Former President Gerald Ford told Bob Woodward in a July 2004 interview that was embargoed until Ford’s death that he would not have gone to war in Iraq. He also criticized how President Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney justified the war.
“Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq,” Ford said. “They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction. 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 also said, “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.”
Ford’s observations of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were interesting. “Henry publicly was a gruff, hard-nosed, German-born diplomat, but he had the thinnest skin of any public figure I ever knew,” Ford said, adding that “any criticism in the press drove him crazy.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
49 Comments
Ford inherited the end of the VietNam mess from Nixon (who inherited it from LBJ) so he was in a position to know.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483757p-407239c.html
I honestly don’t care, but Phillip should make sure that he has the total story before he writes an opinion header. As this link shows, Ford thought that there was justification for the war in Iraq. He just did not think that WMDs should have been the focus of the argument.
Well, out, in your link, Pres. Ford says earlier this year he thought there was justification, but not WMDs as the reason. In Phil’s link, Mr. Ford tells Bob Woodward in 2004 the war was not justified, nor was the WMD rationale. Unfortunately, Mr. Ford isn’t here to ask if either of these is not accurate.
Well Vaughn, I’d argue that the most recent quote would probably be the most reliable. (1994 vs 1996)
It’s just my opinion, but Woodward is Mr. Agenda, so I take his stuff with a grain of salt.
From the Post article (this seems pretty unequivocal to me):********************************************************************Describing his own preferred policy toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Ford said he would not have gone to war, based on the publicly available information at the time, and would have worked harder to find an alternative. “I don’t think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly,” he said, “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.”********************************************************************
Sure. Discount the message because you don’t like the messenger. Makes sense. :-)
Out, it could be, given the quote posted by Steven Davis, that Mr. Ford had changed his mind in the intervening period, based perhaps on other information he had learned, making both pieces accurate. I note that in Woodward’s piece, he mentions that he (BW) had hours of taped interviews in preparation for a book project, not that makes any difference.
Whether it is Mr. Woodward or any other news correspondent, I take all they write/report with a bit of NaCl.
Outie?
You never quit do you?
So your arguement HERE is that a very old man should be taken for his words as he grew OLDER still?
Ford was negligent not to have spoken out earlier is my take.
Well Steven, when you have conflicting information, how do you resolve the discrepancy? Personally, I think it is good practice to consider the source.
Anyone with an ounce of grey matter knew that the Iraq invasion was a mistake.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
I would argue, Ford was not senile and had his all his senses, in 2004 when he gave BW the interviews.
Towards his latter days, in May 2006, he was not all there…wanting to take a swim, eating cholesterol filled ice-cream considering contrary to his expert docs., recommendations.
Therefore, his earlier statement is more accurate.
“I think it is good practice to consider the source.”
“consider” being the operative word here. I have a hard time seeing you “consider” anything written by Woodward.
“It’s just my opinion, but Woodward is Mr. Agenda, so I take his stuff with a grain of salt.”
From this, it sounds like your practice is to reject out of hand anything written by Woodward.
BTW, the word I’ve read about Woodward is that he is a moderate Republican who is real chummy with Colin Powell. I would have thought his writing would have been ideologically closer to you than me, for example. I enjoy Woodward’s work.
Even in 2006 he seemed to hedge his bets:
“”Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him,” he observed, “but we shouldn’t have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush] get his advice?”"
“Get rid of him” might mean increased covert activity rather than invading. I especially liked his comment “Where does [Bush] get his advice?”"
No Jr, that is not my argument. My argument is that his most recent opinion would be the most informed.
Interesting though. All those Dems who supported the Iraq war running for cover. Of course they think the war was a mistake now with benefit of hindsight and adverse public opinion, and are not willing to admit their support because they are political cowards.
President Ford apparently was misquoted earlier or in fact did opine that he would not have authorized the war. And 2 years later, he thinks the war was justified. Candor. That’s the benefit of being a retired politician.
“Candor. That’s the benefit of being a retired politician.”
Gotta agree with that. Barry Goldwater made the most sense to me after he retired.
“He’d been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and said he’d told Bush he supported the war in Iraq but that the 43rd President had erred by staking the invasion on weapons of mass destruction.”
