Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney ‘made a big mistake’

Late on Tuesday, after the Ford family announced the passing of the former president, President Bush released a statement praising Gerald Ford for his “quiet integrity, common sense, and kind instincts.”

As it turns out, Bush was more right than he realized — Ford’s common sense and instincts served him well.

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. “I don’t think I would have gone to war,” he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford’s own administration.

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford “very strongly” disagreed with the current president’s justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney — Ford’s White House chief of staff — and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. 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.”

It’s a shame the former president felt it was necessary to keep his opinions on the war quiet until after he died, though in fairness, I suspect the debate over Iraq would have unfolded exactly the same way, whether Ford had gone public with his denunciations or not.

That said, will Ford’s criticisms of the Bush gang’s handling of the conflict change the way the former president will be honored? Based on his comments to Bob Woodward, Ford’s concerns were very much in line with those of many congressional Democrats, most of whom were dismissed by the right as weak on national security and dangerously ignorant on foreign policy. As it turns out, Ford agreed with Democrats that the U.S. should only go to war when a conflict is “directly related to our own national security” — and Iraq didn’t qualify.

I’m curious; will this temper the GOP’s praise of the former president?

For what it’s worth, Ford seemed to be watching the Bush White House closely, and was not altogether pleased with what he saw.

On Cheney:

“He was an excellent chief of staff. First class,” Ford said. “But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious” as vice president. He said he agreed with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell’s assertion that Cheney developed a “fever” about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. “I think that’s probably true.”

On Bush’s vision of the Middle East:

“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.”

On Bush’s decision to go to war:

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.

If Republicans start using the same language to describe Ford’s take on the war as they’ve used to describe Dems, I’ll be very impressed with their ideological consistency.

By the very fact that Pres. Ford embargoed his own interview shows he knew that the attack dogs would come after him.

  • “I’m curious; will this temper the GOP’s praise of the former president?”

    Nope. Rs will gloss over Ford’s criticism while the state ceremonies take place, and after that ignore him. Something new will hijack the news and this cycle will pass.

  • It looks like Ford was right about the fuck-up that would become Iraq. Too bad his common sense and integrity didn’t translate down to all those Ford administration officials like Rumsfeld and Cheney.

  • They will either ignore it or belittle the criticism as someone with pre 9-11 thinking. Either way it won’t make too many waves on the bushbot right before they go on to the next topic.

  • Is it just me or is Bob Woodward totally failing the American people keeping these interviews and other news secret to write books and so on?

    When was the last newsman who thought that reporting meant telling the populace something in time to have an actual impact (on a presidential election maybe?)?

    I suppose Keith O still qualifies, but they seem damn rare these days.

    As for the Republican’ts, they are probably not stupid enough to critize Ford. The Bushites on the other hand, that sick sycophant incompetent cadre around Boy George II and the Dickster, will try to unsubtly bash President Ford but will find few takers outside the wingnut blogisphere.

    Or so I predict.

  • It has certainly made me re-evaluate my opinion of the man – he did a great disservice to the American people by keeping his thoughts quiet – especially as they were stated in an election year. How many of our men and women have sacrificed their lives for “the big mistake” since Ford gave his interview? I can’t imagine how the parents of those who died must feel upon hearing this.

  • Ford, salt of the political earth! The Warren Commission, Pardon Mr. Nixon, move over for the embargoed interview.

    I always saw Jerry Ford as a straight shooter who happened to be holding some pretty marked cards. I voted for him, because I forgave him for pardoning Nixon, unlike a majority of Americans back in 1976. Some of the media coverage of Pres. Ford doesn’t quite jibe with my recollection.

    Boston busing? The WIN buttons? The War Powers Act? It was extraordinary, though, to have a sitting President testify in front of a Congressional committee – now that’s oversight! He did allow the Church hearings in the Senate, though he sent his CIA man, Bush the Elder, in to provide plausible cover for illegal Executive spying and other ghost related activities. He never had a mandate to lead, and I think he was gracious in remembering that when he exercised power, (something Bush the Younger doesn’t comprehend).

    I’d take another Jerry Ford any day of the week over any Bush-related decision-maker! -Kevo

  • I think this might deepen the GOP divide. The rabid, knuckle-dragging wing will see this as an obsolete, pre-9/11 worldview. The will set loose their screech monkeys on Ford.
    Others already know this is true, and will skeptically look to the Dem congress to make positive steps. They’re very doubtful of anything the Dems may come up with, but their faith in Bush is gone. I’m not saying the Dems will win them over, but there’s an opportunity to soften some of their previous lockstep support.

  • #6 – it’s not just you, Lance. Now if Woodward’s revelation puts some brakes of MSM’s 24/7 Ford coverage, that would be worth it. HOWEVER, neither Ford nor Woodward deserve ANY credit for this story. If Ford had any courage, he should have spoken his mind earlier. And journalists need to keep their sources for FACTS secret, not their sources of OPINION.

  • One other overlooked point on Ford, he did nominate Justice Stevens to the Supremes, didn’t he? Got to give him some BIG props for that.

  • Agreed. The right will just ignore it, point to his republican credentials, pretend that Ford either didn’t say it, or that he actually agrees w/ the current admin on everything (You know, typical Snow-Blower BS – “I don’t see the big discrepancy. You are making mountains out of molehills”). If anyone still has the ‘nerve’ to bring up the discrepancies, then that person is “bashing a deceased a president for political gain”. You see, the leaders on the right have no honor, no morals, no values, no loyalty to God or country. Only to profit and power. They will not let Ford, Powell, legitamate, verifiable voting machines, or anything else get in their way. Speaking of voting machines, now that they have quelled all the ‘needless suspicion’ of Diebold et, al by minimum tinkering during this last election cycle, just watch and see the spontanoius “landslide victory” that the Repigs have in 2008 if nothing is done to address the voting machine issue.

