What is Condoleezza Rice thinking? Last week, the Secretary of State turned to former President Jimmy Carter for advice on Middle East, which, to put it in terms that Rice, an avid NFL fan might understand, is like asking Rex Grossman how to play quarterback. Or it would be if Grossman had publicly insulted you first.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." That is what Carter said about the Bush Administration less than six months ago. Although he later tried to soften his criticism, the attack was harsh enough that it even provoked a response from the White House press office, which labeled the former president "increasingly irrelevant."

Not any more, apparently.

Carter is the author of Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, a volume so tendentiously anti-Israel that it prompted this response from Dr. Kenneth W. Stein:

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary.

Stein speaks with authority on the subject. He co-authored a book with Carter and served as the Middle East Fellow at the Carter Center of Emory University. Stein leveled this criticism in his resignation letter, leading a widespread condemnation of the book and its author.

Then, just three weeks ago, Carter was at it again. This time, he attacked Vice President Dick Cheney. "He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter said in an interview with the BBC.
"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed."

So, Jimmy Carter attacks the vice president as a disaster, writes a deeply flawed book on the Middle East, and claims that the Bush Administration is the worst in U.S. history. Why does he deserve an audience with the Secretary of State?

It’s a good question.

Oh, by the way, here is what Carter said about Rice in his interview with the BBC:

"I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to (Cheney) which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush," Carter said. "Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails."