Two days ago, Jimmy Carter was defending his pro-terrorist, fabricated work of plagiarism by claiming it was just intended to spark debate:

He said he chose the title to shine light on the festering conflict and give Americans a different point of view than what they’re used to.

“I wanted to provoke debate,” Carter said. “I wanted to provoke discussion.”

And Alan Dershowitz and Brandeis University stepped up to the challenge and offered Carter a forum to debate. So what was Carter’s response?

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.

So Carter wrote the book to spark debate, then refused to visit Brandeis because they requested a debate. I guess we really shouldn’t expect more from the peanut farmer.

The school’s debate request, Carter said, is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation’s most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

No, the school’s debate request is proof they wanted to hear a debate, moron. But instead, Carter expects his drive-by punditry to serve as the definitive view on the topic without discussion or debate… typical liberal strategy.

So why is Carter afraid to debate and defend the positions in his book?