Here's the link to latest Brandeis story.

1) It seems to me that this setup is slanted to heavily favor Dershowitz-- Since
Dershowitz can attack Carter from any direction and focus on any point whereas Carter has no right to respond. Dershowitz can make any claim confident that there's no one to challenge him.

2) My question to Brandeis is: who gets to refute Dershowitz? Why not make Dershowitz leave the building after his talk and then have Mearshimer and Walt come up and critique Dershowitz while giving Dershowitz no right to reply?

Or hey, if Dershowitz can speak then why can't MJ? Or myself?

Why not let the janitor give his two cents while we're at it? After all, it is probably the janitor's son who will be sent to the Middle East to die in order to accomplish Alan Dershowitz's goals.

Come to think of it, why not invite the parents whose children have died in Iraq so those parents can ask Alan why their children died to defend Israel just because Israeli billionaires like Haim Saban throw $Millions into US political campaigns.

3) Why does Brandeis care what Dershowitz thinks?

In the OJ Simpson trial, Dershowitz argued that society must leap through multiple hoops to respect OJ's constitutional rights -- in spite of OJ's dead wife.

A few years later, that same Dershowitz was arguing that that same justice system should give the Bush administration the right to torture people. Possibly because some of Alan's wealthy friends were wondering if Al Qaeda's crosshairs were on their backs because of their responsibility for US Government acts in the Middle East.

4) Does Brandeis really think Alan is committed to the Socratic method and to Truth -- as opposed to whatever deceitful sophistry and cheap rhetorical tricks are most expedient?

If Brandeis wanted to give their students multiple viewpoints of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, then why not at least invite a reputable person with knowledge?

Someone from the State Department who can discuss the multiple considerations that going into forming US foreign policy -- who can identify concrete US national interests
and tradeoffs as opposed to mere political pressure from domestic special interests with selfish axes to grind.

Instead, Brandeis invites Alan Dershowitz -- a LAWYER. Someone with NO competence, standing, or authority on this issue that I can see.

Carter is getting everything he deserves. He clearly, on at least two separate occasions, defended palestinian terrorism against Israel. In his book he stated that the palestinians should make it clear they will give up terrorism when Israel concedes to their demands. And the other day on al jazeera, he said that he doesn't believe the firing of missiles at Israel amounts to terrorism.

It's not just former presidents who shouldn't be treated like this. As you point out, MJ, even the lowest ranked visiting colloquium speakers are not subjected to this sort of disrespectful treatment.

You know, by helping to negotiate the Israeli-Egyptian peace, Jimmy Carter might have saved the lives of more Jews than 100 bloviating Dershowitzes have saved in a career. You would think that even people with a serious substantive beef over Carter's book would accord some sort of respect to that achievement, and let him say his piece in a non-circus environment.

Brandeis students and faculty can then go on to spend semesters or even years bringing in all sorts of other speakers with contrary positions. They can schedule special undergraduate and graduate seminars. They can hold pro-Israel rallies. They can publish articles in the student newspaper. It's not like Carter's words will be chiseled in stone at Brandeis and allowed to endure unchallenged into eternity unless the mighty Dershowitz is their to rebut them the moment they come out of Carter's mouth.

This undecorous and anti-academic behavior really makes Brandeis look bad. And aside from that, given the fact that one of the criticisms of Carter is that he accords too much weight to the existence of the "lobby" and pro-Israel media bias, it makes Carter's antagonists look stupid, since the college is clearly caving to the very kind of media and pressure group agitation that the critics claim does not exist.

Yes MJ, and I think that's sort of the heart of the matter. It's not about how UN resolution XX is being totally misconstrued in Carter's flawed analyis or something.

It's just a matter of decorum and politeness. Maybe Carter can be pedantic or preachy, but he is genteel and polite - I don't think he's going there to point the finger.

And I do think that this points to what I see as the 'blind spot' in US discussions about this contentious issue - and in fact what Carter is trying to say - namely that there isn't really a big group of Palestinians involved in the US debate. Maybe the Palestinians get some proxy - in this case Carter. But then Carter is just sort of a crusader speaking for people who likely think he has no right to speak for them in the first place. I think for Jews there is visceral connection with Israel - almost like an extended family, but when 'nice' US speakers get up to defend Palestinans, it's sort of an abstract connection like "ain't it a shame - fewer people should be killed" but it comes down to abstractions about 'generic fairness' for 'generic people.'

