Jimmy Carter Blasts Bush Foreign Policy And “Subservient” Tony Blair
Former President Jimmy Carter, a thorn in the side and a pain in a certain southerly part of the anatomy for many Presidents since he left office, has opened up both verbal barrels in a broadside against the foreign policy of President George Bush and the political choices of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
And a biographer says the force of Carter’s denunciations is not business as usual for the former President:
Former President Carter says President Bush’s administration is “the worst in history” in international relations, taking aim at the White House’s policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.
The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush’s environmental policies and the administration’s “quite disturbing” faith-based initiative funding.
“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,” Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s Saturday editions. “The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.”
Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, “Sunday Mornings in Plains,” a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.
Actually, though, Carter’s comments are most notable for their stridency and the fact they come from a former President — not their content: there have been many over the past few years (of both parties) who have indicated that the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive military action and “enhanced interrogation techniques” (which is a phrase sort of like “pre-owned cars”) have not been in sync with the foreign policy and values of previous American administration. Administration defenders insist it’s a whole new world after 911. Critics say that still does not make the policy changes advisable, productive, desireable or wise.
The Republican National Committe was certainly not pleased by Carter’s remarks:
“Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man,” said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also “challenged Ronald Reagan’s strategy for the Cold War.”
Carter was especially tough on the Iraq war:
“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,” he said. “But that’s been a radical departure from all previous administration policies.”
Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having “zero peace talks” in Israel. Carter also said the administration “abandoned or directly refuted” every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.
Meanwhile, Carter didn’t stop there. He also lambasted the administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities get $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005:
“The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion,” Carter said. “As a traditional Baptist, I’ve always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one.”
The AP piece quotes David Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, as calling Carter’s comments unprecedented: “When you call somebody the worst president, that’s volatile. Those are fighting words.” To be sure: former Presidents usually have a tradition of (a) not criticizing other Presidents or, if they do, (b) criticizing other Presidents with a bit of diplomacy.
And Blair? He didn’t fare much better, in Carter’s eyes. Carter called his support of Bush
“Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient…..And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world,” Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.”
In a sense, the AP piece comes as no surprise: Carter has frustrated every President since he left office, including former President Bill Clinton. He remains among the most controversial Democratic Presidents. To his supporters, Carter was misunderstood and never really got a chance to fully perform on the world stage because he only served one term. To his critics (including some in the Democratic party) he masterfully created an image and got elected due to it but once in office was incapable of running a smooth administration and was way out of his depth.
ONE PERSNONAL NOTE: I was overseas in Spain in 1976 writing for the Chicago Daily News and the Christian Science Monitor when Jimmy Carter was elected President. I watched the Carter-Gerald Ford debate via video tape with some friends from Madrid University at an open house at the American Embassy in Madrid.
Once in office, however, it became clear as I talked to American diplomats that many of them were concerned over what they told me was the incompetency of the Carter administration and flaws in its foreign policy. (These diplomats also did not have a high opinion of Senator Ted Kennedy who visited Madrid). When I asked them what they thought of the new administration in my off-the-record or not-for-attribution sessions, some of them would simply grimace and shake their heads.
And now? Up until the Bush administration, Carter’s name has become in the political conventional wisdom akin to failure and incompetence. That may soon be revised in light of the Bush administration’s crisis-of-the-day record and Bush’s own performance, which has started to raise eyebrows among some Republicans so high that that their eyebrows are now three inches above their heads.
What is unusual is Carter’s blunt language. As Carter notes, past administration (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton) all seemed to share roughly the same basic values in American foreign policy, even if they differed on actual details. The Bush administration veered the U.S. in a different direction. You can also see the same pattern of taking the U.S. on a non-traditional course in the Bush administration’s attitude towards civil liberties, the role of Congress and checks and balances, and a host of other matters. It has not been your granddaddy’s, your daddy’s — or even George W. Bush’s daddy’s — Republican administration.
But most of that will get lost because say the name “Jimmy Carter” and some people already think they know where he’s coming from. A flawed President? Yes. An ineffectual administration? Yes. A foreign policy that helped open the doors to some problems the U.S. faces today? Most assuredly, yes. But at least some of what Carter says about U.S. foreign policy and now the Bush administration policy is different has been already stated by others — including some with an R in front of their party registration and highly-raised eyebrows…
UPDATE: For further perspective on how some consider the Bush administration policy as a failure, read Decline and Fall of the Neocons in Sunday TimesOnline. This is similar to Carter’s view.
13 Responses to “Jimmy Carter Blasts Bush Foreign Policy And “Subservient” Tony Blair”
If you go to Red State the commenters are merrily blasting Jimmy Carter- talking about peeing on his grave, and having no state funeral when the old Basta** dies, etc. Because having had a troubled presidency himself, he presumes to judge the Great One. It just proves the point I made that the right is just as mean-spirited as the left was after Jerry Falwell died this week. Isn’t that just a wee bit over the top?
Jimmy Carter was a well-meaning man who was an ineffective president, George Bush is a well-meaning man who has been an even worse president. Otherwise, why would everyone in the GOP be looking for the next Reagan?
It’s a race to the bottom… Jimmah’s just happy that someone came along before he died who might actually just eclipse his own abysmal performance. And you don’t need to be a Red State commenter, or anything even close, to this find this laughable… Of course they’re going to have a field day with it!
Might? Tell me you’re not serious.
