The Repugs - already ambivalent in their praise of Ford due to his temerity in beating the Reagan-God in the 1976 primaries - will now officially lose it.

How can they honor an ex-President who hates America?

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

Will it cause people to reassess the involvement of Henry Kissinger with the current White House? I'm curious if Ford knew, back in 2004, that Kissinger was advising the Bush administration.

Oops; that should say former-President.

Well, I regret eulogizing him, then. Thank you, Laura, for giving me that "e" word to use - What does it mean anyway?

Had that statement been made public in 2004, the National Review crowd would have trashed him as a traitor. But check out NRO's tribute to the late Gerald Ford. Something like this - he was certainly no Reagan but he wasn't quite of goofie as Chevy Chase portrayed to be on SNL. With friends like those - who needs enemies.

Ford's legacy is Cheney and Rumsfeld/Jon Wiener
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=151567

'Gerald Ford is gone, but he lives on in two of his key appointees: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Their impact on America today is greater than Ford's, who died Tuesday at 93.'

[snip]

'Those two Ford appointees worked together ever since. The Bush White House assertion of unchecked presidential power stems from the lessons they drew from their experience of working for the weakest president in recent American history. "For Dick and Don," Harold Meyerson wrote in The American Prospect last July, "the frustrations of the Ford years have been compensated for by the abuses of the Bush years."

Ford also named a new head of the CIA – a former Texas congressman named George H. W. Bush. Thus you could also credit also Ford with launching the Bush dynasty.'

[snip]

Gee, thanks, Gerry.

Look for the Bushites to swiftboat Ford.

I can hear Rush today: "What does Ford know. He's the guy who lost Vietnam - screwed up the Mayaguez - signed that international human rights treaty in HELSINKI! -- and kept this country from enjoying the fruits of Ronald Reagan for four years and making us endure the vile Jimmy Carter"

Ford and Shrub have one thing in common. Ford gave amnesty to draft dodgers. Shrub has given amnesty to Chicken-Hawks.

Bill Bennett, just now, on The Corner:

"You're a former President Mr. Ford, show a little more decency to the incumbent who is in a very, very tough place and trying to do the right thing....you may recall those days and positions yourself."

"Denial" is a natural stage of grieving, but this is a bit much.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWU2NTQ5N2M3MTM4YmEyZTcyZjUyMjE1ODFkNzNkMWU=

As many people here pointed out in comments on a previous post, Ford was far from an angel, and this failure to speak out publicly before he died is of a piece with his other malfeasance.

Thanks, MsNThrope, for reminding us that the criminal careers of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr. and Jr. and even Kissinger in late life can be laid at Ford's door.

I was 15 when Nixon resigned, and I remember thinking then that never again would this country make such a catastrophic choice for president.

Every repug since has been worst than the last.

Compared to the Usurper - and even to Reagan - Nixon was a radical lefty (created the EPA, signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, proposed a negative income tax, expanded revenue sharing, etc.)

Even Nixon's crimes - illegal surveillance, primarily - were petty compared to Iran-Contra (Reagan-Bush I) and the murder of habeas corpus and the Constitution (shrub.)

Who cares what the Republicans think of Ford? Dick Cheney "pugnacious" and Henry Kissenger with "the thinnest skin of any public figure I ever knew" - it's just too bad that political reality wouldn't let Ford make these sentiments public while he was alive. But they are on a recorded interview. My already kind memories of Ford have been elevated significantly since reading this article.

This just in, President Ford's State Funeral has been moved from the Tidal Basin to Love Canal.

theThirdPaul - "Ford gave amnesty to draft dodgers"

Actually it was Carter who gave amnesty to
the draft dodgers.

Has Kansas City ever lived down that terrible shame of rejecting St Ronald of Bel Air for a mere commoner from Michigan?

Lamonte,

Thanks - Now, if someone would give amnesty to my brain.

Lamonte,

Actually, we are both correct - President Ford granted "conditional" amnesty in Oct of 74 - Evaders had to turn themselves in to the government and agree to serve 24 months in a goverment service role.