As for Dershowitz, it is safe to say that he never saved a single Israeli life.

Not unless Klaus von Bulow was a secret Mossad agent - which seems somewhat unlikely.

Correction: Above data is from Dunnigan's book "How to Make WAR"

As the New York Times reported on Sunday, it was not the ADL that caused the Poles to cancel Judt, it was the American Jewish Committee.

Dear Victor Lazlo,
You have it exactly right. Thank you for yourheroic resistance activities. MJ

"But now this. Dershowitz will immediately take to the stage as soon as Carter leaves, keeping Carter's audience to give his own take on what the President had to say."
Come on guys,
When President Bush will give his State of Union speech next week, somebody will follow him to rebuff this speech.
Last week Bush gave an interview to News Hour. Immediately, Brooks and Shield stated dissect Bush’s every word and give own take on what the President had to say.

And, if there is anyone left for Dershowitz to lie to....then they are welcome to him.

I certainly don't believe that it's terrorism... Israel wants to be the big bully on the playground and the Palestians are a little divided over how to hold their ground.

I certainly think that Israel has its share of bigots and I don't think I'd worship that country because doesn't the Bible warn us about false Gods?

I don't think Israel will be confused with Mother Theresa any time soon and neither will the Palestinians.

I tend to blame Israel because, amoung other things, they had the audacity to blow up oil tanks recently and create the largest oil spill in the history of Mediterranean and, oh my!, Israel has nukes too...

The leaders of Israel seem clearly racist, just like the ones in the US: they hate muslims, palestinians, anyone with oil they want or social security entitlements, health care entitlements-- etc... but embrace those who want to shoot guns, make bombs and believe it's glorious to kill those "pesky terrorists."

Moshe Dayan, who was Foreign Minister then, said "all credit for this success goes to President Carter."
The fact is that he flew over to Israel and Egypt when the whole deal was falling through and saved it.
He is responsible for that treaty more than anyone else.

I wonder if Brandeis would let Dershowitz share the stage with someone who has, roughly, the same positions as Carter?  Nawwww probably not.  It would be too "fair"...instead, unbeknownst to Carter, they are going to host a debate where one side is barred from rebuttal.  It gives me the faux intellectual warm fuzzies... 

and with your support, this time I know we will win.

Except of course that that is NOT what Dershowitz said in his book. 

It is a fact that the Palestinian leadership during the 30's and 40's were Nazi sympathizers and the Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler's honored guest on a number of occasions.  Dershowitz's point is that in most circles that alone would be enought to discredit you.

Here are some choice bits from the Wikipedia biography of the Mufti:

Husayni collaborated with Nazi Germany, becoming a resident in Berlin during World War II, where upon being granted a rank of SS Gruppenführer by Heinrich Himmler, he helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS.

...

In 1933, within weeks of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, al-Husayni sent a telegram to Berlin addressed to the German Consul-General in the British Mandate of Palestine saying he looked forward to spreading their ideology in the Middle East [citation needed], especially in Palestine and offered his services.

...

Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified during his war crimes trial in 1946 that ... "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."

The Mufti, of course, is a hero to Palestinians.

Yes, but your analogy is not a match with this situation.

For one thing, Brooks and Shield have opposing positions on many political issues -- so a discussion between them has some balance. For another thing, both of them are professionals -- in the sense that they have enough pride in their intellect, knowledge and command of the facts that they don't frequently lean on sophistry as a prop. Especially when they know their opposite number will call them on it.

The Brandeis situation is more like having Hillary Clinton speak and then giving Rush Limbaugh the mike for a long , unchallenged monologue/critique.

If you dig deeply , you might hear a fact or even a semi-reasonable piece of logical reasoning. The odds aren't high, however.

I agree the Dersh rebuttal is exceptionally poor protocol on the part of Brandeis.

However, and I'm not an expert, but let's be careful not to get too teary eyed over just what keeps the Camp David accord is: A Mexican standoff fueled in large by just over $4 billion in annual US foreign aid, largely in the form of military aid, divvied between the two of them.

When the US is not running around reconstructing countries it recently bombed back into the stone age, aid to Israel and Egypt represent the lion's share of annual US foreign aid spending since, well, 1978!

