Wolf Blitzer’s interview of former president Jimmy Carter on Wednesday’s "The Situation Room" demonstrated the CNN host’s catering to prominent liberals. In one question to the former president, Blitzer asked about the ongoing presidential campaigns. "Do any of these candidates, presidential candidates, scare you?" After Carter answered that none of the Democrat candidates scared him, Blitzer asked as follow-up questions, "What about the Republican side?" and "Who scares you the most?"
Later in the interview, Blitzer asked Carter, "By your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture?" Carter’s unequivocal answer: "I don't think it. I know it, certainly." This led to a follow-up question from Blitzer on the question of whether President Bush should be impeached. "But you don't want to see any formal charges or a trial?"
Update, 6:10 PM - Video (4:45): Real (3.50 MB) or Windows (2.91 MB), plus MP3 (2.17 MB)
Wednesday’s "The Situation Room" devoted about 18 minutes total to the prerecorded interview of Carter - nearly 8 minutes in the 4 pm Eastern hour and 10 minutes in the 5 pm Eastern hour. In the first segment during the 4 pm Eastern hour, Blitzer began by asking Carter about the Republican presidential candidates, which led to the "who scares you the most" question.
BLITZER: Right now, Republican presidential candidates, including Giuliani, making the suggestion that if Democrats are elected to the White House, U.S. national security will suffer. Here's what Giuliani says:
RUDY GIULIANI: If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back to our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense.
BLITZER: What do you want to say to Rudy Giuliani?
CARTER: Well, I thought on pre-September 11 that George W. Bush was in the White House and the Republicans were in charge. I think, during the Clinton years, we kept our country safe, we protected out interests around the world, we were admired by almost everyone on earth, and we were free. And we were also out of a war. So, I think that history has shown that the Democrats are just as firm and staunch on security as are the Republicans. It ought to be a nonpartisan issue, and it's a ridiculous thing for Giuliani to be making a claim of that kind.
BLITZER: Do any of these candidates, presidential candidates, scare you?
CARTER: Not on the Democratic side, no.
BLITZER: What about the Republican side?
CARTER: Well, they all seem to be outdoing each other in who wants to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity, things of that kind. They're competing with each other to appeal to the ultra-right wing, warmongering element in our country, which I think is a minority of the total population.
BLITZER: Who scares you the most?
CARTER: I wouldn't want to judge between them, because if I condemn one of them, it might escalate him to the top position in the Republican ranks.
BLITZER: But basically, what I hear you saying is, from your perspective, on the issue of national security, there's really not much of a difference between the Republican frontrunners.
CARTER: That's exactly right. I think the Democrats, basically, want to see the Lee Hamilton and the James Baker recommendation -- one of the finest blue-ribbon commissions ever established in this country -- unanimously recommended what we should do about Iraq.
BLITZER: The Iraq Study Group.
CARTER: Yes. And the Democrats are basically for that. The Republicans threw it in the wastebasket and said we don't want that. We want it to be much more militant, stay in Iraq definitely, and maybe invade or attack Iran. And I think that's a startling difference between the two.
Blitzer and Carter then discussed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s recent statements that they were unsure whether American troops could be out of Iraq by 2013. Carter expressed his disagreement with the two Democrat candidates on this issue.
Blitzer’s next topic concerned "foreign policy blunders,"something Carter has extensive experience with.
BLITZER: On the scale of, you know, historic precedents and historic blunders, from your perspective, what kind of blunder was the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
CARTER: Among the preeminent blunders of American history. It was predicated on false claims. Deliberate or not, I don't know. It was incorrectly consummated and perpetuated. The claims of what -- how easy it would be were wrong. And I think everyone -- just about everyone agrees that the whole war in Iraq has been carried out with a series of blunders.
BLITZER: Some suggest it is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. Are you among those?
CARTER: I would put it almost on an equal basis with Vietnam, yes. Those two in my lifetime certainly would be the worst two blunders.
Carter accused the Bush administration of human rights violations in new book, "Beyond the White House: Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope." Blitzer asked the former president to comment further on the subject, which resulted in a long exchange between the two on torture. Blitzer included a question on whether President Bush was lying about the U.S. using torture. Carter answered affirmatively.
BLITZER: President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees.
CARTER: That's not an accurate statement, if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, we don't violate them. And we can -- you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate it.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: But, by your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture?
CARTER: I don't -- I don't think it. I know it, certainly.
BLITZER: So, is the president lying?
CARTER: The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes.
BLITZER: But -- but that raises a really important question. Those who are engaged in torture, who commit torture...
CARTER: Yes.
BLITZER: ...potentially, that could be a violation of international or other laws.
