December 4-6, 2006
Dec 04 03:49 Col. Peters Mocks 'Fabulous Baker Boys' Dec 05 00:49 CAIR's Double Standards Dec 05 01:52 BREAKING NEWS: LINCOLN WAS A BIGOT... Dec 05 04:45 Theater of the Absurd Dec 05 19:01 Dennis Prager Responds Dec 05 20:30 A Scary Glimpse Dec 06 01:39 All The Best, Leo Dec 06 05:49 Investigations: Racism Not a Factor in Flying Imam Fiasco Dec 06 19:17 Former Carter Aide: Carter Book Riddled "With Factual Errors"
Col. Peters Mocks 'Fabulous Baker Boys'
To say that Ralph Peters is mocking the Baker Commission's plan is understatement based on his NY Post column. Here's the biggest burr in Col. Peters' proverbial saddle:
The problem here is the composition of the panel headed by former Secretary of State James Baker. Not only does it drag yesteryear's Washington insiders out of the crypt, its make-up reveals the disgraceful extent to which our governing "elite" despises those in uniform. Why on earth wasn't a single retired military officer appointed to the Iraq Study Group? We're at war, for Heaven's sake. Briefly interviewing a few generals is no substitute for a steadying military voice amid the committee's naifs.It's obvious that this was a commission whose mission was to think of political solutions only. Congress cherrypicked the commission's members from a group of people whose main goal wasn't to win. They didn't want a serious-minded military man interested in winning to get in the way of their plan for getting the military out of Iraq without sounding like defeatists.
Based on his past history, Jim Baker doesn't care about winning or freedom. He's also predisposed to a Saudis-first worldview, as Col. Peters points out here:
What the Iraq Study Group does have is a staff with long ties to the Saudis. And Baker's own relationship with the Saudi royal family has been so accommodating that he often seemed more of a Saudi lobbyist than a U.S. official. He's got plenty of time for billionaire sheiks and princes, but none for American officers.It was Jim Baker who pushed the PLO-Israeli talks immediately after Operation Desert Storm. You'll recall that April Glaspie worked for Baker's State Department. Here's Glaspie's 'contribution' to history:
Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."In other words, Jim Baker's spinelessness towards Saddam led to their invasion of Kuwait. Had Baker given Glaspie orders to tell Saddam that the U.S. wouldn't tolerate the invasion of a sovereign nation, I suspect that Saddam would've thought twice about invading Kuwait.
This reveals Jim Baker's mindset in that he isn't as worried about principles like justice as he is with just avoiding dealing with difficult situations that might require a spine. In Jim Baker's world, bold initiatives should be avoided at all costs. In Jim Baker's world, timid 'kick-the-can-down-the-road' strategies should be employed whenever possible.
This is going to be Saudi Arabia's report (and Syria's, too; Baker never met a dictator he didn't like). Even Iran may get a nice slice of the pie. The study's underlying strategy will be to re-establish the sort of phony stability that gave us the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, both horses backed by Baker.Jim Baker is typical of Washington in the sense that he's operated as though ignoring longterm solutions is less desireable than timid half measures that solve nothing.
Originally posted Monday, December 4, 2006, revised 25-Dec 6:34 PM
No comments.
CAIR's Double Standards
Last week, I predicted that Dennis Prager would be get criticized for his column about Keith Ellison. This week, I'm proven right. Actually, it isn't just that he's being criticized. It's much worse:
A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called for the removal of a presidential appointee to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council because of his intolerant views toward Islam in American society.This is one of CAIR's time-tested techniques whenever anyone says anything that challenges their agenda. They simply try to silence the person rather than open up a discussion. On that note, I haven't seen proof that they've even sought to be on his show to challenge his column or debate this man to man. Everything that I've seen looks like proof that they simply want to silence Mr. Prager. They attempt to do this with a collection of quotes like this:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) urged that talk show host and columnist Dennis Prager be removed from the taxpayer-supported museum's council because of a recent syndicated column in which he wrote that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should be prevented from taking his oath of office using the Quran.
(President Bush recently appointed Prager to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the governing board of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, for the remainder of a five year term expiring January 15, 2011.)
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Prager's views "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American."I can think of many adjectives to describe Dennis Prager but misinformed isn't on that list. Here's what CAIR said about Prager in their official letter to Fred Zeidman, Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council:
"No one who holds such bigoted, intolerant and divisive views should be in a policymaking position at a taxpayer-funded institution that seeks to educate Americans about the destructive impact hatred has had, and continues to have, on every society. As a presidential appointee, Prager's continued presence on the council would send a negative message to Muslims worldwide about America's commitment to religious tolerance."I didn't detect any concern on CAIR's behalf of sending a negative message when they protested the LA billboard "describing Osama bin Laden as 'the sworn enemy,'" which they described as "offensive to Muslims'". Likewise, CAIR didn't consider the fact that Jews might find CAIR's attempt to get Dennis Prager fired from a Holocaust memorial board as an act of intolerance towards their community. They also didn't seem concerned about sending an offensive message to still-nervous Americans when they took the flying imams' side without knowing all of the facts involved. It's fair to characterize their reaction as one lacking in concern about airline security in a post-9/11 world.
Based solely on their words immediately after that incident, it's safe to say that they were most concerned about civil rights issues. Based on the information that came out later, it isn't unreasonable to question whether this was a staged thing. Here's the information that came out earlier:
Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.I find it more than a little too convenient to believe that John Conyers was able to write a Sense of the House resolution in less than a day. It's also interesting that he's planning on holding hearings on the matter in light of this information:
Working with Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act , and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).Forgive me if I don't see this as coincidence.
Posted Tuesday, December 5, 2006 1:11 AM
No comments.
BREAKING NEWS: LINCOLN WAS A BIGOT...
Prior to this afternoon, I thought I'd heard almost everything. After this afternoon, I'm now certain that I've heard everything. Check out this exchange during Rush's show:
CALLER: I hope before you die you learn what a racist and a bigot and a power-hungry maniac he was.Talk about the theater of the absurd. The man who fought a war to abolish slavery was a bigot? I don't know what type of drugs that caller was using but they had to be awfully powerful to cause that type of delusional thinking. You'd think that that was this caller's only claim to shame but it wasn't:
RUSH: I'm the racist and the bigot?
CALLER: I didn't say you were. I said he was!
RUSH: Oh. Abraham Lincoln? How in the world you can call a guy who ended slavery a racist and a bigot? I have heard everything now. Everything, in 22 years of hosting this program, I have heard everything.
CALLER: How about the preservation of the Constitution, shouldn't that be predominant?According to this caller, not only is President Lincoln a bigot but the South is occupied territory. Occupied by Americans, no less. His points are so absurd that I almost feel sorry for the guy. Still, it was great theater and I'm glad I was able to listen to it live.
RUSH: Look, you still want to secede? What's your solution?
CALLER: We have no choice, we're under occupation now. The thing about it is you still have to lie about Abraham Lincoln to prove your, to make your point.
Posted Tuesday, December 5, 2006 1:54 AM
No comments.
Theater of the Absurd
Hearing Kofi Annan making assinine remarks doesn't usually get my attention. After all, he's said some pretty assinine things. That said, this headline got my undivided attention:
Annan: Life Worse for Iraqis Now Than During Saddam's RuleFrankly, this should tell any sane-thinking person that Kofi Annan's UN is a travesty because they don't have a grip on reality. NONE. PERIOD. In order to understand today's Iraq, we first need to understand what Ken Joseph, Jr. saw when he went to Iraq to be a human shield prior to this war. It's worth noting that Father Joseph was a peace activist who didn't want war. He wasn't part of the 'Neocon Cabal' by any stretch of the imagination. Here's what he wrote in an article titled "I Was Wrong":
The first order of business was to attend Church. It was here where my morals were raked over the coals and I was first forced to examine them in the harsh light of reality.Imagine someone wishing for war to come. It's hard to fathom, isn't it? Yet that's exactly what this Assyrian Christian church was literally praying for. These next paragraphs will explain why:
Following a beautiful 'Peace' to welcome the Peace Activists in which even the children participated, we moved to the next room to have a simple meal. Sitting next to me was an older man who carefully began to sound me out. Apparently feeling the freedom to talk in the midst of the mingling crowd he suddenly turned to me and said "There is something you should know." "What", I asked surprised at the sudden comment.
"We didn't want to be here tonight", he continued. "When the Priest asked us to gather for a Peace Service we said we didn't want to come", He said. "What do you mean", I inquired, confused. "We didn't want to come because we don't want peace", he replied. "What in the world do you mean?" I asked. "How could you not want peace?" "We don't want peace. We want the war to come", he continued.
Simply put, those living in Iraq, the common, regular people are in a living nightmare. From the terror that would come across the faces of my family at a unknown visitor, telephone call, knock at the door I began to realize the horror they lived with every day.Now that you've seen what life in Saddam's Iraq was like, now let's view Kofi Annan's statement against that backdrop:
Over and over I questioned them "Why could you want war? Why could any human being desire war?" They're answer was quiet and measured. "Look at our lives! "We are living like animals. No food, no car, no telephone, no job and most of all no hope."
In the BBC interview, Annan agreed when it was suggested that some Iraqis believe life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein's regime. "I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," Annan said. "If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?' "And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control. The society needs security and a secure environment for it to get on, without security not much can be done, not recovery or reconstruction."What Kofi Annan doesn't tell you is that, while the "averge Iraqi" could send their kids to school, the truth is that there wasn't a guarantee that the parents wouldn't be taken by Saddam and killed or tortured. Remember the stories about Uday's and Qusay's rape rooms? Kofi Annan doesn't want you to remember them because that doesn't fit into his anti-Bush tirade. Here's what happened fairly regularly in Saddam's Iraq:
After months of recovering from an attempt on his life that put eight bullets in his left side, Uday Hussein, the eldest son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, was ready to party. At his first outing in 1998, at the posh Jadriyah Equestrian Club, he used high-powered binoculars to survey the crowd of friends and family from a platform high above the guests. He saw something he liked, recalls his former aide Adib Shabaan, who helped arrange the party. Uday tightened the focus on a pretty 14-year-old girl in a bright yellow dress sitting with her father, a former provincial governor, her mother and her younger brother and sister.In Kofi's vision of Saddam's Iraq, this sort of thing was rationalized away or totally ignored. Forgive me if I don't buy into the rationalizations or the ignoring of these heinous actions. They simply aren't the type of thing I'm willing to overlook just to make a tyrant fit into my agenda. They're the types of things that the world's leaders have gotten all too good at ignoring. NO MORE. I can't stop them from ignoring what happened in Saddam's Iraq but I can do something that won't allow them to ignore what happened without the facts being out there in plain sight.
Uday's bodyguards picked up the signal and walked through the darkened room, flicking cigarette lighters as they approached the girl's table. Uday, then 33, flipped on his too, confirming they had identified the right one. When the girl left the table for the powder room, Uday's bodyguards approached her with a choice, says Shabaan, who was Uday's business manager. She could ascend the platform now and congratulate Uday on his recovery, or she could call him on his private phone that night. Flustered, she apologized and said her parents would allow neither. One of the guards replied, "This is the chance of your life" and promised she would receive diamonds and a car. "All you have to do is go up there for 10 minutes," he urged. When she demurred again, the bodyguards pursued Uday's backup plan. They maneuvered the girl in the direction of the parking lot, picked her up and carried her to the backseat of Uday's car, covering her mouth to muffle her screams.
After three days the girl was returned to her home, with a new dress, a new watch and a large sum of cash. Her parents had her tested for rape; the result was positive. According to Shabaan's account, Uday heard she had been tested and sent aides to the clinic, where they warned doctors not to report a rape.
No more will I let these disgusting and, frankly, evil, things from getting swept under the rug. They're going to be put front and center every time I hear a Kofi Annan or a Hans Blix or a Howard Dean say that Iraq is worse off now than under Saddam. Simply put, they can't believe that if they've got a soul or a conscience, especially not when they have this information staring them in the face.
