Should former presidents criticize sitting presidents?

Question

I'm not talking about George W. Bush specifically. I'm talking about any former president, (R) or (D), should they criticize sitting presidents?

[Obviously I know they CAN criticize them. But the question is SHOULD they do it?]

Answer 1

As a matter of courtesy, they need to stay out of things. I'm sure they didn't want uninvited assistance from former presidents when they had tough decisions. What's more, it splits people and does not project a unified front to other countries, weakening our ability to get things done.

G. W. Bush is the first president that I am aware of to have to put up with this crap from both Clinton and Carter. Notice that Gerald Ford's criticism only came out once he died. Even then I think Gerald Ford should have stipulated that the criticism come after G. W. Bush left office, but oh well. It was an improvement over the other two.

Answer 2

Yes that is called an open opinion. They can criticize anyone in the world if they want. Do they? Seldom unless this one is the president because he is wrong. But you heard Reagan criticize Carter and blame everything on him, then Bush side-stepped all the criticism until he went to the Gulf War and then he got it good and then he blundered in his comments about the previous presidents to excuse himself. GW continually criticizes Clinton and Gore, but just wait there will be a poop load of joke books about Bush and I can't wait to laugh a lifetime.

Answer 3

Yes. Everyone should be able to take and give crticism regardless of the job they hold or have held. If a former President does not like the current President's plan or image, he should be able to express that. Maybe if they did that, then more ideas would begin to show. I am sure given what Ford went through with Vietnam, he could have added some insight to help Bush with Iraq and also how to try to spin it to get back American support. Nevermind, Ford's not a cowboy and he probably would have used too many big words for Bush, You know like "the," "and," "but."

Answer 4

I think that they should do this, not in the most popular media outlets like 60 minutes or the Washington Post, but in less popular outlets, like A.M. radio or public television (PBS).

They should criticize or analyze the current President in such a way that the SUBSTANCE of their criticism or analysis is what shows, rather than the MANNER of their criticism or analysis.

Answer 5

Yes, who would be better qualified to have a worthwhile opinion than someone who had held the job?

As Americans we all have not just the freedom, but also the responsibility to speak our minds. What sets us apart is our ability to participate. From former Presidents to janitors.

Answer 6

Yes. They have taken a lot of criticism when they were in office. Of course Carter and Clinton should really zip it up!

Answer 7

Why shouldn't they?. Who would know better when a sitting
President is messing up--than a former president? Remember
the former President still carries the title and honor (maybe)./

Answer 8

If they disagree with the current president's policies why not? Just because you were a former president doesn't mean you don't have freedom of speech.

Answer 9

I don't believe they ever did it in the past until this president and his administration used name calling and accusations as part of their campaign. I would say Bill Clinton opened the door for democrats to finally speak out and tell it like it is.

Answer 10

if the situation calls for it, i believe that any president, republican or democrat, should be able to speak out against a current president's policies. it is what makes this country great -- freedom of speech.