[goMac]

Interestingly enough, Gerald Ford had an interview on his perception of the Iraq war done in 2004. The terms were it was sealed until his death.

"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.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...22701558.html?

[Dakar²]

Holy crap, it looks like a scene from a Will Farrell movie.

[goMac]

I can't believe that's actually Dick Cheney.

[Dakar²]

The teeth say yes.

[Dakar²]

Sorry CRASH, but this was the first thing I thought of.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications

"made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq.

I think Ford was very careful to say he disagreed with the justification, not the actual thing itself.

I think it is doubly interesting that this tends to get shortened in headlines to "Ford: Iraq war is 'big mistake'".

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

The teeth say yes.

Wow. He was svelte.

To think, there was a time where Cheney's head actually seemed too large for his body.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ford supported the war in Iraq - and is on record as saying it, only 3 weeks before his death.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Ford supported the war in Iraq - and is on record as saying it, only 3 weeks before his death.

Needs the linkage.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think Ford was very careful to say he disagreed with the justification, not the actual thing itself.

I think it is doubly interesting that this tends to get shortened in headlines to "Ford: Iraq war is 'big mistake'".

I'm not sure you can support a war without supporting it's justifications.

""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.""

In other words: The war isn't in our national interests. I'm not sure how you can see that as him supporting the war.

[Spliffdaddy]

look for the link on drudgereport.com

edit: oops, gone now...look here:

New York Daily News - Home - Last lunch with a legend

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm not sure you can support a war without supporting it's justifications.

Of course you can. If you can accept the fact that there are multiple justifications for any particular war, then it stands to reason that if person X believes justification x and person Y believes justification y, and person Y is in charge and carries out the war, person X can still be in support of the war without ever having supported or believed y. Of course, if y was given as justification for a second war (where x no longer applied), then this distinction would become more meaningful.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Of course you can. If you can accept the fact that there are multiple justifications for any particular war, then it stands to reason that if person X believes justification x and person Y believes justification y, and person Y is in charge and carries out the war, person X can still be in support of the war without ever having supported or believed y. Of course, if y was given as justification for a second war (where x no longer applied), then this distinction would become more meaningful.

I almost think you have it the wrong way around. Ford quite clearly states that while the US was justified in taking Saddam out of power, that Bush did it the wrong way.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I almost think you have it the wrong way around. Ford quite clearly states that while the US was justified in taking Saddam out of power, that Bush did it the wrong way.

So, you can't support a war without supporting every strategic decision?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I didn't read the article

[Blasphemy]

spliffd burned you anti-Bush zealots

[SpaceMonkey]

Ford to Iraq: Drop Dead

[smacintush]

Oh, wait…I though Ford was a buffoon? At least that's how he's been portrayed for decades BY THE VERY SAME PRESS.

[subego]

His policies, or that he was a klutz?

[RAILhead]

Yeah, he was a dolt until his words can be perverted into something the media can use for sound bite attention. It's also along the lines of Bush being such a idiot and complete dumbarse -- yet he's smart enough to setup the whole World Tower/Pentagon hoax.

[Macrobat]

Funny how all the presidents who were never involved in a war seem to think they know better than one who is actually involved with one, huh? I bet Hoover had a better idea about WWII than FDR, too.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

look for the link on drudgereport.com

edit: oops, gone now...look here:

New York Daily News - Home - Last lunch with a legend

Meh. Ford thought that ridding Saddam was a good thing, as did I, but he also agreed that going into Iraq on the basis of WMDs was a really stupid thing to do. Blaming 9/11 on Iraq just to garner support was also a horrible thing to do.

The war in Iraq was never about terrorism or spreading democracy. That's what the excuses became after people were getting fed up over the WMDs.

[Spliffdaddy]

So what you're trying to say is Ford supported the war in Iraq - even though he didn't support the reason why.

I think we're all able to read that for ourselves. Not sure what your point was supposed to be.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

So what you're trying to say is Ford supported the war in Iraq - even though he didn't support the reason why.

I think we're all able to read that for ourselves. Not sure what your point was supposed to be.