Let's compare today's Iraq with Saddam's Iraq another way. During Saddam's reign, Chemical Ali gased "average Iraqis" without giving it a second thought. During Saddam's reign, Uday's and Qusay's rape rooms were open whenever they ordered them open. (How can anyone with a soul think that this is happening today?)
In today's Iraq, you have violence in the Sunni Triangle but relative calm everywhere else. Infrastructure that Saddam ignored is being rebuilt, albeit at far too slow a pace.
Simply put, serious people can't take Kofi Annan's bitter statements at face value, at least when they have the facts staring them in the face.
Posted Tuesday, December 5, 2006 4:50 AM
No comments.
Dennis Prager Responds
Dennis Prager, the man who touched off a firestorm from the PC Police, has written another column to respond to their vitriolic charges. I strongly recommend you read the entire article. Here's what stood out to me:
So, for those who do cherish dialogue, including those on the Left who have trained themselves to avoid thought by merely choosing from a list of epithets, "racist," "bigoted," "homophobic," "Islamophobic," "sexist," "xenophobic," "fascist", here are my responses to the most frequently offered objections to my piece:Thank you, Dennis Prager, for stating the sorry state of debate on the far left. This 'technique' is also used by CAIR and others in the Muslim community, as is the case here:
"No one who holds such bigoted, intolerant and divisive views should be in a policymaking position at a taxpayer-funded institution that seeks to educate Americans about the destructive impact hatred has had, and continues to have, on every society. As a presidential appointee, Prager's continued presence on the council would send a negative message to Muslims worldwide about America's commitment to religious tolerance."CAIR doesn't address Mr. Prager's arguments. Instead, they open by accusing Mr. Prager of being bigoted and intolerant. What's striking is that they didn't attempt to show why Mr. Prager's views were wrong. They simply jump to namecalling.
Doesn't that strike you as an odd thing to do for an organization that "organizes regular conferences and training seminars for government and law enforcement agencies, media professionals and the academic community" and that "strives to educate others about Islam while building strong relationships with other faith communities"?Let me frame it differently. How do you "strive to educate others about Islam" when your first response to a differing viewpoint is to start calling that person names? At best, that seems counterproductive to me. A skeptic might even say that such a response is a Freudian slip, a glimpse of their true nature and purpose. To be certain, it raises doubts about CAIR's purpose in their communications.
Likewise, it raises questions about what CAIR's goals are. Are they truly committed to "building strong relationships with other faith communities" or are they more committed to silencing and shouting down their critics?
Their actions going forward, not their words, will answer that question.
Posted Tuesday, December 5, 2006 7:04 PM
No comments.
A Scary Glimpse
This past Sunday's interview on FNS isn't the first time that Steven Breyer has given us a glimpse into the mindset of an activist justice but it's scary nonetheless. Here's the most stunningly scary portion:
BREYER: No, I think it's the contrary. You see, it takes place in a context. I think whether you are a judge on my court or whether you are a judge on a court of appeals or any court, and lawyers too, and if you're interested in law yourself, you'll be in the same situation, you have a text that isn't clear. If the text is clear, you follow the text. If the text isn't clear, you have to work out what it means. And that requires context.Justice Breyer is just plain wrong when he says "you don't know its entire content, and it doesn't tell you itself." Quite the contrary. If the Founding Fathers wanted specific restrictions put on free speech, they would've codified them into the First Amendment. That they didn't should tell Justice Breyer that they meant not to put petty policy restrictions on free speech.
The freedom of speech. Do you know what it means? Basically. But you don't know its entire content, and it doesn't tell you itself. Those words, "the freedom of speech," "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech." Neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet.