Quote taken from article Outlander linked above. This doesn’t sound like he (Ford) was saying the war was justified. As Ben posted earlier, he went on to say that there was justification for getting rid of Saddam, which could have meant something other than the war was justified.
And, out, I agree with your comment on candor.
Ya know outie? I’ll just bet you’re right.
As public opinion changed around him, as Iraq descended further and further toward civil war, as the reason for the war evolved half a dozen times, as the Iraqi and American death toll climbed, why ol’ Gerry Ford he had an epiphany and changed his mind!
Right around the time Outlander lost his no doubt?
“Ford was a few weeks shy of his 93rd birthday as we chatted for about 45 minutes. He’d been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and said he’d told Bush he supported the war in Iraq but that the 43rd President had erred by staking the invasion on weapons of mass destruction.
“Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him,” he observed, “but we shouldn’t have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake…”
From the linked story. I don’t think it ambiguous at all.
“there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”Gerald R. Ford in Presidential debate in 1976
Pretty much says it all when it comes to Fords grasp of foreign affairs
“There can be no doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.” Dick Cheney
Pretty much says it all for President Cuckoo-Bananas and Uncle Dick who tells him what to say.
Keep defending the indefensible, reich-wingers.
How’d that work out for you last election?
Outlander,
Sure Ford thought Sadam was an evil person, just like he thought of Castro and other despotic leaders, but you are missing what Ford was saying. Unless, of course, if you understand that Ford came from the realist school of thought.
Both Ford and Bush 41′ come from the realist school of thought, (unlike the delusional-idealist George Jr.,). Two very different approaches to foreign policy and international relations. Hans Morgenthau is the father of the realist school, and most of our presidents, as well as secretaries of State, State dept., and U.S. embassies around the world have adhered to it.
Ford said the way to get rid of Sadam, was not to use the WMD excuse. Instead, he was inferring through other traditional means like U.N. sanctions and/or collective resulutions, and weighing the consequences, prior to taking on such a mission. Fords’ would also advocate use of CIA covert means, you know….coup-d’tat style, where another puppet despotic leader, who is more favorable to us, would be quietly installed, hoping the rest of the world wouldn’t find out who was behind the bruhaja… If that’s not classic realist methods, then I don’t know what is.
Don’t think Ford would have approved ‘occupation’ of Iraq either. In 75′ Ford ordered evacuation of Vietnam, knowing there are nations entitled to ’self-determination’. Clearly Ford knew USA is not always in a position to subjugate the will of their people.
No military industrial military might can change this basic human instinct of self determination. Most political philosopers will tell you it is basic human nature, for a people joined by historical ties and religion to fight a foreign occupation.
So, if we want to continue supporting genocide by being there, in the name of George’s idealist cause, then call it for what it is.
And BTW, international law requires an occupying nation to stop the genocide of innocent civilians, and secure the territory, which has hardly been accomplished, under our watch.
It’s time to get out and let them fight the civil war George Bush unleashed in the first place. No matter how much worse it will become thereafter, there’s nothing our American sons can currently do from a military point of view. Their job is done.
This is now political question for the State Dept., not the Pentagon.
just don’t think we should go hell fire and damnation around the globefreeing people unless it is directly related to our own national security!!!
GRF 2004
also said he would NEVER have okayed the domestic spying program!!!
The last honest republicanhe gets cheney too….much more pugnacious as VPhahaha
No matter what Gerald Ford said about the Iraq War, the Bush supporters will never admit their leader was wrong or that they backed the wrong horse – twice!
“There can be no doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.” Dick Cheney
“There’s been a feeding frenzy in the media for years now, coming particularly from opponents of the Bush administration, claiming that there never were or could have been WMDs in Iraq. This is not true, but I’ve often wondered why this information hasn’t appeared in the media. Why has it been withheld”?
This is a direct quote from “Saddam’s Secrets” by Georges Sada, Integrity Publishers 2006.
Georges Sada was an Iraqi General who was in charge of the Iraqi Air Force from 1993 till 2003 and was a member of Saddams Hussein’s inner circle.
Remember Capn, a lie repeated a millon times is still a lie
That’s correct, a lie told a million times is still a LIE. Let’s see, “Iraq has WMD’s”, Saddam is in cahoots with Al-queda”, etc. A bush lie is still a LIE!