IMO, you do have to be a RedStater, or of that general stripe, to find any of this the least bit laughable.
RedState does not allow ANY exchange of political opinion… They DEMAND all opinion to be in mesh with the ‘RedState Point of View’. The closed door environment that they maintain is so restrictive that they are becoming more and more irrelevant every day.
Thank God Joe allows us all to promote and debate our opinions, thoughts and ideas… Imagine different points of view without having to fear of being thrown on a “Pileâ„¢”. Thanks Joe… great place you’ve got here.
Jimmy Carter’s presidency was not successful by any means, though he did have some high points like the Camp David Accords. Most of the time he was at odds with his own party- who unlike today’s GOP would not rubber stamp any of his policies. Everything became a battle. An outsider from Plains, Georgia, the peanut farmer did not fit in with the tony Washington cocktail circuit. It seems strange to us now, but his biggest opposition came from the left, from Teddy Kennedy, who at that time had his own presidential ambitions. But Jimmy Carter did not have a Karl Rove in the WH.
W, OTOH, is almost universally reviled on the international scene because of his disasterous efforts to remake the Middle East without understanding it or its people, and choice of a unilateralist foreign policy during his first term. His choices for the UN and the World Bank- two neocons who were also not multilateralists, has only made the situation worse. At home he has had many domestic failures: social security reform, Terry Schiavo, Katrina, the US attorney scandal, the nomination of Harriet Miers, just to name a few. The economy, which he continually touts, has only benefitted those at the top of the economic ladder, while the middle class continues to struggle to cover soaring energy costs and pay for their health care.
[...] It’s the messenger, according to TMV’s Joe Gandelman (a must-read article), who makes Carter’s incompetent administration look like, dare I say, Roh Moo-hyun’s: [...]
Ergh… I forgot to shut off blockquote. Blah!
Old people, which I am quickly approaching, frequently forget their manners and feel fully justified to make life miserable for everybody around them. We should send the angry Jimmy Carter types to the battlefields because the enemy would not have a chance. Go to any restaurant and listen to the outrageous requests, mean spirited comments made by our senior citizens towards the waitstaff. Jimmy Carter has been very angry for many years. I am speaking about the “look” he gives those that disagree with him which gives new meaning to “if looks could kill”.
If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. The WORST President next to Clinton blasting Bush….What a Crock. President Bush may not be the best, but he sure the hell didn’t put is tail between his legs and run the other way like Carter did with the Iranian Crisis in the Late 70′s and Pres. Clinton did with the first WTC Bombing and the Cole and others. Carter was and is a pussy and he made the USA look like the biggest wimp in the world.
No Jimmy ole boy, YOU WERE THE WORST!!!!
and Clinton ran a close tie behind you.
And yet, Jimmy Carter CONTINUES to embarrass himself. Why doesnt he just simply go home and relax. Nobody serious contemplates HIS opinions after HIS dismal performance as President.
Whatever failings George Bush has, he HASNT left 52 Americans as hostages of a foreign government for over 444 days. He hasnt sat by silently while home mortgage rates climbed to over 20 percent. Mr. Carter cannot say the same and should realize that his failings exceed his successes, at which point, silence would be the rational choice. And believing that if we “just go home” from Iraq, terrorism will subside, was disproved when 3,000 men, women and children died in New York City and on various airplanes around the country when we simply “ignored” the problem like we did when they bombed the USS Cole, and cut and ran from Mogadishu, all of which, by the admission of the terrorist leaders, convinced them that the US is a “paper tiger”(their words).
Get it in your head. Terrorists want us converted to radical Islam, or they WANT US DEAD. They only want talk as a means to give them time to plan their next act. Life means nothing to these people. They have killed more muslims that disagree with them than they have anyone else.
One of the talking heads made a good point about Carter, we must accept the the good with the bad. While he does have oral dysfunction, his work on voting and HFH is more than any previous President has done. Even Clinton is making a fourtune on the speaking tour, none can match Jimmies good work. None are even safe with a hammer in their hands.
From a historical perspective and despite his many other achievements, the President with the worst foreign policy record has to be James Madison. He swayed public opinion towards the necessity of war but seemingly ignored the fact that the U.S. was woefully unable to prosecute a war at that time or even defend its own borders. This, of course, led to British occupation of American land, the blockade of U.S. ports, and the burning of Washington, D.C. Pursuing a war from a point of weakness that places citizens at risk of foreign occupation has to be among the biggest foreign policy mistakes in U.S. history, and is arguably the worst. While the outcome of the War of 1812 was just a return to the pre-war status quo, the intervening years brought the U.S. nothing but lost lives and economic turmoil. Madison’s decision to go to war is especially vexing considering the British offered to end trade restrictions immediately after the U.S. declaration of war (trade restrictions among other grievances supposedly being the main reason for war).
In reality, picking the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history is up to infinite debate. Madison’s War of 1812, Wilson’s intransigence on the Treaty of Versailles …. the list goes on. What can be said, however; is that it is impossible to create a historical comparison when one event is still in the present tense. One can not judge the outcome of the War in Iraq when one does not know the outcome. Any speculation as to the outcome is just that, speculation. Carter would do well to leave that judgment to historians and hope that his name is not amongst those at the top of that list.
[...] hand-picked faves from MemeOrandum’s Blogger Roundup: The Moderate Voice (Joe Gandelman); skippy the bush kangaroo; Liberty Street Technorati Tags:Â Bush, Current [...]