Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Jimmy Carter: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Nut

Alan Dershowitz, writing in Front Page Magazine:

Recent disclosures of Carter’s extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.

They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews “the enemies of all nations,” attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States’ own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a “fable.” (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard’s decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: “This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan.” Carter’s personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.

The extent of Carter’s financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter’s friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter “$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter’s different projects.”

Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank, ostensibly the source of his funding, “the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.” BCCI isn’t the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center “in 1993 alone...$7.6 million” as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. It’s worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government’s myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center’s Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia.

Beyond the antisemitism and general bigotry of Carter’s benefactors is the fact that they’re 9/11 conspiracy theorists, blaming our own military for the attacks on the twin towers instead of the radical Islamic zealots who really crashed the planes into the buildings.  Carter knows that these contributions come from people who feel that way.  He knows they’re coming from people who feel that the Jews are all members of some sort of global cabal and should be wiped off the face of the earth.  Yet he takes them anyway, so one has to conclude that Jimmy Carter feels the same way.

And make no mistake about it, this money from the Arabs has strongly influenced both Carter and his foundation’s political views:

The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price. The bought quality of the Center’s activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center’s human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center’s website.

The Carter Center’s mission statement claims that “The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities.” How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel’s far less serious ones?

No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money?

Dershowitz concludes:

It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter’s sad legacy.

Jimmy Carter is an embarrassment to this country.

Comments

shaken my belief in his integrity

Alan Dershowitz is not exactly part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. So when he thinks that Carter has wandered into the land of the lunatic fringe, you’ve got to give some credence to what he has to say.
On the other hand, a belief in Jimmy Carter’s integrity has less basis in reality than similar beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or Ronald Walter having an above room temperature IQ.



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on April 28, 2007 at 08:26 am

I have never understood Carter’s affection for Arabs and Persians in general, especially after what Iran did to US and him in the late seventies.

I guess money can hasten the concept of “let bygones be bygones.”

Eneils Bailey on April 28, 2007 at 08:39 am

Jimmy Carter has long been the Crown Prince of Appeasment.

I have always seen through his pretense at Christiaity, his staying in the homes of common people to get the common touch, no drinking of alcohol or smoking in the White House, his Habitat for Humanity activity, his embrace of dictators, his getting involved in elections in foreign countries and etcetera, all as the self-promotion of his own self-perceived sainthood.

He made me sick the fisrt time I saw that toothy damn grin, heard him proclaim himself a Nuclear Physicist, his Born Again proclamations and when I heard that his fellow Navy officers all hated his guts.

So, I am only suprised it has taken so long for others to see what a puke this guy really is!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on April 28, 2007 at 09:07 am
Avatar for Billy Pilgrim

For years I’ve wondered where the “inside job” conspiracy nuts got their wind and dollars.

Sure, they sell each other tons of t-shirts and videos, and rent theatres and pass the collection plate. But where did those “blame Americans first” yokels get the seed money for their various “G.W. Bush is Dr. Evil” industries, not to mention the various public relations and business consultation expert services needed for such successful business enterprises?

Dylan Avery, the purported force behind the most financially successful “inside job” video was a 17 year old on 9/11/01. Of course, Webster Tarpley, another semi-prominent, “The US did 9/11 to itself” creep is a Lyndon Larouche disciple, but, Kevin Barrett, one of the most outspoken spokespersons for the “inside job” whacko movement is a convert to Islam who has taught Islamic culture at the university level before becoming a semi-full time, “inside job” loon. And another major “inside jobber, Eric Hufschmid, is a long time professional holocaust denier.

I would be far from surprised if the above named “usual suspects”, and any number of other MIHOP big cheeses were each on a first name basis with an Islamic “bag man”, or two.

