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."
___
The subject, here, was Iraq--a contrived nation in the Near East. What has that got to do with International outlaws attacking us from within? The mad notion that we can change other peoples' native cultures can only help recruit more international outlaws. It is obviously counter-productive.
The most effective way to deal with international brigandry, is by encouraging Nations to crack down on those who seek to attack other peoples' cultures--whether they like those cultures or not. May I recommend that you study traditional American Foreign policy, before you post on questions of foreign policy.
William Flax
My subject was your irrational statement that Iraq posed a lesser threat to the United States than World War 2 Germany and Japan. It was and remains a statement replete in ignorance and denial.
The truth of the matter, as evidenced by 9/11 which is why I asked if you were napping, is that small groups of dedicated whackjobs with certain technologies can and will, if they get the chance, reek more havoc within the borders of this country than Germany and Japan ever dreamt of doing.
Saddam Hussein gave sanctuary to the worst of the worst islamonuts. Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi and Ansar al Islam to name a few inidviduals and a group given sanctuary in Iraq. Here's a little history for you Mr. History, all of those individuals were responsible in one way or the other for the deaths of your fellow citizens. The confluence of those type nuts with Husseins unquenchable thirst for WMD, his animus for the USA and a post 9/11 world any POTUS who did nothing about that state of affairs in Iraq would be derelict in his duty.
The most effective way to deal with international brigandry, is by encouraging Nations to crack down on those who seek to attack other peoples' cultures--whether they like those cultures or not.
This statement is so, well, stupid and naive, it doesn't even merit a response.
May I recommend that you study traditional American Foreign policy, before you post on questions of foreign policy.
:-}Whatever you say Mr. Foreign Policy.
Just like the RINO you are...you never did address the major recent problem with Ford...which was his interview with a blatant liberal journalist (Woodward) chastising the Bush Adminstration's war on terror policy, and then instructing that his viewpoint not be made public until after his death. So if you can't debate an issue, make personal attacks (which is a liberal tactic).
So you can take your personal attacks, your pompous RINO attitude, and your worthless viewpoint and stick them where the sun refuses to shine. A word of advise...leave the internet occasionally and get a life.
I am not now, nor ever have been a RINO. Understanding the basic truth that Gerald Ford was a good, good man has nothing to do with politics.........unless, of course, one is a liberal, as you are, in which case you are both mentally and spiritually deformed.
I've been a conservative my entire life, and am most likely more conservative than 99% of the people on this forum, including, of course, trolls like yourself, because I am conservative across the board, and deeply so, and have been for longer than most freepers have been alive.
Now as to that 'get a life' silliness.......I have been happily married for 30 years, have four grown kids who occupy much of my time (and are living productive, conservative lives, unlike yourself, one of whom is an Iraqi Freedom veteran, and will be going back).
I have two jobs, one being a professorship at a prestigious University, I am active in my church professionally, and as a volunteer, and volunteer at a charitable organization, as well as being a conservative political activist who has been on steering committees for local, state and national candidates.
There's the truth, troll boy.
Now find someone else to be the victim of your drive-by lies. They bore me, and I'm too busy to be annoyed by troll boys like you.
No more posts to me.
PHONEY! Ford was a RINO. And so are you.
By the way, I consider myself a Regan coservative, and not a blind Republican. Got that RINO.
And to further prove what an "intellect" you are, I am not a "boy". Perhaps you need to get your pompous head out of your pompous arse. So now I'll end this because, as you can tell as to why it took me so long to respond, I have a life, unlike yourself.
In fact, I was a conservative BEFORE Ronald Reagan was.
And I have more 'life' than you'll ever dream of having. A complete, satisfying life.
Good bye, troll. I won't miss you. :)
I was being nurtured in conservative values (i.e. small government, dangers of the UN, etc) while Reagan was still a Democrat. I never rejected those values as I became an adult.
btw, ripping...........we weren't talking about Ford's conservatism (I never said he was). You said good riddance to the loser, and I objected. I was talking about his character and value as a human being..........things that apparently don't matter to you.
You changed the subject to get in your silly and false dig on my conservatism. Nice try, but no cigar.
And I still say, good riddance to Ford. Btw....since your hero Ford was such a "good man" in your eyes and you say that you were "talking about his character and value as a human being", so was I. Ford had no character...he went to a well known liberal journalist, went on record to berate our president's policies on the war on terror, and ask that his views not be pulicized until after his death. And THAT is what I was speaking of from the beginning. Apparently, Ford's last little liberal prank is certainly fine with you.
And you call yourself a conservative? You don't know the meaning. Certainly, you don't know the meaning of "character". Also, too bad Ford did not share your viewpoint of valuing human beings...since he was pro-abortion anytime, anywhere.
Amazing.
Now ignore me like you promised.........KAY??
You make no sense whatsoever, and you bore me.
How funny....I was thinking the same of you.
Blah, blah, blah, blah....they miss you at Moveon.org
So did Saddam Hussine.
Nice try, troll.
Gerald Ford was a good man. He wasn't a conservative, but he was a good man.
From all appearances, you are neither.
Farewell.
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.