Jimmy Carter knows all about disgrace:
"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."
You know what else is disgraceful?
When a former US President gives him stamp of approval to a fraudulent election:
"After an arduous negotiation, the Electoral Council allowed the OAS [Organization of American States] and the Carter Center to observe all aspects of the [Venezuelan] election process except for the central computer hub, a place where they also prohibited the presence of any witnesses from the opposition. At the time, this appeared to be an insignificant detail. Now it looks much more meaningful."
Carter has "given impetus and excuses" to potential dictators around the world. How's that for disgrace?
Oh, you want more?
Then how about a former US President who refuses to give his stamp of approval to two free and fair elections in the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy:
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Carter there gave "impetus and excuses" to those who would claim this country is no better than the brutal dictatorships it opposes.
You want even more?
Then let's hear it for a former US President who tried to conduct his own, private foreign policy while his nation prepared to oppose a conquering madman:
During the buildup to the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, Carter unsuccessfully worked to undermine the foreign policy of America's democratically elected president, George Bush. Carter behaved as the Imperial Ex-President, conducting a guerrilla foreign policy operation that competed with the actual president's. What's disturbing about this behavior is not that Carter opposed war with Iraq. Many Democrats opposed going to war, and they worked within the American system to try to prevent a war that many predicted would be bloody (which it was, for Iraq). But Carter went further than merely lobbying Congress to oppose military action or speaking out in an effort to tilt popular opinion against the coming war. He used his status as a former president to engage in foreign policy, a deliberate effort to subvert the democratic process.
That time, Carter gave "impetus and excuses" to none other than Saddam Hussein.
"But wait," as Ron Popeil says, "there's more!"
How about a former US President who has been linked with Oil-for-Food scandal figure Samir Vincent:
In 2000, Vincent led Iraqi religious leaders on a tour of the United States to push for an end to sanctions against Saddam. Among the people who the group met with was former President Jimmy Carter.
Did Carter give "impetus and excuses" to the people profiting from starving Iraqi children? You make the call!
Of course, Carter also had a softer side. So soft, he had nothing but praise for Yassar Arafat:
He was the father of the modern Palestinian nationalist movement. A powerful human symbol and forceful advocate, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland. While he provided indispensable leadership to a revolutionary movement and was instrumental in forging a peace agreement with Israel in 1993, he was excluded from the negotiating role in more recent years.
That's right: Carter gave "impetus and excuses" to the followers of the man who almost single handedly invented modern terrorism.
You want even more? Look. I've got a computer. I have an internet connection. I know how to use Google