<p>what is wrong with presenting both sides? Why not hear what both sides of the argument have to say. You don’t have to agree with both, just acknowledge each sides right to have an opinion. We have heard a one sided story in this country for way too long. The fact that the OP is so reluctant to even acknowledge that another argument might possibly have value is entirely unamerican; freedom of speech, pluralism of ideas. come on people, grow up. I’m tired of people fighting so much over this stupid issue. Just deal with it like grown ups and perhaps it could be changed. And this is really kind of sad that this is in the Parents cafe, the teenagers on this board (including me) understand that this world is a much different place than we Americans perceive it to be.</p>
<p>Well, I’m pretty liberal, and I think NPR is slanted liberal; perhaps not as far as Fox is slanted conservative, but it’s pretty obvious. I suspect WashDad had his tongue in cheek when he referred to NPR as “famously Republican.”</p>
<p>Yeah, it is more slanted left than right, but I have heard “liberals” complain about it. Perhaps I am leaning more to the left in my old age, but I do think NPR is the most balanced, intelligent take on most issues out there, even if I do on occasion scream at them too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s no tongue in my cheek, I’m sucking on a jawbreaker. A really big one.</p>
<p>“We have heard a one sided story in this country for way too long. The fact that the OP is so reluctant to even acknowledge that another argument might possibly have value is entirely unamerican; freedom of speech, pluralism of ideas. come on people, grow up. I’m tired of people fighting so much over this stupid issue. Just deal with it like grown ups and perhaps it could be changed.”</p>
<p>Here, Here!</p>
<p>US foreign policy is blatantly bias. There is no way that we are an honest broker in the Middle East Peace Process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know if anyone else who’s posted has read the book. I have. Yes, Mr. Carter has a right to have an opinion. However, he’s done a truly lousy job of presenting that opinion in his book. I didn’t read any reviews of the book before reading it, but coming across the WaPo review afterwards, I realized it pretty well captured how I felt about the book:</p>
<p>[What</a> Would Jimmy Do? - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701835.html]What”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701835.html)</p>
<p>Not mentioned in the review is when Carter earnestly interviews Arafat and Al-Assad, asking them about their government’s goals. The men seem somewhat taken aback; it’s as if a middle-schooler was looking for information to put in a school report. They give him brochures…which he then earnestly quotes in his book, without comment. Nothing that any arab leader says is subject to any sort of skepticism on Carter’s part. Not exactly an approach that a reader can take seriously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to me. </p>
<p>Dershowitz is in a position where he does not have accept clients. He knew, better than most because he had access to all the DNA reports, that Simpson was guilty. He made a personal choice to help a murderer walk, scott free. I can judge him for that.</p>
<p>Eighty four is not extreme old age–it’s the new sixty seven!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, go ahead. I’m hardly president of the Dershowitz fan club. This does, however, have nothing to do with whether or not Dershowitz accurately represents Carter’s behavior as a possible violation of the Logan Act. Don’t make me use a H<em>tl</em>r analogy…</p>
<p>It only has to do with Carter in that I choose to disregard everything that Dershowitz says because of my views on his morals as a human being.</p>
<p>In this particular case, his views on Israel are hardly those of an unbiased observer. He is, in effect, acting as a PR spokeman for Israel. That’s fine. It’s a free country. It does, however, could his legal credibility.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity interesteddad, do you believe Carter should have said anything?</p>
<p>Worst President, then he seemed to become one of the best ex-Presidents working with Habitat for Humanity, and basically staying out of the political arena. Then, I swear, dementia hit, because all of a sudden, he goes off like a losoe cannon. I think everyone knew Israel had the bomb, but geez, let’s give aid and comfort to our enemies. And they are using this as propaganda to show support for their side. Horrible, horrible gaffe! And an embarrassment for the Democrats who mostly would wish he would quietly go away.</p>
<p>I don;t think he has an effect on voters. I can’t see people believing that Obama or Hillary are going to be like Carter as a Pres. </p>
<p>I just can’t understand why he can’t be like Bush 41(also 84) and jump out of perfectly good airplanes!</p>
<p>"I can’t see people believing that Obama or Hillary are going to be like Carter as a Pres. "</p>
<p>Hillary, no, but, I think that Obama shares some of the naivete of Carter which caused/causes him to be tone deaf with respect to international relations. Whereas the Dems try to claim that McCain would be a third term for Bush, Obama could easily be a second term for Carter.</p>
