Kelblogg to Ex-Presidents: SHUT THE HELL UP!

I just got done reading the German magazine Der Spiegel's interview with former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, and after I picked my jaw up off the floor, all I can say is, when will Democratic ex-presidents shut the hell up already?

Look around and tell me how much political commentary you see out there from ANY former Republican ex-president. Then look at the two Democratic ones: Carter and Clinton. They are both all over the news endlessly. This used to be an unwritten rule, that you stay out of the limelight once you're out of office. Let future administrations do their thing without your comments to muck things up. Former presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush NEVER made comments about anything political once they'd left office. But apparently megalomaniac socialists Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton cannot help themselves.

Now Carter is off in Germany, bashing President Bush and American society. His commentary is truly incredible. This is a former president of the United States! Take 5 minutes and read this interview with Mr. Carter. It truly is a must-read.

I hardly know where to begin as far as criticism. Besides the "keep a low profile" mantra that Carter should have been keeping, his factual misstatements and outrageous opinions, given and published OVERSEAS, during a time of war, are beyond belief. I have lost what tiny amount of respect I still had for this joke of a president. I remember his presidency, and it was an abject failure on every front. High inflation, gasoline rationing and long lines, American hostages being taken in Iran, you name it.

Let's just tackle a few of the president's comments:

I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Wow, what a whopper. He's a bigger fool than I thought. First of all, Israel holds NO political prisoners. Name ONE. Any prisoners they hold are criminals who were caught in the act (of things like murdering innocent people in cold blood) and put through a fair trial before imprisonment, just like in the U.S. Why should Israel return these folks? By contrast, Hezbollah (a terrorist group, by the way) has been attacking Israel across internationally-recognized and guarded borders ever since the day Israel vacated southern Lebanon. They've used rockets and soldiers to do this, and when Israel finally attacked a month ago, it was in response to a massive rocket barrage and an illegal crossing by Hezbollah where they killed 7 Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another before crossing back into Lebanon. What was Israel supposed to do? So Carter is a liar and an appeasing fool.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?

First of all, in my opinion the stupidity at Abu Ghraib happened precisely because of a lack of religiosity there. Chaplains were told to stay out of everyone's way at Abu Ghraib. Keep to themselves. They did, and look what happened. When the new administration there came in, they put the chaplains front and center as one of their first orders of business. As far as torture at Guantanamo, that is so ridiculous as to be funny. Prisoners at Gitmo are treated better than any other prisoner in the history of warfare. They're given 3 squares a day and allowed to pray and given copies of the Koran to use. In addition, soldiers are told never to speak of or treat the Korans disrespectfully, out of respect for their prisoners. In return, they get prisoners faking illnesses to draw the soldiers in close, then get pelted with human feces and urine, and generally mistreated by these barbarians under their care. Furthermore, the "torture" the interviewer speaks of is nothing of the sort. We're not pulling guys' fingernails off or raping them or anything else even remotely close. Instead, they're subjected to such horrors as having to listen to annoying sounds, being kept awake for days at a time, etc. Boo hoo. So the statement and question itself is already idiotic.

Now consider Carter's response:

Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history.

I don't disagree with Carter very much on his characterization of fundamentalists. He goes overboard when he talks about "sub-humans," as no fundie that I've met thinks like this. They just believe the rest of Christianity (and everyone else) is seriously misguided and headed for Hell. I disagree, but it's a position I can at least respect.

However, more importantly, President Bush is NOT a fundamentalist. Not even close. Bush is an Evangelical, and there is a significant difference. In addition, Carter is asserting, here, that Bush's religion is somehow infecting the entire government and crossing that all-important (and made-up) wall between church and state. This is ridiculous, and so Carter's reasoning totally falls apart from the get-go. He is claiming that Bush refuses to negotiate with Hezbollah and the Palestinians because he's religious and looks down on both groups. Here is the truth: Bush, as a devout Christian, recognizes Evil when he sees it and stands up to it, instead of appeasing it, understanding that you can't legitimately negotiate with evil terrorists. Their goal is to wipe out Israel and the West, period. You don't negotiate that because it's an immoral and illegitimate position. That Carter, who at the time of presidency was the most overtly religious president in decades, doesn't see that is a real question mark.

I can't keep up with all the ridiculous and outrageous positions stated in this interview -- or even comment on the photographs of Carter alongside his Communist dictator buddy Fidel Castro -- but get a load of this:

SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?

Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me.

If that's true, then this country is headed down the toilet quickly.

Setting aside the absolutely preposterous comment that Jimmy Carter is the "moral conscience of the country," the immediate response is, of course, it's not true. There's no doubt many people think like him. However I don't believe the "vast majority of Democrats" agree with him, and I guarantee not a single Republican does. And I'll say this: Truman Democrats, a dying breed, should get on their knees and pray to God that the extreme left in this country, which has been taking over their party, loses its foothold and the party again becomes serious and respectable. The sooner the Democrats get serious and stop pandering to these insane atheist left-wingers, the sooner the country can again get back to have legitimate respectful debates on political questions.