As someone who holds this same opinion, I can tell you it tends to throw people who have more mainstream opinions for a loop, not that this is what's happening with olePigeon.

As is often the case, when no one likes my opinion, I know I'm on to something.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Not sure what your point was supposed to be.

The point is that when Bob Woodward says something the liberals like, he's hailed as a truth seeker. When Woodward writes something the liberals don't like - like his witnessing of George Tenant telling GWB that Iraq's possession of WMDs was a slam dunk - he's conveniently ignored.

[Macrobat]

No, goMac, that's not what Ford said at all. He said there was plenty of justification for taking out Saddam, and that any of the others would have been preferable to "hanging his hat" on just the WMD.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, goMac, that's not what Ford said at all. He said there was plenty of justification for taking out Saddam, and that any of the others would have been preferable to "hanging his hat" on just the WMD.

Yes. Or doing something as despicable as blaming 9/11 on Iraq. There were legitimate reasons for occupying the country, but the Bush Administration completely botched it.

There may have been less casualties (certainly less animosity towards the U.S.) if the U.S. had support from the U.N.

[Spliffdaddy]

Please explain.

I believe that UN involvement caused more casualties in the years preceeding the war than were caused by the war itself.

Having support from the UN could not have helped with the war in any way whatsoever. The UN is good at talking and stealing money - not fixing problems or fighting wars. You can find thieves and talkers anywhere, they aren't a rare item.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Having support from the UN could not have helped with the war in any way whatsoever. The UN is good at talking and stealing money - not fixing problems or fighting wars. You can find thieves and talkers anywhere, they aren't a rare item.

You don't need the UN to fight the war or fix problems, you need the UN for diplomatic cover.

The UN is a like a rapier. Your argument that it sucks as a bludgeon, while factually true, totally misses the, err... point.

[Spliffdaddy]

Explain "diplomatic cover" - and how that might assist the US toward victory in Iraq.

Seems to me that the UN member nations have chosen sides in the war. I fail to see how they would have chosen a different side. Or are you suggesting the member nations may have pretended to support the war if we had kissed their asses early on?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Or are you suggesting the member nations may have pretended to support the war if we had kissed their asses early on?

Kissed their asses? Don't be silly.

Just let them steal too.

[Kevin]

goMac isn't that great at making topics that actually fit what the article says.

[Macrobat]

Sorry, olePigeon, NO ONE in the Bush Administration has EVER blamed Iraq for 911. Put away your Urban Myths and come into reality.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sorry, olePigeon, NO ONE in the Bush Administration has EVER blamed Iraq for 911. Put away your Urban Myths and come into reality.

if so, then why iraq before we get osama?

how many times has this been asked?

and i think kevin replied last time, didn't know we had a timeline...

well, saddam is dead. osama is still out there free (how important is freedom to us all?) laughing at us for taking down one of his enemies...

when will bush say let's go get osama? iran? n korea? he can't cause we are bogged down on 2 fronts afghanistan and iraq...and iraq is a MESS.

our children will have to carry the burden of bush's mistake...

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if so, then why iraq before we get osama?

how many times has this been asked?

We only allowed one war at a time?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if so, then why iraq before we get osama?

how many times has this been asked?

and i think kevin replied last time, didn't know we had a timeline...
..

Kevin is going to reply again this time. It's because this wasn't a war on those that attacked us. It was a war on terrorism as a whole.

That is about the 500th time I've probably had to say that in here.

You've probably only heard it 50 of those times, so you are excused.

[Moderator]

Our problem is Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq was secular (was). You want to wage war on terrorism you invade Saudi Arabia. You are a supporter of what will go down in history as our biggest blunder ever.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

We only allowed one war at a time?

This is one war. A war on terror. It happens to have more than one front.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if so, then why iraq before we get osama?

how many times has this been asked?

and i think kevin replied last time, didn't know we had a timeline...

well, saddam is dead. osama is still out there free (how important is freedom to us all?) laughing at us for taking down one of his enemies...

when will bush say let's go get osama? iran? n korea? he can't cause we are bogged down on 2 fronts afghanistan and iraq...and iraq is a MESS.

our children will have to carry the burden of bush's mistake...

