Replies

From The Corner

The Decent Thing [Bill Bennett]

Since "decency" seems to be the watchword of the day and the consensus modifier for Jerry Ford (a view with which I generally concur), may I nevertheless be permitted to ask this: just how decent, how courageous, is what Jerry Ford did with Bob Woodward? He slams Bush & Cheney to Woodward in 2004, but asks Woodward not to print the interview until he's dead. If he felt so strongly about his words having a derogatory affect, how about telling Woodward not to run the interview until after Bush & Cheney are out of office? The effect of what Ford did is to protect himself, ensuring he can't be asked by others about his critiques, ensuring that there can be no dialogue. The way Ford does it with Woodward, he doesn't have to defend himself...he simply drops it into Bob Woodward's tape recorder and let's the bomb go off when fully out of range, himself. This is not courage, this is not decent. The manly or more decent options are these: 1. Say it to Bush's or Cheney's face and allow them and us to engage the point while you're around, or 2. Far more decently, say nothing critical of Bush will be on the record until his presidency is over. There's a 3. Don't say anything critical of George Bush to Bob Woodward at all.
You're a former President Mr. Ford, show a little more decency to the incumbent who is in a very, very tough place and trying to do the right thing....you may recall those days and positions yourself.

With all due respect to Bill Bennet, he is not the arbiter of decency. President Ford chose Woodward to write the book. Had Ford made his comments publicly in 2004, the cheerleaders and NeoCons would have crucified him. To withhold all criticism until the President is out of office is ludicrous. Witness the Miers appointment, DPW, and immigration policies. To recommend that Ford not say anything critical of President Bush (to Bob Woodward or anyone else) is a blatant attempt to muzzle any and all ex-Presidents.

The obstinate refusal of the Bush administration to solicit the cooperation of both sides of the aisle in Congress while crafting the Iraq policy created this problem. And the hate, venom, and accusations from the cult of Bush personality cheerleaders on this forum has pushed aside any rational discussion of Iraq policy. Any question about the wisdom of GOP party line gets one called a traitor, DU'er, or worse. Now the same people that said that troop levels were perfect after Baghdad fell, called the Dems traitors when the Dems recommended more troops a year and a half ago, are righteously indignant about sending 30,000 more troops without a clear mission statement. Amazing.