It’s always interesting to read the comments of past presidents and past politicians telling us how they would have done things differently. Kinda like arm chair quarterbacking. When you have endless time to think about and also the ability to look back at what past actions achieved very few people wouldn’t tweak their actions in some manner. Bush didn’t have the luxury of time on his side.
I don’t always agree with Bush, contrary to popular opinion, I don’t support his position on the border, but I think that he made the best decision he could have made at the time he made it. They were alot of republicans and democrats that felt the same way at that time. One thing that has happened with our invasion of Afganistan and Iraq is that we haven’t had our embassies bombed, none of our aircraft carriers have been attached, none of our army barracks have been blown up and we have not been attacked on our own soil. I will give Bush the credit for that.
None of our aircraft carriers have been attacked either.
Did I miss something from your posting? Where is the direct quote from Saddam’s Secrets? The only thing I saw was the reference to Dick Cheney.
But if it is true Bush was told that the intelligence was suspect before he made the speech to justify the war, then why did he choose to use the intelligence anyway?
And just because nothing has happened on his watch on our own soil does not mean anything. The terrorists have us tied up over in Iraq, while our borders are wide open for God knows what to slip in quietly. Why make a big show about it?
I wish Bush would do more to make our borders safe here and not just by saying all the right words at the right time. I want to see some action taken.
On what are you basing your statement about the intelligence being suspect at the time they acted on it? The senate and congress saw this exact same intelligence and becided to act also.
By the way Lucee I couldn’t agree with you more on the border issue. This is a big reason I am concerned about the democratic take over of the senate and congress. Their policy is for open borders and total amnesty. This is also the policy of some prominent republicans and I fear the voice of reason has been voted out.
“exact same intelligence”
Nonsense – Bush cherry-picked the intel to support his rush to war. Even the Repub Senators, including Roberts, have said that they did not get all of the pre-war intelligence.
“Their policy is for open borders and total amnesty.”
Where did you get that info? First, it was Bush, the Sequel that proposed amnesty not the Dems. Second, I have never heard ANY Dem suggest either open borders or TOTAL amnesty.
There was all that fighting going on about the weapons of mass destruction – that George Tenet thing? I read somewhere that GWB had been told that the intelligence might be suspect but that he went ahead with it. That’s the trouble – I just want to be told the facts – I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat – just don’t lie to me.
When there are too many things being suspected because of motivation, then everything is suspect from that point on.
and the borders are too loose but I also worry about the ports. And that fiasco about the port security being given to a company based in Saudi Arabia – I just thought that was just plain crazy.
So Ford wasn’t willing to go public with his concern when it could have made a difference.
Thanks for nothing, BlandMan. Let the deaths be on your head and the rest who did what you did.
“That’s the trouble – I just want to be told the facts – I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat – just don’t lie to me.”
Lucee, good point.
I think a lot of folks who aren’t all that political are starting to realize that this is President Liar. He’s the Liar in Chief.
This guy lies even when it doesn’t matter just to stay in practice.
I continually challenge the right-wing to find a SINGLE statement that is provably true or false that Bush has ever said that has been proven true.
They can’t do it.
He can’t utter at truth to save his life . . . or should I say, to save the lives of our soldiers sent into the LIE zone.
Here’re just a small sample of the unending spew of lies that never cease from this man’s mouth–
* On Social Security “Lock box”
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: We’re in a tax debate here in this state and around the country. And let me explain my position as clearly as I can. First, unspent surpluses in Washington, D.C. will be spent, you mark my words, you leave money sitting around the table in Washington, Washington politicians will spend it. Now, I believe there’s enough money. If you lockbox the payroll taxes, there is $2 trillion to make sure the Social Security system is safe and secure– $2 trillion.I intend to lockbox the payroll taxes and spend them only on what they’re supposed to be spent on, and that’s Social Security. And by the way… (Applause)
PBS Newshour 2000
* On never engaging the military without an “exit strategy” and advoiding “nation building”
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: [Vital national interest, if we could win, blah blah] And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.
debates.org Sept. 2000
*On “Fiscal Responsibility”
Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we’ve reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (Applause.)
whitehouse.gov SOTU 2006
But the portion of the budget Bush wants to restrain represents a ridiculously small portion — $386 billion — of the $2.4 trillion budget. In other words, these spending limits are rather meaningless, akin to speed limits in a school zone that only apply to one-sixth of the cars.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-040224.html
I’ve strongly believed the reason it is because we cut taxes, and at the same time, showed fiscal responsibility here in Washington with the people’s money. That’s why the deficit could be cut in half by 2009, or before.
whitehouse.gov news releases 2006
GAO’s current long-term simulations continue to show ever-larger deficits resulting on a federal debt burden that ultimately spirals out of control. … [U]nder either optimistic (”Baseline extended”) or more realistic assumptions, current fiscal policy is unsustainable. … The question is how our current imprudent and unsustainable path will end. At some point, action will be taken to change the Nation’s fiscal course.
gao.gov
* On “Tons and Tons” of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Q But, still, those countries who didn’t support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
* On “stay the course” in Iraq
After ridiculing the Democrats for years as “cut and run” liberals and defeatocrats, Bush suddenly claimed he had never used the phrase, “stay the course.”
George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’”
Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/
Hey Crapn on America, The President has always had an exit stategy for Iraq. Its called victory. But noooo, you dumbass Democrats have made sure that we can’t win with your lackeys in the media and an avalanche of LIES. Yeah thats right, despite your stupid little rant above, its the left that has been lying from day one. When the big media feeding frenzy starts in a few days when the 3000th U.S. soldier is killed, just remember, his blood is on your hands.
Chris, a good doctor can give you medicine to control your delusions.
Try it.
BTW – What is YOUR plan for victory?
Excuse me, but Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ already. In Bush’s mind we have seen victory in Iraq – we toppled Saddam. But the problem is, Bush and Company never planned what to do once we got into Iraq and became the occupiers. All I ever hear is that our troops are training the Iraqi to fight for themselves. It’s been 3 years already. The average Iraqi already knows how to fight (they were born fighting). So what is the hold-up? The uniforms don’t fit or do they not march in lock-step just right?
The entire Iraq War has been mismanaged from the start and the only thing we heard from Bush is ’stay the course’.
What a joke Chris. Typical oxycontin-induced Rush hallucinations.
Where have you been B.H. Didn’t you know that Rush is taking the week off? Guest hosts just don’t have the same effect on us weak minded robots as the master Rush does. After a few days without Rush, the spell wears off and we are left with our own thoughts and ideas. Funny thing is, nothing changes. We still see clearly how wrongheaded and idiotic the lefts ideas and dogma truly are.
If Rush is right, then I would rather be left. How can anyone blindly follow such a leader who is obviously devoid of any morals but yet is a clever fellow. He has managed to get millions off his sheeple and they keep coming back for more.They really are to be pitied.
So why are you still blaming US for your cokehead’s fiasco?
Maybe the right in this county will get lucky and all you leftists will eat the meat and drink the milk from the cloned animals that you were so for and maybe that will rid the world of you idiotic whacked out leftist liberal nuts.
Oh but if there is a buck to made in the cloned meat and milk business, you can bet your last dime that some Right-wing Republican will be there to make it. That’s their mantra – money-money-money.
The Corrupt Corporate Occupation of Iraq (December 11, 2006)In light of the Iraq Study Group recommendations and their failure to address the real problems facing Iraq, the author of this TomPaine opinion piece advises that the US end the corporate invasion of Iraq. US companies, which were awarded lucrative contracts by the US government following the 2003 invasion, failed to reconstruct war-torn Iraq as intended. The author concludes that “the Bush administration must abandon its plan to remake Iraq into an economic wonderland for US corporations,” and return Iraq to the Iraqi people “to remake as they themselves see fit.”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/reconstructindex.htm
==============================================
The longer we stay the higher the price tag in tax dollars. It is in the economic best interest of the USA to bring this Bush admin war for oil to an end. Should USA and British oil firms privatize Iraq oil the troops will not be allowed to come home per se. This alone is going to cause the breaking up of many family homes. Iraq will likely not be a safe haven to ship families. Reducing Iraq and Afghanistan to rubble is not an acceptable goal.
Search for in all major search engines simultaneously on the site http://www.iknowall.com.Simultaneous search on Google, Yahoo and MSN Live Search.
Try http://www.iknowall.com