It's a shame to see Jimmy Carter backpedaling from his wholly-warranted criticism of the Bush administration. He's now saying that his remarks were both "misinterpreted" and "careless." He's right on the first count; his "worst in history" remark dealt with Bush's foreign policy, not the administration generally (as it was presented in many outlets). As for "careless", it's also true that Carter showed a careless regard for honesty that's rarely seen in the fraternal, criticism-free world of former presidents. My hope was that he would continue that carelessness and respond to the predictable attacks from the Bush administration by expanding his surprising honesty offensive.
The least Carter could do to atone for the many crimes of his presidency--his support for Somoza in Nicaragua, his backing of the Shah in Iran, and his administration's massive support of the Indonesian slaughter of East Timorese, to name just a few--is to continue speaking his mind openly. His willingness to use the word "apartheid" to describe Israeli treatment of the Palestinians was a step in the right direction, but he still has a long way to go. The Bush administration has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and amassed a record of human rights abuses, corruption, arrogance, and cronyism that would be hard to equal (I hesitate to call it the "worst in history" solely because it would take an encyclopedic knowledge of U.S. administrations to make the claim--I just say "the worst I've ever known"). Surely that warrants a little impolitic truth-telling? How much will it take for people like Carter to put their humanity before their class courtesy, and to speak the truth without considering the consequences?
Comments