What's more likely the case is that Justice Breyer doesn't like not being able to leave his imprint on an issue that he feels strongly about. Waht Justice Breyer hasn't admitted, at least in public, is that he's a passionate policy advocate. That's the last thing that a judge should be. If he wanted to be a passionate public policy advocate, he should've been a lobbyist or a legislator, not a judge. Here's another alarming Breyerism:
BREYER: That isn't quite what I said. I think what I said was, when you get a case like that, you start to look to slogans to decide the case. It won't work.Justice Breyer's thinking is utterly twisted. All of his considerations run contrary to the First Amendment's interaction with BCRA. What part of this doesn't Justice Breyer understand?:
The First Amendment itself, "the freedom of speech," doesn't tell you the answer. Nor does a slogan.
If you want to use the slogan, "Money is at stake, not speech," that seems to work. That means they can regulate anything. But if you think about it for two minutes, you realize that money is very important to speech, because no one can run for office and have his message heard without money. So the First Amendment is involved.
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"BCRA clearly restricts speech. Furthermore, it's undeniable that Congress made the law. Thus, the Constitution strictly forbids what Justice Breyer and other liberal idiots 'codified' into the Constitution.
Justice Breyer and the other like-minded justices also did something else when they ruled that BCRA was constitutional. Essentially, they said that they were scrapping the existing constitutional amendment process and implementing a 'judicial amendment process'. That is, by definition, judicial imperialism and arrogance
Surely, the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over that act of imperialism.
Posted Tuesday, December 5, 2006 8:32 PM
No comments.
All The Best, Leo
I just read the news that my close friend Leo Pusateri is hanging up blogging for the time being (and possibly longer) because a jerk is messing with Leo's livelihood.
Knowing Leo like I do, I can't imagine any legitimate reason to threaten him or his livelihood. Quite the contrary. Leo is as good a guy as you'll meet on the internet. PERIOD. When John Murtha first made his disgusting statements about the Haditha Marines, I emailed Leo to see if he was interested in helping me start a blogswarm. An hour later, he emailed me with the news that he'd started Murtha Must Go. That email also included an invitation to contribute to MMG. I accepted within seconds of reading his offer. I'm grateful to Leo for extending that invitation.
I first met Leo this past spring, literally hours after the close of the Republican state convention. It was announced that the statewide candidates, minus Gov. Pawlenty, would be doing a fly-around of the state & would be appearing at the St. Cloud Airport. It turned out that Leo, King & I were the only St. Cloud journalists at their appearance, though to be fair, it seems that the RPM's communications didn't get the word out about it. That's also the day Leo, King & I formed the St. Cloud Bloggers Association. We've since added the St. Cloud Times' Larry Schumacher to the group.
Many of Leo's MOB friends are expressing their outrage about this lib's disgusting deeds. That isn't surprising because, in addition to Leo being so likeable, we're also disgusted with this lib's disgusting actions. Speaking just for myself, I hope I hear that this guy has gotten his comeuppance. That news can't come soon enough.
I'm also making the suggestion that Leo remains a member of the MOB, despite his suspending his blogging activities. I'll also suggest to King we do the same in terms of keeping Leo in the SCBA. I suspect I won't have to be a great salesman to convince King of that. In fact, I'd bet big money that King's thinking the same thing.
To my good friend Leo, I'll just say this: Thank you for being a great friend. Thank you for inviting me to be part of MMG. Though the wrong person won that night, we fought the good fight and for the right reasons. Leo, I also hope that we'll soon be enjoying your posts again. Nothing would put a bigger smile on my face than that & I wait with great anticipation for your return to the blogosphere. Finally, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. That's what friends are for.
Posted Wednesday, December 6, 2006 3:35 AM
No comments.
Investigations: Racism Not a Factor in Flying Imam Fiasco
According to this Washington Times article, the various investigations into the 'Flying Imam Fiasco' have ruled that race didn't play a part in the imams being removed from the plane.
Three parallel investigations into the removal of six imams from a US Airways flight last month have so far concluded that the airline acted properly, that the imams' claims they were merely praying and their eviction was racially inspired are without foundation.This investigation essentially verifies Richard Miniter's article in last Sunday's NY Post. Here is the key information found in Mr. Miniter's report:
- An Arabic speaker was seated near two of the imams in the plane's tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside and, in a whisper, translated what the men were saying: invoking "bin Laden" and condemning America for "killing Saddam," according to police reports.
- An imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extender, the extra strap that obese people use because the standard belt is too short. According to both an on-duty and a deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. A seat-belt extender can easily be used as a weapon; just wrap one end around your fist, and swing the heavy metal buckle.
- All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.
This is another interesting tidbit from the Washington Times' article:
Mr. Shahin told television reporters that he needed the seat-belt extension because he weighs 280 pounds. However, the police report lists his weight as 201 pounds. Weights listed for the other imams ranged from 170 pounds to 250 pounds.Doesn't Mr. Shahin's telling TV reporters that he's 280 pounds when he's only 201 pounds raise some red flags on Mr. Shahin's credibility? I'd also suggest that there was no need for a seatbelt extension when the imams ranged in weight from 170 pound to 250 pounds. I'm a big man, weighing almost 300 pounds and I've never thought twice about an extension.
The imams have retained the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as their legal counsel. CAIR officials said yesterday that initial claims by the airline contradict the official police report. "The imams are obviously concerned about a number of false and distorted representations of the facts and events, and one example is initial reports that all suggested they refused to get off the plane when personnel asked them to, and the police report said they all got off and cooperated," a CAIR spokesman said.This CAIR spokesman had best hope that he isn't taken to task by the passengers for his statement that the imams are concerned about "a number of false and distorted representations of the facts and events." The initial newspaper reporting might well have gotten things wrong but it's apparent that the passengers didn't make any "misrepresentations" in their official police statements. Their reports are quite detailed. They've also been verified through a number of sources, including with the pilots and flight attendants.
Posted Wednesday, December 6, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment 1 by cnoname1 at 06-Dec-06 12:09 PM
As retribution for our obvious failures, I think we should give all these imams a free supply of bibles and crucifixes (packed discretely in their bags) and put them on a one way flight to Saudi Arabia.
Former Carter Aide: Carter Book Riddled "With Factual Errors"
Not that this comes as a shock to anyone who has watched Jimmy Carter lately but a former aide has left the Carter Center after getting into a dispute over Carter's latest fiction novel "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid ". Here's what Kenneth Stein said about Carter's book:
President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book.In other words, Mr. Stein is calling Jimmy Carter a liar pushing a one-sided agenda. To those who've followed Carter's pos-presidency, this isn't surprising. Instead, I'd characterize it as another disappointing chapter in his post-presidency.
What caused Jimmy Carter to turn into this disreputable, dishonest man is anybody's guess. I suspect that it started with Ronald Reagan's thrashing of him in 1980 and that it's been eating away at him ever since. I further think that Mr. Carter feels the sting of knowing that his presidency contributed mightily to the current threat of global terrorists, though he'd never admit that. Finally, I believe that President Bush's taking a position that is essentially the polar opposite of Carter's was the final push that sent Carter over the edge and into Moonbat immortality.
Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. 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.I strongly recommend that everyone who's serious about national security and about the Middle East read Mr. Stein's email to the AJC. One thing that cries out in the aftermath of this letter to the Atlanta Journal & Constitution is that Jimmy Carter was the worst foreign policy president in our nation's history. After his latest 'contribution' (I use the term extremely loosely), it isn't difficult to make the case that he's fast becoming the worst ex-president in history, too.
I never thought I'd see the day that Jimmy Carter's biggest disgrace wouldn't be his inviting Michael Moore in his presidential box at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Sadly, I'm now forced to see this book as his biggest disgrace. This time, though, I'm willing to accept the fact that he might sink even lower yet. That's the case history of BDS.
Posted Wednesday, December 6, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment 1 by clio at 07-Dec-06 05:00 PM
You know that Bush is taking an opposite stance to Carter, and that he is not only being lined up to be the worst foreign policy president in history, but he'll most likely be remembered the most all-around worst U.S. President, ever.
Do I even need to point out that Stein is obviously biased towards Israel? Look at his last name.
