“Some of these fools voted for me twice!”
Former president Gerald Ford said he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq and described the Bush administration’s public case for the war as a “big mistake” during a lengthy interview with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in 2004.
“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 told Woodward. “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.”
Ford added: “I don’t think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly, I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.”
“‘Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people,’ Ford said, referring to Bush’s assertion that the United States has a ‘duty to free people.’ But the former president said he was skeptical ‘whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what’s in our national interest.’
He added: ‘And I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.'”
Too bad consideration for the good-ol’-boy network rationalized keeping his mouth shut while he was alive — requesting this interview to be withheld till after his death.
Probably one of the significant differences between traditional Republicans and neoconartists:
The former care about keeping the whole party together and advancing representative policy, albeit conservative. The latter only care about power — over everyone!
The leaders required during peacetime are rarely the leaders required during warime.
While I’m not saying Bush is, Ford certainly is not, the later.
He added: ‘And I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.’”
Is our nation doomed to stay with a train of thought where we allow others to suffer unless it is in our best interest? I’d like to think, at some point, we could rise above this kind of thinking, and start selecting the right fights at the right time (Darfur?).
Yup. Let’s follow your line of thought, James.
Mexico? Thailand? Cuba? Fiji? We might even get enough popular support to “win” a couple of those. Like the song said, “we’re the cops of the world.
#2
Is our nation doomed to stay with a train of thought where we allow others to suffer unless it is in our best interest? I’d like to think, at some point, we could rise above this kind of thinking, and start selecting the right fights at the right time (Darfur?).
I’m with you on this. But unfortunately the leaders are backed by powerful interest groups (e.g. Halliburton), who sees things from a different perspective. If these relationships between interest groups and the leaders are broken, then yes, I think we could see some interesting changes in a lot of policies, including the foreign policy.
This is Woodward’s account. Others who interviewed former President Ford more recently have him supporting the invasion and only disagreeing with the emphasis placed on WMDs as one of the reasons for it.
Given Woodward’s rather fantastic history in other books and articles, I choose to believe the other interviewers more.
I’ve always been a fan of Ford’s but that was a cheap shot. I think is a pretty good perspective.
He was beat by Jimmy Carter in the election, enough said.
If the US tries to liberate countries the same way it has done with Iraq, the US will need a bigger military. Current the size of the military force is just under 3 million people. Some of those people are desk jockeys. People are not volunteering to help free nations. So now the officials are thinking bringing back the draft. If the US can not handle Iraq how will it police the world? I am thinking that the military size to police the world would have to be at least 10 million soldiers. Where are these extra soldiers going to come from?
For those who think the US should be the world liberators, why haven’t you joined the military?
For all of the bemoaning about Hiroshima and mentions of Dresden a few days ago by some here, WWII was the last time the US has actually won a war it has been involved with. Yes, yes, I know we achieved our military objective of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in Desert Storm, but in the end we where left with the same government in power and two no-fly zones to patrol for a decade… hardly a victory.
The moral is, we should not be using our military to enact revolutions in foreign lands; and if you are going to engage in war, it should be waged aggressively and decisively.
Or at least send your kids off to be cannon fodder.
#8.
Good luck getting an answer. I’ve asked (among others) the knee jerk neocons on this board why they haven’t joined up or sent a kid of their’s and all I got was cricket noise that always sounded something like this:
Hypocrites, Hypocrites, Hypocrites, Hypocrites, Hypocrites, Hypocrites, Hypocrites, Hypocrites…
I am glad Ford made the comments he did. It is always nice to see former politicians speak their mind when the current President is screwing up. You have to figure Ford was being perfectly honest with the President. After all, what does a former President over the age of 90 have to gain by criticizing the current President of his own party? Nothing, other than the small hope that his wisdom will be heard.
Personally, I am hard pressed to find anyone who was FOR Bushco, Inc.’s war.
Here is how the White House will spin this:
That would be the nice spin. The spin I expect is that these are the musing of a man in failing mental health, out of touch with reality.
Would you expect less from Rove?
#13, it may be hard to find them now, but remember the vote authorizing the attack was pitched as a card the President could carry in his pocket to negotiations. He tried to say he wasn’t going to use it… And then, everyone wanted to make sure he could do the most effective negotiation possible, thus, war ensued. No amount of negotiation, doubtful even the outlandish notion of an outright resignation by Saddam, could have precluded the war at that point.
I elect James Hill as head of the newly formed draft board. Those who cant or wont fight, get to chose those who can.
I am shocked !!! I am actually agreeing with #2 and don’t disagree with #15. Gee, there must be a lot of people ice skating in Hell tonight.
But I still think James made a worthy argument. A tip of the hat.
#17 – When your mother hits you, does it increase the size of the dent already in your head? What the hell are you talking about?
There are many alternatives to a draft to solve our problems, and by making that comment you sound like nothing more than a failed politician of the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford timeframe.
#18 – While I’m glad people are giving Ford his due, I’m personally not in a big hurry to throw a parade for how he handled the end of Vietnam. My fear is that people will want this kind of action from the next administration (a rapid exit), regardless of what Bush does over the next two years (a slothful exit).
Once again, not saying Bush is right, but that doesn’t make the opposite correct either.
What’s worthy about a “what if”?
What if Gerald Ford was in Britney Spears’ knickers and was suffering from O2 deprivation — whilst sharing her with Woodward?
As legitimate a suggestion as James’. And as likely — considering that as long as Ford was nodding his tousled head in the direction of Pennsylvania Ave, no one on the Right had any suspicions about his competence.
Gerald Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter because he, Ford, pardoned Richard Nixon. Ford thought that was a necessary part of the healing process, but he probably knew that it would lose him scads of voter support that would be difficult to recoup.
I suppose that in a few decades when Al Gore dies, somebody will say that “He was beat by George W. Bush in the election, enough said.”
Not completely off-topic, but Ford was supposed to be ungainly or uncoordinated or clumsy or accident-prone. The psychologist Stanley Coren in his interesting book “The Left Hander Syndrome” goes into this in some detail. Ford was the first left-hander President in modern times, and this caused mixups with his Secret Service staff because the “startle response” (what you do and where you turn when startled) ties in heavily with handedness. The Secret Service had choreographed that a President would do blee when something happened at close quarters when walking quickly, but Ford did the opposite. They had it all worked out in time for Reagan. Bush I and Clinton were also left-handed.
Years ago I read a book of reminiscences by Gerald Ford’s press secretary, who made no mention at all of left-handedness.
I’m kind of hoping that they will drop one side of his coffin and let him tumble out – for old times sake.
LOL
#20 – When your mother went to the gangbang where you were conceived, why did she screw the kids from the short bus first?
Junior, if you’re going to talk nonsense, at least try to make a point.
22. Thats great, except its Chevy Chase and he says “Live from New YorK, Its SATURDAY NIGHT”
sigh..
Canadian politics is boring 🙁
President Ford sure knew when to die though
just like the real thing.. he never needed oil
2. “Is our nation doomed to stay with a train of thought where we allow others to suffer unless it is in our best interest? I’d like to think, at some point, we could rise above this kind of thinking, and start selecting the right fights at the right time (Darfur?).”
One of the sad legacies of Iraq is going to be that the American public is going to sour on helping those in need, for fear of “another Iraq.”
To that end, I would suggest drawing a line – humanitarian US military intervention would be justified in cases of imminent genocide or ethnic cleansing (Darfur, Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraqi Kurdistan) but not in cases where the people are “merely” suffering under an undemocratic or tyrannical government (Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Baathist Iraq). the former need immediate help, but the latter are going to have to liberate themselves, with perhaps some US moral or material support.
If we can’t even think mexican
how do we think iraqi
I really like that no one wants to comment on my post…
GREAT, I right and the rest of you are WRONG…
ECA: OK, I’ll bite. As usual, your comment #29 is incomprehensible. In addition, being your first comment in this thread, it is very funny. Two thumbs up, ECA-licious.