A couple of weeks ago, I noted Alan Dershowitz's altogether to respectful dissent from Jimmy Carter's latest propaganda book.

Dershowitz perhaps contemplated that a respectful treatment of this icon of the left would get a hearing for his defense of Israel. He had it bassackwards--if you respect the anti-Israel, anti-semite, anti-capitalism point of view, you could call Jimmy Carter a pedophile and no one would even blink.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say Carter is a Benedict Arnold, he is very much like Benedict Arnold, a man of demonstrable talent blinded by his own pride and ambition and destined to be vilified by history. Carter was well on the way to surviving his disastrous presidency, but at the end of his life, his devils got the better of him.

Powerline reprints an email by Dr. Kenneth W. Stein, Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science, and Israeli Studies, Director, Middle East Research Program and Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel--not to mention the first director on the Carter institute back in the early 1980s.

Professor Stein has terminated his relationship with the Carter center on the basis of former President Carter's latest book.

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. 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.

Its a powerful an unequivocal condemnation and one can barely imagine how hard it must have been for Professor Stein to abrogate a long term personal and professional relationship to do justice to his personal integrity.

Notably, I just happened to catch a segment last night on O'Reilly, which replayed what looked like a CSPAN caller show where Carter was the guest. The woman who called in was in a cold rage about Carter's book and she proceeded to rip a strip off of his hide. It was very interesting to see the expression on his face change from that rictus grin he usually has on, to one of shock and anxiety.

It dawned on me that Carter simply didn't anticipate this kind of reaction from the public. The fact that he was a guest on a call-in show reinforces that impression.

The implications are thick in the air--is it possible that Jimmy Carter is so isolated from public opinion that he had no idea that his actions would be received like a fart in church? I have to think that is precisely what is going on. The resignation of his friend and colleague and the blunt accusations of deception and fraud are going to be an even more serious shock than a caller with a gripe.

A defection of this magnitude will only serve to embolden others to speak out. I expect that even his nominal supporters are going to be throwing him overboard.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy...