Posted on 12/28/2006 9:36:03 AM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
WASHINGTON - Former President Gerald R. Ford questioned the Bush administration's rationale for the U.S. invasion and war in Iraq in interviews he granted on condition they not be released until after his death.
In his embargoed July 2004 interview with The Washington Post, Ford said the Iraq war was not justified, the Post reported Wednesday night.
Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously, the Post's Bob Woodward wrote. The story initially was posted on the newspaper's Internet site.
"I don't think I would have gone to war," Ford told Woodward a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion.
In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney — Ford's White House chief of staff — and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his secretary of defense.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In an interview given with the same ground rules to the New York Daily News last May, Ford said he thought Bush had erred by staking the invasion on claims Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
" Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him," he observed to the Daily News. "But we shouldn't have put the basis on weapons of destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does (Bush) get his advice?"
In the Daily News interview, Ford was more defensive about Cheney and Rumsfeld. Asked why Cheney had tanked in public opinion polls, he smiled. "Dick's a classy guy, but he's not an electrified orator," Ford said.
The former president did not like Bush's domestic surveillance program.
"It may be a necessary evil," Ford conceded. "I don't think it's a terrible transgression, but I would never do it. I was dumbfounded when I heard they were doing it."
Woodward wrote in the Post that his interview took place for a future book project, though the former president said his comments could be published at any time after his death.
In another interview released after his death, Ford told CBS News in 1984 that he initially was against using the phrase "long national nightmare" in his first speech as president following Richard Nixon's resignation, concerned that it was too harsh.
Ford said he reconsidered and sought his wife's advice. "After thinking about it and talking to Betty about it, we decided to leave it in and, boy, in retrospect, I'm awfully glad we did," he said.
In the Daily News interview, Ford, a few weeks from his 93rd birthday, showed frustration with the toll health problems had taken on him, saying he thought doctors were too strictly limiting what he could do.
At one point, he offered to share some butter pecan ice cream, his favorite dessert, with his guest, correspondent Thomas M. DeFrank.
Asked what his doctors would think about that, the former president said, "We have it anyhow."
___
What does WWII have to do with the prolonged occupation of Iraq? In World War II we were attacked by Japan. When we responded by declaring War--the correct way to respond--Germany declared War on us. We then declared War on Germany. Japan and Germany were two nations that had the capability of wreaking terrible damage on America. We were fighting for survival--not for imposing our politics on them. What about that equates with the farce of people herded to the polls by their respective Mullahs, holding up dyed fingers, as though that proved anything worth proving?
William Flax
Well, from my recollection, it was the Kennedy administration that sent our first combat forces to Vietnam. As I recollect, they sent 5,000 combat troops, 1962. Of course, Johnson accelerated that commitment many times. [BREAK] "Johnson certainly added to our commitment in Vietnam. Whether Kennedy would have done the same, I can’t tell you because all he did was make our initial combat commitment. You can argue one way or another. But the only evidence I know is that the first 5,000 were a commitment by the Kennedy administration."
The headlines should read: Ford blames Democrats for the Vietnam war!!!!
I'm sure she will later. She obviously won't today because she has more important things to tend to.
I wasn't pleased with the continuation of Detente either. This legitimized the Soviet Union with the assumption that we had to live with them.I could go either way on this, but a strong case can be made for Detente. Pure Communism is a system that can't sustain itself for long. Even China has been moving to a market based economy. Letting time run its course helped it to implode economically from within. At the same time Nixon was splitting China away from the Soviets and forced them to think about their eastern border. Divide and conquer is a time honored strategy of war.
Perhaps, you have noticed without really thinking about it, how small the popular vote was before the age of Jackson. "Free elections" can mean very different things to different people. In Iraq, "free elections" could well mean the complete loss of tribal rights to Bedouins that used to be among the freest people on earth. "Free elections," across Africa, in the previous meddlesome era of Dean Rusk (the Kennedy/Johnson Secretary of State) led to the wholesale killing of large numbers of minority tribesmen.
No "free elections" do not automatically destroy justice and liberty; but more often than not, they conflict directly with them.
William Flax
It's hard to say whether or not Detente helped during the Nixon/Ford years or only delayed the Soviet collapse. Still, no one now seems to think Reagan SHOULD have continued the policies of detente which were in place only a few short years before his election.
2007 is looking good.
I heard President Ford interviewed in public around election time in 2004 and he said the US policy of premption was necessary in the light of the 9/11 world.
The domestic madness of price controls ...Yeah, whatever made Nixon think that would work? I'd love to know who suggested it to him. Of course he might have thought it up himself. It was a very strange time.
Me thinks you need to go to the local nursing home and see what kind conversation you can get out of most 90 year olds.I've found many 90 year olds very lucent and worthy of our respect. While my Dad was dying I spent quite a bit of time in his nursing home. I certainly wouldn't dismiss their opinion because of their age.
Geez..the man is barely dead. Is there no respect in anything anymore?I suspect Ford requested this timing. Sort of like the little bits of honesty people put in their wills. I'm sure Betty will enlighten us if it was something he opposed to.
I'm not surprised.
Ford was pretty much a RINO.
Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns, who suggested to him that centrally planned wages and prices were the perfect complement to centrally planned interest rates.
Woodward just couldn't wait until former President Ford's funeral was over with before he had his 'scoope' what a shame to be such an A$$.
Wow. Prolonged?? Do you know how long we 'occupied' Germany and Japan? And how do you suppose Germany and Japan came to have democracies after they were run by dictators and emperors whom we deposed?
Oh...........and you need to do some research into the Saddam documents if you don't think he was a threat to us.
Your knowledge of history and current affairs is astoundingly weak. I certainly hope you didn't get your education in Ohio public schools......
Germany verbally declared war on us. Iraq physically attacked American pilots, firing on them.
Japan and Germany were two nations that had the capability of wreaking terrible damage on America.
Yet Germany never did, and Japan was only able to wreak damage on an American overseas possession thousands of miles from the mainland.
Maybe we should just have waited until Germany developed atomic weapons and adequate delivery systems for them, and then went to war with them after they set off a nuke in NYC or DC.
though the former president said his comments could be published at any time after his death.Good point, thanks.
Woodward didn't "tie the former president down and pull out toenails" but he certainly had his fingers on the president's carotid artery checking for a pulse.As far as the timing of releasing the tape you might be right. But the man's voice is on tape for a project he was actively cooperating with. Certainly didn't sound like he was being tortured.
Germany and Japan are major powers. They each had techinical skills that rivalled our own. The average IQ in Germany is slightly over 100, in Japan about 107. The average IQ in Iraq is in the 80s. If you think that Iraq could ever be the threat to America that Germany and Japan were, you are delusional.
That said, the major reason we have staid all those years in Germany and Japan was connected with the Cold War.
As for Democracy? Germany had a Democracy before Hitler. Indeed, that was how Hitler gained power. He helped found the biggest vote getting Party.
Democracy was never the American goal in 1776, nor in 1787 (with the Constitution). Why don't you read what James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," had to say about "Democracy." (Or do you think that George Bush is even in the same league as Madison, as an "intellect?")
I'm sure she will later. She obviously won't today because she has more important things to tend to.Right, I'm sure this will be a very difficult week for her. But she'll do it soon if she feels the need.
Still, no one now seems to think Reagan SHOULD have continued the policies of detente which were in place only a few short years before his election.Well, Reagan initiated the Start talks. Not exactly Detente but along the same lines. Reagan wasn't President during the early 70's and Nixon wasn't president during the early 80's. War has to be fought on the battlefield as it exists at the time.
START negotiations began in 1982. The United States sought a treaty that would provide for "deep reductions" in U.S. and Soviet strategic offensive nuclear forces, equal limits on the two sides, and "effective verification." Talks were suspended in 1983, when the Soviets walked out in protest over U.S. intermediate-range missile deployments in Europe. Negotiations resumed in 1985 and Presidents George Bush and Boris Yeltsin concluded them in July 1991. On May 23, 1992, a protocol was signed between the U.S. and the four Soviet successor states that have weapons covered by START -- Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Taken together, these documents outline complex and often costly procedures that the nations must follow to remain in compliance with START I.
Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns, who suggested to him that centrally planned wages and prices were the perfect complement to centrally planned interest rates.Thanks for the info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.