President Carter changed this, in 1977, to a blanket, no questions asked, general amnesty.

However, these applied only to evaders and not resisters.

thethirdPaul - Thanks for the clarification. It's a good day when I learn something new.

Ford's the guy who got us out of Vietnam once and for all. the jingos will never forgive him for that.

If a man who was as dumb as a stump (Ford) could see the folly of invading and occupying Iraq, what does that make Bush?

Lets get some facts straight. It wasn't Ford who elevated Bush Sr, but Nixon, who sent him to the UN, as I recall, after GHWB (then a lowly first or second term congressman) lost a race for Texas senator. And, difficult though this is to believe, GHWB was the centrist/establishment R candidate defeated by the Reagan-God in 1980.

Ford also elevated Scowcroft to National Security Adviser and relied on James Baker to manage his reelection bid. So both sides of the internal R-debate about Iraq were present in Ford's government.

Rather than seeing the Ford Administration as a kind of New Haven rehearsal for Shrub's Broadway blockbuster, it is perhaps better to see Ford as containing the main lines of debate that would inform most Repug foreign policy thinking for the next thirty years. And it shows how truly radical Bush 2 has been: unleashing the Cheney-Id which, now in old age, has grown increasingly dark and vicious while becoming unmoored from the control a grown-up chief executive should exercise.

Ford had plenty of faults, but you can't blame him (from the left) or praise him (from the right) for his "responsibility" in unleashing Cheney-Rumsfeld upon the world. That would be reading historical causation backwards, and shifting blame from the fool who really is responsible.

It's a shame the former president felt it was necessary to keep his opinions on the war quiet until after he died, - - -

I find it totally disturbing that an ex president was AFRAID to speak his mind.

What was he afraid of - his personal safty?

It wasn't Ford who elevated Bush Sr, but Nixon, who sent him to the UN, as I recall, after GHWB (then a lowly first or second term congressman) lost a race for Texas senator.

A senate race that was pushed onto him by Nixon, I believe.

I think there's a larger point being missed in all of these attempts to smear Ford and denigrate what little legacy he may actually have--regardless of who he may or may not have elevated or promoted, Republicans tend to serve in Republican administrations and the same can be said of Democrats and it really isn't any more complicated than that. Obviously, there are hundreds of current members of the Bush administration that served during the Reagan-Bush41 years that were brought back into government after the two Clinton administrations; Clinton may have picked up some old Carter appointees, but I don't recall.

I think it has more to do with whether they're alive and can hold down a chair, not so much whether they're the best person for the job or whether they are willfully insane or evil.

Ford was a supporter of detente. He and Kissinger did not think we could win the Cold War. They were wrong. He had the potential to be a great domestic president, vetoing 68 bills passed by the overwhelmingly Democrat Congress. Simon was his Sec Treasury and might well have avoided the worst of the Carter debacle. Unfortunately, his gaffe in the TV debate doomed his attempt to win a full term.

Ford was never good on foreign policy, snubbing Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he came to the US. He had a very weak hand as president and continues to show poor understanding of the world situation. Plus, of course, he was in his dotage. Asking Woodward to hold the tape until he died was rather weak, as well. He should have released it so others could reply or had him hold it until Bush's term was over.

Is that the best you can do, Kennedy? Are you going to piss on the man's grave when you get the chance? Punch one of his kids in the throat? Kick Betty Ford in the rear end and laugh your maniacal little laugh?

I am only 17 years old but even i can agree with a 91 year old man of course it was wrong to go to war and finally people are starting to realise it. I support anyone who is out there but it doesnt mean i agree with it. How may i ask can a former president hate his country that makes entirely no sense and to equate hating the war to hating america is pure foolishness.

Aren't americans so proud of their right of free speach? however their own ex-president can't express his own views. Ha! Its all just a tangled web of hypocrisy.

MK - Ford's Cold War opinion was correct, at the time he held it.

Reagan came along when the Soviet economy was weaker, and simply outspent them, realizing the Soviets would try, and fail, to match.

Republican praise for Ford is out of respect, not worship - ala Reagan. It has far less holding power.

"continues to show poor understanding"

They don't make doctors like they used to.

Dr Frist can interpret signs of brain activity from afar.

Doc Mikey can read cat scans from the deceased while applying his Chanel.

The Bill Bennett quote linked by Bob is unbelievable. Bennett basically calls Ford a coward for being unwilling to stand up and be trashed by the Republican smear machine, and then goes on to argue that Ford was wrong to allow his statement to be released after his death while Bush was still in office. We can expect to see Ford's reputation trashed further. What a bunch of cannibalistic reptiles.

The people left out of the Ford amnesty were deserters and others who were subject to military law. Draft dodgers and resisters were both covered. The "government service" requirement was never enforced. Ford's amnesty/pardon was probably the more significant, and it was pretty clear that it was a way of making the Nixon pardon more palatable as part of a package deal.

Q. "If a man who was as dumb as a stump (Ford) could see the folly of invading and occupying Iraq, what does that make Bush?" A. The stump.

Cannibalistic reptiles -- for example, Mike K. here.

And thanks to you, Humble blogger, for even more clarity about the amnesty issue.

Shrubs do not have stumps, per se - More of spreading roots - The Shrub at 1600 appears to be of the Tumbling Weed variety with a very "shallow" root system.

If anyone has a platform to criticize the policies of a President of his own party, it certainly should be an ex-President, who is outside the fray. That fact that Ford found it necessary to hold back his views on Iraq speak to his smallness of character and illuminate his insignificance.

Not only are his comments much in line with democrats, they are probably much in line with the thoughts president bush. He didn't want to focus on WMD, that was done mostly for the UN and a little for popular support. It was also mostly done by the media (their questions and analysis put the focus on WMD).

I've seen little mention of an interview of Jay Garner on the BBC. It was broadcast early on Boxing Day morning, but Garner seems to point the finger at Dick Cheney as being responsible for most of the early fuck-ups in Iraq. You can hear the interview here until they broadcast the next program on Tuesday.

Humblebutt,

I'll bet that Bennett is angry at Ford for choosing to die now, when our C-in-C needs his support, not his criticism. The very nerve!

Billy might find hit hard not to take that bet, tho (da-dum boom).

Contrast that with the bits of film playing over and over again on the news channels of Ford singing the praises of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Will CNN give this half as much airplay?

wishIwuz2: Reagan came along when the Soviet economy was weaker, and simply outspent them, realizing the Soviets would try, and fail, to match.

First of all, the US military buildup that is commonly attributed to Reagan was begun during the Ford administration, as a result of the deliberate efforts of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to undermine and destroy the Nixon policy of detente by making false claims of a massive buildup of "advanced weapons of mass destruction" by the Soviet Union, backed up by fake, phony "intelligence" which was disputed by the CIA -- essentially the same scam that they perpetrated on the American people with regard to Iraq, some thirty years later.

This US military buildup continued through the Carter administration.

Second of all, the analysis that the Soviet Union collapsed because its economy was wrecked by attempting to match the US arms buildup is faulty. The Soviet economy was a wreck even during Nixon's time, and the CIA as well as the Soviets themselves knew this. This was the primary reason that the Soviets agreed to Nixon's detente policy in the early 1970s: they could not afford to maintain the Cold War, and were eager for a "truce" that would allow them to reduce tensions and the necessity of matching US military spending.

As Nixon said in a June 1972 speech, "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear -— for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world."

It is also important to note that from the 1970s on, there were cultural changes unleashed in the Soviet bloc, and in the Soviet Union itself, driven in part by the exposure of young people to the youth culture of the west (e.g. rock & roll music) that were ultimately unstoppable and seriously undermined the Soviet totalitarian culture.

Third, a major cause -- perhaps the major cause -- of the Soviet collapse was the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a direct consequence of the covert actions of the Carter administration to support and build up the radical Islamist Afghan mujahadeen.

It was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [...] We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would [...] That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap [...] The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

-- Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris
15-21 January 1998

So the collapse of the Soviet Union is more directly attributable to Frank Zappa and Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan.

It's about damned time Zappa got some of the credit due him!