Our children will have to bear the burden of a few mistakes:

(1) the mistake of the press in printing our enemy's propaganda as if it were truth, instead of printing our successes. I'm not kidding, when they photograph, interview, print editorials from, and exchange emails with our enemies, and print it without a moment's thought as to fact or effect, whose side are they on?

(2) the mistake of the President in not prosecuting the war to win, regardless of the cost of international reputation. By fighting a war to be sensitive and politically correct, and lacking the will to continue despite setbacks, the US is teaching its enemies that the US is weak and can be attacked without real repercussions.

The oil embargo of 1973. Iran, Nov.4 1979. Beirut, 1983. Mogadishu. USS Cole. Khobar Towers.

The lesson from each of those is that Americans will give in when American lives are at stake.

Bush's error is in not fighting so strongly as to win, so that the will to give in is diminished.

HizbAllah, Iran, Hamas, Syria, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they all know that even if they violate human rights, laws of war, and international law, if they win, at the end of the day, they've won, regardless of the hand-wringing and loss of life they cause.

After all, who is prosecuting HizbAllah for their launching missiles from family home rooftops? No one. They win their fight, and no one does a thing about their war crimes. Al-Sadr uses Mosques to house weapons in Iraq, and turns those Mosques into a legitimate target he knows the US cannot hit, and who wins? Al-Sadr.

The mistake our children will live with is the one of weakness, of giving in, and of not fighting to make the enemy choose between only two options: surrender or die.

I am not a warmonger. But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

There is no substitute for victory.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Kevin is going to reply again this time. It's because this wasn't a war on those that attacked us. It was a war on terrorism as a whole.

That is about the 500th time I've probably had to say that in here.

You've probably only heard it 50 of those times, so you are excused.

I think that's the crux of the issue, right there. Myself, and many others on this board, supported the "war on those that attacked us", you know al Qaeda and the folks in Afghanistan who supported them. I think that if we had completely destroyed al Qaeda--and by destroyed I mean laying waste to where they were principally located, the entire Northwest Frontier province of Afghanistan, and turning the Tora Bora mountain complex into a big pile of rubble--the message would have gotten out to other terrorists and would-be terrorists not to f*ck with the United States.

As vmarks says, if you want to win decisively, kill all of al Qaeda. If you want to intimate others from thinking about attempting a terrorist attack on the United States, imagine what could be done with images of a fleet of US bombers running up and down the mountain ranges in the Northwest Frontier province dropping MOAB's and bunker-buster bombs. Seriously, only a few tribal groups lived there and the rest was al Qaeda and goats, we should have turned it all into rubble. And we COULD have done it while keeping US troop losses to a minimum and still maintaining some sort of tacit support for the effort from the world community. But, as it stands now, al Qaeda is stronger than ever in Afghanistan and has spread to Iraq--where it was not previously--and into Pakistan. (Did you know the Taliban had all but wiped out the global poppy/heroin trade when they were in power? It has returned with a vengeance in Afghanistan and now provides al Qaeda with enormous revenues. How has that change helped the global War on Terror?)

Finally, as Moderator stated, if you want to get the single biggest supporter of Islamist terrorism you need to go after Saudi Arabia. But has that happened yet . . . hardly.
When the Bush Administration takes as strong a stance against Saudi Arabia as they have against al Qaeda and Iraq I will believe they are serious about truly fighting the War on Terror.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This is one war. A war on terror. It happens to have more than one front.

Excellent point!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This is one war. A war on terror. It happens to have more than one front.




Our children will have to bear the burden of a few mistakes:

(1) the mistake of the press in printing our enemy's propaganda as if it were truth, instead of printing our successes. I'm not kidding, when they photograph, interview, print editorials from, and exchange emails with our enemies, and print it without a moment's thought as to fact or effect, whose side are they on?

(2) the mistake of the President in not prosecuting the war to win, regardless of the cost of international reputation. By fighting a war to be sensitive and politically correct, and lacking the will to continue despite setbacks, the US is teaching its enemies that the US is weak and can be attacked without real repercussions.

The oil embargo of 1973. Iran, Nov.4 1979. Beirut, 1983. Mogadishu. USS Cole. Khobar Towers.

The lesson from each of those is that Americans will give in when American lives are at stake.

Bush's error is in not fighting so strongly as to win, so that the will to give in is diminished.

HizbAllah, Iran, Hamas, Syria, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they all know that even if they violate human rights, laws of war, and international law, if they win, at the end of the day, they've won, regardless of the hand-wringing and loss of life they cause.

After all, who is prosecuting HizbAllah for their launching missiles from family home rooftops? No one. They win their fight, and no one does a thing about their war crimes. Al-Sadr uses Mosques to house weapons in Iraq, and turns those Mosques into a legitimate target he knows the US cannot hit, and who wins? Al-Sadr.

The mistake our children will live with is the one of weakness, of giving in, and of not fighting to make the enemy choose between only two options: surrender or die.

I am not a warmonger. But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

There is no substitute for victory.

sigh...i didn't know you guys are typing from the bunker. support bush to the end right?

war 101, take out the head and the body will fall apart...that is osama...

but bush went for an elbow...saddam

and the "many fronts" was not necessary...iraq was not a danger...it is now thank you mr bush

[vmarks]

How precisely is it supporting Bush when I accuse him of grevious mistakes?

Hussein's Iraq was an international terrorist threat. So is Iran. So is Syria. So is Saudi Arabia. So is Lebanon. So are the Palestinians. Both Hamas and Fatah have threatened to make attacks on America and Americans wherever they find them.

Many fronts was absolutely necessary. What head would you have taken, and presumed the body to fail? The answer is no, you take all the heads. The heads of every poor idiot that chooses to ally with an enemy.

You think all that has to be done is to kill Osama Bin Ladin and the war is over: I tell you you're mistaken. Mullah Omar hasn't heard from Bin Ladin in over a year and the Palestinians and Zawahiri are jockeying for who's the bigger haters of America, even as the Palestinians are congratulating Zawahiri on a soon to take place future attack on America.

[ironknee]

v marks not attacking you per se...and not into getting into a big argument either

just my 2 cents
bush's actions has told the world, if you attack us, we'll attack another country

we need to get osama for all the americans who were murdered on american soil.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This is one war. A war on terror. It happens to have more than one front.




Our children will have to bear the burden of a few mistakes:

(1) the mistake of the press in printing our enemy's propaganda as if it were truth, instead of printing our successes. I'm not kidding, when they photograph, interview, print editorials from, and exchange emails with our enemies, and print it without a moment's thought as to fact or effect, whose side are they on?

(2) the mistake of the President in not prosecuting the war to win, regardless of the cost of international reputation. By fighting a war to be sensitive and politically correct, and lacking the will to continue despite setbacks, the US is teaching its enemies that the US is weak and can be attacked without real repercussions.

The oil embargo of 1973. Iran, Nov.4 1979. Beirut, 1983. Mogadishu. USS Cole. Khobar Towers.

The lesson from each of those is that Americans will give in when American lives are at stake.

Bush's error is in not fighting so strongly as to win, so that the will to give in is diminished.

HizbAllah, Iran, Hamas, Syria, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they all know that even if they violate human rights, laws of war, and international law, if they win, at the end of the day, they've won, regardless of the hand-wringing and loss of life they cause.

After all, who is prosecuting HizbAllah for their launching missiles from family home rooftops? No one. They win their fight, and no one does a thing about their war crimes. Al-Sadr uses Mosques to house weapons in Iraq, and turns those Mosques into a legitimate target he knows the US cannot hit, and who wins? Al-Sadr.

The mistake our children will live with is the one of weakness, of giving in, and of not fighting to make the enemy choose between only two options: surrender or die.

I am not a warmonger. But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

There is no substitute for victory.

Sign up.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

v marks not attacking you per se...and not into getting into a big argument either

just my 2 cents
bush's actions has told the world, if you attack us, we'll attack another country

we need to get osama for all the americans who were murdered on american soil.

Agree, we need to get Osama Bin Ladin - and every other country that supports, harbors, and funds terrorism.

[Macrobat]

Hate to break your heart, Ironknee, but terrorism HAS no country.