Why won't Carter debate his book?

boston.com ^ | December 21, 2006 | By Alan Dershowitz

[pepsionice]

What comes up interesting is that only Carter cabinet members talk fondly of the years. Historians don't talk much at all...they avoid the subject of the Carter years. Its the same with most Democrats...they don't touch this entire era. I suspect that we will all forget Jimmy in about 30 years.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Carter's refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate. Authors should be accountable for their ideas and their facts. Books shouldn't be like chapel, delivered from on high and believed on faith.

What most rankles is Carter's insistence that he is somehow brave for attacking Israel and highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people. No other conflict in the world -- not even the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan -- evokes more hand-wringing in the media, universities, and human rights organizations than the Israel-Palestine conflict.

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.

Ah, so typical of him.

[mcar]

lol

[Cincinna]

I know he defended OJ, but maybe his straight talk on this subject redeems him.The more Carter opens his mouth, the more he reveals himself. The more we look into his past, the worse he looks.

Worst President ever... no contest.