenging Carter on his refusal to debate the issues he raises after being invited to do so by Brandeis University, a school founded by Jews with a high concentration of Jewish students.

When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.

In other words, Carter finds it necessary to resort to lies and slander to discredit his opponents. What he really wants is a free platform to lecture Jews about the evils of the Jews, free from rebuttal by a Jew. I agree with the assessment Dershowitz makes of Carter's refusal of an offer that meets his earlier criteria -- he is a bully who is afraid of anyone who might stand up to him and his lies and distortions.

And I'll take it a step further -- he is afraid that his disgraceful sell-out of an American ally will be exposed, and that the world will see that there is really little difference between his views of Israel and Jews and those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and David Duke.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 1278 words, total size 8 kb.

1 He has received about 3% as much as the Bush family.  Good try to smear a great man, though.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 21 15:55:59 2006 (IU21y)

2

"Such a connection is clearly scandalous, carrying with it an appearance of impropriety "


I think that said it.  I like the movie, A man for all seasons, especially the scene where he tossed the silver goblet in the water, having recognized it as a bribe.  It's a shame that level of moral fiber isn't present in most elected servants of the people.


Posted by: T F Stern at Fri Dec 22 02:38:51 2006 (z1IoH)

3 Care to document that, Dan -- and the same level of mendacity and anti-Semitism on the part of the Bush family?

Jimmy Carter has embraced Arafat, Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and the murderous regime in Beijing and rejected those who label them as dictators or terrorists -- but he engages in blood libel against Israel, the one fully democratic state in the Middle East, and one that offers full rights to its citizens regardless of religion.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 22 02:47:43 2006 (T4PbY)

4 And as for calling Jimmy Carter a "great man" -- I think his current activity calls into question whether or not he is even a "good man".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 22 03:13:44 2006 (T4PbY)

5 No problem documenting that, my friend. Most people are already quite aware that the House of Saud and Bush families are symbiotic cancers on the rest of us. Actually, Carter has gotten quite a bit less than 3% of the $1.5 billion the Bush cabal has received. Go read http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/03/12/unger_2/index.html

Posted by: Dan at Sat Dec 23 15:01:00 2006 (IU21y)

6 The only problem with Unger is that he ignores the fact that folks in the oil industry are going to publicly and in an above-board fashion have contacts and business relations with other folks in the oil industry.

Where are the sweetheart loans, or the annual retainer paid to the Bushes -- you know, the deals carter has.

Oh, and where is their record of anti-Semitism of the sort that Carter is spewing forth like a senile Nazi.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 23 16:27:33 2006 (Vf/mU)

7 You asked for your documentation, and I provided it. Now you're making excuses, claiming that Bush's baseball team bail-out and history of taking money and being in thrall to the House of Saud is above-board. Umm, yeah. Sure, Bush is always blameless. What't the point?

Now, go ahead, lie and claim that Carter, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize noted humanitarian, is an anti-Semite. It's easy to make such a silly charge, but I won't do the same. It's weak, silly, and morally bankrupt to make such charges when your evidence consists solely of the voices in your head.

You have never produced a shred of evidence that Carter is anti-Semitic, because it simply is not true. Disagreeing with Israeli policies is not anti-Semitic.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Dec 26 01:48:57 2006 (IU21y)

8 Dan, Carter leaves teh Holocaust out of his most recent book when he documents the history of the Jewish people -- sounds like Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism to me.

Carter is blaming the Jews for their own victimization at the hands of the Arabs, and criticizing them for defending themselves. again, sounds like anti-Semitism to me.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 26 04:40:01 2006 (lTgge)

9 And besides -- what else do you call someone who claims they can't get a fair hearing because Jews control the media and the government?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 26 04:56:00 2006 (rJ+HS)

10 RWR - you're being ignorant, or willfully stupid. Jimmy Carter is not a denier of the holocaust - he's the president who set up the US Holocaust Memorial. And, again, disagreeing with Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism. And you're lying when you say that he claimed that the Jews control the media and the government - why would you lie about something like that?

(Sorry to be harsh in my language on this one, but, really, I don't know how else to describe the nonsensical positions you are taking . . . When I call you ignorant, willfully stupid, and accuse you of lying, I mean it in the kindest possible manner.)

Posted by: Dan at Tue Dec 26 13:47:54 2006 (IU21y)

11 And so essentially leaving the Holocaust out of the history of the Jews in his latest book is what -- an oversight? Maybe it would be fairer to say that he is a Holocaust minimizer, do you think -- just not considering it important enough to include.

And if you don't like my summary of Carter's LA Times column, too bad -- it amounts to "the Jews control American politics and media." How would you interpret that?