Don't forget that Levi's, Rock-n-Roll and Mickey-D's played their part as well.

Okay, I just skimmed the first time, the cultural exchange I missed the first time are plainly there. Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

"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 fit the bill." - Steve Benen

Then explain Clinton's Bosnia and Kennedy/Johnson's Vietnam.

"If a man who was as dumb as a stump (Ford) "

Ford was first in his Yale Law School class after being the center on a Michigan national championship team twice. I don't think you should keep getting your facts from Chevy Chase.

Ford was pro-detente four years before Reagan took the USSR on and won. You've got to do better than that. Secular, keep that thought. It's much easier than learning. Ever heard of the Venona papers ?

"So the collapse of the Soviet Union is more directly attributable to Frank Zappa and Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan." - Secular

Funniest line I have ever read.

"...driven in part by the exposure of young people to the youth culture of the west (e.g. rock & roll music) that were ultimately unstoppable and seriously undermined the Soviet totalitarian culture." - Secular

You know I hear this line from the left all of the time and, so far, for over fifty years now, no country has yet to adopt a westernized democracy because of their love of western culture. Should we wait another fifty years?

"...covert actions of the Carter administration to support and build up the radical Islamist Afghan mujahadeen." - Secular

And thanks to Carter, and his handling of Iran and Muslims, they became radicalized and have spawned into the problem we face today. Thanks Jimmy.

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

Oh, it already has. Powerline and William Bennett are both already after him for being "dishonest" ( http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7728 ). The smaller the remaining number of Bush Groupies gets, the shriller the remaining ones naturally are -- kind of like the Big Bang in reverse. What would they have done if Reagan had opposed the Iraq War (which he just might have done; he certainly bailed out of Beirut fast enough)? I imagine they would have opposed him just as shrilly; when he proposed that arms-elimination deal with Gorbachev, National Review trumpeted it on its cover as "Reagan's Suicide Pact", in a piece written by that noted foreign-policy expert Michael Novak.

My own objection to Ford's statement is that he ties it to a belief that "America's own interests" are more important than promulgating democracy and the well-being of other people. They aren't, and that way lies Nuremberg. The problem with the neocons like Wolfowitz is not that they were idealists; it's that they were fools. They picked a disastrously wrong way to try to further the interests of humanity as a whole -- in the form of a war in the wrong place at the wrong time to do maximum good, worsened by the fact that, on top of that mistake, they then proceeded to fight even their chosen war idiotically -- and they stubbornly stuck with it.

It might be advisable to look back into Iranian history a bit further, since it does afterall predate November 1979.

There was the CIA staged coup in 1953 that overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossagegh. John Foster Dulles was all to eager to appease the Brits who were pissed at the loss of total control over AIOC. And the Brits were still imperial, running all over the middle east, slapping mandates hither and yon...

It simply isn't as simple as your side would like to make it. It is much more complex than all that, and just when you think you've got it all figured out another subtlety is revealed.

Mike K writes:

Asking Woodward to hold the tape until he died was rather weak, as well. He should have released it so others could reply or had him hold it until Bush's term was over.

I think it's more important to address the content of what the former President said, instead of attacking his motives, although I'm sure he had his reasons. Through James Baker as a proxy, we can see that George H Bush is against the war. We know Clinton and Carter view Iraq as a mistake. And now, we know Ford thought the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. So basically, all of our ex-Presidents who are of sound mind view Iraq as a mistake. Their words should carry more weight, since they've actually been in Bush's shoes.

One might also look after 1979 to the Reagan Administration both arming Iran and fighting against Iran directly and through aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, the first Bush's betrayal of Iraqi Shi'a, and the general disinterest in the fate of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in understanding some of the radicalization and anti-Americanism that developed in the Islamic-dominated regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Jay: "And thanks to Carter, and his handling of Iran and Muslims, they became radicalized and have spawned into the problem we face today. Thanks Jimmy."

Why, of course. Obviously he should have continued to use America's muscle to keep the Shah in power despite the fact that the people of Iran detested him, thereby making us even more popular in the Moslem world.