CARTER: Yes, I think so.
BLITZER: Has there been a violation of the law from your perspective?
CARTER: If you use the international treaties to which we are committed...
BLITZER: Like the Geneva Conventions...
CARTER: ...like the Geneva Conventions, and also...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Because early in the -- they said the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these detainees who were not wearing uniforms. They were not part of any formal army. They were picked up on the battlefield and brought to Guantanamo Bay.
CARTER: My impression is that the United States Supreme Court has said that is a false premise. And I presume that the administration complies with the rulings of the Supreme Court. And the international community obviously still adheres to and professes to commit themselves the honoring of the Geneva Convention, and also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States helped draft and promoted and has endorsed up until six-and-a-half years ago unanimously among all the...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: So, should someone be held accountable?
CARTER: Well, I think we -- the best way to hold people accountable in this country is through the election process.
BLITZER: That is the best way to get -- in other words, from your perspective, to get rid of the incumbent administration and move on?
CARTER: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: But you don't want to see any formal charges or a trial?
CARTER: No, I don't think so. I think that would be inappropriate. That has been done in some cases, as you know, but I don't think it is appropriate at all.
The 4 pm Eastern hour concluded with the torture discussion. In the 5 pm Eastern hour, Blitzer focused on the subject of Iran, including the context of Carter’s own presidential experiences with the Islamist country; and how Iran plays into the internal politics of the Bush administration and the 2008 presidential campaign. Blitzer also brought up the subjects of the reported Israeli airstrike on a target in Syria, the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the economy. In the cumulative 18 minutes, three CNN viewers also asked questions of the former president.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.





BLITZER: Do any of these candidates, presidential candidates, scare you?
CARTER: That's not an accurate statement, if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, we don't violate them. And we can -- you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate it. 









Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Wow
October 11, 2007 - 18:07 ET by allanfThese guys are unreal. Is Carter now a regular on the Blizter program? With any luck, Blitzer will soon go the way of Aaron Brown and spend more time with his family.
Until then, I guess he will tee up softballs for Carter.
Carter has become a nasty, classless and bitter elderly man.
It's actually a good question
October 12, 2007 - 09:50 ET by mattmAsk Carter which Republican candidate scares him the most, and that's the one you vote for. That's easy!!!
What an idiot. We are in a
October 11, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Clear thinkerWhat an idiot. We are in a war so I don't care if the prez lies to us about torture. If it's working.... bring on the bamboo shoots!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Ct -
October 11, 2007 - 23:03 ET by drillanwrAs far as I'm concerned, we had damn well BETTER BE using torture on these bastards ...
I'm speechless. Well at
October 11, 2007 - 18:13 ET by Gary P JacksonI'm speechless. Well at least nothing I can say in mixed company!
This so-called man makes me
October 11, 2007 - 18:20 ET by bigtimerThis so-called man makes me ill...it is torturous to listen to him.
It is a pity he was a President, a humongous blunder in our country's history...along with the pair of Clintoons.
Destructive evil leftists.
I just cannot say anymore without being vile.
Carter is a pathetic person
October 11, 2007 - 18:25 ET by Gat New YorkCarter is a pathetic person who failed miserably as president and is desperate to change how history views him. Unfortunately he is willing to commit treason to do it.
Hi GNY... Unfortunately
October 11, 2007 - 18:31 ET by bigtimerHi GNY...
Unfortunately he is willing to commit treason to do it.
How right you are...
Also he will do anything to sell a book ...I'd say sell his soul except he seems to have done that long ago IMHO.
He is going on tomorrow morning too on msnbc with Mika and Scarborough...that ought to really be special.
For me Scarborough is on
October 11, 2007 - 18:40 ET by Gat New YorkFor me Scarborough is on the edge of irrelevance. He can go a long way back to relevance if he corners Carter on the facts and does not let him get away with his treasonous lies.
agreed...
October 11, 2007 - 18:44 ET by bigtimeragreed...
Carter is a pathetic person
October 11, 2007 - 20:09 ET by motherbeltCarter is a pathetic person who failed miserably as president and is
desperate to change how history views him. Unfortunately he is willing
to commit treason to do it.
You're right, Gat. He has become a hateful little man.
Democrat Girlie Men
October 11, 2007 - 18:41 ET by KeithLiberals are a bunch of pansies. It boggles the mind how these girlie men can look themselves in the mirror! Jimma Carter was irrelevant when he WAS the President, of what possible use is his opinion now? You know, when Hillary first made noises about running for President, I thought everyone was KIDDING. I couldn't believe that anyone as concerned with the opinion of the "Arab Street" as the dems claim to be, could possible nominate a WOMAN, as revered as they seem to be in the Arab world! But when I look at these punk panty waists whining over the treatment of TERRORISTS and complaining that we can now listen to phone calls, now, I get it! Libtards are the "lunch money" kids, the punk nerds who get shaken down for their lunch money in school every day! They grow up and "intellectualize" their cowardice with mottos and slogans, i.e. "War is not the answer", never having the testicular fortitude to tell us what the "answer" is, by the way. Now with the emotional backing of other coward pansies who write books or NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, they attack every possible reason that we might want to defend ourselves against Iran. These punks won't care if Iran builds a nuke, why would that move them? That gives cowards room to move the goal post back to an actual strike, before they'd have to "man up". I can hear them now, "Madam Speaker there is no evidence that the recently exploded nuclear device which took out CHICAGO, was from Iran. In fact we have a SIGNED STATEMENT to that effect from the honorable President of Iran, right here! So clearly our warmongering Republican friends are out of the main stream of the opinion we helped foster with our willing accomplices in the press!"
War is not the asnwer
October 11, 2007 - 19:29 ET by NortoBeliever
I could never figure out what the question was! Most
have taken down that signage and the new try is "Support our Troops,
End the War." I gather the first one was too deep for most of their own
sociolinguists. BTW wiki that phrase and see what Lakoff and Choam have
to say about what is said about the "surge."
Okay so now it's the regular folk who are the war mongerers
October 11, 2007 - 18:27 ET by Dee BunkI thought it was Bush and Republican Government that tricked people into wanting war, now he's saying the people pressure their leaders. What a complete wimp and shell of a human being. Carter has no integrity and no moral compass. Now he's stooped to demonizing law abiding American citizens while he's sympathetic to terrorists.
These people are evil liars
October 11, 2007 - 18:31 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThese people are evil liars who have convinced a large part of the US population that their lies are true, and that the truth is lies... and do so by blurring the lines between truth, reality and opinion.
It's their narrative which is pushing this country in a direction that will only lead to civil war because if they succeed, the US Constitution will be ripped to shreds and freedom will be lost and not regainable without a fight. These people need to be stopped.
Even if you don't agree with the war... don't vote democrat because voting democrat means you will lose so much more freedom than we've already given up to the socialists in this country. Anything the Federal government is doing beyond trade negotiations and national defense is way beyond what power it should have. Education..... a State issue... get the Feds out.... Highways and roads... a State issue, get the Feds out... Health Care.... an Individual decision, keep government out... etc etc... I hate what this government has become, but love what it could be if we would just force them to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
lbz... I ditto everything
October 11, 2007 - 18:33 ET by bigtimerlbz...
I ditto everything you said so well!
(Long time no see...I sure have missed your excellent posts)
More Hypocricy
October 11, 2007 - 18:37 ET by Chris NormanNice way to frame the question, Wolf. And you and your ilk accuse the Right of fear mongering and villainizing...
Oh, get a grip Wolfie
October 11, 2007 - 18:46 ET by Gary HallOh, get a grip Wolfie.
Next time, you have Carter on - Ask him how much torture occurred following his support of the E. Timor Government - well 400,000 died; surely some were tortured in that crackdown.Or ask him about all of the genocide, killing, torture and suffering which occurred after he and Brzezinski - well, as Brzezinski stated:
And the next time you have Bill Clinton on, ask him how much grief was caused by his complacency during the planning stages for the Rwandan genocide, in early 1994. In addition to the 800,000 who were murdered (many hacked to death) there were untold others tortured and 15 UN soldiers had their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths - so Clinton said, "Never Again." Then of course, the conflict moved next door to the DR Congo, where more people have died than any place since the end of WWII - Millions of humans, Bill Clinton's "Never again", meant "Again and Again." Oh right, but at least, after the fact, you sent Brown & Root in to help -- under the LOGCAP contract.And you can ask Clinton and Al Gore about setting up the US policy of extraordinary rendition - which was intended to send suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they could be tortured for information. Al Gore's view of that, according to Richard Clarke:
There is less conflict and fewer folks dying in the world than (according to the UN) any other time since the end of WWII. Notably, as compared to the world during the Clinton era.
Get over it. Between Carter and Clinton, Bush can go for another 30 years, and not create as many deaths in the world.
Jimmuh
October 11, 2007 - 19:04 ET by BarkerColumnist George Will once said Jimmy Carter is "an even worse ex-president than he was a president". My sentiments exactly.
CARTER: I wouldn't want to
October 11, 2007 - 19:16 ET by DaBirdCARTER: I wouldn't want to judge between them, because if I condemn one of them, it might escalate him to the top position in the Republican ranks.
Oh puleeeez!!! Thats right Mr. Jimmy. All of us "ultra-right wing, warmongering element in our country" are just waiting for you to denounce somebody so we can back them 110%. Alas, we are now lost, for you will not condemn any Republican candidate. I will never know who to support now....sheesh, what a maroon.
That delusional goober!
October 11, 2007 - 20:05 ET by Thalpy"I think, during the Clinton years, we kept our country safe, we protected our interests around the world, we were admired..." President Clinton treated the attacks on America as police matter. Regrettably, none of our leaders seems to recognize our enemy; the enemy that has been present for all free peoples since the year 660, give or take.
Carter is the worst
October 11, 2007 - 20:11 ET by pbthinkerThe Democrats have decided that, since 2000, it's OK to do 2 things. It's OK for former Presidents to criticize a sitting President and politics no longer stops at the waters edge.
These rules were created by people that cared more about the country than they did politics. They weren't written in stone, the weren't codified, but they were understood by all. Now, the Democrats have set that understanding aside, for their own perceived personal gain. They should be ashamed of themselves, especially after hearing the video's of Bin Laden and other terrorists, who mouth their same words. I can remember Ahmadenajad (I know it's spelled wrong) talking about Bush's low poll numbers and using the Dems talking points to dis our President, and the Dems aren't even bothered by it.
The Democrats better hope the public doesn't start paying attention to these little details or they may never be elected again.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Carter
October 11, 2007 - 21:05 ET by philhoeyCarter is the classis proof to the theory that "there is no fool like an old fool."
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
}}---> OK philhoey
October 11, 2007 - 21:10 ET by Cool ArrowSo what was his excuse in 1978?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
He aged prematurely.
October 11, 2007 - 22:40 ET by dervishAll those years on nucular submarines'll do that to ya.
I was at about the mid-point...
October 11, 2007 - 22:31 ET by m4ster chief...of my Navy career when one of the most morale-busting blunders occurred at a time when we military people desperately needed a morale boost.
How many remember seeing full-page, color photos of a robed and turbaned Iranian imam laughing as he poked a ballpoint pen into the fire-blackened eye socket of an American aviator lying dead in the Iranian desert?
Carter ordered a hasty, ill-planned and timed hostage rescue operation, not because he wanted the embassy-staff hostages out of Iran right away for their sakes, but because a successful rescue would have potentially given him victory over Reagan in the presidential race. This is not my opinion, but the conclusions drawn by several investigative commissions.
Funny how liberals forget...
master chief
October 11, 2007 - 23:01 ET by BlondeI read a bio of Col. Charlie Beckwith, the founder of Delta & commander of that mission. I was appalled at the Rules of Engagement at the time.
This site gives a pretty good account of what happened....and Carter's idiotic input into this mission. And I agree with you about why he finally attempted to rescue the hostages.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
He did learn one thing in 1980:
October 11, 2007 - 22:45 ET by dervish"Well, I think we -- the best way to hold people accountable in this country is through the election process."
If I were sitting there when Carter said that, I'd have slid right out of the chair laughing. They must have had to do that segment a couple of times, or Wolf had his sense of irony surgically removed.
I wouldn't want to judge
October 11, 2007 - 23:03 ET by Trix RabbitI wouldn't want to judge between them, because if I condemn one of
them, it might escalate him to the top position in the Republican ranks.
So, is Jimmy so into self-aggrandizement and so delusional that he believes that his opinions still have merit? How nauseating.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
I think -
October 11, 2007 - 23:06 ET by drillanwrThe more interesting question would have been, "Which of the democrats running scare you most?"
He said...
October 11, 2007 - 23:15 ET by dervish...he wasn't afraid of any of them. But of course, they weren't trying to swim to his rowboat at the time with their nasty, big, pointy teeth.
deleted?
October 12, 2007 - 04:16 ET by mastersofdeceitlol! I notice Kafir & I are both deleted. Sorry I was just trying to make a point off kafirs post. I realise it's not the most pleasant of topics. : )
Did anyone look at the
October 12, 2007 - 05:21 ET by USA4freedomDid anyone look at the caption on the picture?
GOP-ultra right wing appeal. For starts, I have not
noticed any label like that on any Dems. but moreover the “ultra right wing”
are as pissed off as we have ever been. With the spending, the border, and the
problems with our congressmen not being able to keep their hands off of other
people.
It’s just the same old same old.
We have the template now fit the story to it. Like when
NBC (I think, or ABC) put the Muslims in the stands and waited for the NASCAR
people to lynch them.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Jimmy Carter is
October 12, 2007 - 06:37 ET by USA4freedomJimmy Carter is right!
When he said: I wouldn't want to judge between them, because if I
condemn one of them, it might escalate him to the top position in the
Republican ranks.
Hell, you were and still are such an anti-American POS that
I would take a good look at who ever you hated. Because who you “like” is like
a running list, of every enemy that America has!
But look Jimma, other then your Anti-American rants you
could not affect us, your words are meaningless to how we think. The only
people that listen to you are our enemies. They reprint your words in Arabic
and other languages, of other countries, that despise us. They say you can tell
a lot about a man by the company he keeps: Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, former
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, former Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito,
former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, former Philippine dictator
Ferdinand Marcos, former Pakistani General Zia ul-Haq, former North Korean
dictator Kim Il Sung and now his son Kim Jong Il
If you were not so bad for this great country, I would
almost feel sorry for you. By most accounts you had the worst presidency of all
time, if not all time, certainly the worst in a life time. Your legacy will
be:... nothing but a bitter old man.
Hell Jimma, there are even people on the left that hate you:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm
The link above is really good. Lots of not so great things
the he did and no one hears about!
A line, from Jimma Carters Malaise speech: Whenever you have
a chance, say something good about our country.
I would like to be able to say something good about you
mr..X-president but.. I cant.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Jimmy’s (I am a Nobel
October 12, 2007 - 08:08 ET by USA4freedomJimmy’s (I am a Nobel peace prize winner) hit list:
(this info was copied off of a leftist site, so you can
check it out if you like. I did a few of them and what I checked was good but..
did not check every one of them. If nothing else, its food for thought.)
President Carter, who came to office in early 1977, not long
after Indonesia invaded and annexed the tiny island nation of East Timor,
increased military aid to the Indonesian dictatorship by 80%. This equipment
including OV-10 Bronco counter-insurgency aircraft that was crucial in the
rounding up of much of the country’s civilian population into concentration
camps. Most of the 200,000 East Timorese deaths as a result of Indonesia’s
occupation took place during the Carter Administration, in large part as a
result of this military aid.
Carter also dramatically increased military aid to the
Moroccan government of King Hassan II, whose forces invaded its southern
neighbor, the desert nation of Western Sahara, barely a year before the former
Georgia governor assumed office. Carter fought Congress to restore military aid
to Turkey that had been suspended after their armed forces seized the northern
third of the Republic of Cyprus in 1974. Carter promised that the resumption of
aid would give Turkey the flexibility to withdraw. Turkish occupation forces
remain there to this day.
Under President Carter, the United States vetoed consecutive
UN Security Council resolutions to impose sanctions against the apartheid
regime in South Africa. Ignoring calls from the democratic South African
opposition to impose such pressure, Carter took the line of American corporate
interests by claiming U.S. investments – including such items as computers and
trucks for the South African police and military – somehow supported the cause
of racial justice and majority rule. (Barely five years after Carter left
office, the United States imposed sanctions against South Africa by huge
bipartisan Congressional majorities and no longer vetoed similar UN efforts.)
I wonder if Nelson Mandela remembers??
When the people of the African country then known as Zaire
rebelled against their brutal and corrupt dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Carter
ordered the U.S. air force to fly in Moroccan troops to help crush the popular
uprising and save the regime.
Carter sent military aid to the Islamic fundamentalist
mujahadeen to fight the leftist government in Afghanistan in the full knowledge
that it could prompt a Soviet invasion. According to his National Security
Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, it was hoped that by forcing the Soviets into such
a counter-insurgency war would weaken America’s superpower rival. This
decision, however, not only destroyed much of Afghanistan, but the entire world
is feeling the ramifications to this day.
As president, Carter opposed Palestinian statehood, refused
to even meet with Palestinian leaders, and dramatically increased military aid
to the right-wing Israeli government of Menachem Begin. When Israel violated an
annex to the Camp David Accords by resuming construction of illegal settlements
on the occupied West Bank, Carter refused to enforce the treaty despite being
its guarantor. Carter also dramatically increased military aid to the
increasingly repressive Egyptian regime of Anwar Sadat.
President Carter ignored pleas from Salvadoran archbishop
Oscar Romero to not send arms and advisors to the junta whose forces were
massacring many hundreds of peasant leaders, trade unionists, priests, human
rights workers and other dissidents. Carter continued his military support of
the junta even after Romero himself was assassinated while saying Mass, a
shooting carried out under the orders of a top Salvadoran general. One of
Carter’s last acts as president was to approve a record level of arms transfers
to the junta just weeks after Salvadoran troops – under orders from
high-ranking officers – raped and murdered four American churchwomen.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day