Gerald Ford: "I don't think I would have gone to war"

[ceetee]

WASHINGTON -- Former President Gerald Ford said in an newly disclosed interview that the Iraq war was not justified.

"I don't think I would have gone to war," he said in July 2004, a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

The Ford interview--and a subsequent lengthy conversation in 2005--took place for a future book project, though he said his comments could be published at any time after his death. In the sessions, Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.

In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Dick Cheney--Ford's White House chief of staff--and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.

"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."

Link to story.

I guess I just don't get it. So many people have been so unwilling to go on record as being against the current administration's policies... It really does make me think there's been a shift to a monarchy, and it's just that nobody noticed.

 

[shaggycat]

I disagree. I think a number of people have strongly disagreed with the current administration's policy, both domestically and abroad. The Democrats regained control of congress by basically running on the "We disagree the current administration" ticket. They won because they disagreed and the people wanted something to change.

Part of the reason Ford may have been walking on egg shells could be that he still feels a desire to tout the party line.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

I am pretty sure that President Ford kept his opinion "private" out of respect for the office of the president.He was an honorable man.Wish there were more in politics these days...

 

[dfaugh]

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."

Note that he was more concerned with the REASONS we went to war (WMDs) than the war itself. I think that agrees with the opinions of many of the people that are against the war.

 

[Clipper]

We chose to be the worlds policeman...

Well, I'd like to go on record as saying, in my opinion, it was a chickens$!t way for him to go about disagreeing, to stipulate no disclosure until after he was dead (and couldn't be challenged directly or responded to by the administration without seeming to be officially speaking ill of the dead). Since the end of the cold war, which we all supposedly wanted, we are now the only Big Kid on the block. So, if we wanted to have that status, we're also obliged to practice what we preach, including protecting human rights. Saddam may not have had WMDs...The administration may or may not have known...But removing the man was undeniably the right thing to do! But the pu$$ification of America (and even moreso, the rest of the world) doesn't allow for violent action in defense of principal anymore. It makes me shake my head that the manly men who say they're willing to shoot someone to doll rags to protect themselves or their family, or wait with bated breath for the revolution (started by someone else, of course), that America can and should hide her head in the sand and let the world go to pieces around us, and that we will miraculously remain above it all, safe because we don't get involved. I guess we should have turned the world over to the Soviets, eh?

 

[gopguy]

I hate to speak ill of the dead but....

First I want to say I am a Republican. Second I want to say I hate to speak ill of the dead, but Gerry Ford was not exactly a foreign policy expert. I well remember his idiotic comment that Eastern Europe was not being subjugated by the Soviet Union. He became President by default without being elected because Nixon made him Vice President after Agnew resigned. He was a poorly informed member of the House from Michigan. He was not the brightest bulb in the pack. Remember his solution to our economic woes,the WIN buttons to whip inflation now? I do. He meant well but was a RINO and a dimwit. His incompetence and the Nixon legacy handed the country to Jimmy Carter. What he has to say on Iraq is irrelevant. President George W. Bush had a bit more information on hand than did Gerry Ford when he ran off at the mouth to Woodward.

His comments only came out after his death because prior to Bill Clinton past Presidents did not comment on their successors. Since then even the lamentable embarassment Jimmy Carter has also re-emerged to the Nation's detriment. Cutting deals to give N.Korea nuclear technology...remember that?

On the positive side he knew football....and he did not attempt to ban our guns. God rest and accept his immortal soul.

That is my 2 cents.


To make my point on why Ford should be ignored on Foreign affairs I present the comments below.


From the second debate with Carter October 7 1976.

GERALD FORD: There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.

MAX FRANKEL, New York Times: I'm sorry; could I just follow... Did I understand you to say, Sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence and occupying most of the countries there and making sure, with their troops, that it's a communist zone, whereas on our side of the line, the Italians and the French are still flirting with the possibility of communism?

GERALD FORD: I don't believe, Mr. Frankel, that the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union....

 

[ceetee]

Also from the story:

Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

"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 No. 1, 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."

I happen to agree. We're NOT the world's police, and we have no business trying to be. We may be the big dog on the block, but unless we're directly threatened, we have no business spending our own resources (money, material, and men alike) toppling dictators. First, there are more dictators that need toppling than Carter has liver pills. Who do you go after next? And why?

Second, if the people that live there are content with their dictator, what makes you think they'll appreciate our efforts, and NOT get us in the middle of a giant power grab?

Third, what do we do when the dictator has the muscle of nuclear weapons, and the will to use them against us? Punk out? Or start losing cities?

I've said it before, and I'll keep on saying it until I have no more breath in my body: After 9-11, we could've gone anywhere, done anything. We had the good will of the entire world. We could have used that good will to actually fight terrorists and make a difference. We could have sent troops to any nation on the planet, and blown up anything we wanted, and as long as we could show direct links to actual terrorists, the world would've not shed a single tear. Our soldiers would've NOT become standing targets. Giant bundles of our cash (yours and mine) would've NOT been tossed around like footballs. We could have used this impetus to make host countries pay for the priviledge of having our Special Forces blow the crap out of their cities. Imagine that...

Instead, a few petty thieves used this occasion to further line the pockets of their CEO buddies (and their stockholders). No matter the cost to you, or me, or all those families that had one less place to set for Christmas dinner this year. But I guess having those thieves not look like "pussies" is so much better...

 

[Erebus]

And this has to do with guns how?

 

[MechAg94]

No disagreement with that statement ceetee.

It used to be the case that former Presidents did not criticize sitting Presidents. However, Clinton and Carter don't seem to care about that tradition.

I think a lot of people would have had trouble going to war. I don't think there is a perfect answer. The best answer would have been for Bush I to take care of Saddam while he had the chance or for him & Clinton to have supported the Kurds and other anti-Saddam factions much better. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, there would still be problems with Iraq dogging the President just not the same ones as today.

It may just be me, but I thought the media is the one who emphasized the WMD reason for Iraq, not the President. Also, by the pre-war definition, we found what we were looking for. The only thing we didn't find was an active on-going nuke program. We did find the tools and equipment to restart that program. Pre-war Bush said we can't afford to wait for Saddam to have that capability. He was likely right, but we didn't take that path to prove it, thankfully. Bush has been doing a very poor job of playing the media in the past few years IMHO.

 

[ceetee]

And this has to do with guns how?

With talk of sending more troops overseas, there's a very real possibility of Congress discussing a new draft. Not only that, but any new anti-gun legislation coming from the Democrats in the coming term will be coming because the American people are fed up with Bushco, and the way the country's being run.

Doesn't that have a little bit to do with civil liberties? Those who refuse to learn from the past...

 

[JohnBT]

"He was not the brightest bulb in the pack."

You must think he bought his Yale Law Degree from Sears or something. Sheesh.

John

 

[Tom C.]

Whether you agree with Ford's alleged quote or not, isn't it amazing how Beltway Bob always comes up with a quote from the dead that happens to agree with his position?

 

[Erebus]

With talk of sending more troops overseas, there's a very real possibility of Congress discussing a new draft. Not only that, but any new anti-gun legislation coming from the Democrats in the coming term will be coming because the American people are fed up with Bushco, and the way the country's being run.

Doesn't that have a little bit to do with civil liberties? Those who refuse to learn from the past...

You make a tenuous connection at best. Ford's statement of his disagreement on Bush's decision will have absolutely no impact on what the Dems do as far as gun legislation. And his statement impacting the possibility of a draft is slimmer than Nicole Richie.

 

[junyo]

"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 No. 1, 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."

And that's the kind of realpolitik that's had us stand by, sup with and enrich dictators and murderers while their third and fourth world hellholes turned into recruiting posts for angry young men with no outlet for their frustration other than state religion and the murderous philosophy to which that religion was turned. That's the kind of thinking that has had us divorce the ideas of freedom, and self determination that we've enshrined as basic and universal rights from our perception of national interest. In other words, that's that kind of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. Somebody's going to be pissed off whatever we do. I'd rather they be pissed off for the proactive attempt to bring self determination and some form of democracy to more of the world than for cover-our-a$$, moralizing while people die, passivity and isolationism. Ford always seemed a nice guy, but as a President he presided over defeat, and never got the stink of it off of him.

 

[wooderson]

I am pretty sure that President Ford kept his opinion "private" out of respect for the office of the president.He was an honorable man.

Variations of this (usually along with some dig at Clinton and/or Carter for kicks) seem to be a prevalent talking point these days.

Why? What's 'honorable' about staying quiet about something you find morally or ethically objectionable?

If you disagree with the President's policy, where is the honor in not saying this? What's wrong with open, honest dissent?

 

[MechAg94]

It had been a general tradition that former Presidents did not criticize the current President. As I said above, the living Dem former Presidents don't seem to care about tradition at all. Former Presidents are often given a credibility that others are not given when it comes to some issues. I am not sure it means much these days as all the govt secrets are printed by the New York Times anyway.

I am sure they weren't the first to do so either.

 

[ceetee]

You make a tenuous connection at best. Ford's statement of his disagreement on Bush's decision will have absolutely no impact on what the Dems do as far as gun legislation. And his statement impacting the possibility of a draft is slimmer than Nicole Richie.

You're ignoring what I wrote. Purposely. The Democrats, who likely will attempt more gun leglislation, are in power because of Bushco's foreign policies. The connection could be made, therefore, that Bushco is responsible for whatever new gun restrictions come our way in the upcoming sessions. All witticisms aside, I'm not tring to say that his statement is going to be responsible for a new draft. I did say that it will be talked about on the Hill, and that will be Bushco's fault as well.

That's the kind of thinking that has had us divorce the ideas of freedom, and self determination that we've enshrined as basic and universal rights from our perception of national interest. In other words, that's that kind of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. Somebody's going to be pissed off whatever we do. I'd rather they be pissed off for the proactive attempt to bring self determination and some form of democracy to more of the world than for cover-our-a$$, moralizing while people die, passivity and isolationism.

