May 21, 2007 11:07 AM

Jimmy Carter's Cutting Words

US President George W. Bush, 2007/5/1, left, former US President Jimmy Carter, 2004/8/16

US President George W. Bush, 2007/5/1, left, former US President Jimmy Carter, 2004/8/16 (AP)

(The Nation)  This column was written by John Nichols.

How touchy is the Bush administration about criticism?

Very touchy, indeed, especially if the source of that criticism is a certain former president.

When Jimmy Carter, whose approval ratings dwarf those of George Bush these days, gets to talking about what's wrong with the current president, the White House spin machine goes into overdrive.

And Carter has been talking.

He told the conservative Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper Saturday that, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

Suggesting that the president has presided over an "overt reversal of America's basic values," Carter drew a clear line of distinction between the current Bush policies and those of another Bush who has occupied the Oval Office, former President George Herbert Walker Bush.

With his misguided approach to the war in Iraq, Carter said, Bush made a "radical departure from all previous administration policies," including those of the president's father.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," explained Carter, who has long been a critic of the Bush administration but whose comments in recent days have been particularly pointed.

In another interview late last week, with the BBC, Carter effectively referred to outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair as Bush's poodle.

Carter criticized Blair's "blind" support of Bush's war in Iraq, suggesting that the British prime minister had been "subservient" to the American president. Noting that Blair's "almost undeviating" allegiance to Bush's Middle East dogmas had done much to legitimize them at precisely the time when they should have been challenged, Carter argued that the prime minister's promotion of "the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq had been a major tragedy for the world."

Lest there be any doubt about his assessment of Blair's contribution to global stability, the Nobel Peace Prize winner termed the prime minister's failure to counter Bush's messianic march to war "abominable."

It is difficult to argue with Carter, not just on the basis of his stature but on the basis of his astute read of the current circumstance. And that's what scares the Bush White House. When a well-regarded former president gets specific about the current president's dramatic failures — and about the damage that is done when foreign leaders align with Bush — this embattled White House gets tense.

So the president's aides are hitting back, with all the muscle they can muster, at Carter.

"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," griped White House spokesman Tony Fratto, as part of an unusually bitter and specific response issued Sunday from Bush's compound in Crawford, Texas.

In what The Associated Press correctly referred to as "a biting rebuke," Fratto said of Carter's observations: "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."

The irony is that there is nothing unfortunate about Carter's remarks for the United States. By making it perfectly clear that Americans are unsettled by their president's reckless disregard for the rule of law and common sense at home and abroad, Carter helps to separate Bush from America in the eyes of the world, which is a very, very good thing for the American people.

Of course, then, the Bush White House is not attacking Carter's comments on their merit. Rather, the attack boils down to a suggestion that, even though they represent a rare example of a former president bluntly criticizing a sitting president, Carter's remarks of a little or no consequence.

What is fascinating is that the White House is claiming that Carter is "increasingly irrelevant" by going out of its way to attack him on one of the current president's many days of rest.

It seems that, if Carter really was as "irrelevant" as the Bush White House would have us believe, the president's aides would not be attacking the former president in such immediate and aggressive terms.

The truth is that Carter is relevant, perhaps more so now than ever. Even as Bush's fortunes decline, the need of dissenting voices is great. And Carter's dissents go to the very heart of the darkness that this administration has brought down upon the United States. For a body politic sorely in need of the tonic of truth, Jimmy Carter's comments are not just relevant, they are an essential to the renewal of a country and a planet badly battered by the madness of a 21st-century King George.


By John Nichols
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation

The Nation
Add a Comment See all 134 Comments
by dgwooster May 24, 2007 3:58 PM EDT
"You Moron" posted by katg21

There you go again, proving my point. When someone doesn't have truth or logic on their side, they go in for the name-calling.

How is it you feel ZERO empathy for destabilizing a country and forcing millions of people to flee to Syria? Because they're Moslem? Because they live on the other side of the Earth? Bush's war has led to more deaths of innocent Iraqis than Saddm Hussein.

I really think it's reprehensible that people like you try to put a positive spin on a war that has done absolutely no one any good (except Halliburton). You're Unamerican.



Reply to this comment
by jegibbons May 24, 2007 2:04 PM EDT
To: mpmikeb
First off, Jimmy Carter is 83 years old.
He graduated from Annapolis in 1946.
He served as a Naval Officer for 7 years in what was then an emerging nuclear submarine fleet of fewer than six nuclear subs in the post WWII era.

Whatever the Naval Academy of today might offer in the way of advanced scientific academics is a far cry from what could have even been known in 1946.

To state that Jimmy Carter graduated from Annapolis degreed in Atomic Engineering is a GREAT DISTORTION of the TRUTH.

He isn't now, nor has he ever been a taken seriously by the Academic Community in the Nuclear Sciences. To say Mr. Carter presents as a man of science with credentials he does not possess is PATENTLY DISHONEST!

Once Again:
IT IS YOU WHO MUST GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
Reply to this comment
by texmexborderswimmer May 24, 2007 1:16 PM EDT
to JEGibbons
== Mabey you should do your home work as Annapolis Grads receive BS degrees in numerous fields of engineering studies.
Reply to this comment
by jegibbons May 24, 2007 10:32 AM EDT
To: mpmikeb
=="(Carter)...graduated from the Naval Acadamy with a degree in Atomic Engeneering,"==

FYI: The Naval Academy offers no such degree!
The degree is a BS in Naval Science, but you folks never let THE FACTS get in the way of a good argument.

I've never inferred that former President Jimmy Carter was a dummy. I just think that he is delusional and perhaps showing signs of the mental breakdown which sometimes comes as a consequence of aging when one consumes too many peanuts during a lifetime.
Reply to this comment
by texmexborderswimmer May 24, 2007 1:33 AM EDT
Gee isn't it funny when you check down the list of Senators Congressmen & radio talk show hosts how few Conservative Republican's ever served this country by being a member of our military services. Then another check and gee how few Democrates you can find who didn't serve in the military. I was sure it would have been the other way the way you Republican bang the war drums. Oh, thats right like everything else you expect the other guy to do your work for you.
Reply to this comment
by texmexborderswimmer May 24, 2007 1:18 AM EDT
Just have to love the Conservatives who just love to blame President Carter for the inflationay conditions President Nixon created by freezing wages and prices during his time in office. Then they also forget it was President Carter who appointed Paul Volker as head of the Federal Reserve, and who Reagan kept in office as it was his policies that stopped the inflation and got our economy going again. Yea that stupid Democrat from Georgia who graduated from the Naval Acadamy with a degree in Atomic Engeneering, seems to me he must have a little upstairs more than most.
Reply to this comment
by fastrac101-2009 May 24, 2007 1:00 AM EDT
When all the Bush supporters find 30+% more folks in the USA to go with their position then they got it right!
Reply to this comment
by fastrac101-2009 May 24, 2007 1:00 AM EDT
When all the Bush supporters find 30+% more folks in the USA to go with their position then they got it right!
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 23, 2007 10:46 PM EDT
[I am apolitical]
[Posted by JEGibbons at 06:17 PM : May 23, 2007]

in your dreams

you're a clinton hating bush apologist neocon ... it's dripping from your posts.


[I believe George Bush's conundrum in Iraq has much more to do with the bad advice given to the President by VP Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.]

these were his advisors ... and they all think alike ... and they made sure not to allow anyone in that didn't think like them. many of the early admin departures were the weeding out of those that didn't adopt the 'groupthink' (including oneal, powell and armitage). he sticks to his guns even when he's wrong ... he will not tolerate anyone around him who questions ... who second guesses ... who asks 'what if' after they've committed and it's going bad (he calls it 'handwringing'). he had many opportunities to change who advised him and he refused ... as he's doing right now w/ rove, cheney and gonzalez (they should all be out for incompetance or unconstitutional behaviour)

he's responsible for the dsyfunctional cabinet he has ... much like his dysfunctional personality. he's grossly unqualified for the role ... in way over his head ... and he should resign w/ his whole group acknowledging their failures and leave the task to someone who knows what they're doing.

he's a fool ... and doesn't even know it ... and so are you for supporting him.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 23, 2007 10:30 PM EDT
[How about this, you tell me what you think about the stock and job markets right now. Oh and interest rates too. Then tell me Bush is the worst president ever.]
[Posted by katg21 at 04:15 PM : May 23, 2007]

stock market's boomin ... nice to see that wealth distribution growing daily. good for those that have means to invest and take advantage of the advantages. ever notice how a companies stock goes up when they lay off 10,000 employees or close a dozen plants? what did ya think of that bull market during clinton's run ... probably had nothing to do with him, right?

job market looks good if you pick the stat you need ... real wages are down ... unless you're a ceo (see verbose summary of jobs ... care of quintcareers.com ... probably a bunch of pansie a$$ liberals ... http://www.quintcareers.com/job_market.html).

interest rates ... well ... in 1973, during the nixon administration, OPEC agreed to reduce supplies of oil available to the world market. this sparked an oil crisis and forced oil prices to rise sharply, spurring price inflation throughout the economy, and slowing growth.

significant government borrowing for items such as the Vietnam War and the nuclear weapons stockpile helped keep interest rates high relative to inflation. the second energy crisis (opec embargo) occurred in 1979 (iranian revolution). i'll leave the economic impact of these events to the reader.
Reply to this comment
See all 134 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook