It's pretty clear that Gerald Ford was a liberal America-hater. There's no room for pansies in the Republican party today, especially ones that don't have the guts to question the president publicly while they're still alive.

Expressing this kind of opinion, alive or dead, is a pretty clear indicator that he wants the terrorists to win. I say let's put his body in an empty bomb casing and drop it on Iraq, his spiritual homeland.

Bush Love is the only true America.

Hmm. A sensible post from "Al". I'm thinking it's not the real Al, who appears to make his living trolling.

Hmmm, William Bennett telling us his take on courage and decency. I'd rather hear his gambling tips frankly.

Also, if the Ford comments came out earlier, David Broder would have had a "heads up" concerning his fawning, obscene column today regarding his buds Cheney and Rummer.

"If he felt so strongly about his words having a derogatory affect, how about telling Woodward not to run the interview until after Bush & Cheney are out of office?"

Gosh, maybe because Ford expected to survive until at least 2009.

Lemme get this straight...The party of "gotta have the last word" is pissed because former President Ford got the last word.

Gerald Ford has passed the acid test of history -- he's been attacked by William Bennett. Bennett's moral compass is such that we can be sure anyone he denounces is sitting at a big poker table with God.

I'm going to miss Ford. He was the last Republican that was able to stumble without taking the entire country down with him...

The effect of what Ford did is to protect himself, ensuring he can't be asked by others about his critiques, ensuring that there can be no dialogue.

maybe, you fucking assmunch, he wasn't interested in a "dialogue". maybe he wasn't trying to get a 2 minute arguing-heads slot on Fox News. maybe he was just telling someone what he was thinking. consider the possibility, Mr Bennett, that people can have opinions without having to argue over them with self-righteous blowhards like yourself.

I find it particularly amusing (in its illustration of Bennett's derangement), that after his third-person criticism of Ford's decency, Bennett shifts into a personal lecture directed rhetorically at the deceased former President.

Notice: no recognition whatsoever from Bennett that Ford was right, or even MIGHT be right.

He criticized Dear Leader's war which demands retribution, but he cheated by dying first.

he can't be asked by others about his critiques, ensuring that there can be no dialogue.

Now I see the similarities between Ford and W. Bush.

But I wondered myself, why was Ford such a coward to keep his criticism of Bush's War secret and why didn't he say something before the invasion? The answer must be he felt too old to defend himself against the onslaught of the Republican smear machine. I can forgive most eighty year olds for that. (He wasn't ninety in 2001.)

He pardoned Nixon.

So that's what he was best at.

Keeping the rot from public view.

If sunlight is the best disinfectant, Ford is just another in a long line of agents of darkness.

he can't be asked by others about his critiques, ensuring that there can be no dialogue.

Sez a guy who is lecturing, nay, scolding, a dead man.

What's a matter Bill, are you so insecure about your own moral authority that you only tell off people who can't answer back?

I'll burn in liberal hell forever for this, besides never forgiving myself, but I have to agree with Bill Bennett on this one.

I despise Ford for pretty much the opposite reasons I'd guess Bennett does, and I'm certainly not defending the Usurper, as Bennett obviously is, but he's right - by not speaking out publicly in 2004, Ford showed he's a coward.

How many moderate republican and independent voters might have thought twice about voting for bush after hearing Ford's critique? How many democratic candidates might have been emboldened to challenge shrub's version of reality?

My god, if Ford's criticism had actually led to to withdrawl from Iraq, how many American soldiers and marines would have been spared from maiming or death?

Few of us ever gain such authority or reputation that a single comment from us can change the course of history.

Ford had that opportunity. Like Colin Powell, he shat on it.

I'm a bit torn on this one.

On the one hand, it's good to know that Ford wasn't a delusional idiot. He clearly saw just how wrong the war was.

But on the other, it would have been nice if he had leveled the criticism out in the open. Yes, he would've been blasted mercilessly, but having yet another voice come out against the fiasco that is Iraq – especially one from an ex-President, no matter how he got the title – would have been a very good thing.