How about leaving other countries citizens to have self-determination to choose their own course? If living under a dictatorship is so onerous, let them rise up and free themselves. When was the last time a society of slaves to a dictatorial government were freed through outside interference? You espouse freedom, yet at the same time you call for outside interference... which ic it? Should they be free? Or should they have their course chosen for them?

 

[gopguy]

JohnBT said

You must think he bought his Yale Law Degree from Sears or something. Sheesh.

Sears no, bought yes. There are plenty of people who went to Harvard and Yale that are not too bright. An Ivy League degree may bring money and success but does not mean you are intelligent. The examples I gave in that post on Eastern Europe and economic policy are great examples. Ted Kennedy went to Harvard...but seems to have trouble understanding the words "shall not be infringed." John Kerry went to Yale and that Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton all have trouble with those words. So do forgive if I am not impressed with an Ivy League education.....the folks they hand degrees to are not impressive.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Now I read this and I understand it recognizes my God given right to bear arms, and I went to Wright State University and Wilmington College. Hardly Ivy League but good enough as long as I ignored the commie lib left wing indoctrination they also tried to work in between the serious stuff.

 

[Cosmoline]

Somebody called "GOPGUY" attacks Ford's record

Reminds me of that "Dead or Alive" song about records going around and around.

 

[wooderson]

It had been a general tradition that former Presidents did not criticize the current President.

Right, but what I'm saying is - so what? Traditions should be scrapped if they serve no useful purpose. The idea that previous Presidents should remain silent in the face of wrongdoing or bad choices by their replacements is absurd.

 

[junyo]

How about leaving other countries citizens to have self-determination to choose their own course? If living under a dictatorship is so onerous, let them rise up and free themselves. When was the last time a society of slaves to a dictatorial government were freed through outside interference? You espouse freedom, yet at the same time you call for outside interference... which ic it? Should they be free? Or should they have their course chosen for them?

You're argument is ridiculous on the face of it. 'If living under a dictatorship is so onerous?' I could care less if 99% of the people in Whogivesacrapistan absolutely love living under a dictatorship; the 1% who don't a) are having their rights violated and b) likely don't have a mechanism to address that themselves. So yes, I call for outside interference, the same way I believe in "interfering" when somebody's beating their wife or or robbing someone or kicking the crap out of a dog. Whether that interferance take the form of removing the oppressive government, dropping in weapons by the pallet load, applying economic and diplomatic pressure, or helping those people leave depends on the situation. You make the statement like it's some sort of dichotomy, self determination or assistance; like you can't have both, which is nonsensical. Your call to 'leave them to choose their own course' is shorthand for 'I got mine, screw them'.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

So do forgive if I am not impressed with an Ivy League education.....the folks they hand degrees to are not impressive.

GOPguy I am not impressed by Ivy League educations either, but you conspicuously forgot to mention the Ivy League's most successful idiot. If you are going to single out Kennedy or Kerry by name, shouldn't you have at least mentioned Bush?

 

[Ezekiel]

Ouch!

GOPguy I am not impressed by Ivy League educations either, but you conspicuously forgot to mention the Ivy League's most successful idiot. If you are going to single out Kennedy or Kerry by name, shouldn't you have at least mentioned Bush?

 

[gopguy]

Cosmoline said

Somebody called "GOPGUY" attacks Ford's record

I am not surprised that you are surprised. Lefties think Republicans are in lock step. We are not. We are thinking individuals and as a thinking individual when I see a screw up I call it. Ford may have had an R behind his name but he hardly behaved as a Republican in my view. Senator Mike DeWine was a screw up, and I have criticized him roundly on these boards. He was defeated last month because the conservative base in Ohio refused to support him anymore. His buddy John McCain is also a screw up especially where it comes to the defense of the Second Amendment. If he is the GOP nominee in '08 (God Forbid) I will not vote for him. It does not make me less of a Republican to not support RINOs.

Sad thing is Dems generally will not criticize their side. They make excuses for the excesses on the left. The doozies we heard in the Clinton era still amazes me. Dems will swallow anything for the sake of hanging on to power.
Conservative Republicans will not. That is why Raum Emannuel waited over a year to reveal the Foley messages. He counted on supressing the conservative Christian vote. Don't bother denying that as the truth is already out there.

When the Dems in the new Congress start talking Brady II I will be curious to see what our lefty friends here will say...

 

[gopguy]

Lone Gunman

GOPguy I am not impressed by Ivy League educations either, but you conspicuously forgot to mention the Ivy League's most successful idiot. If you are going to single out Kennedy or Kerry by name, shouldn't you have at least mentioned Bush?

I knew this would be coming and it is very simple old boy. The people I mentioned are idiots, and I gave examples of it. The President is not. I don't always agree with him, for instance on illegal aliens we are at odds. However I do find myself in general agreement with him.

Now if we want to talk idiots how about gun owners who support the lefty Dems knowing they will violate their rights. That is clearly less than logical or clear thinking. Wouldn't you agree?