In my simple mind, where everything is explainable as a quick one act play, Carter negotiated a peace that works the following way, with Al Pacino in his Scarface character playing the role of Israel, and Robert deNiro in his Taxi Driver character playing Egypt:

Isreal: If you cross that line I'm gonna blow chour head off wit dis gun, and I got's plenty more where dis comes from. Do you know what I mean?! Do you know what I mean?!?

Egypt: Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me? Do you think this is the only gun I have? Do you really want to take that chance?

David Harris of the American Jewish Committee called the Polish Embassy to complain but the Poles chose to cancel the talk.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Geez, rather one-sided article. Thank you for giving us a fuller perspective in your post.

The big problem is that it's set up with Carter as the voice of the Palestinians, which he is clearly not, and Dershowitz as the voice of the Israelis, which he is also clearly not. Neither one of these communities speaks with one voice, and neither of these men represents the average viewpoint.

Dershowitz is such a terrible choice for a rebuttal. First of all, he doesn't even teach at Brandeis, so it makes it seems as if they have to go find someone from outside to handle their arguments for them b/c there is no one up to the task on their campus, which is obviously not the case.

Secondly, he has basically become a self-parody with his self-promotion and pedantic rhetoric. I think to many people he has lost his credibility. So why cave in to his demands to be allowed to have an instant rebuttal of Carter and give him this stage to further self-promote, rather than inviting someone more interested in a serious discussion of the issues? I agree that it's a slap in the face to Carter, and I concur that he should just avoid this set-up altogether.

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

To have Alan Dershowitz follow president Carter is in my opinion a slap in the face,out of all people Dershowitz is the one they could find to offer up a rebuttal,surely they could of found a more qualified person?. Dershowitz is a blatant and intellectually dishonest apologist for Isreal,plagiarizer (see his book the case for isreal),and he has contributed nothing of any academic significance to this issue. The fact that this is going on in addition to the venomous reaction to carters valiant book as well as other similar works, gives credence to one of his his central claims! namely that Isreal lobby and its agents have a significant strangle hold on debate about the Isreali/palestinian conflict within american media.

When will this veil of ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and outright blatant intimidation stop so we can have an honest and balanced debate about issues pertaining to Isreal/Palestine and American complicity?

I praise Carter and others like him for stepping from behind this veil and speaking their minds!

Thus they should be exterminated?

Ohiomeister, you got it. That's how it went down.

1) Brandeis is also hurting its reputation in ways it may not appreciate yet.

People don't spend $40,000 /year just so their child can read books or be a stenographer creating a transcript of a professor's monologue.

They pay to have their children EDUCATED. To gain an understanding of the world's complexity --include the complex nature of human societies.

2) We could save $160,000 by having our children stay at home and read the Great Books. Instead, we send our children to universities because what they gain at university is encounters with great minds -- from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs, both student and professors. Our child engages in debate and seeking of truth with those minds and comes to understand that the exchange of information within a community creates something greater than its parts.

Because if a child's worldview is based solely upon that child's personal experiences and family upbringing then that worldview is severely limited -- and hence false. A severe handicap in the decision-making needed to survive the real world.

The university student learns how to deal with people different from himself --to understand them so that he can lead them, can negotiate with them, can do business with them, can work with them, and ,in some cases, so that he can fight with or against them.

3) Brandeis's pandering to Alan Dershowitz hurts Brandeis in three ways.

One , it tells the world that Brandeis itself has a poor opinion of Brandeis's intellectual competence.

That the Brandeis community feels it lacks the intellectual capital to deal with a gentle challenge from a humane ex-President who has been one of Israel's greatest friends.

Hence, the need to let an outsider like Dershowitz shove his way into Brandeis's conversation with Jimmy Carter.

What Brandeis is admitting is that Dershowitz must defend Brandeis's Jewish students from Carter's aggressive and formidable intellect because Brandeis's students and faculty cannot defend themselves.

4) Two, Brandeis's choice of champion speaks badly of Brandeis's judgment and committment to scholarly integrity. Alan Dershowitz is not an expert on the Middle East. He is not a former President who was briefed daily for 4 years by the US intelligence community. Alan Dershowitz has never experienced the President's awesome duties, powers and responsibilities. To the best of my knowledge, Alan Dershowitz has never been within 1000 miles of an active battlefield, much less ordered American citizens into combat or faced nuclear-armed Russia and China.

