Monday, 27 August 2007
 

Tears Of Ink

Email from frequent Old War Dogs contributor Roberto Prinselaar (USN 1948-1957, USCG 1967-1989). I added the Amazon link.:

xxxx
xxx		xxx
xxxx

Bill,

My new book “Tears Of Ink” has been published, and is available at www.amazon.com. The book is a compilation of all of my military poems plus some writings. One of the counselors at the Vet Center in Las Vegas urged me to publish, and my wife assisted in getting everything ready for the publisher. I can’t take any of the profits from the sale of the book because I firmly believe that my being able to write what I did was a gift from God, so I’m donating all of the profits to our local chapter #961 of the Viet Nam Veterans of America. They just got started and need help.

Bob Prinselaar

Seriously, folks, this is one you really need a copy of. Check out Bob's Old War Dogs contributions here and his IWVPA page here.

Tears of Ink
Bob Prinselaar

My tears of ink flow down my pen
A torrent of what’s inside of me
My feelings in a tale
The words all come from deep within
Old memories just come tumbling out
As I pull aside the veil
Some memories darker than the ink
And I fight to keep them down
My hand grips hard the pen
Why am I cursed with all my thoughts
Of things that happened long ago
And of men I knew back then
So now I write to ease the pain
And I cry inside to form the ink
And let it flow to write
But ink will never be the same
And I will never find my peace
Till real tears blur my sight

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM in Bob Prinselaar, Books, Poetry | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 15 August 2007
 

This summer's must read

Lone Survivor - Top Reading Choice of the Summer
George "Rurik" Mellinger

xxxx
xxx		xxx
xxxx

A military mission gone horribly wrong, resulting in a bloody struggle against overwhelming odds, is a common enough tale. But Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell with Patrick Robinson (Little, Brown 2007) is a rare example of the genre. Defeat, and escape from complete catastrophe are not the usual subjects for uplift and inspiration. And in any case, I usually detest “uplift and inspiration” as nonsense for the weak-spined needing continual bracing. But this book inspires anyway, perhaps because it is not intended to be “inspirational”. You may read Lone Survivor as an inspiring adventure of a warrior battling against odds and numbers too great, and somehow surviving. But if you read it only as an adventure tale, you will have missed the author’s purpose and his deeper message.

It would be easy to make such a mistake. The first two chapters got off to a very slow and awkward start for me. The tone was excessively conversational. With nary a complete sentence. Just fragments. And lots of slang usage. Disjointed, you understand. And disorganized. Like this.  And everything seemingly exaggerated. Marcus’ boasting, and his eulogies to his friends, now dead, which seemed to rise to the level of hagiography.

With the third chapter, the tenor of the book completely changed, and the story became far more focused, tighter and better organized. In this, and the following chapters, Marcus Luttrell describes the gritty path which led to becoming a SEAL. This enthralled me, and illuminated much of the boasting which had gone before, and also the determination which was to follow. The training is always stressful and brutal in any of the military’s voluntary programs, Officer Candidate School (which this reviewer tried unsuccessfully), Airborne, Ranger or Special Forces, or SEALs. Luttrell maintains that SEAL training is the toughest of all, and reading his description, I’m quite prepared to believe him. Every branch of every service convinces itself that they are an elite, better and tougher than all the others, believing the same thing. But the SEALs seem to have the bragging rights. This hundred and twenty pages, by itself would be an excellent lesson for anyone who has never done military service, what it means to become a warrior, and why they do it. ...

Read the whole thing here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 15, 2007 at 12:05 AM in Afghanistan, Books, The American Warrior, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 31 July 2007
 

An Enormous Crime; The Gospel of POW Hell

The latest from poet and POW/MIA activist Marsha Burks Megehee:

"An Enormous Crime"
(THE GOSPEL OF POW HELL)

"An Enormous Crime"...truth at last!
Time's long, dark shadows flee.
The gospel of lost, abandoned men,
Denied their liberty!

Freedom's hope...stolen lives,
Lie-masters...blacked out names;
Deceit at the highest level.
"The Emperor's New Clothes," of shame!

Paper deaths...prisoners' cries,
"Taps".....falsley played.
"An Enormous Crime" sheds light upon
Sweet liberty's soul, betrayed!

Buried truth, devils deals,
False coffins....empty laid.
"There are no POWs!" Why?
Their ransom was not paid!

War with time.... shadow men,
Guardians of cruel lies.
"Search....but do not find them!
Until the last one dies"

Cover up, stonewall, deny.
The families must not know!
Re-classify the paper trail,
From Nixon....to Le Duc Tho!

It's for the country....foreign trade,
The house of cards must stand.
"There are no POWs!"
Debunk live sightings and Rand.

Build a blind....in cyber space,
"Truth's digital morgue."
Call activists "Don Quioxties"
Name it "POW Facts. org!"

Tie the truth in 'Gordian knots"
Hunt survivors....... in pantomime!
"There are no POWs!
It will be true.........with time!" 

Thank you! Billy Hendon and Beth Stewart,
for the truth..... and the courage to expose
"An Enormous Crime."

Marsha Burks Megehee

God Bless Our POWs!
2008!......Before it's too late!

Inspired by the book An Enormous Crime: The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia. While you're at Amazon buying that you'll also want a copy of Is Anybody Listening?: A True Story About POW/MIAs In The Vietnam War.

I should have my ass kicked for not having it finished by now but please check out the site I'm building for Marsha here anyway. 

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 31, 2007 at 03:27 PM in Books, Marsha Burks Megehee, Poetry | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 05 July 2007
 

How to help lose a war without really trying

Prerequisites:

• The Vietnam history you haven't heard
• Understanding Restored, a Review of Triumph Forsaken

Halberstam’s History
By Mark Moyar

In the days following the death of David Halberstam on April 23, praise of his journalism appeared in just about every major newspaper and magazine in America. Adhering to the principle of de mortuis, I did not interrupt the paeans with remarks about Halberstam’s gross misdeeds in Vietnam, which I had exposed in a book last year. But now that the funeral period has ended, the media has made clear that Halberstam’s elevation to the status of national hero is intended to be permanent, so in the interest of national history it has become necessary to point out how much Halberstam harmed the United States during his career. ...

Read the whole thing.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 5, 2007 at 08:39 PM in Books, Media Malpractice, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 01 July 2007
 

In my mail: "Lone Survivor"

Lone Survivor
The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing
and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10

Actually it came Tuesday but between a visit from my grandson, the No Illegal Left Behind battle and having a bunch of errands to run Friday it took me till yesterday afternoon to get started reading it. I can tell already it's not going to be a fun read but it will definitely be an interesting read. I'll be back with a more detailed report later. For now check out Blackfive's post here and read a sample chapter here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 1, 2007 at 01:22 AM in Books, The American Warrior, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 12 June 2007
 

"The One"

I'm not going to have a lot to say about this one till the review copy I've been promised arrives but do check out Blackfive's post here and follow the links. I already know enough just from that post to know this won't be a book I have to make myself make time to read simply because I promised to review it. I can hardly wait till it gets here and it will affect my blogging when it does.

***

Read the first chapter of the book online here. (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Contributed by Bill Faith on June 12, 2007 at 12:08 AM in Afghanistan, Books, The American Warrior, US Navy | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 28 February 2007
 

"Don't Tread on Me"

Heroic history
Scott Johnson

Mark Moyar is the author of the revisionist Vietnam war history Triumph Forsaken, which we have discussed here previously. Today's New York Sun carries Mark's thoughtful review of the new book by H.W. Brands III, which Mark highly recommends: "Over There: America's Unsung Heroes." Here is a part of Mark's lead-in to the review proper:

The Vietnam-era journalists began a tradition that today's press consistently upholds. We hear very little from most large press outlets about American heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, men like James Coffman Jr., Danny Dietz, and Christopher Adlesperger, or about our military successes there. Instead of associating such names with these wars, Americans associate the words they hear most often from the press, like Abu Ghraib and Haditha. As in Vietnam, too, the shunning of heroes does not extend to the press's coverage of itself. Awards to journalists, both those who have spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who have not, are considered worthy of lengthy news stories. ...

Actually,  "Over There: America's Unsung Heroes" is the title of the New York Sun column but the book in question is Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting. I was fortunate enough to receive a review copy of the Moyar book and if  he recommends "Dont Tread on Me" it must be good.

R J Del Vecchio emails:

Now here's an book review worth reading just for what the reviewer points out about Americans in war.  The book itself that he recommends would be a bonus.

Del

***

Over There: America's Unsung Heroes
By Mark Moyar

Neil Sheehan began his Pulitzer-Prize winning book "A Bright Shining Lie" by pronouncing the Vietnam War "a war without heroes." In the rest of the book, the Americans in Vietnam largely came across as fools, liars, criminals, or a combination thereof, with the exception of Mr. Sheehan and his fellow journalists, who were depicted as brave unmaskers of ineptitude and absurdity. Sheehan ignored the real heroism of many brave Americans — such as Marvin Shields, Carlos McAfee, Antonio Smaldone, and Steven L. Bennett, to name but a few — and many military victories, for American triumphs did not square with his claims about the war. He badly distorted press involvement in the war so that he and his colleagues, particularly David Halberstam and Stanley Karnow, could dodge the blame they deserved for promoting the disastrous coup against the South Vietnamese government in November 1963. ...

Publicizing American heroism and success is essential today for two reasons. First, it permits a nuanced view of Iraq and Afghanistan, one which cannot be discerned from the daily stories of sectarian murders and the photos of American troops who have just been killed. Second, American troops and the American people become more courageous and resolute when they hear of their countrymen's military heroism and success, past and present. In earlier times, Americans ingrained their traditions of heroism and victory into the country's youth through historical instruction. Today's history textbooks largely ignore America's military past, a reflection of the anti-military prejudices, lack of military experience, and cosmopolitanism that pervade the intelligentsia.

Most Americans outside of academia and the mainstream press, on the other hand, still understand the importance of military tradition, and they crave stories about valorous Americans at war. We are fortunate, therefore, to have "Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, From Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting" (Crown, 464 pages, $27.50) to satisfy that yearning. In witty and irreverent prose, author H.W. Crocker III provides a broad survey of America's martial history, starting at the arrival of the first English colonists and ending with the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the great military men whom Mr. Crocker profiles are some who remain widely known because they later became president (Jackson, Taylor, Theodore Roosevelt), or because their renown is too enormous to hide (Douglas MacArthur, George Patton). But most are men whose fame has been dimmed by the neglect of the cultural elites. ...

We see, for instance, Daniel Morgan at Cowpens masterfully positioning his unreliable militiamen and then, after fierce British attacks, reorganizing the retreating militiamen to envelop the enemy. We watch Stephen Decatur sneaking into Tripoli harbor by rowboat and burning the captured USS Philadelphia to deprive the Tripolitan Bashaw of its use. At Manassas, as General Thomas Jackson leads his Virginian infantry in shoring up the battered Confederate lines, we hear General Bernard Bee shout, "There is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer!"