"...if Reagan had opposed the Iraq War (which he just might have done; he certainly bailed out of Beirut fast enough)?" - Bruce

"Several House Democrats rebelled against their party leaders today and said they would offer a proposal to cut off funds for the Marine Corps contingent in Lebanon and to force the President to bring the troops home. The lawmakers said they would offer their plan as an amendment either to a military spending bill due to come to the House floor Tuesday, or to some other available legislation."

You might recall Bruce, that Democratic Congress forced Reagans hand on pulling out of Beirut. A fact that is conveniently overlooked by liberals.

Well there really wasn't a lot of choice after the United States took sides in a civil war. Caspar Weinberger gave the order to shell Muslim villages, thereby taking the side of the Christian militias, and that led to the suicide bombing of the barracks and the deaths of 241 Marines.

Always take that next step when the matters at hand are the middle east...

You might recall Bruce, that Democratic Congress forced Reagans hand on pulling out of Beirut.

Had Reagan thought it necessary to stay, he could have done what the leader of a democratic nation would do in that case: made the case to the people.

That the Congress, that case not having been made, made moves toward cutting off funding for a military operation with no vision for success that was costing US lives should not be surprising.

I see that the ignorant drivel-spewing dittohead Jay is back. I guess he has recovered sufficiently from the American people's overwhelming rejection of his right-wing extremist Republican crime gang in the 2006 elections to get back to regurgitating Rush Limbaugh's vomit again.

"Why, of course. Obviously he should have continued to use America's muscle to keep the Shah in power despite the fact that the people of Iran detested him,...." - Bruce

Well considering the Pahlavi family ruled Iran for decades and that the US had no military presence in Iran during the Pahlavi reign, your accusation is absurd.

I don't recall ever hearing that Zappa had much following in the USSR, though I might have missed it. I think you meant The Beatles.

And what was wrong with pulling out of Beirut, where getting into it was a dumb idea in the first place?

Jay wrote: "Well considering the Pahlavi family ruled Iran for decades and that the US had no military presence in Iran during the Pahlavi reign, your accusation is absurd."

You really are a monumentally ignorant dumbass, aren't you? You no doubt are suffering from irreversible cognitive impairment, and possibly organic brain damage, from excessive exposure to Fox News.

The Shah was installed as the dictator of Iran by the USA, following the overthrow of the legitimate elected government of Iran, in the 1950s.

Thereafter, until the revolution of 1979, the Shah's brutal dictatorship was completely dependent on US military support -- including US training of the Shah's secret police -- for its existence. The Shah's government was nothing more than a puppet government of the US.

Carter's mistake with regard to Iran was allowing the Shah to enter the US while he was wanted in Iran for prosecution for his crimes against the Iranian people, including the theft of billions of dollars from the Iranian government. That was what directly precipitated the taking of the US embassy hostages by Iranian students. Carter could have, and should have, ended the hostage situation quickly by returning the Shan to Iran to stand trial, or at least by refusing to admit him to the US.

Of course Rush Limbaugh won't tell you this, so in your delusional dittohead world these facts don't exist.

"There was the CIA staged coup in 1953 that overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossagegh. John Foster Dulles was all to eager to appease the Brits who were pissed at the loss of total control over AIOC. And the Brits were still imperial, running all over the middle east, slapping mandates hither and yon..." - GC

I guess one mans coup is another mans preservation of a country.

"There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh neither was purely military in nature nor did it lead to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country. Technically, in fact, it led to the preservation of the constitution, which Mossadegh had been repeatedly neglecting during his term in office. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

On April 28, 1951, Mossadegh, on the Shah's suggestion, had been named as Prime Minister of Iran by a vote of 79-12 by the democratically elected legislative Iranian body known as the Majlis ,and the parliament's vote had been accepted by the Shah as legitimate at that time.

One view is that the forceful ousting of Prime Minister Mossadegh was a counter coup after Mossadegh's dismissal. The other view is that Mossadegh had acted under emergency powers to preserve the sovereignty of Iran against the intervention of the CIA and British Intelligence acting on behalf of western oil companies."

Well considering the Pahlavi family ruled Iran for decades and that the US had no military presence in Iran during the Pahlavi reign, your accusation is absurd.

You, not Bruce, are the one suggesting Carter is at fault for the success of the revolution that overthrew the Shah and that that is a reason for the anti-US radicalization in the region. Aside from using US military force to prevent the displacement of that regime, what alternative course do you suggest Carter could or should have taken that would have prevented either the revolution or the radicalization?

Carter made some ridiculous demands on the Shah as far as monetary aid. When snubbed by the Shah, Carter in turn f&%$d things up.

"....a senior Iranian diplomat in Washington observed, President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America. Under the guise of promoting human rights, Carter made demands on the Shah while blackmailing him with the threat that if the demands werent fulfilled, vital military aid and training would be withheld. This strange policy, carried out against a staunch, 20 year Middle East ally, was a repeat of similar policies applied in the past by US governments to other allies such as pre Mao China and pre Castro Cuba."

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/252054965.html

You might recall Bruce, that Democratic Congress forced Reagans hand on pulling out of Beirut. A fact that is conveniently overlooked by liberals.

You might recall Jay, that Reagan failed to launch any sort of effective military response against the perpetrators of the attack. Pulling out is one thing, since our troops were sitting ducks in Lebanon, but not retaliating at all is irresponsible.

"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: محمد رضا پهلوی‎) (October 16, 1919, Tehran – July 27, 1980, Cairo), styled His Imperial Majesty, and holding the imperial titles of Sh�hansh�h (King of Kings) and Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans), was the monarchial ruler of Iran from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy"

Then there is his father Reza Shah who replaced the Qajar Dynasty by becoming the new leader of Iran in 1925.

Despite, what you want to believe Secular, America is not the root of all evil.

"...but not retaliating at all is irresponsible." - Andy

Then tell me how you feel about our lack of response following the Khobar Towers bombing and the USS Cole bombing, just to name a few.

Jay wrote: Despite, what you want to believe Secular, America is not the root of all evil."

Despite your compulsive need to slavishly regurgitate right-wing drivel like that remark, I have never said that "America is the root of all evil."

As an American, I am of course more directly concerned about the actions of my own government -- which is supposed to represent me and which I pay for with my taxes -- than about the actions of the governments of other countries.

I am particularly concerned when my government chooses to overthrow the legitimate elected governments of other countries in CIA-backed coups, and to install and support corrupt, murderous dictatorships, which is exactly what the USA did with regard to Iran.

It is unfortunate that a series of US governments, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, over many decades, have all too often chosen to support corrupt, murderous dictatorships in various places all around the world, thereby contributing to enormous human suffering, in the supposed "national interest" of the USA -- which all too often means "the interests of the ultra-rich elites of US-based corporations in the military-industrial-petroleum complex."

But criticizing the foreign policy decisions of the US government -- even calling some of them "evil" -- does not mean that I "hate America" or believe that "America is the root of all evil", no matter what some drivel-spewing, weak-minded, ignorant, gullible dupe of right-wing extremist propaganda, such as yourself, says.

Khobar Towers: Pissed at Clinton, and have never denied it.

USS Cole: Still pissed at Bush for not handling this promptly upon taking office. The timing of this attack doen't make it Clinton's baby, it makes it Bush's. Had he shown resolve on taking office and dealt with this attack, September 11 might have been avoided.

Yeah, that was a leap - but no more fantastic than the ones taken on these threads by conservatives daily as everything is reduced to Bill Clinton's penis and the "miracle" of compound interest.

(Hint: It isn't a miracle. For it to be paid out to investors, it must first be paid in by borrowers.)

"I am particularly concerned when my government chooses to overthrow the legitimate elected governments of other countries in CIA-backed coups, and to install and support corrupt, murderous dictatorships, which is exactly what the USA did with regard to Iran." - Secular

Have you not learned:

The Pahlavi family began ruling Iran in 1925, with Reza hah Pahlavi and continued with Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi taking over in 1941.

