North Star Writers Group

The passing of former President Gerald Ford this week leaves us with only three living ex-presidents, the fewest in quite a long time. It also once again shines a light on the difference between them, most notably those who have upheld the unwritten protocol that the sitting president isn't to be openly criticized by any of his predecessors and those who have not. And this goes beyond simply answering an unexpected question. In the case of the two Democratic ex-presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, their blatant verbal interference is obnoxious and doesn't befit the office they once held. More than that, it at times borders on outright sedition.

Putting the substance aside for the moment, there is one reason above all that former presidents need to keep their mouth shut – so as not to undermine the current president and America's stance in the world. Or worse yet, to inadvertently give aid, comfort and a morale boost to her enemies. One would think that no matter how partisan the individual may be, one could see the bigger picture and behave accordingly, or at least show the same level of courtesy to one's successors as your predecessors gave you.

But when it comes to Carter and Clinton, that appears to be overridden by personal ego and a need to re-write the history books to cover up their own mistakes when in office. (Most notably, failing to do anything to stem – and to some extent even enabling – Islamic terror, an issue that has dominated President Bush's entire tenure and will continue long after his departure.) And not even a flagrant violation of presidential protocol is going to stop them from their appointed task.

Carter offers so many examples, it is hard to choose the most egregious. Is it appeasing Kim Jong-Il at Clinton's behest in 1994 (thus helping make North Korea a nuclear power today), or accepting a Nobel Peace Prize that was clearly meant by the Nobel committee as a total slap at President Bush (it certainly wasn't because Carter ever brought peace anywhere), or hanging out with every third-world America-hating thug dictator from Castro to Hugo Chavez (and "certifying" his clearly rigged elections)?

As for Clinton, if he isn’t publicly giving aid and comfort to the Iranian regime by publicly urging President Bush to engage in dialogue with Ahmadinejad, who is determined to get nuclear bombs and keeps waxing rhapsodic about annihilating Israel (now there's a discomforting combination), he is paying tribute to Ho Chi Mihn – a brutal communist enemy of America – at Ho’s mausoleum in Hanoi just three weeks ago. (But hey, at least he finally got to Vietnam - albeit 40 years too late.)

Now, to be fair, we must compare apples to apples here. Presidents Ford and Reagan were elderly and no longer in any real capacity to speak publicly, and George H.W. Bush obviously isn't going to speak ill of his own son. But even if this were not the case, none of these men would have besmirched the office they once held by undercutting a successor. In short, they put the office and the country ahead of their personal feelings. Why Presidents Carter and Clinton are not capable of the same level of magnanimity I do not know. (With Clinton, I do have a guess, however. He's under direct orders from Hillary to ensure nothing from the 1990's rises again to put her 2008 candidacy at risk. She didn't put up with all those bimbo eruptions to settle for only eight years in power.)

Whatever the real reasons may be, there can be none that justify the unprecedented violation of protocol and the harm potentially inflicted by an ex-president publicly speaking so negatively of the current president - especially in a time where any such remarks can and will be eagerly used against America in the media by her enemies. And someone who's been there before ought to know better. For the sake of the country, and for the sake of their own now self-tarnished reputations, somebody needs to advise Presidents Carter and Clinton of the old saying silence is golden.

To offer feedback on this column, click here.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK41. Request permission to publish here.