No, Alan is merely a lawyer. Someone who uses cheap tricks --like ad hominems --to avoid losing oral arguments. Someone who criticized Mearshimer and Walt by suggesting they got their information from Neo_Nazi sites. Which conveniently ducked the question of whether Mearshimer/Walt's statements are true or false.

People send their children to Brandeis to be educated, not to be indoctrinated. What do you think is Dershowitz's goal?

5) Third, Brandeis's pandering to Dershowitz speaks badly of Brandeis as a university.
The Jewish community produces some great intellects but those intellects are still a minority within the US intellectual community as a whole. It can not be otherwise, given that America's 6 million Jews live within a nation of 300 million people.

To provide a quality education to its students, Brandeis must compete with Harvard, Princeton,etc in recruiting great intellects (both student and faculty, both Jewish and Gentile) to join the Brandeis community.

6) That recruitment will be difficult if America's most brilliant minds get the impression that Brandeis is not a real university but is rather an overblown
Jewish Studies program.

What real intellect -- what real Jewish intellect for that matter -- wants to join a community ruled by a hidden party line?
What brilliant gentile intellect will want to enroll at Brandeis if he wonders whether Brandeis's faculty will punish him with low grades for robust, well-argued, well-evidenced papers which do not hew to the community view?

A young mind can only develop by thinking -- by challenging and being challenged. Unreasonable Shackles on that thinking can only cripple its development.

7) If Brandeis had any sense, it would welcome people like Jimmy Carter and Juan Cole. It can yell at them and call them putzs. But it should then hug them and make them welcome. Because an inbred community afraid to face challenges from outsiders is weak.

In the same way that some Southern girls colleges have not prospered in the last 30 years.

Yes I think many schools might do just that. And would oppose such and invitation?

Also despite all the whining here the original invitation to Brandeis was for Carter to debate Dershowitz and Carter refused. It is likely that most people at Brandeis understand Carters anti-Semitism and wanted someone from the area, he is at Harvard, to address the issues.

The notion that a former president is so meek or his arguements are so poor that he cannot deal with a law professor, admittedly a very good lawyer,is most strange but may explain why Carter was defeated by Reagan. Daniel A. Greenbaum

"Also despite all the whining here the original invitation to Brandeis was for Carter to debate Dershowitz and Carter refused. It is likely that most people at Brandeis understand Carters anti-Semitism and wanted someone from the area, he is at Harvard, to address the issues."

lol Are you serious my friend? this is a textbook example of the intellectual dishonesty and venomous spewing of the anti-semitic canard, you in fact do it so recklessly and cavalierly it amazes me . "someone from the area" what a great qualification........... and when did being a "good" lawyer automatically qualify a person to be an expert on middle east affairs? step from behind the veil my friend

"Not to reduce ourselves to hysteric name calling and intimidation as has been the case with this issue"
I agree, this why we all need to reject Carter attacks on American Jews:
"The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community."
It's a Bush speak. He likes to say
"Some democrats say but I disagree with them. We just have HONEST difference of opinions
and so on. I guess Bush learned this trick from Carter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701712.html

I can see Carter described as opposed to Israel's government, although I'm less clear that he is opposed to the nation of Israel or to Zionism. He certainly isn't anti-Jewish, regardless of how much you may want to equate Israel and Judaism.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think that your point isn't useful because there are no conditions on Carter. He is being given the space and can control the presentation; when he leaves, he's gone.

I assume that Carter doesn't have an inferiority complex so, most likely, he's not going to get an anxiety attack over Dershowitz doing his dog and pony show afterwards.

It's not like Carter can or should impose the condition that nobody speaks against him or his book for 5 years after he gives his talk.

For all we know, Carter fans will leave with Carter, Dershowitz fans will enter after Carter leaves and another group will want to hear both.

The initial situation was having a debate and Carter just didn't want someone continually in his face, I imagine and Carters getting older and should probably avoid a high octane, adreniline pumping situation.

ohiomeister,

Thus they should be exterminated?

That was neither Brad the Dad's conclusion nor Dershowitz's.  It was only hass' presumption supported by decontextualized quote marks.

