From Bob Woodward’s 2004 interview with Ford, embargoed until yesterday:
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.”
Another relevant quote, from Martin Luther King:
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
I understand that in 2004, Ford probably felt constrained by “respect for the presidency”; or by a gentlemanly unwillingness to interpose himself in a presidential campaign, or to handicap the Commander-In-Chief, or merely to stir things up. I know, it wasn’t his style.
That’s not good enough. An honest-to-goodness patriotism, civilized by compassion, commands one to speak out as events unfold. Probably like many others, Ford missed his chance to tell the truth when it would have mattered. More’s the pity for his country.
The only former Presidents whom I’ve ever heard to speak in the manner that you seem to advocate, are carter and clinton. Both of whom have engaged in classless ad-homenim attacks on a sitting President, in an attempt to distract attention from their own substantial shortcomings as Commanders In Chief.
name the quotes. And while you’re at it, demonstrate some shred of reason that demonstrates why they made the remarks they made — that it wasn’t out of a genuine patriotism but instead to distract attention from their own shortcomings by drawing attention to themselves by speaking publicly.
although his crimes against humanity and the Constitution make Nixon look like a choirboy in comparison — will not face resignation or the necessity of a pardon. Wanna compare shortcomings? Read my signature.
what kind of horror stories do you think will be coming out after GW is finally dragged from the WH?
<
p>
He’s using Henry Kissinger as a trusted advisor. Henry Kissinger!
<
p>
Hmmmmm, torturing & killing innocent civilians as a means to a political end, illegal wiretapping, shredding the U.S. Constitution. Sounds very familiar.
<
p>
At the time, the Nixon pardon was widely and rightfully condemned. Convenional Wisdom is that it prevented the country from being torn apart. Well, maybe. What it did do is make it okay for certain Administrations to break the law with political impunity. The illegality that was the war on Nicauragua and the venal Iran-Contra deal would never have been excused if we had somehow established the principle that it is okay to let our leaders get away with breaking the law. Even Republicans might have gotten up in arms over Bush’s signing statements, violations of FISA, violations of the whistle blower protection, and deceit regarding Iraq if Richard Nixon had been brought to justice.
<
p>
Ford’s silence on Iraq is just another sign that his moral compass needed a new needle.
The “healing” that was needed after Watergate should have come to the country through a full examination of how and why something like that could happen, from the break-in to the coverup, and not from sweeping everything under the rug. The pardon prevented discussion that would have illuminated such concepts as executive privilege, the balance of power among the branches of federal government, philosophical underpinnings of corruption, etc., and might have saved us from our recent past, to some extent. It short-circuited a full analysis of Nixon’s (and conservatism’s) shortcomings and provided cover for his associates, helping enable the eventual re-emergence of the neo-conservative criminal element within the Republican Party and the government.
I had forgotten about all those other issues that Nixon’s Presidency and Ford’s unpardonable act left hanging.
<
p>
After Watergate, we entered a period where a higher level of corruption was “what everybody did”. If it was done from putatively patriotic (i.e. right-wing) purposes, it was all right.
“The baby-boomers apparently aren’t big on forgiveness, which requires an ability to see a larger interest than your own, to overlook the personal in favor of a broader perspective”
<
p>
Are you just trying to be controversial Charley?
<
p>
Like Gerry Ford could have stopped the war.
charley, your setup is that Ford was some foreign policy guru who saw foresaw disaster yet was quiet for “gentlemanly reasons.”
<
p>
i’m skipping the “respect for presidency – is that a legitimate reason to keep mum” debate and jumping to “did Ford have any more standing in discussing foreign policy than, say, Harding in arguing economic policy?”
<
p>
From Slate:
<
p>
<
p>
maybe ford didn’t speak up in part b/c he faced an obvious retort: “you made bad decisions about iraq in the 70s, maybe you should keep to yourself on this topic.”
Actually, Charlie, the recent spectacle of Democrats fawning over Gerald Ford was really quite revolting. Just reminds us how out of touch with reality most establishment Democrats still are. Beyond the cost of Ford’s cowardice concerning the war, to which you allude, there is the issue of the Nixon pardon, an act most “Democrats” this week were viewing as an act of “healing a troubled nation.” Well, if Nixon had done a little deserved jail time, do you think we’d be enduring W’s reckless disregard for the Constitution now?
<
p>
It’s all about consequences and accountability, Charlie. Steal some food from a convenience store and you can do some serious time. Steal the people’s fair and equal access to political power, and Finneran can plea bargain his way to freedom.
<
p>
Gerald Ford was both intellectually and morally “challenged,” and yet, to listen to our Democratic leaders, he should be next for Mt. Rushmore.