How Did Jerry Ford Really Feel About Iraq?
.
Lost within all the front page headlines related to the passing of Gerald R. Ford was this little tidbit of a byline from Bob Woodward. It was an interview conducted in 2005 that had been embargoed until after Ford's death. I found it buried on page A29 of the LA Times:
On Iraq war: 'They made a big mistake'
And it's quite apparent that Ford did not mince words about who "they" were...
"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."
And there's more....
A person can't help but notice that Ford didn't run off at the mouth by blaming it on what everyone else was parroting at the time about the Weapons of Mass Persussion from such entities as the CIA, or the British, the Clintons, the French or the Martians from outer space for that matter.
And just so no one goes off on a tangent about Ford's feelings that the administration simply framed the sales pitch for the war in the wrong way:
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."
In addition: There is also a very interesting section related to the firing of then Defense Secretary James Schlesinger in the mid 70s and the ensuing complaints from Henry Kissinger related to Ford's request for Kissinger to step aside from his post as security adviser.
Be it that the LA Times requires registration, you may wish to read the entire piece mirrored at: A Nose Embedded in the Noise
~OGD~
Font Page Washington Post full text is here.
December 28, 2006 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Ticia...
Oh... I fully knew that... But tell me it isn't buried in the back pages everywhere else across the nation...
~OGD~
ps: And since you took the time to visit this post... Why no comment about the article?
December 28, 2006 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OGD, Thanks for following up.
I've been commenting since last night. Will share more later:
Best, Ticia
December 28, 2006 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the follow up...
The right-wing spin machine has already cast this interview into the light of, unlike the exDemo presidents frenzy of bashing Bush, Ford was a true statesmen for not publically joining the other's in the fray...
~OGD~
December 28, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I hear you, OGD, but there's something cat out of the baggish about the synergy of the two ex-presidents agreeing. Republicans are listening to their Ford, as Dems are listening to their Carter -- and the spinning could make everyone more alert. Blind trust is history. At least that's my prayer.
Best, Ticia
December 28, 2006 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not get the dates confused... the initial conversation/interview where Ford decried the Bush administration and the war in Iraq was in July 2004... 4 months before the 2004 Presidential election.
It was a follow-up interview that happened in 2005.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
December 28, 2006 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay... And?
~OGD~
December 28, 2006 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just clearing up a point. The blog post said it was an interview in 2005, when actually it was 2004.
To take it further, I think it would have been beneficial to Dems had the interview been published before the 2004 elections.
Instead, we get a critique from a dead man, with no ability to debate or discourse, making his arguments basically worthless.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
December 28, 2006 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worthless? To a degree I'll go along with ya' on that. That is, that it's your perception this information is worthless and I can only speculate that that is what is important to you.
My perception is quite different.
~OGD~
December 28, 2006 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do think Ford's interview/conversation is worthless now, in that I measure worth by how much change it can generate.
In my opinion, Ford's words will affect no change whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip.
Bush has already been re-elected, and Cheney is not going to run again. The American public has started recently to really see the errors of the Bush administration with regards to the war in Iraq.
I believe any viable Presidential candidate in 2008 will seriously distance themselves from the stay-the-course, or even the escalation mentality of the Bush administration.
Dems already won Congress in 2006, based on a very strong anti-war and anti-Bush public opinion.
So, now we have an anti-Bush administration / anti-war screed by a former Republican President from 2004. Big whoop. I don't see this affecting any kind of public or policy change now.
However, it would have been worth something back in the summer/fall of 2004 in helping to affect the presidential elections. This would have been a full two years before the anti-Republican backlash of 2006, and would have possibly given us a Democratic president.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
December 28, 2006 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sometimes I must maintain and clear my personal "internal filters" so as to allow information to be collected ... You never know what a small pebble will do in a large pond...
~OGD~
December 28, 2006 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, then; and am asking in all sincerity: How is Ford's interview / critique worth anything at this point in time?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
December 28, 2006 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be as lucid as I can possibly be --
I can only assume that all history must be worthless and insignificant to you.
Nice trying to communicate with you.
Have a good New Year!
~OGD~
December 28, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. I would suggest not assuming what another person does or does not believe.
2. I never said all history must be worthless. I only gave my opinion as to why the interview is worthless now (yet could have been worth quite a bit back in 2004 when it was first conducted).
3. I gave, in my opinion, clear and succinct reasons as to why I hold my belief on this particular matter. So, I feel my communication skills are quite up to snuff.
4. I asked politely, and with sincerity, why you would believe this particular interview would be worth something now. Again, trying to hold up my side of the communication process.
5. The reason I asked why you may believe the interview would be worth something now is because I am fully able to look at differing opinions, and possibly change my own opinion if the argument/reasoning is valid enough. I'm definitely not a talking-head political extremist.
6. If after giving my own reasoning and politely asking you for yours, and you are still not willing to discourse, then I can only conclude that the lack of communication is from no fault of my own.
Happy New Year.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
December 28, 2006 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an aside, I admit I may have mis-spoke. Rather than using the term "worthless", it would have been more appropriate to say "irrelevant."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
December 28, 2006 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay... Let's go around the block one more time.
Irrelevent? To a degree I'll go along with ya' on that. That is, that it's your perception this information is irrelevent and I can only speculate that that is what is important to you.
My perception is quite different.
As Waters and Gilmour wrote; "All in all it's just another brick in the wall."
~OGD~
December 29, 2006 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comment deleted due to incorrect placement.
~OGD~
December 28, 2006 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that you put so much stock in a columnist that has made his name on putting out stories that almost always have a primary source that is conveniently passed on and can't respond to further inquiries. Felt, Casey, Belushi, Ford, etc.
January 21, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
!
January 21, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only an individual who is oblivious to the obvious would go to another member's own blog and rate any post in that member's personal blog as "unproductive" . That's tantamount to walking into someone's home and telling them you don't like the color of the paint on the living wall.
And while speaking of paint: If this member has nothing better to do, I suggest that sitting on the porcelain throne watching oil based enamel paint dry would be more productive for them. At the very least one would get a buzz.
~OGD~
January 23, 2007 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a heads up here for the unsuspecting...
I won't sugarcoat this comment.
Look at the facts. Analyze the arguments. Think about the motives of the people like TJKing with his magic-bullet explanations and illogical self-serving suppositions. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, King's "proof" demonstrates only that he is incapable of rational thought about the world around him.
The confusion that he creates is desirable and convenient to hijack and thereby upset rational debate.
Am I aware of how King will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes.
Do I care? No.
~OGD~
January 21, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink