Just a little bit more about Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter has been good to my blog, since a post I did about him sparked a fascinating, free-wheeling discussion about America, American politics, the Middle East, etc. I still don’t like the man, and I like him less after learning that he’s received money from the Arabs, both directly (money in his own pocket) and indirectly (money to his Carter Center). We’re not talking chump change here — we’re talking millions and millions of dollars from people who are anxious to see Carter’s views about the Middle East gain prominence in the world debate.

CORRECTION (sort of): The article to which I linked is clear that Jimmy Carter’s Center has taken tons and tons of money from major Arab funders. I read one paragraph in the article to mean that some of this money went into Carter’s own pockets:

High praise for Carter

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. kevin says


    I realize that you addressed the question to Bookworm but in my case, I don’t like the connections we have with the Saudis. As long as oil is in the picture, however, we have the choice to:

    1) drill on American soil like ANWR and off the coasts of CA and FL.
    2) take it from the Middle Easterners (and be accused of imperialism.)
    3) drastically reduce our consumption so quickly (through forced methods such as severe taxation) that the economic impact will be untenable.

    I’ve had the misfortune of working there a couple of times and if you’re familiar with Star Trek TNG, I would make the analogy that they are much like the Ferengi.

  2. says

    I don’t like their ties, either, because I don’t like the views advanced by modern Islamists, whether Sunni or Shiia. Nevertheless, I don’t see that Bush Jr. has allowed those ties to affect their policies — policies that have routinely placed us in the Wahabbi crosshairs (and the Wahabbi’s, of course, are the Saudis). Bush Sr., by the way, I never liked, and I think he was affected by his Arab friends.

  3. dagon says


    my problem with the relationship that some of our leaders have with corrupt families like the house of saud or the bin laden cartel is that it seems to be more for personal gain, rather than an arrangement that benefits the plurality of our citizenry.

    it is doubly troubling when many of these men ascend to high us office and begin advocating for human rights in other lands, all the while eating caviar on the private yachts of arab leaders who oppress their citizenry with impunity. heck, prince faud is practically a godparent to the bush twins.

    when people on the arab street accuse the united states of being hypocrits, it is arrangements like the above that at are the root of it.


  4. dagon says

    and the reason why i bring the question up is that last time i checked, jimmy carter is no longer president…

    …yet we have a sitting president who had FAR more egregiously sucked up to the arabs…and had alternately been coddled and coddles some of the worst actor in the arab world.


  5. dagon says

    well book,

    junior certainly hasn’t been hostile to the whims of the arab leadership. i have heard no serious calls for human rights reforms from bush to his friends in the house of saud.

    nor have i seen any pressure placed by the bush administration on the saudis to curb the madrassas, which are seed bed of anti-western radicalism.

    in fact, bush is perhaps even MORE in bed with the bin laden family and the house of saud than his father; his father having distinguished himself on his own perhaps being less beholden, bush junior had to rely on the connetions and backing of wealthy saudis to get his start in business…

    the potential for conflict of interest are apparent.


  6. Danny Lemieux says

    I hope you aren’t using people like Molly Ivins and Dan Rather for your sources, Dagon. The Bush family had plenty of money before either Bush 1 and Bush 2 became presidents. It’s easy to say that we should stick it to the Saudis (for whom I share a similar contempt). It’s much harder and far more grown up to think through the alternatives and consequences. Talk and ad hominem accusations are cheap.

  7. says

    Danny, it is a hard position to be in. To be pro-war against Saudi Arabia, and yet anti-Bush. It is kind of hard to reconcile. If you are against Bush, this must mean you are anti-war, yet what if you are pro-war. Uho.

    So the solution is usually, they argue “we aren’t for war, we want pressure”. Meaning, bombings. Not War, just blow stuff up. That’s always popular, right?

    But it doesn’t solve anything, though. And people know it.

  8. says

    I’m for threatening to nuke Mecca and Medina if any Muslim takes an American hostage. Escalation demonstration bombardment every day they don’t release the American hostages. (meaning you increase the size of bombs and the number of targets hit to make good your nuclear threat)

    Bush, oil, none of that is any obstacle to me, in my view.

    I’m not afraid to use America’s power. I feel no guilt. There is no hesitation. If there was, the last 3 years of Iraq rope a dope, has cured that. Being a cat doesn’t work people. It doesn’t.

    You think people like me are just going to stop with cleansing out the Sunni Baathists and Shia death squads? After I see them hang on the lamp posts of the streets in Baghdad, there are plenty more people that need killing. I don’t have Bush’s problems, which is his overly sensitive compassion for our enemies, domestic and foreign.

    For one thing, Bush’s second problem is that he has too much respect for other nation’s so called “sovereignty”. So he doesn’t go in and just do whatever he wants in nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I have no respect for any nation’s sovereignty, not if they can’t defend it with military power.

    Bush doesn’t behave like an Emperor. That is why he is unpopular. America has the power of an Empire, without equal, it needs equally powerful leadership. I can say for Bush that I gave him the benefit of the doubt for 4+ years. I have defended him from many of his critics here and otherwhere. But that didn’t stop me from analyzing his fundamental psychological and leadership problems.

    Bush can occupy and basically steal the entire oil infrastructure of the Middle East, without having to occupy any major population centers. But that is called acting like an “Empire” or gasp a bully. Bush cares so much for other nation’s sovereignty and not being a bully, that he walks on eggshells for our enemies and our so called “friends” (fwance).

    That has a consequence. Every policy and action has a consequence. I’m just saying that Bush’s policy is not winning him any friends amongst Dagon and the Left. He tries, though, he tries to win over the Left. But that’s like winning over the jihadists. If you show strength and hack some of their heads off, they will be won over. But short of that, no no.

    The only reason why the Left would ever support Bush is if Bush looks like he is plowing everybody under with victorious wars. If Bush really wants the support of the Left, he needs to start killing more people. That will give him support. Kill Saudis, gain support. Not so hard.

  9. dagon says



    i said that bush 1 made it on his own merits, (poppy’s influence aside, he was still far more individually accomplished than his son) even though he is currently enriching himself at the side of the bin ladens in the carlyle group.

    w on the other hand, needed saudi support to get his first few ventures off the ground. none of this is disputed.

    and yeah, we should stick it to the saudi RULERS. after all this is the war of our times is it not? and a sitting president should be expected to pressure our allies who foster an environment that through it’s very educational structure, is the seedbed of terrorist agression against this country, n’est ce pas?

    but what have we gotten with this bunch? no pressure, hugs and kisses, sweet-heart oil deals for PRIVATE interests and preferential treatment of suspect saudi nationals after the most deadly attack on mainland u.s. soil in the nation’s history.

    and you want to talk about carter? priceless.


  10. Danny Lemieux says

    So, let me get this right. It was the Saudis that bankrolled GW’s foray into oil drilling equipment just as the Texas oil economy went bust (why didn’t the Saudi’s keep bankrolling him?). It was the Saudis who helped Bush buy his baseball team? Or is all this beyond dispute? FYI- the Saudi’s have just as much, if not more, reason to undo the Al-Qaeda networks as we do. Just because we don’t see eye-to-eye with them on many things isn’t a reason not to cooperate. After, we were able to cooperate quite well with “Uncle Joe” during WWII. Carter’s problem with the Shah of Iran is that the Shah didn’t quite meet Carter’s high standards of expectation (unlike Yasser Arafat, for example). So, instead we got the Mad Mullahs, threatening to unleash Armegeddon on Israel and the United States as they willy nilly pursue their nuclear arsenal unopposed by a craven West. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, still thinks he is President and falls all over himself to make nice and further enable ith these Hitler wannabees. That’s why we keep talking about Carter, Dagon. He just insists on staying around and making his original messes so much worse.

  11. says

    Despite a rather high level of disdain for “Jimmah”, I’d really like something more than the FrontPage Magazine article as a basis for the allegation that he has put “money in his own pocket” from the Arabs……that story is far from definitive on the point. Can you provide that, Bookworm?

    Otherwise, I shall feel constrained in my desire to pass along this fascinating (and all too believable) piece of “information”…..


