This country was founded on the basis of freedom of speech and the freedom of liberty. For anyone to make the statement that former Presidents or Joe citizen cannot or should not criticize a sitting president is going against the very essence of what this country was founded on.
Over the last 7 years the word patriot has been kicked and thrown around like a hacky sack. People who criticize or speak out against what the current administration is doing, are considered to be unpatriotic and not an American. Since when does criticizing policy revoke your birth right? Because you don't agree with a certain agenda or policy of an administration, you are no longer an American? Who hands out these rights to do such a thing? What other delusional powers to these people think they have?
Why shouldn't a former president hold a sitting president accountable for what they do? Why shouldn't the American public hold the president accountable? He is elected by the people; he is not a king, a dictator, or emperor. He is not beyond reproach. That is the very essence of what the office is. It is a servant of the people. There is a difference between respect and accountability.
I do not believe that any US official should criticize the president outside the country. That is a matter of respect. However, when debating what is best for this country, constructive criticism is useful and necessary.
The president is held responsible for what goes on during their administration. He is the party leader, moral leader, and the leader of the country. The various proposals and bills that are passed in Congress come across the Presidents' desk every day; he has the ability to drive the political machine a certain way. Is the President's fault that gas prices are $4.50? Not directly, but the policies that he has in place has directly influenced gas prices.
Anyone who thinks that harsh criticism of the president by the media and by law makers and former presidents hurts our standing with the rest of the international community has surely missed the boat. In fact criticizing the president- at least our current administration, has almost raised our standing in the international community. If disagreeing with the president weakens the United States in the eyes of the international community, what does invading and occupying a country for 5 years do? What does not coming to the rescue of your own citizens in time after one of the worst natural disasters in US history that left thousands dead and missing? What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world?
Abraham Lincoln faced a similar problem during the Civil War. He had to show that though we were struggling with our own problems the young nation was still able to carry on foreign affairs. His foreign policy was centered on not having Europe support the South during the war. The criticism that Lincoln received during the events leading up to the civil war and beyond are similar to those of the current administration. There has not been a president since Lincoln that had carried the power of presidential edict and executive order independently of Congress, so far to the limits.
I would guess the harsh criticism of Lincoln was what really showed us weak to the rest of the world. When Napoleon III sent troops into Mexico during the American Civil War, it was not because the president was being insulted and berated, it was because we were busy fighting a war to save the Union!
The office of the presidency is to be respected, and protected, but it is not beyond critique or reproach. This small fraternity that some have called it does not need Joe Public to protect them. They will always protect themselves. It is up to Joe Public to keep this small fraternity honest and to keep them accountable for the things they do and say.