Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Left's icon of virtue and integrity strikes another blow against...virtue and integrity

But what does it matter when it hurts only Jews?

When you have to appeal to Dan Rather, Michael Moore, and President Jimmy "I'm anti-Semitic enough to be Muslim" Carter as your models of honest intellectual inquiry, it's time to put your hand down and hope no one noticed you wanted to speak. (You're right: Carter is not as bad as Clinton--yet. Carter only allowed faithful Muslims to overcome an American ally in Iran with an almost-nuclear Ahmadinejad as the result; Clinton actually bombed Christians to help Islamic terrorists in Yugoslavia).

Now Carter is jeopardizing Clinton's claim to the "distinction" of being America's First Muslim President by his most recent effort to totally rewrite and misrepresent the Islam-Israeli Conflict. (Why is it that when the Left makes a "misstatement," it always leans in favor of the enemies of Liberty?)

Below is an excerpt of an announcement from an expert on the Middle East closely-affiliated with President Carter trying to distance himself from the former Chief Executive's latest mutilation of the truth. From Errors, omissions, inventions and falsehoods:
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. 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.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's book. I can not allow that impression to stand.
But I bet President Carter will and so will his anti-American, anti-Israeli minions.

And neither will the hordes of Allah who benefit from his propaganda complain.