Replies

Putting aside, for a moment, Clinton's selfish and irresponsible comments let's examine the practice of using our former presidents for diplomatic purposes. I generally support former presidents being utilized, on occasion, to help facilitate international difficulties. For example, when Clinton sought to negotiate an arms agreement with North Korea or when trying to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he was well advised to bring in a former president with strong negotiating skills coupled with a diplomatic record of success in both Far East and Middle East affairs. Clinton was right to want to bring in a former president with the political experience and skill to encourage China to bring pressure on N. Korea and work with various Arab states to put pressure on Arafat and Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately for us, Clinton chose to use Jimmy Carter instead of the president who was a former ambassador to the U.N., a U.S. Emissary to China and who crafted the strongest international coalition in history to push Iraq out of Kuwait.

The question to ask Bill Clinton is why didn't he use George Herbert Walker Bush?

Unfortunately for us, Clinton chose to use Jimmy Carter instead of the president who was a former ambassador to the U.N., a U.S. Emissary to China and who crafted the strongest international coalition in history to push Iraq out of Kuwait. The question to ask Bill Clinton is why didn't he use George Herbert Walker Bush?

Clinton didn't choose Carter. He chose former President Nixon to deal with North Korea, a better choice. Nixon opened the door but died before he could set up the specific treaties ( the ones that aren't working ) we have now. Carter was deeply upset about not being called first and let everyone know it. So when President Nixon died, Clinton was stuck with Carter. He really couln't go former Republican President again with all of the fuss Carter supporters raised the first time.