"It is unfortunate that a series of US governments, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, over many decades, have all too often chosen to support corrupt, murderous dictatorships in various places all around the world, thereby contributing to enormous human suffering, in the supposed "national interest" of the USA --" - Secular

So then I assume you are in full support of the Iraq war wherein the US ousted a brutal dictator, who was previously supported by US administrations, in an attempt to bring democracy and end the suffering of those people you care so much about.

Is that about right?

"USS Cole: Still pissed at Bush for not handling this promptly upon taking office." - GC

Clinton had three months to do something:

"The USS Cole bombing was a suicide bombing attack against the U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) on October 12, 2000 while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. 17 sailors were killed"

So let me get this straight, you blame Bush for not doing something prior to 9/11 despite just less than eight months in office with the other tasks of staffing, etc. etc. Yet completely absolve Clinton of any blame for not taking action on the USS Cole after having eight years in office and a full three months to do something. Is that right?

Confirmation of al Qae'da complicity was not verified until mere days before the transfer of power. Would you have perfered Clintion do to Bush 43 what Bush 41 did to Clinton with Somalia?

"Confirmation of al Qae'da complicity was not verified until mere days before the transfer of power. Would you have perfered Clintion do to Bush 43 what Bush 41 did to Clinton with Somalia" - GC

Are you really trying to tell me that after eight years in office, the 1993 WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Jakarta bombings, embassy bombings, and other violence resulting from the religion of peace that Clinton had no idea whom it might be and where they might be found? C'MON.

Are you also trying to tell me that Bush 1 is responsible for Clintons mishandling of the Magadishu incident in October 1993? A year and a half after the Bush 1 Presidency? C'MON.

Jay wrote: "So then I assume you are in full support of the Iraq war wherein the US ousted a brutal dictator, who was previously supported by US administrations, in an attempt to bring democracy and end the suffering of those people you care so much about."

Wrong. Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "bringing democracy" and "ending suffering."

It also had nothing to do with the nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "Iraqi WMD" and nonexistent "links between Saddam and Al Qaeda" that Bush, Cheney, et al spent months lying to the American people and the US Congress about, in order to deceive them into supporting the war.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was the execution of a long-planned unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq in order to seize control of Iraq's oil for Bush and Cheney's cronies and financial backers in US-based multinational oil companies. This plan was discussed publicly by PNAC (whose key members later became principals of the Bush administration) in the 1990s and was discussed by Dick Cheney with oil company executives during his secret "Energy Task Force" meetings in the first pre-9/11 months of the Bush administration. Bush himself acknowledged recently in a radio interview with Rush Limbaugh that control of Iraq's oil was the central issue in the ongoing war; of course he dishonestly framed it as "preventing terrorists from controlling Iraq's oil" rather than "giving my buddies in the oil corporations control of Iraq's oil."

The plan was to install Ahmed Chalabi as the "new improved Saddam", a compliant US-backed dictatorship that would hand over control of Iraq's oil industry to US oil companies and acquiesce to the permanent presence of large numbers of US troops in permanent US military bases to enforce that control. This plan is reflected in the "oil law" imposed on Iraq by Paul Bremer during the reign of the CPA, and in the core proposal of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, both of which call for US based oil companies to control, and reap the majority of the profits from, Iraq's oil production.

Of course as we all know the plan to install a government headed by Chalabi failed and Iraq was plunged into bloody chaos, in which tens of thousands if innocent Iraqis have died.

Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression and his failed plan to replace one dictator with another have brought only misery, destruction, impoverishment and death to the people of Iraq.

Are you really trying to tell me that after eight years in office, the 1993 WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Jakarta bombings, embassy bombings, and other violence resulting from the religion of peace that Clinton had no idea whom it might be and where they might be found?

Unlike Bush, Clinton perhaps wasn't all that eager to engage US forces on a campaign because of a vague idea, but actually might have preferred to have fairly good evidence of the precise identity of the responsible organization and a workable plan of action before prosecuting a military campaign.

"Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression and his failed plan to replace one dictator with another have brought only misery, destruction, impoverishment and death to the people of Iraq." - Secular

Well let's see, Bush's plan was to establish elections as soon as possible, which the Democrats fought and wanted to delay or deny, and in which three successful elections were held wherein 11 million Iraqi's voted putting in place a representational gov't. Which is currently struggling to hold of factions that want to submerge the country back into oppression.

So what were you saying again about Bush's plan for another dictator? Are dictators elected through national elections? (without force and coercion)

"Unlike Bush, Clinton perhaps wasn't all that eager to engage US forces on a campaign because of a vague idea, but actually might have preferred to have fairly good evidence of the precise identity of the responsible organization and a workable plan of action before prosecuting a military campaign." - GC

Well let's see here, the first bombing of the WTC was in October of 1993. So 7 years wasn't enough to gather good evidence and formulate a workable plan? Or was he distracted?

So what were you saying again about Bush's plan for another dictator? Are dictators elected through national elections?

Frequently, yes, dictators are elected through national elections, where the institutions are not strong enough to constrain individual arbitrary power.

Jay wrote: Well let's see, Bush's plan was to establish elections as soon as possible, which the Democrats fought and wanted to delay or deny

That is simply a lie. The Bush administration was opposed to early elections. They were forced to accept early elections by Al Sistani, at which point they engaged in every sort of machination to assure that the result would be a government subservient to US interests.

The Democrats in Congress had nothing to do with it one way or another. The Democrats in Congress have never, at any point, had any say at all in the conduct of the occupation.

You are a liar as well as an idiot.

"That is simply a lie. The Bush administration was opposed to early elections........The Democrats in Congress had nothing to do with it one way or another." - Secular

Without the patience to research and prove you wrong, AGAIN. Bush pressed for the constitutional vote to proceed as scheduled in January of 2004 despite vociferous objections from Democrats saying that very few would participate because of the danger. A reported 11 million people voted.

Jay gives new meaning to the term "dead-ender." Why waste time arguing with this ignorant racist dipshit who needs to run to wikipedia between posts to get any background on what he spouts?

Much more satisfying to heap abuse on this fine example of white trash. Immature ... yeah. But equally effective as debate as far as he's concerned.

He didn't say Iraq was a mistake. He said he wouldn't have gone in as quickly as Bush did. He didn't say the war wasn't justified, he said that selling the WMD threat as the justification was a mistake. Just to be clear. He didn't say what you think he said.

Well let's see, Bush's plan was to establish elections as soon as possible, which the Democrats fought and wanted to delay or deny .

Er, no. The administration was opposed to having an election at all, and forced to do so by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's strident opposition to the administration's plan to appoint the people to come up with the new Constitution.

The November 2003 article that cmdicely linked to is very worthwhile reading as a reminder of the complete failure of the US occupation and the roots of that failure in the arrogance of the Bush administration and its Iraq viceroy Paul Bremer, particularly their delusional belief that they would simply impose a hand-picked US puppet government on the people of Iraq.

Jay will never read it.

jay: Bush's plan was to establish elections as soon as possible,

really?

Post-war planning non-existent

By WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Posted on Sun, Oct. 17, 2004

A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

also.....

from the washington monthly...9/8/2006...

via Orin Kerr, comes a remarkable interview with Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning.

Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, he says, Donald Rumsfeld told his team to start planning for war in Iraq, but not to bother planning for a long stay:

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php

jay must be shorthand for...empty assertion...

jay: Well let's see here, the first bombing of the WTC was in October of 1993. So 7 years wasn't enough to gather good evidence and formulate a workable plan?

#1 killer of americans by terror from 1993 until 9-11: (167)

timothy mcveigh...

he's dead...

#1 killer of americans by terror from 9/11 to today: (2900-counting only 9-11)

osama bin laden...

after 2-invasions .... he's still making videos

by the way...the 167-killed by mcveigh in the oklahoma city bombing was 3-times more than al-queda is credited with killing during the entire clinton presidency...

3-times more...

Of course, this overlooks the fact that Ford made a mistake in actually inviting Cheney and Rumsfeld to Washington in the first place. Wish Ford could rot in our hell a while longer. I mean, he is trying to distance himself from personal responsibility...which is much easier when one is dead, right?