<p>Honest discussions within the American and Israeli Jewish communities have, for years, addressed the apartheid analogy, and it has become much more relevant since the official policy of Israel became constructing a wall to separate physically the areas where Palestinians live from the areas where Israeli Jews live. Fifteen years ago, I sometimes referred to certain types of right-wing Israeli discourse as “speaking Afrikaans”.</p>
<p>Of course it is galling to American and Israeli Jews (and other supporters of Israel) that Carter is using the A-word so publicly, and of course the analogy isn’t exact, but if the shoe didn’t basically fit the level of upset would be much, much lower. Carter is speaking inconvenient truth. I’m not happy about the situation, but it’s not HIS fault.</p>
<p>As for Alan Dershowitz, he is a great lawyer, but on anything remotely concerned with Israel he has credibility only as, in effect, an official Israeli spokesperson. (OK, he’s not “official”, but he’s very plugged-in.) He is always first in line to attack anyone who questions whatever Israeli government policy is at the moment. </p>
<p>I have no idea why Carter gave out the number of nukes Israel has – that seems gratuitous and dangerous to me – but I also have no idea how he got the information, and whether he got it in confidence. As for “letting the cat out of the bag” that Israel is a nuclear power: That’s like disclosing that the sun rises in the east. Arab states have known that Israel has nukes for a generation, and as far as I know even the U.S. has not taken a position in a long time that it didn’t. Admitting that out loud doesn’t change anything anywhere.</p>
<p>Obama will have a huge problem in the fall b/c 527’s will play over and over again how he would speak to Iran, Cuba and Korea with no concessions…
For us old folks it will remind of us Carter trying to get Russia to behave by boycotting the Olympics, or how we allowed our citizens to be held hostages for over 400 days b/c they were people you could sit and discuss the situation rationally.</p>
<p>All of that being said it still begs the question, what did Carter think he was accomplishing? Why did his handlers say back off, this isn’t going to play right and you actually might hurt the peace process. As I stated before now the world will have to explain why Iran shouldn’t have the right to nukes when their dreaded enemy does? If you were Iranian wouldn’t you feel threatened by Israel?</p>
<p>If I were Iranian, I would be mightily ****ed off at Israel, for a whole bunch of reasons: its close relationship with and military support of the Shah, its playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, its bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, and of course its treatment of the Palestinians, which is the big issue everywhere in the world. </p>
<p>If I were Iranian, however, I would not feel particularly threatened by Israel (unless I were working in the nuclear industry, or for Hezbollah). Israel isn’t going to try to subjugate Iran. It has enough problems with the Muslims it is trying to subjugate now. And long-term Israel and Iran (which is actually pretty democratic and prosperous, has high educational standards, and is not very interested in pan-Arabism, or Arabs in general) have the potential to be cautious allies once again.</p>
<p>I WOULD perhaps feel threatened by the U.S. And I would suspect that Israel might well do the U.S.'s bidding, if bid. Since it would be hard for me to threaten the U.S. back, I might be OK with trying to use Israel as a hostage to keep the Americans from going nuts. I would also be pretty scared of Russia. And I wouldn’t be too thrilled about al-Qaeda, and I would be keeping watchful eyes on Pakistan and all of the fragile Gulf states, starting with Saudi Arabia. Then there’s India. No shortage of nuclear powers to worry about.</p>
<p>But in general I would also be pretty ****ed off at the Iranian government for its nuclear adventurism and sabre-rattling, its playing with fire with Hezbollah, and its attempts to use foreign policy to compensate for its domestic inadequacies.</p>
<p>To me the question is how this is playing on Aljazeera(sp?) </p>
<p>Carter has not helped the peace process, but caused more damage. He has inflamed Israel for speaking about the nukes, and given Hamas and Iran more reason to go nuke.</p>
<p>Someone asked how he knew the number. That is easy he has a high security clearance. Look at Sandy Berger, he walked out with docs in his socks during Bush II and said oops I forgot they were there!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To be honest, I don’t pay any attention to what Jimmy Carter or any other pillar of the New Democratic Party (Obama, Kerry, Daschle, Brazille, Jackson Jr, Clyburn, et al) has to say.</p>
<p>What am I missing here? Carter has revealed what must be highly classified information he garnered when he was a government employee. How can this possibly be legal? Aren’t there formal, established requirements that prevent people with security clearences from revealing classified information once they leave government service? Without such provisions, how could we possibly maintain any semblance of national security?</p>