  12. dagon says


    don’t hold your breath waiting. lol.

    btw book, this IS a trap. i don’t expect you to respond to earl’s question but the counter argument would be how much have the bush or rumsfeld families (whom YOU support)enriched THEMMSELVES due to the generosity of arabs?


  13. says

    Earl, I can give you a few links that spell out Carter’s financial ties to Arab money.

    Here’s one, dating back to April 2002, states “NewsMax has reviewed annual reports that indicate millions of charitable dollars have flowed into the center from His Majesty Sultan Qaboss bin Said Al Said of Oman, Jordan, from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and from the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

    Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the center by the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. H.R.H. Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah of Morocco has also contributed tens of thousands of dollars.

    There are no corresponding contributions apparent from Israeli sources, however.” The same article identifies three major Arab donors to the Carter Center, including King Fahd. Here’s the link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/28/112225.shtml

    The Carter Center itself notes that it includes Arab contributors. While it doesn’t give amounts, these guys (the Kuwait and Saudi governments, for example) are on the big spenders list. http://www.cartercenter.org/donate/partners/index.html

    WorldNetDaily, which admittedly isn’t the most reliable source, reported back in June that the Carter Center got $1 mil from the Bin Laden family. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50468

    A 2002 Daniel Pipes article talks about how the Saudis spread money around, naming Carter as one of the recipients along with, yes, George Bush, Sr. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/981

    More on this subject tomorrow.

  14. dagon says


    i’m sure carter would be happy to take CHARITABLE contributions from just about anyone.

    but what earl was asking for was evidence of your claim that he had put money “in his own pocket”. a much more incendiary accusation than receiving charity which is probably why you included it in your screed.

    i believe earl was simply asking for a little proof of that.


  15. Danny Lemieux says

    Well Dagon, the problem is that they all do it. Bill Clinton’s hand was and is deep into Arab money as well. See: http://www.nysun.com/article/5137 or http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/4/141014.shtml?s=ic. Or, let’s go back to Bill Clinton’s financial backing from the Indonesian Riadi family (linked to communist China)even before he became president, a fact that must have devastated you throughout the 1990s, for sure. With regard to your comments about GW Bush, you must be referring to the fact that Bush’s business ventures had investors (Texas oil people -big surprise!), who also happened to have ties to the Arab oil community (shocking, absolutely shocking!). Please explain how these investors could let such a well-connected guy go to the edge of bankruptcy. Now, if you want to argue that no senior U.S. government official should be allowed to take foreign money upon leaving office, you and I can agree.

  16. dagon says


    you’re right that they all do it in regards to financing their campaigns or pet projects. i don’t like the dnc’s money machine either…but a couple of things.

    clinton isn’t in office.

    carter isn’t in office. if book wanted to bring up the spectre of saudi influence on our presidents, she didn’t have to jump in the wayback machine to come up with the WORST example.

    now if you want to argue that clinton or carter have personal ties to the house of saud or the bin laden cartel that equal or rival that of the bushes, then have at it.

    THEY don’t all do that.

    that’s why bookworm bringing this up about carter, with the president(who she shows little discust for)that we currently have being who he is…is a little precious and inconsistent.


  17. dagon says


    the saudi elite and the bin laden cartel are hardly anti-american. why would they be?

    second, i don’t throw the term anti-american around quite as blithely as you just did. from you, i expected a more nuanced response.


  18. Danny Lemieux says

    Dagon, I think that we can agree that there will be a reckoning with the Saudis. That being said, what do you think would happen to the Middle East (and the world economy) if we dropped the Saudis like Carter dropped the Shah of Iran?

  19. dagon says


    when and where did i advocate “dropping” the saudis?

    not good stuff..not at all.

    we SHOULD be “pressuring” the saudi leadership however to reign in the madrassas and to make strides towards human rights reforms. our business relationship with them should not trump our core beliefs; particularly when the social environment in that region is THE driving force behind the radicalization of a percentage of their citizenry.


  20. Danny Lemieux says

    Dagon, I would not be so sure the Saudis aren’t being pressured. There have been developments there. We just don’t read about them in the newspapers. That being said, I am not so sure we are all that far apart on this issue.

Leave a Reply