I think Carter made a mistake by not sharing the platform with Dershowitz. Carter knew full when he wrote his book that it would provoke an uproar in some quarters and he should follow up on his plan to create a public discussion, polite or otherwise.

I just read what Dershowitz has been up to lately and I think he would set on Carter like a pit bull. I'd like to see Dershowitz tear Carter to shreds in front of the entire world as if Carter were on trial. Dershowitz has an enormous ego and is sure to overplay his hand.

From the Forward on the 19th: "I think the people who brought Carter to the campus are very anxious about having me speak, Dershowitz told the Forward. He added, Brandeis will have to make the decision to exclude me [from the Carter forum], because I'm going to come. I'm not going to make it easy for them."

Dershowitz was in Houston the other day for a speech arranged by the Houston Holocaust Museum entitled, "Is There a New Anti-Semitism?", according to Houston Chronicle. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that Dershowitz's answer is yes and Jimmy Carter is helping to promote it.

The Gather.com website has an opinion piece by Dershowitz entitled "Ex-President for Sale". Dershowitz claims that Carter has been bought and paid for by Arab interests. He rails about the tens of millions of dollars donated to the Carter Center by Saudi royalty and other Middle East sultans and follows up with "And these are only the confirmed, public donations."

Dershowitz calls for Carter to make full disclosure of all of his and the Carter Center’s ties to Arab money and if he doesn't, Dershowitz wants the media (that is not controlled by Jews) to "probe deeply into his, his family’s, and his Center’s Arab ties so that the public can see precisely the sources and amounts of money he has received and judge whether it has corrupted the process of objective reportage and politics by Carter..."

I'd go for that if the other presidents also agree to disclose how much Arab money they have taken in and how much Arab money is commingled with their investments. I suspect Carter is not the only former president who has accepted "dirty blood-money from dictators, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and supporters of terrorism."

The Chronicle article was somewhat humorous in that Dershowitz met with the Chronicle editorial board and explained to the board members that terrorists have a "new" way of fighting. According to Dershowitz, the wily terrorists now hide out in civilian populations which makes them hard to catch without killing civilians if you are a democracy with an army, navy and air force. I guess that's why Israel lost the war and here I thought Dan Halutz was merely incompetent.

The Jerusalem Post has wall-to-wall Dershowitz coverage. On the 17th, the Post credited Dershowitz along with Elie Wiesel, Irwin Cotler and Dore Gold for pushing an initiative begun last fall to hold President Ahmadinejad accountable. This was in an article about a nonbinding Congressional resolution to charge Ahmadinejad with inciting genocide against Israel proposed by Steve Rothman (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Also on the 17th, the Post ran an article about Dershowitz's Harvard research assistant, William Charles Gray, who tracks Nazis using "modern methods". Gray used "simple database programs such as LexisNexis Westlaw and New Detective that lawyers have at their disposal and searched voting records land transfer documents professional licenses property sales and death records". How innovative. I wonder why the Israelis never thought of Lexis-Nexis.

The Post reported that "On Gray's first day, he was handed a name and they told me to see what I could do. Within the hour I located the suspect." Gray not only located the suspect's home he found how much he paid for it previous residences and the identities of his children. In his first month, Gray located four suspected Nazis living in America!

Dershowitz's credentials as an anti-semitism expert are obviously impeccable and I bet he could nail Carter to the wall, given half a chance. I'd really, really like to see Dershowitz rip Carter a new asshole for being a Jew-hater. The media (which is not controlled by Jews) will have a field day covering this story and everyone in America will then feel sorry for the Jews because the despicable Jimmy Carter picks on them.

And how about that new revelation by a knowledgable unnamed source and Israeli ambassador, Danny Ayalon, that Sharon warned Bush not to invade Iraq and forget about democracy in the Middle East? Gee, I wonder where Bush got the idea to sell the Iraq war by claiming that Iraq had WMDs and that democratizing the Middle East was a great idea?

From a March 2001 address by Sharon to AIPAC (which has no influence in Washington DC):

"Regional security is eroding in the wider Middle East, as well. Iraq has not been under UN monitoring for more than two years and sanctions have been increasingly ignored. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein is seeking to restore his mass destruction weapons capability and his quest for long-range missiles....

Iran is already testing missiles that can strike Israel. But it is planning to produce significantly longer-range missiles that will put the Middle East, Western Europe, Russia and even parts of the U.S. itself at risk.

