Carter Kerfuffle Continues

Why is Douglas Brinkley carrying former President Jimmy Carter's water and making up asinine excuses? Could it be because Brinkley needs the money from writing updates for his biography of Carter?

How else can one explain this tripe:

Speaking to the NEW YORK TIMES Tulane historian Douglas Brinkley, author of the 1988 Carter biography, "The Unfinished Presidency," paints the dispute as more ideological than ethical.

"They've never been on the same page in the Middle East. They've been in an almost constant state of disagreement. Carter has used him as a sounding board but apparently Carter went too far and the sparring partner decided to bloody him up," Brinkley said. "Ken Stein ... doesn't trust the Palestinians as much as Carter."

Sorry, but Stein resigned because, and I quote:

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book [emphasis added]. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

This isn't some minor ideological difference. Stein accuses Carter of lying and making up facts and history to support his own cause, conclusions, and in the process provides yet more ammunition to be used against Israel in the ongoing media war. Brinkley essentially tries to redefine ideological differences to mean lying. Nice.

Perhaps Brinkley wasn't familiar with the source. Or maybe he overlooked some key details. After all, if he knew about the situation, he would know what Stein said. Either way, Brinkley isn't distinguishing himself by entering the fray in such a manner.

Technorati: terrorism, nasrallah, fatah, Gilad, Shalit, Olmert, carter, Abbas, Regev, Goldwasser, PRC, Hamas, Gaza, palestinian, Israel, hizbullah, hezbullah, hezbollah, lebanon, syria.