But then again, I have offered time for a different view of Jimmy Carter from a Rabbi who argues that Carter is not an anti-Semite.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 26 15:33:02 2006 (sEfvJ)

12 Have you read the book? The chapter is broadening the reader's knowledge of Jewish history, not trying to meet your PC expectations of exactly what must be described and how. When the founder of the Holocaust Memorial writes of the history of the Jews, the Holocaust may be fairly accepted as common ground. It's like complaining that you ignore the sacrifices of the Revolutionary War whenever you write about America and neglect to mention it. And for you to take it the extra step and claim that Jimmmy Carter is denying the Holocaust is simply intellectually dishonest and dishonorable. Really. Think about it, and that uneasiness you'll feel is the beginning of the emotion called "shame".

As for the LA Times column - we'll have to agree to disagree - but at least I have the consolation of knowing that the column does not, in fact, say what you say it says. If it did, you could quote something from the column to support your lie, but you can't.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Dec 27 00:39:58 2006 (IU21y)

13 I've also not read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the Turner Diaries -- but I'll accept the contention of others that they are anti-Semitic.

And as far as leaving out the American Revolution -- if I did a history of America from 1492 forward and left out the American Revolution, there would indeed be a problem and i would certainly deserve to be called on ignoring it.

And i feel no shame at all, for I believe Carter's work to be at least functionally anti-Semitic, as I stated in my piece on the Boteach column.

And as for the LA Times column -- the statements about AIPAC, the complaints that his reviews have come from members of mainstream Jewish organizations, and that the media has failed to give his book the coverage it deserves all boil down to "the Jews control the government and the media". I think it is reasonable to say that is the message of paragraphs 3-8. Carter just wasn't crude enough to say it in the manner of a David Duke of Ken Hoop.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 27 04:45:15 2006 (wwuow)

14 Hah. Busted.

I knew that you didn't know what you were talking about, but I didn't expect it to be so easy to prove.

Your "boiling down" of the LA Times column is a lie - he never said what you say he said, and you can boil it all you like, but it will never say that.

To sum up, you're accusing someone of anti-Semitism without ever reading what he wrote, and without being able to accurately summarize what you did read.

I agree, though, that you are shameless.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Dec 27 11:46:12 2006 (IU21y)

15 I disagree, Dan -- the article does complain about Jewish influences in media and government preventing discussion of his issues.

And while I have not read the book, I have examined the timeline in question in the store and perused the book -- as well as watching several of his media interviews. I will continue continue to argue that what i have seen and heard constitutes nothing less than anti-Semitism -- although you and Carter may not recognize it as such. At best, Carter unintentionally gives aid and comfort to Jew-haters with his arguments.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 27 15:35:00 2006 (l1OwP)

16 And here is another good piece pointing to Carters lies and inaccuracies that serve the Jew-haters in the Middle East and elsewhere well.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881991986&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Or will you object that it is written by a Jew and published by a Jewish-owned paper in the Zionist state?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 29 04:30:45 2006 (7F2BZ)

17 No, but I will question why in the world you manage to do so much research about what other people are saying about a book you haven't read.

And, in all seriousness, I truly hope that you are not trying to imply that I am anti-Semitic.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Dec 29 07:23:20 2006 (n1xH/)

18 No, but I will question why in the world you manage to do so much research about what other people are saying about a book you haven't read. Especially when you are now quoting others who admit that they have not read the book, either.

And, in all seriousness, I truly hope that you are not trying to imply that I am anti-Semitic.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Dec 29 07:25:54 2006 (n1xH/)

19 Well, that is the sort of argument that would come out of Carter, based upon his LA Times piece.

And the argument made in the column I cite above is based just on teh Carter column, without even delving into his book.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 29 13:31:37 2006 (iIKcz)

20 Interestingly enough, Dan, Carter Center advisors and long-time associates are resigning from the board because they read his LA Times piece the same way I do -- and scholars on the Middle East connected with the Carter Center are severing their ties as well on the same basis.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 10:31:57 2007 (AT+mw)

21 Am I supposed to be impressed? Read the article, and form your own opinions. I support their right to disagree with President Carter's views. But don't make stuff up, which is what you did.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Jan 11 11:40:46 2007 (IU21y)

22 Actually, Dan, I have read the book and the articles. I made up not one thing -- and drew the same conclusion as these folks who were Carter associates.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jan 11 11:59:29 2007 (AT+mw)

Posted by: Albina-ag at Sat Nov 8 14:07:26 2008 (8ruZF)

Posted by: Albina-ir at Sat Nov 8 15:09:03 2008 (8ruZF)

Posted by: Albina-js at Tue Nov 11 21:14:22 2008 (0eVJN)

Posted by: Albina-no at Thu Nov 13 02:15:40 2008 (eNWVe)

Posted by: Albina-xv at Thu Nov 13 11:28:42 2008 (TH9pw)

Posted by: Albina-lb at Sat Nov 15 15:44:47 2008 (L6JoW)

Posted by: Albina-tz at Sat Nov 15 20:47:17 2008 (O7xWH)

Posted by: Albina-as at Thu Nov 27 17:11:15 2008 (TH9pw)

Posted by: Albina-ea at Fri Nov 28 06:16:40 2008 (UIWyl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
29kb generated in CPU 0.0289, elapsed 0.0219 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0151 seconds, 60 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]