Ford had problems with Bush Iraq policy

AP via Yahoo ^ | December 28, 2006 | NA

[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."

___

[samtheman]

You're right about him being a fine human being. And for all his faults, the country would have been much better off choosing him over Carter in '76. But that was then...

[Nevermore]

And this is significant because...?
Gerald Ford was the Casper Milquetoast - or better yet, the Charlie Brown of presidents. That's not to bad-mouth Charlie Brown or Gerald Ford: I just didn't want Charlie Brown or Ford for president. It was obvious that he just wasn't up to it.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

Would you vote for a 90 year old for POTUS and put national security in the hands of a person with probable memory loss , difficulty with problem solving and possible beginning stages of dementia?

Whether I would vote for a 90 year old or not is a much different question. Probably not given the pressure of the office and the likelihood of failing health, possibly including dementia at some point. The office is know for a lot of pressure that could trigger health problems. Reagan himself probably had the beginnings of Alzheimers toward the end of his term.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the value I'd place on hearing the opinion of someone so knowledgeable and experienced, whether I agreed with it or not. We'd lose a lot a valuable experience if we stopped listening to our elder citizens.

It doesn't sound like you're planning on being very coherent in your 90's. Are you planning on having people put you in the corner like a potted plant to wait for death to lift the burden?

To say that Ford's opinion of the WOT and Iraq, good or bad, in the twilight of his years, is the ultimate answer to the calling of this young generation is at least as absurd as any question I have asked you.

You're the one trying to make his opinion the "ultimate answer to the calling of this young generation". Where did you get that? It's one opinion among many. It deserves a little more respect than most because he's been in the office and has a unique point of view.

So if you can't answer honestly, don't expect to convince me that you have a handle on the normal affects of aging on the cognition of the extreme elderly.

I'm not in the habit of writing off all of the opinions of the elderly. Some 90 year olds are sharp as a tack, and some 20 year olds come close to dementia. I usually listen and then give it the weight I think it deserves. That dog just won't hunt.

The big problem I have is if anyone of stature says anything that doesn't fit with conservative conventional wisdom he is immediately written off with pages of highly insightful one line posts saying the person is a moron for one reason or another. It doesn't matter what their past credentials are.

Writing off Gerald Ford's opinion because you say he probably has dementia at his age is lame. Writing it off because he choose to have Woodward on the other end of the recorder is lame. Writing it off because it was reported in the MSM is lame. Disagreeing with it based on some reasoning is what adults do.

Now, can we get on with mourning his death without exploiting him further for political purposes and TV ratings? Thank you.

Now we can get on with honoring his life? His words are an important part of his legacy. Your welcome.

[KenmcG414]

Who really gives a rat's rear end what Ford thought. They liked Ford because as minority leader he kow-towed to the RATS and was always on the losing end. His presidency was lacklustre at best.

[ohioWfan]

I understand why you interpreted my post as you did because it wasn't clear, but I was speaking hyperbolically when I talked about speaking German and Japanese.

Let me say it this way.........if we, the United States of America, had not intervened and saved Europe from the Third Reich and Asia from Imperialist Japan, and replaced those governments with forced democracies, there is no way to even speculate how great the world wide disaster would have been.

I note you ignored my assessment of isolationists like yourself, and did not choose to defend yourself or deny it.

The only options as I see it, for the motivation of isolationism are that America is a negative force in the world and should not 'impose' our way of government on other countries........a view shared by the left. Or, the other option is that you don't care what happens to anyone else in the world because you are either elitist, or completely self-centered.

I suppose a third option would be that you are all cowards, but I tend to think that your isolationist views stem from either the view that American democracy is a bad thing, or an elitism that says that people outside our borders neither want, nor deserve freedom, or self-absorbtion that results in apathy about the plight of anyone else except yourself.

I find none of those options acceptable, and all are completely repugnant to my own Christian world view.

But in the case of terrorism and the present war we are waging on those who want us all dead, your isolationist view is not only elitist and selfish, but is in reality, self-destructive, not only to your own personal well being, but to the well being of the country that we (both?) love. In other words, your POV with this enemy, is dangerous and potentially deadly, and I praise God that we have a President who doesn't share it, and pray daily that in 2008 whoever is elected will have the vision and courage to continue this fight, and will not cower in fear as would be your preference.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

Although it did happen, I find it very hard to believe that Ford would sit for an interview with Woodward of all people. After the Casey fiasco, I'm surprised anyone would have anything to do with him.

The Bush Administration invited him into the inner offices of the Administration to write about the war. He must have had some appeal.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

if we, the United States of America, had not intervened and saved Europe from the Third Reich and Asia from Imperialist Japan, and replaced those governments with forced democracies, there is no way to even speculate how great the world wide disaster would have been.

There's a good point for you in here but you ought to keep your history straight. We went to war with countries that declared war on us. We even allied ourselves with the Stalinist Soviet Union to win that war. Roosevelt wanted to intervene in Europe but was restrained by among others the Republican Isolationists. We gave extremely limited support to Brittan before Perl Harbor.

I note you ignored my assessment of isolationists like yourself, and did not choose to defend yourself or deny it.

Are you or are you not a Communist Mr. Wright?

The only options as I see it, for the motivation of isolationism are that America is a negative force in the world and should not 'impose' our way of government on other countries........a view shared by the left.

Possibly he thinks other people should fight for their own freedom with a little help from their friends. The French didn't win the Revolutionary War for us, they helped.

Or, the other option is that you don't care what happens to anyone else in the world because you are either elitist, or completely self-centered.

An elitist thinks he knows what's best for everyone else. It's possible to care what happens to others in the world and also have the humility to know they have to take their own future in their hands. Try a little wisdom from a quote:

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 - 1971), in a sermon in 1943

I don't know where the line is but having the "grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed" does not make him elitist, self centered, or uncaring.

You also might want to rethink your slavish devotion to making everybody democratic. Do you really want a democracy right now in Pakistan?, In Saudi Arabia? In Syria? Each of these countries would be a lot more of a thorn in our side as democracies than they currently are. Just consider the danger of a nuclear armed Pakistani democracy by itself. I'd like to see them on the road to democracy but concern about our own safety comes first.

The successful governments in the area are Constitutional Monarchies with strong monarchs. Jordan has been a force of sanity in the region and we fought a war to return the Kuwaiti monarchy to their throne. Maybe we should think in terms of what works in the region. Let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good. There's a lot more work to do in the war on terror.

I find none of those options acceptable, and all are completely repugnant to my own Christian world view.

So when are you planning to invade North Korea? There are a lot of truly awful governments in the world. If we want to make them all democracies then we need another strategy. America has more than just military power.

But in the case of terrorism and the present war we are waging on those who want us all dead, your isolationist view is not only elitist and selfish, but is in reality, self-destructive, not only to your own personal well being, but to the well being of the country that we (both?) love. In other words, your POV with this enemy, is dangerous and potentially deadly, and I praise God that we have a President who doesn't share it, and pray daily that in 2008 whoever is elected will have the vision and courage to continue this fight, and will not cower in fear as would be your preference.

I think questioning his patriotism is pretty rank. He may be wrong but that doesn't make him a traitor. There is a patriotic place somewhere between total isolationism and unlimited interventionalism and I suspect you'll find him somewhere in there.

I was speaking hyperbolically ...

And you still are.

[ohioWfan]

Sorry for not reading your book, but in a quick perusal of it, I saw several instances where you just made things up out of whole cloth, therefore making it a complete waste of time for me to reply to them.

The only false accusation I will state the truth to counter, was that I questioned Austin's patriotism. I did no such thing, so don't use that leftist emotional tripe on me.

What I do question is your legitimacy as a freeper and a conservative, and this post has made your status even more questionable.

Please don't post back to me. Saddam's about to die, and I don't have time to read any more of your fiction......

Austin and I may not agree, but I respect him and know he's sincere. I have no such confidence with you.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

What I do question is your legitimacy as a freeper and a conservative, and this post has made your status even more questionable.

Could you pass me the hemlock please. I've lost the will to live.

Austin and I may not agree, but I respect him and know he's sincere.

Sorry, it's hard to interpret "that we (both?) love" any other way.

I have no such confidence with you.

oh well, life's hard sometimes.

[ohioWfan]

I will leave your imaginary interpretations to you.

Now please leave me alone. I prefer to stick with trustworthy freepers, and with every post you slide further and further down the troll abyss......

[Witchman63]

Actually I think "loser" is apt in the sense that Ford's beliefs and republicans of his era were losers in a political way. And rightfully so. They were "democrat lite" much in the way that a ideologically bereft democratic party today is branded "republican lite". Thankfully Ford represented the end of an era. I think this article sums it up nicely.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjdjYmU3MWQyOWQ5M2I4ZDdhNjliNmM5MGQ3OGRiMWE=

"Ford, in the eyes of these feisty GOP converts, was a good and decent man, but precisely representative of this final category. A “Man of the House” who had spent almost his entire quarter century on Capitol Hill in the minority, Ford was not just an “accidental president” to these conservatives, but, worse, an accommodationist who had gotten use to Democratic domination and its attendant liberal policies.

Indeed, Ford was the sort of Chamber of Commerce Republican that dominated the congressional wing of the party in the era. Internationalist, socially moderate, and fiscally prudent, Ford embodied the good-government northeastern and midwestern party of Rockefeller, Lodge, and Vandenberg.

He was, in many ways, representative of the end of an era. His spirited and successful campaign to bat back Reagan’s insurgency marked the last stand of the moderates’ hold of the GOP. No Republican has since won the party’s nod without the backing of the conservative wing of the party."

[rippingmyhairout]

I doubt that I am confused, oldster, and certainly entitled to my opinion of a past president who couldn't hold water to the current administration. I'm certainly old enough to remember Ford well....and for him to not say what he had to say regarding the war on terror to the current president certainly lacked strength and character. I believe I have the correct forum. Maybe you need to reconsider.

[ohioWfan]

You said 'good riddance' to a good man with whom you had policy disagreements, and called him a loser.

You're more than confused. You're a nasty person, and most likely a troll, making your opinions of no interest to me as a member in good standing of this conservative forum.

Good day.

[fortheDeclaration]

I believe the problem comes in associating the view that America should export American values with the unAmerican, utoptian views of Woodrew Wilson.

America was always suppose to be the example of what self-Government could achieve.

We understand that different cultures are going to have different approaches.

America holds to nationalism, not the false internationalism of the League of Nations and the U.N.

The great achievement of America was the founding on the concept of individual rights, rights given by God and not government and that is what makes America unique to the World and is an enemy to all tyrants.

[fortheDeclaration]

I am not claiming that German and Japanese democracy in the 1920s or 1930s were ideal though German democracy would have survived had it not been for the depression. I am simply pointing out that the comparison to Iraq (which has no recent expereince with democracy, a comparatively weak middle class, and no true sense of nationhood) falls flat. You are right about the Japanese constitution but the Japanese would have rejected a return to militarism in any case by 1946. They certainly did in the 1946 election under the pre-war constitution when they embraced the ballot over the bullet by voting in pacifist social democrats. On this point, please note that that Japanese have been completely free since the 1940s to change their Constitution but haven't). Why not? Because it was consistent with public opinion and cultural trends since the beginning.

The change of Japan and Germany from tyrannical to Democratic nations is one of the greatest political sucesses in history.

Both Democratic nations had to be protected so they could survive long enough for the people to see that Democracy, though messy at times, can be effective.

I do not see why Iraq cannot follow in the same path if given protection and time to get on its feet.

What we have in Iraq is the MSM depicting the entire nation in turmoil, when a small fraction of it is directly effected by these terrorist attacks.

I am not saying that there will not be problems, nor that any particular type of Democratic Government be imposed.

The greatest threat to Islamic facism in the Mideast is the growth of representive Government in that region.

That is why they are fighting against it with such determination.

The fact that emperor was stripped of power was no big deal. He had become pretty much become a symbolic figure since the turn of the century and, prior ot the Meji restoration, had no power at all.

I only brought up the Emperor because you commented on his remaining in power.

The fact is that while the Emperor may not have political power, he was viewed as being divine and had great moral prestige, enough to end Japanese resistance in WW2.

[ohioWfan]

The great achievement of America was the founding on the concept of individual rights, rights given by God and not government and that is what makes America unique to the World and is an enemy to all tyrants.

Well said!

Others may disagree, but I believe that one of the underlying feelings in those who don't believe that America should help other countries create systems of government that share the values of our Constitution.....i.e. personal liberty........is arrogance.

It is definitely true in the case of Iraq. The elitists on this board, and the elitists in academia and the left in general don't think that the Iraqis are capable of living in freedom.

As a Christian, I firmly disagree. America's form of government is unique, but the God-breathed nature of all humanity is not. The desire for freedom is universal because cultures may be different, but human beings are innately the same, regardless of the place of their birth.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post!

[Earthdweller]

God Bless you OWF. You are a true American. The Founding Fathers would be proud.

On this sad but honorable night in US history, it will take people like you who know the vision to keep our nation and mission strong.

I'm proud to know you Freeper Friend.

[rippingmyhairout]

"You're a nasty person, and most likely a troll, making your opinions of no interest to me as a member in good standing of this conservative forum."


How extremely strange.

[ohioWfan]

To a nasty troll, perhaps.......

No more pings please.