Billy Pilgrim on April 28, 2007 at 10:03 am

Does this make Bush Sr ‘antisemitic’ because he takes money from the Saudis and they hate Israel? Does it make Gates antisemitic because he is rationalizing selling arms to the enemies of Israel? Sense when is Israel’s neck have to do with the US’s neck? As if being critical of them is somehow now anti-American? Funny you aren’t posting any of Dershowitz’s anti-Bush or anti-Rumsfeld pieces… Why does taking money from people who want to give it to you mean you have the same beliefs as them? Is this the right’s version of slavery reparations or something? What’s going on here? I’m not a big Carter/Rockefeller fan, but who’s above taking free money? I thought that just means you like money?


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on April 28, 2007 at 10:52 am

This is by no means the first run-in that Carter has had with shady characters and questionable money.  For you young whippersnappers, take a gander at the BCCI Banking Scandal. Carter stayed out of jail on that one only by the intercession of powerful friends in the Senate, though some of his confidents, for example Bert Lance, weren’t so lucky.

This is such a big oozing sore for the left, they take every opportunity to hide it whenever possible, to the extent that the Wiki BCCI article shamelessly doesn’t even mention Carter by name.  For more on this scandal and Carter’s personal involvement see this, which however only touches the tip of Carter’s involvement. 

Some quick details:  BCCI was involved in funding terrorists, Carter went around the world making introductions for the head of the organization, Agha Hasan Abedi, Carter’s “foundation” received huge sums of money in return for his efforts, which he then used as leverage to influence other people and organizations.

The liberals try to spin this as a bipartisan scandal using the “degrees of separation” ad hominem. For example, Reagan was introduced to the 1991 GOP convention by a lawyer who once represented BCCI in a case unrelated to the banking scandal:  I’m not kidding… they really think that establishes a link!

Expect Sixty Minutes to do an expose on the Carter-BCCI connection any minute.  I’m sure that the fifteen years of silence are related only to the amount of time it takes to research such a complex topic.  Not.

Carrick on April 28, 2007 at 11:16 am

carrick
I thought Reagen used the BCCI to get arms to Saddam, one of the intermediaries alluded to in that link you put the other day about Saddam’s funding. BCCI was also used in the Iran Contra thing and the funding and support of Bin Laden in the 80s. Am I incorrect in believing that? It sure has been linked to terrorist and militant funding, but I believe its a bi-partisan problem.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on April 28, 2007 at 11:24 am

Jimmy Carter is a washed up old has been that was horrific as a President. He was without a doubt the WORST President Evar! He does very well with his habit for humanity and should continue along those efforts and STAY OUT OF POLITICS! Thank You…

Zsa Zsa on April 28, 2007 at 11:40 am

This is by no means the first run-in that Carter has had with shady characters

Are you referring to the emergency medical procedures where Carter’s lips had become impacted in Arafat’s ass?



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on April 28, 2007 at 11:44 am

I think Carter simply wants to be remembered as a great President, and a wise and compassionate leader.
Unfortunately for him, you actually have to be one of those things before you can be remembered for it!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on April 28, 2007 at 11:54 am

Sparkie,Carter had a personal relationship with Abedi, he helped Abedi out in meeting world figures in return for “donations” to his charity.  None of that is denied.  On the other hand, the CIA, with Reagan’s authorization, putatively channeled money to Iraq using BCCI.  While channeling the money to Iraq was morally questionable in and itself, this relationship with BCCI goes nowhere close to the quid pro quo arrangement between Carter and Abedi. 

There is some question on the other hand about the CIAs degree of involvement in the BCCI scandal.  On this matter, I am careful to not let speculative findings color my judgement on what can be said with certainty.  (In my experience, the truth tends to be bland compared to the speculation surrounding it.)

In any case, here’s a link to the CFR report on BCCI. This includes the CIAs role, though it presents Carter’s involvement using a kid-safe waterpaint set from Walmart.

Carrick on April 28, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Awwwww. Too bad for Jimmy. I know I will remember him always for being the WORST President Evar. My grandfather first voted Republican because of Jimmy Carter. AND he was a BIG Democrat. Old time Democrat…

Zsa Zsa on April 28, 2007 at 12:05 pm

This is probably the most damning part of the report:

BCCI courted the rich and powerful all over the world and so it was natural that President Carter should be approached with an eye towards using him to give credibility to the bank. The President apparently did not establish a relationship with BCCI or Abedi, until after he left office. However, throughout the 1980’s, Abedi used President Carter as a means of gaining stature for himself and for BCCI in a number of third world countries. The President, in return, received millions of dollars for his charities.

Carrick on April 28, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Carrick,

A more interesting, and inferential, relationship would be that of BCCI to Carter’s Budget Director, Bert Lance.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on April 28, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Aha! “charities!”


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on April 28, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Sparkie: To call a turd a turd does not mean we think other turds smell any better. The thread was about The Peanut-Eater-In-Chief. I don’t have much details on what Bush Sr has done or Gates is doing, if they are appeasing enemies of Israel I won’t defend them.

There are times when we must work with unsavory, vile dictators and takes sides with a crud one day and fight him the next, it is the nature of the international beast. But, The Pacifier of Dictators, Jimmy Carter, has not just taken money from enemies of Israel, he has made anti-Semetic public statements, and not being President any no longer he cannot excuse his deeds because he is in charge of international relations.

Lastly, Jimmy Carter has disgraced his office by speaking against the President and American Foriegn policy while on foreign soil, which makes him a traitor!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on April 28, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Bat One, don’t forget Andrew Young either!

Carrick on April 28, 2007 at 09:31 pm

Carrick,

Great point!  It was UN Ambassador Andy Young who was fired from his post withinn the most liberal (and most inept) administration since FDR, for doing precisely what the same liberals insist Mr. Bush should be doing now… negotiating with terrorists.

The hypocrisy of the Left is truly breathtaking.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on April 28, 2007 at 09:35 pm

Bat One, don’t forget Andrew Young’s payments from BCCI while a public official.  Apparently the court was very lenient that day, because he never went to jail for accepting bribery.

Carrick on April 28, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Avatar for Joseph Dunphy

While I have never been a fan of Mr.Carter, unless the contributions are coming with strings attached, I’m not sure that I’m buying this argument. Regardless of what sort of person gives one money, money, once it is received, is simply money. It doesn’t retain the personality or views of its giver.

As for holding the man personally responsible for the alleged whacky and bigoted views of his alleged friend - I’ll hold off on even assuming that these allegations are factual - I’m sure that in 2007, we can still remember the 90s. “The friends are fair game” is one of the attitudes that brought us Political Correctness, and the use of social isolation as a technique for enforcing political orthodoxy, as that orthodoxy was pushed in a direction that certainly didn’t lead toward civility or reason.

Our friends are our friends, and sometimes, in one way or another, they make us roll our eyes. To say “this man is my friend” is not to say “I agree with all that he says and does”; to insist on such an equating in the short run leads to conformism, and as the spark of independent thought is beaten out of the people who accept such a notion, to creeping fascism. After all, if all of your friends think that the police extracting confessions using electroshock torture is good, and worrying about the possibility that some of the suspects they grabbed might be innocent is unpopular, and we must go along to get along, well then ... what’s a boy to do?

One needs to think long-term; not just “what do I think about this person’s friend’s statements, and the implications of those statements”, but “what sort of change in the character of those around me am I encouraging, and what are the implications of those changes” - seeing that this is a distinct issue. In this case, you’ve encouraged a belief in guilt by association, and the implications are troubling, indeed.

Joseph Dunphy on September 2, 2007 at 10:27 am
Avatar for Sheila

Alan Dershowitz is an An-American bigot who can’t decide if he’s Israeli or American, and knows nothing about the Middle East or Carter’s policy. Having read Carter’s book, the man wants peace in the Middle East and it’s obvious when you read his book.  Best, Sheila.

Sheila on December 26, 2007 at 02:26 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.