  • “They will set loose their screech monkeys on Ford.” – JoeW

    I find that description highly amusing 😉

    I think you are correct that there is a chunk of the Republican’ts who hope and wish for the Democrats to end this war in Iraq. And that’s because basically they are moral cowards afraid to walk up to the president they made and tell him to get out of Iraq. Rather they’d like the Democrats to do it (preferably but cutting funding for the war) so they can attack the Democrats for losing the war during the 2008 elections.

    Bill Crystal claims (on the Daily Show of all places) that there is “one more chance” to win in Iraq. What he imagines a troop surge or escalation will do I don’t know. Prehaps stop the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and lock that city down enough to surpress the violence. Certainly a policy (which we seem to be following right now) of patroling Baghdad neighborhoods only during daylight and hiding in camps during the day is achieving NOTHING.

    But in the end, what is Iraq going to look like? A facade of a democracy and a anti-wahhabist government? One of the reasons we can’t “win” in Iraq is that we have declared as our enemies not only Sunni Caliphatist Wahhabist Muslim Extremists backed by Saudi Arabia but Shi’a Theocratic Muslim Extremists backed by Iran, and they are the only two viable alternatives in Iraq.

    In short, we screwed.

  • I’m curious; will this temper the GOP’s praise of the former president?

    Hell NO!!!

    He pardoned the 2nd greatest Republican President since Reagan and he brought Republian “heroes” Rumsfeld and Cheney up thru the ranks…..

    Ford is the original DO NOTHING Republican…albeit a moderate one….

    May he rest in peace but I for one am anxious to compare the medias treatment of Ford’s “accomplishments” in hindsight to those of the the ultimate humanitarian Jimmy Carter when he passes away….

    I have a feeling the media will be none too kind to Carter…and in some respects rightly so….but the medias blatent disregard for Ford’s obvious shortcomings (inflation, Nixon pardon which set the precedent for the Iran Contra pardons) is appaling at best

  • Yeah, they’ll ignore it. Ford’s comments were relatively tame (compare to Gore’s recent “where’s the accountability?” rant in whatever magazine that was, for example, or anything Olbermann says), and he hasn’t been in the news much lately. If his opinions on Bush even get mentioned by Republicans looking for an excuse to jump ship, let alone become publicized enough that the White House has to respond to them, I would be surprised.

    Besides, anyone want to take bets on the overlap between the people who support Bush now and the sort of people who supported a pardon for Nixon at the time? A certain percentage of people will have kneejerk support for anything a right-wing president of this country does (reflexive bipartisanship: the same is true of the left to some degree, blah blah blah), and I think we’re pretty close to that limit already.

    Though now that I think of it, the thinking of political and media leaders have trailed opinion polls of the general public for the past few years. So you never know, maybe Ford’s comments will move push some of them in the right direction after all.

  • My guess is today’s Republicans will say something to the effect that Ford was good “back in the day” (in spite of the neo-cons’ trashing of him and his ilk) but that as he got older he went ga-ga (hence the misguided Woodward interview). No Republican is ever held accountable for anything.

    I’m curious what else Woodward is covering up. So much modern “history” is either buried (Warren Commission, Cap Weinberger and others’ roles in Iran-Contra, both Bush’s presidential papers, etc.) or released as a highly edited apologia (i.e., spin).

  • If you can stomach it and want to know what the “Screech Monkeys” are going to say about Ford read Robert Novak today. On an editorial page (WaPo) praising Ford from left (Broder) and right (Will & Dole) Novak takes almost his whole column to critize Ford. The one thing, the only thing he praises is Ford’s pardon of Nixon.

    Talk about a world turned upside down!

  • Personally, I doubt that a machiavellian munchkin the likes of “mr. bush”—who hasn’t been phased by the spirits of thousands of dead American soldiers—will be affected by the spirit of one recently-departed politician….

  • Lance @ #13: It’s “Bill Kristol.” For a moment, I thought Billy Crystal said he was for the war on The Daily Show, and I was shocked. Then, I realized you meant that turd, Bill Kristol. Just fyi.

  • Jerry Ford was the guy who LBJ said played football too long without a helmet. Before Bush said Kerry forgot Poland, Jerry Ford said in presidential debate with Carter that he didn’t think the Poles felt dominated by the Soviets.

    The worst thing Ford did was he gave Cheney a taste of what real power could be like. The Second Dick is as bad as the first Dick Nixon when it comes to secrecy. Quite a suck, that.

    Nixon? Anybody who was alive back then was glad he was out of office. Jeez, Goldwater had to tell him it was over. All the right may claim Nixon Dick was hounded out of office. They are welcome to their delusions. Whether it is Ford’s fault or not the First Dick wasn’t dragged from Castle Pennsylvania and staked through the heart, others may wonder. He did deserve the worst. And we deserved a lot better.

    Woodward? The guy did have something to do with the demise of the First Dick. And if he gave the Second Dick and the Son King Bush a pass for too long, Woodward is simply an example of what passes for courage in DC. Nobody much takes on the powers until the powers are waning, as the sun starts to come up.

    We can be thankful, sort of, the funeral of Ford will distract this country from the real important stuff, like who is doing who in Hollywood, and whatever Paris Spears and Britney Hilton are doing this week.

    As for what criticism Ford offered and who might listen, the jackasses in charge don’t listen to the wise still alive. Oy.

  • Comments are closed.