Ex-Presidents Should be Seen, Not Heard

I think that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton need to take up some new hobbies, something other than bashing the Bush Administration.

These two Dems have smashed that long-standing tradition in American politics of former presidents not making public statements that criticize a sitting President or the policies of the Administration.

Of course, our history contains instances when Ex-Presidents have not abided by this unwritten rule. There are always exceptions.

However, with Carter and Clinton, PUBLIC criticism of President Bush and his policies is the norm. There is something so unseemly about their remarks, which I guess means that they are completely in character.

When Carter and Clinton rip the President, there is no question that they intend to undermine his standing in the United States. Let's be honest. Carter and Clinton are actively campaigning against the Bush Administration.

What I find more disturbing than that is the fact that their efforts chip away at the American President's stature on the world stage. That is unconscionable, which again means that they are acting precisely in the fashion that one would expect them to behave.

It wasn't long ago, at Coretta Scott King's funeral, that the very undistinguished former President Carter took political swipes at President Bush. He proved that he's a bitter partisan hack and becoming increasingly extreme and reckless in his rhetoric.

In a thoroughly misguided op-ed piece for the Washington Post, one of the most unsuccessful and impotent Presidents of the 20th century shared his foreign policy wisdom with the world. The "genius" Jimmy Carter pontificated that Israel and the United States were taking the wrong approach with Hamas.

Carter writes:

During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.

Of course, he makes a case for appeasement. What would you expect from the former Appeaser-in-Chief?

When I think of "devastating consequences," I'm reminded of what four years of Carter did to the United States.

Talk about devastating!

I digress. Back on topic--

The point is Carter should not be spouting off in the Washington Post to pressure the Bush Administration to alter its policies.

That is counterproductive. Carter doesn't care about the impact his remarks have on the sitting President or the country or our foreign policy. I think he's simply enjoying throwing his weight around and looking to get some payback in his old age.

In other words, he's behaving totally selfishly.

Selfish brings to mind that other undistinguished Ex-President -- Clinton.

Instead of conducting himself with class, he had the gall to criticize the Bush Administration's supposed "penchant for secrecy."

In an interview on Sunday's Good Morning America, Clinton gave his thoughts on Vice President Cheney's hunting accident.



"We have people quite often who are shot in quail incidents, so I didn't feel the need to get into the pile-on," Clinton said.

He continued, "I think the White House should have said something about it sooner. I think that it's gotten a little more light than it would have because the administration has an enormous penchant for secrecy for not telling anybody anything about anything."

I nearly gagged on that.

Said something sooner?

Is that a lesson that Clinton learned from lying to his family, his cabinet, his aides, and the country for seven months in order to hide the truth about his lying under oath?

The obstruction and secrecy of the Clinton Adminstration was elevated to an art form. For him to be chastising Cheney and the Administration for failing to come clean about the ACCIDENT sooner is so hypocritical. Everybody knows that Clinton's lies would never have been revealed if Monica Lewsinsky's big blue dress had been promptly sent to the cleaners instead of tucked away for posterity.

Bottom line:

The country would be far better served if Clinton would quit passing judgment on President Bush and just stay quiet. It might help for him to keep a cigar in his mouth when he's in public. He certainly shouldn't smoke it, but he could chew on it to prevent him from making comments that aren't befitting a former President.

And Carter, he should stick to building houses. If he's too old for that, he should play with his peanuts. Maybe he could come up with a peanut product line, and contribute all the proceeds to the Palestinian people.

The issue here is not that Carter and Clinton should refrain from being engaged in matters critical to the country. The issue is that their incessant PUBLIC criticism of their successor is detrimental to the nation. A united PUBLIC front among the Ex-Presidents Club is particularly important during wartime.

Regrettably, the actions of Carter and Clinton reveal a serious lack of character and a deficiency in honor and integrity on their part. These are not becoming traits for former Presidents.

Duking it out with President Bush in public forums, such as Good Morning America and the Washington Post, is not acceptable. Country should come before politics.

With Carter and Clinton, ego comes first.
__________________________________

The Washington Post reconsidered its choice of headline for Carter's op-ed piece.

Tim Graham writes on NewsBusters:
On Sunday night and Monday morning, the home-page headline at Washingtonpost.com aptly summarized his sentiment: "Let Hamas Govern." (An even better headline would have had a John Lennon-Yoko Ono echo: "All We Are Saying...Is Give Hamas A Chance.") But then, perhaps after someone complained, the homepage shifted to the actual op-ed page headline: "Don’t Punish the Palestinians."

I guess the Post determined that a softer, gentler, more compassionate title would put Carter's thoughts in a better light.

Putting a silk hat on a pig doesn't make a pig less of an appeaser.