Mr. Crocker also lauds American units and American services. Among those whom he most admires are the Rangers in French and Indian War, the motley crew that fought the Battle of New Orleans, the Army of Northern Virginia, and the US Marines and US Navy in World War II. Mr. Crocker credits the American people with providing the raw material that makes for good soldiers. The virtues originally developed in frontier warfare — pragmatism, independence, ambition, courage, forcefulness, and discipline — were critical to American excellence in building armies and fighting battles.

"Don't Tread on Me" deftly illuminates the full spectrum of America's rich military traditions. Its tales of great warriors and great battles, entertainingly told, should inspire us in time of war. National greatness demands illustrious history — and vigilant determination to live by that history.

Mr. Moyar is the author of "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965" .

Once again, the book is Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting. Triumph Forsaken is available here (fourth item on the right).

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 28, 2007 at 03:21 PM in Books, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 27 February 2007
 

My Year Inside Radical Islam
Michelle Malkin

Check out Part One of our Hot Air interview with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, author of the terrific memoir, My Year Inside Radical Islam. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 27, 2007 at 09:50 PM in Books, Islamism Delenda Est | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 24 January 2007
 

The Vietnam history you haven't heard
By Mark Moyar (Hat tip: R J Del Vecchio)

xxxx
xxx

QUANTICO, VA. - With ever-increasing frequency, Americans are told that Iraq is another Vietnam, usually by those accusing the Bush administration of miring the United States in a hopeless war. For most who make this comparison, the Vietnam War was an act of hubris, fought for no good reason and in alliance with cowards. But new historical research shows this conventional interpretation of Vietnam to be deeply flawed. The analogy, therefore, must be rethought.

Three journalists handed down the standard version of the Vietnam War in three bestselling tomes. The first two, David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" (1972) and Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History," (1983) each sold more than 1 million copies, while the third, Neil Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie" (1988), received the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award.

These books have profoundly influenced almost everything else that has been written about the Vietnam War. Because of the iconic status of these journalists and the political inclinations of the intelligentsia, the three books received few serious challenges - prior to the publication last summer of my "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965."

Historians such as Guenter Lewy, Lewis Sorley, and Michael Lind have also effectively contested some of the journalists' basic interpretations, and antiwar historians have produced more modest modifications, but the Halberstam-Sheehan-Karnow rendition of the war has remained dominant.

One reason for the durability of their version is that the endless repetition by other commentators produced the impression that it had to be right. Earlier, when writing a book on counterinsurgency in the latter years of the war entitled "Phoenix and the Birds of Prey," I, too, presumed that the first half of the war had been covered exhaustively. Only after many subsequent forays into archives and Vietnamese-language sources did I discover that the standard narrative of the critical early years was terribly wrong. ...

Read the whole thing, then buy Moyar's book. I have a copy and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 24, 2007 at 02:13 AM in Books, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 16 January 2007
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 7
-- Updated and bumped, damning quote added
-- Updated and bumped: Steve Berman video added

See all of my Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter posts in one place here.

14 Carter Center Advisers Resign
Over Former President Jimmy Carter's Book

WASHINGTON —  Fourteen members of a leadership group under former President Carter's think tank resigned Thursday over concerns that Carter's book on the Middle East does not represent "the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."

The members of the 200-member Board of Councilors, a leadership advisory group founded in 1987, join a longtime Carter aide, Jewish groups and lawmakers who have publicly criticized the former president's best-selling book "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid" for inaccuracies and distorting history.

"It comes to the result of deep soul searching and a tremendous amount of angst," said Steve Berman, a member who was appointed six months ago.

Berman, an Atlanta commercial real estate developer, said he was led to resign after becoming deeply troubled after reviewing Carter's book, shocked by factual errors and a message that doesn't serve the cause of peace.

"We're trying to send a message that the issue of the Middle East is very complicated and complex," Berman said. "There are two narratives that need to be heard."

Berman refers to two narratives between the Israelis and Palestinians in contesting one piece of land. "Palestinian leaders have had chances since 1947 to have their own state, including during your own presidency when they snubbed your efforts," the letter reads. ...

James Taranto has more here (3rd item) and links to a copy of the resignation letter here.

*** Update and bump. Original timestamp 2007.01.11.23:18

Say It Ain't So, Jimmy 
Wretchard

It's hard to read Alan Dershowitz's denunciation of former President Jimmy Carter without getting a sinking feeling. Dershowitz summarizes the huge sums which investigative journalists now say Jimmy Carter received from Arab and Islamic sources. And they are considerable. The Saudis bailed out his peanut farm in 1976. The infamous BCCI and Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon actually helped with the startup funding of the Carter Center. Carter himself is quoted fulsomely thanking  Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the long time ruler of the UAE, for donating half a million dollars. From what is known Carter has received tens of millions of dollars from Arab and Islamic sources. And that, argues Dershowitz, is behind the former President's tireless campaigning against Israel. He says so in the most brutal and accusatory terms: "Carter ... has been bought and paid for by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money." But it is one of Dershowitz's sources, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who provides the most food for thought: "seems that AIPAC's (American-Israel Political Action Committee) real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty". The sinking feeling is the realization that this is what political viewpoints might come down to. ...

***

Jimmy For Terror
N Y Post Editorial

January 15, 2007 -- Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?

Sure looks that way.

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter's new anti-Israel screed, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"?

To wit: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Emphasis added.)

You don't have to read between the lines here.

Carter isn't calling on the Palestinians to give up terror and murder now as a way to convince Israel they are serious about peace. Rather, he says they can wait until they've achieved their goals at the bargaining table. No need, says Carter, to give up terrorism until then.

Certainly, that's how 14 members of the Carter Center's advisory board read that paragraph. Indeed, it's why they angrily submitted their resignations last week.

That's also how Melvin Konner read it. He's a respected anthropology professor at Emory University and had been asked to be part of an academic group meant to advise the former president and the Carter Center on how to respond to criticism of the book.

As Konner wrote to John Hardman, the center's executive director, in declining the invitation: "I cannot find any way to read this sentence that does not condone the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace. The sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children, along with all Jews everywhere, in greater danger."  ...

*** Update and bump. Previous timestamp 09:11

Jimmy Carter's irresistible urge
Paul Mirengoff

Kenneth Stein is the Emory University professor who resigned from the Carter Center in protest against the "gross inventions, intentional falsehoods and irresponsible remarks" contained in Jimmy Carter's latest book. He has now elaborated on what some of the falsehoods are. One involves Carter's misquotation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Stein says that Carter inserted the word "the," which did not appear in the original, and thus made the resolution appear more specific than it was in requiring Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories.

But Stein's main complaint is that Carter reports falsely about a meeting he had with Syrian dictator Hafez Assad in 1990, which Stein also attended. In Carter's version, Assad said he was willing to negotiate with Israel on the status of the Golan Heights. But according to Stein, Assad was not willing to accept a demilitarized Golan. Stein also disputes Carter's claim that Assad expressed willingness to move Syria's troops farther from the border than Israel would be required to do. According to Stein, Carter's falsehoods are intended to make Syria look more reasonable, and Israel more intransigent, than was actually the case. So, as one might have guessed, Carter's irresitible urge to cast anti-American dictators in a favorable light (coupled, of course, with his hatred of Israel) has landed him in this latest spot of bother.

Finally, Stein takes issue with Carter's claim that ...

***

Jimmy Carter’s heart of dorkiness
Allahpundit

The latest provocative, three-quarters-baked missive from Spengler at the Asia Times. Dedicated with love to all our southern readers:

After Iran let the diplomats go, the provincial peanut farmer who stumbled into the presidency flew to the US air force base in Germany to meet them. He asked the Central Intelligence Agency psychiatrists who were debriefing the hostages, “Didn’t the Iranians know what they were doing was wrong?” Call it the heart of dorkiness: Carter was so horrified by the Iranians’ capacity for evil that he could not absorb the information, even when it grabbed him by the scruff of his neck and threw him out of the White House…

The former president is hard to read without taking into account the southern US context. A partial explanation for his see-and-hear-no-evil view of the world can be found in southern guilt over the maltreatment of blacks. Carter’s chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, heard his first briefing on the Middle East in 1977 and offered, “I get it: the Palestinians are the niggers.”  ...

*** Update and bump. Previous timestamp 2007.01.15.21:44

Video: Fmr. Carter center member
says Carter condones Palestinian terrorism 
Ian Schwartz

[video link]

Steve Berman, one of the fifteen members who have left the Carter Center in recent weeks, appeared on Hannity & Colmes Monday evening to explain why he left and why he thinks Former President Jimmy Carter condones Palestinian terrorism.

Berman’s angst comes from the following passage in Jimmy Carter’s new book: ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 16, 2007 at 04:06 PM in Abu Jimmy, Books, Dem Dumbness, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 06 January 2007
 

"The two of you did visit the same country, didn't you?"

Recommended prior reading: Understanding Restored, a Review of Triumph Forsaken

A winnable war?
Scott Johnson

Last month John and his on-air partners at Fraters Libertas interviewed Mark Moyar about Triumph Forsaken, Moyar's revisionist history of the early period of the Vietnam war. John noted the interview in "You think you know about Vietnam? Think again." John's post has a link to the Podcast of the interview with Moyar.

The new issue of the Weekly Standard that is out this morning carries Mac Owens's review of Moyar's book. Mac commanded an infantry platoon as a Marine officer in Vietnam, was wounded twice and was awarded a Silver Star and two Purple Hearts. He is a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, a student of civil-military relations and a contributing editor of National Review Online. He is, in other words, a knowledgeable scholar. Here's a bit of what Mac writes about Moyar's new book:

Triumph Forsaken is one of the most important books ever written on the Vietnam war. The first of two projected volumes, it focuses on the period from the defeat of the French by the Viet Minh in 1954 to the eve of Lyndon Johnson's commitment of major ground forces in 1965. ...

Read George's review I linked at the top of the post, read the Owens review, and if you can spare the time listen to that Podcast. They're all excellent, as is the book itself.

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 6, 2007 at 11:01 AM in Books, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 26 December 2006
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 6

See all of my Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter posts in one place here.

I'm not really in a position to discuss the religious aspects of this, but it does provide an interesting perspective on things. Well worth reading all of:

A Religious Problem
Jimmy Carter's book: An Israeli view.
Michael B. Oren

Several prominent scholars have taken issue with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," cataloguing its historical inaccuracies and lamenting its lack of balance. The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg also critiqued the book's theological purpose, which, he asserted, was to "convince American Evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel."

Mr. Carter indeed seems to have a religious problem with the Jewish state. His book bewails the fact that Israel is not the reincarnation of ancient Judea but a modern, largely temporal democracy. "I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures," he recalls telling Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first tour through the country. "A common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of the Labor government."

He complains about the fact that the kibbutz synagogue he enters is nearly empty on the Sabbath and that the Bibles presented to Israeli soldiers "was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit." But he also reproves contemporary Israelis for allegedly mistreating the Samaritans--"the same complaint heard by Jesus almost two thousand years earlier"--and for pilfering water from the Jordan River, "where . . . Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist."

Disturbed by secular Laborites, he is further unnerved by religiously minded Israelis who seek to fulfill the biblical injunction to settle the entire Land of Israel. ...

I'm not qualified to get into the religious angles here but it is obvious to this old dog that Abu Carter is letting his own religious prejudices interfere with his ability to see what's right, or what's best for this country.  I stand with Israel.

***

Don't miss Paul Mirengoff's excellent related post here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 26, 2006 at 02:09 AM in Abu Jimmy, Books, Dem Dumbness, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 21 December 2006
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 5

See all of my Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter posts in one place here.

And Speaking of Free Speech...
John Hinderaker

One of its most principled defenders and most effective practitioners is Alan Dershowitz. Over the years, I have disagreed with Dershowitz about most things, but his unwavering commitment to free speech--even in an academic environment--and his tireless unraveling of the endlies calumnies thrown at the state of Israel are far more important than those disagreements. Currently, he is taking on the execrable Jimmy Carter, and it is, as you would expect, a mismatch. Dershowitz writes in the Boston Globe:

[...]

Jimmy Carter isn't brave for beating up on Israel. He's a bully. And like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight.

When Jimmy Carter's ready to speak at Brandeis, or anywhere else, I'll be there. If he refuses to debate, I will still be there -- ready and willing to answer falsity with truth in the court of public opinion.

No doubt it will never happen, but if it does, I want a front-row seat.

***

Why won't Carter debate his book?
By Alan Dershowitz

YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he's a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I'm talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."

Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed. Carter has gone even beyond the errors of his book in interviews, in which he has said that the situation in Israel is worse than the crimes committed in Apartheid South Africa. When asked whether he believed that Israel's "persecution" of Palestinians was "[e]ven worse . . . than a place like Rwanda," Carter answered, "Yes. I think -- yes."

When Larry King referred to my review several times to challenge Carter, Carter first said I hadn't read the book and then blustered, "You know, I think it's a waste of my time and yours to quote professor Dershowitz. He's so obviously biased, Larry, and it's not worth my time to waste it on commenting on him." (He never did answer King's questions.)

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received. He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."

As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 21, 2006 at 05:37 PM in Abu Jimmy, Books, Dem Dumbness, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 18 December 2006
 

Power Line Interviews Mark Moyar

See previous related posts here, here, here and here.

You Think You Know About Vietnam? Think Again
John Hinderaker

I never expected, ten years ago, that Vietnam would once again play an important role in the news. But it does, and that makes the interview that we did with Mark Moyar on our radio show intensely topical. Mark is one of those people who actually knows what he's talking about: a summa cum laude Harvard graduate, a PhD in history from Cambridge University, and currently a professor at the Marine Corps Universtity, Moyar has spent seven years working on the first half of his history of the Vietnam War: Triumph Forsaken, which covers the war from 1954 to 1965.

We interviewed Mark Moyar on our radio show, and to say that his account of Vietnam is revisionist would be putting it mildly. You thought David Halberstam was a hero? Forget about it! ...

... [Y]ou can download or just listen to the podcast here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 18, 2006 at 11:28 PM in Books, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 15 December 2006
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 3

See previous: Jimmy Carter in La-La Land, Speaking frankly about Abu "Holier than das Juden" Carter, Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update, Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 2

See all of my Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter posts in one place here.

Speaking frankly? It's past time to have the dumb ass committed to a home for aged idiots.

Carter: Dershowitz is too ignorant for me to debate
Allahpundit

Cut and run:

Carter, author of a new book advocating “peace not apartheid” in the region, said he will not visit Brandeis University to discuss the book because the university requested he debate Dershowitz.

“I don’t want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,” Carter said in Friday’s Boston Globe. “There is no need … to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.”…

“President Carter said he wrote the book because he wanted to encourage more debate; then why won’t he debate?” said Dershowitz, a vocal First Amendment advocate who has worked for O.J. Simpson and other high-profile clients. ...

***

Jimmy Carter Plays the "God Card"
Alan Dershowitz

In his unrelenting attack against Israel - beginning with his screed Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and continuing in his media blitz - Jimmy Carter frequently invokes religion, in an apparent effort to turn religious Christians against the Jewish State. He started by recounting a bizarre conversation he once had, before he became president, with then Prime Minister Golda Meir in which he warned her that there was "a common historical pattern... that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned way from devout worship of God." What Chutzpah!

An American private citizen lecturing the Prime Minister of Israel to make her country more religious. Imagine if Meir had listened? Imagine how much more difficult peace would be if Israel were a religious state whose claims were based on God's words in the Bible?

Carter has tried hard to turn the mideast conflict into a religious one. He constantly refers to Israel as the "Holy Land," which he defines as follows:

"It became increasingly clear that there were two Israels. One encompassed the ancient culture and moral values of the Jewish people, defined by the Hebrew Scriptures with which I had been familiar since childhood and representing the young nation that most American envisioned."

Carter condemns Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring those of every religion the right to worship as they please consistent, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West ank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.

Carter goes out of his way to point out that some Christians are separated from their churches by the "Apartheid Wall," without mentioning that it was Muslim terrorists who used Christian churches as terrorist sanctuaries.

Carter even blames Israel for the "exodus of Christians from the Holy Land,"; totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 15, 2006 at 04:30 PM in Abu Jimmy, Books, Dem Dumbness, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 12 December 2006
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 2

See previous: Jimmy Carter in La-La Land, Speaking frankly about Abu "Holier than das Juden" Carter, Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update

See all of my Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter posts in one place here.

This has moved well beyond simple "differences of opinion." Either Abu Carter is deliberately lying in his efforts to see the Jews get what he thinks they deserve or he's totally lost touch with reality.

Video: Jay Leno, neocon
Allahpundit

Poor Jimmy. Even the comedians know he’s wrong.

Never mind Leno, though. You’re watching here for four separate lies in the span of two minutes.

[video link]

Count ‘em:

1. Hamas wants to trade Gilad Shalit for 300 Palestinian women and children? Alas, the truth is more nuanced:

The deal is intended to take place in three stages: In the first, Israel is expected to release about 400 prisoners, among them women, minors and prisoners suffering from health problems. A short while later, or parallel to the initial release, Shalit would be released to Israel.

In the second stage, following the release of Shalit, another large group of Palestinian prisoner would be released. In the third stage, another group of prisoners, considered “heavy duty” figures, would be freed. These include senior members of terrorist organizations, including individuals with “blood on their hands.”

At the top of Hamas’s list: Abbas Sayed, mastermind of the 2002 suicide bombing in Netanya that killed 29 people.

2. ...

3. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a “key issue” throughout the region, including in Iraq? This one isn’t a lie so much as a myth, but close enough. Lisa Beyer, writing today in Time, explodes it:

To promote the canard that the troubles of the Arab world are rooted in the Palestinians’ misfortune does great harm. It encourages the Arabs to continue to avoid addressing their colossal societal and political ills by hiding behind their Great Excuse: it’s all Israel’s fault. Certainly, Israel has at times been an obnoxious neighbor, but God help the Arab leaders, propagandists and apologists if a day ever comes when the Arab-Israeli mess is unraveled. One wonders how they would then explain why ...

4. There’s no debate in America about Israeli “persecution” of Palestinians? Kind of hard to make that argument while sitting on the set of the Tonight Show plugging a book about “apartheid” in the territories, but he does ...

In fact, there’s plenty of debate. Carter’s side just happens to be losing, for reasons concisely explained in Michael Kinsley’s brief treatment of Jimbo’s “moronic new book.” You can’t scream about “apartheid” in Palestine when the rest of the region is Judenrein — or, rather, you can, but don’t wonder then when people end up questioning your priorities. And like Kinsley says: “If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?”

***

***

Charges detailed against Carter book
Ed Lasky

The Emory Wheel, student-run newspaper at Emory University, details serious accusations against Jimmy Carter's controversial new book made by Emory Professor Kenneth Stein, who resigned last week from his post at The Carter Center to protest its inaccuracies.

Rachel Zelkowitz writes of Stein's views:

...the former president's first error concerns United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Signed in November 1967, the agreement has been used as the basis for all subsequent Arab-Israeli negotiations.

In his book, Carter writes that the resolution says, "Israel must withdraw from occupied territories" it acquired by force during the Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

But the word "must" never appears in the actual U.N. resolution text.

Stein argued that each word in the resolution was carefully chosen and by inserting the word "must," Carter changed the implications of this key resolution.

Stein said Carter makes a second "inexcusable" error ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 12, 2006 at 06:11 PM in Abu Jimmy, Books, Dem Dumbness, Dhimmitude, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 11 December 2006
 

Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update

See previous: Speaking frankly about Abu "Holier than das Juden" Carter. See all of my Speaking Frankly About Abu Carter posts in one place here.

Jimmy Carter: "worse than plagiarism"
Thomas Lifson

Jimmy Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid, has taken a lot of serious criticism, not least in these pages (see Rick Richman's devastating review). In recent days, apparent plagiarism on the part of the former president has come to light, as maps published by Dennis Ross in an earlier book appear to have been copied without attribution. Ross stated on Fox News Chanel (where he works as a commentator) Sunday that he believes he is the victim of plagiarism.

Today, Rick Richman goes far deeper into the matter, questioning the ethics involved in something "worse" than plagiarism: omitting and distorting data, turning the plagiarism into virtual lying. Writing on his own site, Jewish Current Issues, Rick states:

Carter not only appears to have copied maps from Ross but -- more importantly -- to have re-titled them to make them appear to be something they are not.  Moreover, his maps omit the descriptive notes that Ross included on his maps, which would have contradicted the point Carter was trying to make.  Finally, the point he was trying to make with the borrowed and altered maps is central to his entire book.

Rick's analysis and discussion are detailed and devastating to Carter. The maps themselves are examined and the meaning of the relabeling and ommissions explained. No simple summary will suffice to explain how Carter seemingly twisted data and misled his readers. In conclusion, Rick writes: ...

***

Carter's Maps: Worse Than Plagiarism
Rick Richman

David Gerstman may have been the first person in the blogosphere to note that, buried in the middle of Professor Kenneth Stein’s stinging criticism of Jimmy Carter’s book, was a veiled accusation of plagiarism.  Stein called the book “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.”  David noted that “copied materials not cited” was a genteel reference to one of the worst sins a writer can commit.

In a subsequent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Stein said two maps in Carter’s book were “very closely similar, or unusually similar, to maps that were produced and published in Dennis Ross' book.”  The next day Dennis Ross said it “sure looks” like Carter ripped him off. The apparent plagiarism was covered by The Political Pit Bull, Gateway Pundit, Bill’s Bites, Hot Air, LGF and others.  A video of Stein, Ross and Carter discussing the issue is here.

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line placed the issue in perspective, noting that plagiarism was “probably the least of the problems Carter faces with respect to his book” -- given Stein’s other, even more serious, criticisms of it.  Mirengoff quipped that “at least [Carter’s book] has good maps.”

Actually -- it doesn’t.  And therein lies a problem much more serious than plagiarism.

(Both maps are reductions of maps in Richman's piece)

The truth is a little more complicated than mere plagiarism, and takes a while to explain.  Carter not only appears to have copied maps from Ross but -- more importantly -- to have re-titled them to make them appear to be something they are not.  Moreover, his maps omit the descriptive notes that Ross included on his maps, which would have contradicted the point Carter was trying to make.  Finally, the point he was trying to make with the borrowed and altered maps is central to his entire book. ...

To understand the two maps, a little background is necessary.  On July 11-25, 2000, the Israelis and Palestinians met at Camp David to negotiate a final resolution of their dispute.  Israel made an initial offer of a Palestinian state on 87% of the West Bank.  By the end of the two-week period, Israel had increased its offer to 92% (91% of the West Bank plus a 1% land swap from Israeli territory).  Arafat rejected the offers and left Camp David without ever having made a counter-offer in the entire two-week period.

In August and September, the Israelis and Palestinians conducted secret meetings to try to resolve issues on Jerusalem and security so that a new summit could be prepared.  Clinton sent Ross to join those meetings. The parties eventually decided they wanted a U.S. proposal to spur an agreement, and Ross thus went to work over the next three months on what would become known as the “Clinton Parameters.”   ...

The Clinton Parameters were formally offered to the Israelis and Palestinians at a meeting with Clinton in the White House on December 23, 2000 -- presented as a final proposal to be accepted or rejected by December 27, so that negotiations based on them could be completed before Clinton left office.  Ross appends to his book the actual text of what Clinton read to the parties on December 23.  Here is a summary of the parameters Clinton proposed:

[...]

In his book (page xxv), Ross published a map entitled “Map Reflecting Clinton Ideas” showing what the area of the proposed Palestinian state would have been under the Clinton Parameters.  Here is the map:

[a larger version of the map on the left above, linked to an even larger version]

The note on Ross’s map states that it illustrates a Palestinian state in 95% of the West Bank – midway between the 94-96% figures in the Clinton Parameters.  The note also states that the map “actually understates the Clinton ideas by not showing an additional 1 to 3% of territorial swaps to the Palestinian state from areas within Israel” that were part of the Clinton Parameters.

Ross’s map makes it obvious that the proposed Palestinian state was on virtually all of the West Bank, in contiguous areas, with no retention of land in the Jordan Valley, and a long direct border with Jordan. ...

Carter’s description of the Clinton Parameters, and the Israeli response to it, is not even close to correct, but Carter used two maps on page 148 to try to illustrate his false description and absolve the Palestinians from their rejection.  The first map is set forth below and is obviously substantially identical to the Ross map reproduced above. 

[a larger version of the map on the right above, linked to an even larger version]

But notice that while the map is in identical to Ross’s in almost every respect, Carter has significantly altered its title. Carter calls his map not an illustration of the Clinton Parameters by the U.S. Ambassador who developed them, but rather the “Israeli Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal” (emphasis added) -- as if it were simply one side’s “interpretation.” He also omits Ross’s explanatory note, which made it clear the map “actually understates the Clinton ideas by not showing an additional 1 to 3% of territorial swaps to the Palestinians” (emphasis added). 

Next to that map, Carter placed another map, which he titled “Palestinian Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal” (emphasis added) -- a map also borrowed from Ross but then re-titled and altered in an even more significant way.  Here is Carter’s map: ...

We don’t know for sure, but it seems reasonably clear that, one way or another, the maps came from Dennis Ross’s book and then were mislabeled, making them into something they are not, omitting important information that was on the maps, and then presented in Carter’s book as competing “interpretations” of the Clinton Parameters -- which they indisputably are not.  Carter’s maps are worse than plagiarism -- they are placed together in a way that dramatically distorts history, misinforms the reader, and assists Carter in his book-length attempt to absolve the Palestinians from their rejection of peace in 2000 in favor of a barbaric war.

If Carter's book were a car, it would be recalled.

Read the whole thing, friends. As lengthy as my post is, it's only a small taste of the whole article. As Thomas says:

Defective cars kill at most a few hundred people before they are recalled. How many are at risk from Carter's defective information? The damage he did to America and the world did not end when he was repudiated at the polls as few incumbents ever have been. He remains a dangerous and defective ex-president.

***

See also: Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update 2

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 11, 2006 at 10:57 PM in Abu Jimmy, Books, Dem Dumbness, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 10 December 2006
 

Speaking frankly about Abu "Holier than das Juden" Carter

See previous: Jimmy Carter in La-La Land

What would Jimmy do?
Scott Johnson

Todd Winer alerts us to a terrific review by Jeffrey Goldberg of Jimmy Carter's unterrific new book in today's Washington Post Book World: "What would Jimmy do?" Goldberg writes:

Carter, not unlike God, has long been disproportionately interested in the sins of the Chosen People. He is famously a partisan of the Palestinians, and in recent months he has offered a notably benign view of Hamas, the Islamist terrorist organization that took power in the Palestinian territories after winning a January round of parliamentary elections.

There are differences, however, between Carter's understanding of Jewish sin and God's. God, according to the Jewish Bible, tends to forgive the Jews their sins. And God, unlike Carter, does not manufacture sins to hang around the necks of Jews when no sins have actually been committed.

This is a cynical book...

Goldberg deduces the aim of Carter's book: ...

***

I'll forego my normal practice of providing Amazon links to books I mention on this site. I don't want to be party in any way, shape or form to putting so much as a dime in this dumb ass's pocket.

What Would Jimmy Do?
A former president puts the onus for resolving the Mideast conflict on the Israelis
Reviewed by Jeffrey Goldberg

PALESTINE PEACE NOT APARTHEID
By Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter tells a strange and revealing story near the beginning of his latest book, the sensationally titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. It is a story that suggests that the former president's hostility to Israel is, to borrow a term, faith-based.

On his first visit to the Jewish state in the early 1970s, Carter, who was then still the governor of Georgia, met with Prime Minister Golda Meir, who asked Carter to share his observations about his visit. Such a mistake she never made.

"With some hesitation," Carter writes, "I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government."

Jews, in my experience, tend to become peevish when Christians, their traditional persecutors, lecture them on morality, and Carter reports that Meir was taken aback by his "temerity." He is, of course, paying himself a compliment. Temerity is mandatory when you are doing God's work, and Carter makes it clear in this polemical book that, in excoriating Israel for its sins -- and he blames Israel almost entirely for perpetuating the hundred-year war between Arab and Jew -- he is on a mission from God. ...

... This is a cynical book, its cynicism embedded in its bait-and-switch title. Much of the book consists of an argument against the barrier that Israel is building to separate Israelis from the Palestinians on the West Bank. The "imprisonment wall" is an early symptom of Israel's descent into apartheid, according to Carter. But late in the book, he concedes that "the driving purpose for the forced separation of the two peoples is unlike that in South Africa -- not racism, but the acquisition of land."

In other words, Carter's title notwithstanding, Israel is not actually an apartheid state. True, some Israeli leaders have used the security fence as cover for a land-grab, but Carter does not acknowledge the actual raison d'etre for the fence: to prevent the murder of Jews. The security barrier is a desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from detonating themselves amid crowds of Israeli civilians. And it works; many recent attempts to infiltrate bombers into Israel have failed, thanks to the barrier.

The murder of Israelis, however, plays little role in Carter's understanding of the conflict. He writes of one Hamas bombing campaign: "Unfortunately for the peace process, Palestinian terrorists carried out two lethal suicide bombings in March 1996." That spree of bombings -- four, actually -- was unfortunate for the peace process, to be sure. It was also unfortunate for the several dozen civilians killed in these attacks. But Israeli deaths seem to be an abstraction for Carter; only the peace process is real, and the peace process would succeed, he claims, if not for Israeli intransigence.

Here is Carter's anti-historical understanding of the conflict. He writes: ...

***

What would Jimmy Carter do? Part 2
Scott Johnson

This morning Newsweek publicist Natalia Labenskyj emailed us the political stories in Newsweek's new issue. One of the items in Labeskyj's email is Eleanor Clift's softball interview with Jimmy Carter, which I happened to read. Here is one question and answer that caught my attention:

[CLIFT:] You're obviously aware of your main critic, Mr. Stein, who used to be with the Carter Center.

[CARTER:] Thirteen years ago! He hasn't been associated with the Carter Center for 13 years.

.... Professor Stein's Carter Center page is here, describing Professor Stein as the "Carter Center fellow for Middle East affairs since 1983." I don't have the software to perform a screen capture of the page, which I would like to add to this post. Will someone please do one for us?

In answer to the question posed in the heading, Jimmy Carter would lie and then keep right on on lying.

***

Here's the relevant portion of the screen shot I emailed to Power Line:

***

Glenn Reynolds:

So what's worse -- if he's lying? Or if he really doesn't know who works at the Carter Center? Either way, it's another embarrassment for Jimmy.

***

Alexandra von Maltzan:

President Jimmy 'Cowardly Appeasement Policy' Carter is a disgrace. This we know. We also know that he is a rabid anti-Semite, a coward, and acknowledge the fact that the agreement signed 25 years ago with Iran releasing the 52 American hostages was negotiated and signed by President Jimmy "Cowardly Appeasement Policy" Carter, on January 20th 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, as his last glorious act as President of the U.S. just before he handed the sullied reigns over to Ronald Reagan.

As I have written before, almost all the trouble with the Iranian Mullahcracy and their murderous activities throughout the Middle East are deeply rooted in Carter's ignorance which in no small part resulted in the diplomatic obligations set out in the Algiers Accords Agreement, which codified the January 1981 deal between the United States and Iran under which the hostages were released, approx. 8 billion dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen, and an arbitration tribunal was established in the Netherlands to settle claims between the two countries. In the first part of the document, the United States pledged that it "will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Elsewhere, the United States pledged to "bar and preclude" any claims filed by the hostages against Iran.

Under the Agreement, the United States is obligated "to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration...."

***

See also: Speaking frankly about Abu Carter -- Update

Contributed by Bill Faith on December 10, 2006 at 01:12 PM in Abu Jimmy, Books, Dem Dumbness, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Moonbat Madness | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 01 December 2006