If you were a former president of the United States of America, would you be doing an interview on a liberal, independent news program that airs on, amongst other things, public access and college radio stations?
Should be able to get a better gig having once occupied the White House, dontcha think?
Well, if your name is Jimmy Carter, and you had already sold your soul by giving an interview to the terrorist television network Al-Jazeera back in January, how much lower could you go? (Update: Please see Charles Johnson's answer!)
Such must have been the presidential thinking on September 10th when Carter sat down with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman to continue his anti-Israel rants unfettered by an impartial journalist who might challenge his disgraceful views. Here are some of the lowlights (h/t Tim Graham):
Americans don't want to know and many Israelis don't want to know what is going on inside Palestine. It's a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine. And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land. I think it's accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I'm familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries or to publicize the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good faith peace talks. There hasn't been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years. So this is a taboo subject. And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out, as I've just described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.
What a farce. Of course, Goodman didn't challenge Carter about any of these views. But that was likely the point as the former president continued debasing Israel and any Americans that support her:
Well, there's an inherent commitment in America, which I share as a Christian, of a deep commitment to make sure that Israel is safe and that Israel is free and that they can seek for peace. So there's a strong inclination for all of us to support Israel's continued existence in peace. And that is added onto by the very effective work of the American Israeli group called AIPAC, which is performing its completely legitimate task of convincing Americans to support the policies of the Israeli government. And AIPAC is not dedicated to peace. They're dedicated to inducing the maximum support in America, in the White House, in the Congress and in the public media, for whatever policies the Israeli government has at a particular time. And they're extremely effective.
Yet, the best was still to come when Goodman asked the former president for his views on George W. Bush:
I admire him in many ways. And I've never criticized an incumbent president. I've criticized sometimes the policies of presidents, first President Bush and President Reagan and President Clinton and President Bush. But I have never criticized a president.
What? He's never criticized an incumbent president? Really?
Wouldn't a real journalist at this moment have pointed out to the former president statements he made back in May about Bush being "the worst in history" when it comes to foreign policy as reported by the Associated Press?
Hey, Amy, did you forget this quote of Carter's from an interview given to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."
Did you also forget what historian Douglas Brinkley said about Carter's words at the time:
"This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made about an American president...When you call somebody the worst president, that's volatile. Those are fighting words."
Wouldn't a real journalist have brought this up, or did Carter know given Goodman's far-left political leaning she wouldn't, and that's why he gave her this interview?
Or, am I just being too darned cynical for my own good?