Much of this ballistic missile technology comes from North Korea, but it is also emanating from the Russian Federation...

Syria is looking east to its ties with a resurgent Iraq and Iran, instead of better relations with the West....

The current situation in the Middle East can be reversed. Strong democracies determined to protect themselves can restore stability and build the foundations for a lasting peace..."

Must have been the other Sharon who made that speech.

BTW, anyone have an update on the investigation of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert on corruption charges?

But Nudnik, he's putting himself out there as an admitted advocate for the Palestinian point of view, which is all but unheard. He's not there to give a 'balanced' speech - he would tell you that himself I think.

Mrs Cecelia Panstreppon, now residing around Ronkonkoma, could she soon be a new Israeli West Bank 'settler'? She has the attitude!

Mrs. P's My GOP website which seems to have died sometime around the 2006 elections.

Maybe the US and the Middle East need a few less folks who want to 'rip new assholes' in other people, Cecelia...

The people who throw the word anti-semite around at everyone they disagree with, or who disagrees with Israel, are robbing the word of any meaning.
If Jimmy Carter is an anti-semite, what is Ahmadinejad? What was Goebells? Stalin? Are they all the same?
The name-callers do not believe Carter is an anti-semite nor is their concern anti-semitism.
They are simply people who believe that the policies of the government of Israel are always right and must never be criticized (except, of course, when Yitzhak Rabin was in power).
Frankly, I don't think they give a damn about Israel. For them, it is always 1942. There is always a Holocaust going on. And the open secular liberal Israel of Tel Aviv and Haifa is an utterly unreal concept.
They are pre-1948 Jews. Always scared. Always paranoid. Never understanding that there is a Jewish state now and it's the 4th strongest country in the world.
Zionism was born so that Jews could escape the ghetto. But some Jews choose to live in mental ghettos anyway, hovering in fear over imaginary threats.
Meanwhile the Jews of Israel are living their lives, dancing at the clubs by the sea, hoping for an end of this damn occupation that is the bane of both the Israeli and Palestinian people.
The name-callers ("anti-semite!" "self-hating Jew!") are alot of things.
Pro-Israel is not one of them.

Except of course that that is NOT what Dershowitz said in his book.

What? One person quotes Dershowitz and cites sources. Someone responds to them by saying "that's not what he said," then talks about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. There are people who end up disliking Israel because they dislike the way some of its supporters argue. This would be exhibit A.

Daniel, I don't know your area of expertise, but just say for the sake of arguement, that you are a scientist, working on stem cell research. Let's say that you have spent your life on this research, and that you have written a book about this controversial, but very scientific area of knowledge.

Let's say that you are invited to speak at a prestigeous University. Only thing is that you have to debate:

1. A right-wing lawyer who opposes any stem-cell research, and who has no scientific credentials, but who says that once a sperm has connected with an egg it is more prescious --for example -- than all our 19 year-olds who are cannon fodder in Iraq...

...or

2. Pat Robertson, a religious maniac who says that 911 and Katrina were caused by the wrath of god...

...or

3. Any other opinionated but uncredentialled blowhard who can outscream you.

Would you consider yourself "so meek, or your arguments so poor" if you felt it was beneath you to debate them?

Carter was defeated by Reagan because Reagan was in cahoots with the Iranians; that is why he was able to announce the hostage release as soon as he was sworn in.

Dealing with a law professor like Dershowitz is an unpleasantness that anyone who is Carter's age has come to realize: IT ISN'T WORTH IT! Why should he bother? Life is too short to debate all the bloviators who want to say they debated a president.

Jan Knaus

Welcome to Bush speak. SOME unmamed people.
Who are people who believe that the policies of the government of Israel are always right and must never be criticized.
Israel in a way is blessed and cursed with it's enemies.
Somehow they just can't be reasonable. They always go overboard. So it's not that Israel is always right, but it's critics ouside Israel are almost always wrong.
Just read comments to your blog.

I have, carefully, read and reread this post, and I can't discover your point.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You speak of "intellectual honesty", yet the book that Carter wrote is completely intellectually dishonest. The errors in it are not made by someone who doesn't know the issues. He purposely changes the facts to make them agree with his opinion. That is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Carter is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts.