Ford: Reasons For Iraq War 'A Big Mistake'

Former President Criticized Bush In Now-Released Interview From 2004

(CBS/AP)  Former President Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified, the Washington Post reported.

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, the Post's Bob Woodward wrote. The story initially was posted on the newspaper's Internet site Wednesday night.

"I don't think I would have gone to war," Ford told Woodward a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion.

In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Mr. Bush but also of Vice President Dick 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 secretary of defense.

"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."

Ford also criticized the notion that the United States should engage in a war in order to spread democracy.

"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, but added he was unsure "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." Ford said: "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."

Woodward wrote that the interview took place for a future book project, though the former president said his comments could be published at any time after his death.

"Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him," he observed to the Daily News last May under an agreement similar to Woodward's. "But we shouldn't have put the basis on weapons of destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does (Bush) get his advice?"

In the Daily News interview, Ford was more defensive about Cheney and Rumsfeld. Asked why public opinion of Cheney was low, he smiled. "Dick's a classy guy, but he's not an electrified orator," Ford said.

The former president did not like Mr. Bush's domestic surveillance program.

"It may be a necessary evil," Ford conceded. "I don't think it's a terrible transgression, but I would never do it. I was dumbfounded when I heard they were doing it."

In another interview released after his death, Ford told CBS News correspondent Phil Jones in 1984 that he initially was against using the phrase "long national nightmare" in his first speech as president following Richard Nixon's resignation, concerned that it was too harsh.

Ford said he reconsidered and sought his wife's advice. "After thinking about it and talking to Betty about it, we decided to leave it in and, boy, in retrospect, I'm awfully glad we did," he said.

[randalds]

Tried not to hit civilians? Are you serious? The Lancet reports that we slaughtered over 400,000 of them. Bush himself estimates 30,000 to 50,000. Even taking his rediculiously smaller number that's at least 500,000 family members who have a great reason to hate America and become suicide bombers against us.

We invaded another sovereign country that was not a threat to us. That's a war crime no matter what reason we cite afterwards. If it was because Saddam was a ***, that's fine, but I could name a dozen or more countries that are worse, so should we invade them too? Is that our place in the world? Conscript 2,000,000 or more more men and women and take over those countries too? How about more like the realistic number we'd have to draft of 10,000,000 or more to make that plan work. Is that we need to be? A permanent warrior nation ruling the world through murder, fear, death, bigotry, hate and destruction? Would that make you proud?

We are not defeating terrorists, we are creating them. By the millions.

[missamerica4]

SHURCH4TRUTH :

""This has emboldened N Korea and Iran.""

You are right SHURCH.
One thing.... We tried to not hit civilians.
Because of it we have fought a ground war...house to house.
If we were attacked by NK or Iran... I think it would be a no holds barred Air war. I think they would just go in and level everything...
I hope the Intel is better now.
You may be right that we should not have gone to Iraq but we are there...and we broke it /we fix it. Not all the stuff we are trying to fix....We did what we went for. We satisfied ourselves on the WMD ( we need to find it where ever it is ) and we took Saddam out. Now it is pretty much up to them.
It took 10 years to get Germany on it's feet...
We had a Civil War, they may also...but we won't stick around for it.

[justonetruth]

It is not the duty of our military to act in defense of foreign nationals, no matter how ugly their situation. And if it IS, than where is the rest of the world? Notably, where are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt...

[missamerica4]

""It was not, in my opinio, worth 3000 American lives. Time was on our side.""

Maybe... It sure was not on the side of the half- million Iraqi would died brutal deaths, the hundreds of thousands of women and girls raped.
Time was not on their side.

3000....that is a lot of lives lost.
3000. .in the Towers
3000+ .in one battle Normandy
16,694 .. drunk driving 2004
16,000 .. drug OD's of prescription pain killers
109,277 . auto accidents (we should ban auto's)

3000... that is alot of lives just to give a country a chance to be free....
I agree.

[missamerica4]

SHURCH4TRUTH :

Then SURCH that we should not interfere with any country simply because they are killing or starving their citizens?

Or, that we should only fight for or defend 'this country' and no other ?

Of course your proposal may work in the long run... maybe many years, against a tyrant. Like Darfur.. they will eventually run out of people to starve. . but is it now acceptable to just watch, and wring our hands, and beg the aggressor to please kill these folks discretely and not so publicly, as it offends our moral conscience.
Not enough to do anything about it.

Is an American life worth so much more than a Sudanese, or an Iraqi life ?
I don't think so.
We have been blessed to be born in America.
Are we really supposed to keep it all 'for us '.

We have all heard a story of where some child was abused, starved, beaten sometime murdered. Neighbors knew, they heard, they saw, they did nothing. After all..it was not their business. 'No skin off their teeth' besides, might make the abuser angry and they would turn on you..... best just left alone

I don't think we can or should be the world cop, but we must draw the line on murdering ones population. IMO

[missamerica4]

SHURCH4TRUTH

""same as we did in Korea for decades. ""

Well, Korea hasn't turned out all that well.

""same as we did in Germany for decades.""

Not sure what you mean here.

In any case... very interesting...but I will have to search for more truth..tomorrow.
Nite...

[randalds]

In my opinion Iraq could have been handled in a way that would not have resulted in no loss in American lives and cost. But that will never be admitted to by those who instigated it.



Posted by SHURCH4TRUTH at 12:05 AM : Dec 30, 2006

Bravo! Well stated and true!

[randalds]

I just can not and prbably never will be able to see why when peple see evil they do nothing. WHY?

Posted by Hermit22 at 03:59 PM : Dec 29, 2006

Because it would be illegal for me to do anything about the evil Bush is doing to the world, so I'm afraid I'm helpless. All I can do is to work through the law to take this SOB down and I will do so to my dying day.

[missamerica4]

SHURCH4TRUTH

""That is because, there are many ways the same objective could have been achieved. But the neo-cons will never agree to that, even if they thought it was true.""

16 U.N. Resolutions over 18 years, Sanctions that were made worthless because of some countries dealing under- the- table. It was costing the U.S. mostly a fortune to keep the no fly zone to contain Saddamn. Only the UK helped with the expense. The U.S. pays 22% of the funding for the UN, and yet they are dominated with 3rd world dictators who would never vote with the U.S. and lose their cushy job.

""many ways the same objective could have been achieved""

HOW?

[missamerica4]

Hermit22

IMO = In my opinion.
IMHO =in my humble opinion

Thanks

[hermit22]

Ditto, Miss America 4. except, what does "IMO"mean?

[missamerica4]

Hermit22:

""I just can not and prbably never will be able to see why when peple see evil they do nothing. WHY? ""

Nor I Hermit.
I am glad we went into Iraq and took Saddam out.
We are the only country who could.
I am not ashamed of liberating...YES LIBERATING.. those abused poor people.
I am ashamed that we did business with him in the first place...and I am ashamed that we knew what he was doing and did nothing until we thought our own pot was going to boil.
I feel the same about Rwanda , Somalia and other places where millions of people are starving amd dying. We cannot do it all alone but every civilized country should stand together. IMO

[hermit22]

RandalDS, maybe you can help me here. To my dying day, I really do not think I will ever be able to figure out why and how if there is a problem, say a child abuser, and other people around KNOW this evil exists and they do nothing.
I just can not and prbably never will be able to see why when peple see evil they do nothing. WHY?

[randalds]

That's an old and worn out ploy. Yes Saddam was a terrible dictator and a monster. Pointing out that Bush is a much bigger monster is not an attempt on my part to lessen Saddam's guilt. Quite the contrary. Bush is just a much more accomplished as*shole then Saddam, so that might even be looked upon as a compliment.

[hermit22]

RandalDS, what would you call the man who produced "28 funerals in my family" as one Iraqi said.Would you call him, "the friendly guy next door."? I have a friend over in war country who says they "hide in the house" and when they come and go the hope is that "nobody does anything crazy".People hide because of terror.

When Saddam hangs, will he be thinking, "Oh, I sure wish Kerry were in office, but oh no, I got stuck with Good Old George and he dun me in!"

[hermit22]

HI RandalDS! HAPPY NEW YEAR!

[randalds]

In the long run, I think Old George is right in putting up the dukes with old Saddam.byebyebutcher.

Posted by Hermit22 at 07:07 AM : Dec 29, 2006

In the long run history will rightly record Bush as the much, much, much bigger butcher and certainly the more hated man.

[randalds]

Of course Ford is right to dismiss Bush's reasons for invading Iraq. No other president would have done it because it was such an obvious nightmare in the making. The only way to "win" an invasion of another nation is by overwhelming numbers of forces and in this particular case by using nuclear weapons. The rise of an Iraqi Resistance force Ala France in WWII was obviously going to happen otherwise. We supposedly went there to fight terrorists, which of course turned out to be a lie. Now we are there fighting Iraqi freedom fighters defending there homeland from an invasion force, us, and of course that's an unwinnable war under nearly all circumstances. I'd be fighting just as hard to defend America, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they are doing it too.

[randalds]

Brilliant analogy kuriouscanuk! Very fitting.

[missamerica4]

KuriousCanuk:

""Pity the poor Americans when these monsters shed and ***.""

Save your pity for yourself.

""Our animals excrete stuff you can pick up with tweezers when it's dry.""

LOL...maybe, but that is not true of your people. They are full of it.