Of course, then again, there’s the chance that he didn’t want the debate to be about him. Perhaps he thought that waiting until after his death would get the discussion into the public, but without him being the centerpiece. I’m not saying it’s the best strategy, nor am I a mind reader. But it is one option.

Regardless, the fact that Bennett puts fealty for Bush above a logical assessment from … well, anyone, shouldn’t be that much of a surprise.

The Daily News reports it a little different:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483757p-407239c.html

--Ford was a few weeks shy of his 93rd birthday as we chatted for about 45 minutes. He'd been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and said he'd told Bush he supported the war in Iraq but that the 43rd President had erred by staking the invasion on weapons of mass destruction.--

"Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him," he observed, "but we shouldn't have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush] get his advice?"

I guess the Woodward version is better for this crowd.

What struck me as interesting was Bennett's prescription for what should have happened:

"The manly or more decent options are these: 1. Say it to Bush's or Cheney's face and allow them and us to engage the point while you're around, or 2. Far more decently, say nothing critical of Bush will be on the record until his presidency is over...3. Don't say anything critical of George Bush to Bob Woodward at all."

Unless I'm missing something, Bennett would seem to prefer that Ford ONLY criticize the President TO HIS FACE ... meaning that even an op-ed might have been "indecent" by Bill's moral lights. And even a face-to-face confrontation would have been less decent than the MORE decent thing, which would be to not criticize until the President is out of office and the criticism can't possibly matter. Or, of course, to not criticize at all.

Bill Bennet, imperial apologist. Geez. Write one bestselling moral screed and suddenly every idiotic thing you say gets printed somewhere.

Well, I'm sure that the Blitz man will now be able to grill Bennett at length on his 5 minute segment with Donna Brazille today.

Such punditry in action.

On the one hand, it's good to know that Ford wasn't a delusional idiot. He clearly saw just how wrong the war was.

I think that a lot of people (pundits, politicians, and ordinary joes) clearly saw that, and kept quiet, or even loudly and publicly proclaimed the opposite.

Out of fear.

We've traded our Liberty for Security. And we've got neither.

Frankly,

Republicans having been stabbing Jerry since day one, look at his press coverage at the time. Look at Reagan's famous nomination speech. You can find a copy filed under "stab in the back".

Ford made mistakes and the '70's were no joy ride for many of us, but he was at his core a decent human as is Carter. Now the crap that has come since is a darker shade of black.

I guess the Woodward version is better for this crowd.

you realize this post is about the right's (primarily Bill Bennett's) reaction to Ford's statement, and not Ford statement itself, right ?

"William Bennett telling us his take on courage and decency. I'd rather hear his gambling tips frankly.

Exactly. Who gives a flying fuck what Bill Bennett has to say anymore?

I guess the Woodward version is better for this crowd.

In either version, I think it is clear Ford is attacking the stated justification for the war, not the war itself.

OTOH, your argument seems to be defending the right's explosion of indignation at Ford for criticizing the President by pointing to the fact that Ford wasn't criticizing the President's policy, only his selling of the policy. But doesn't that make people like Bennett even more clearly thin-skinned and deranged in their desire to smear anything that looks even mildly critical of Bush?

I was amazed at Bennett's crass, thuggish piece. If Bennett can slime a guy the day after he dies, Ford's motivations for not speaking out while alive become pretty clear. But Bennett seems to be entirely lacking in self-awareness.

"Well, I'm sure that the Blitz man will now be able to grill Bennett at length on his 5 minute segment with Donna Brazille today. Such punditry in action."

Seriously. Why does anyone take these idiots seriously anymore? Is CNN just that fucking lazy? Can someone please update their Rolodexes for them?

Elect me President. My first official act will be to send federal marshals to Bernard Shaw's house. We will drag him, kicking and screaming if need be, from his comfortable retirement, sit him back in the anchor's chair where he belongs.
His first story will be about a pack of diseased weasels tearing Glenn Beck's flesh from his body, then turning their fury on Blitzer.

Cazart for President! And hands-down Winner of the Thread.

I think the words "speak now or forever hold your peace" are appropriate here. Nothing is more chickenshit than "I told you so", especially when it comes from the grave.

I am not defending anyone, just pointing out that there seems to be different versions of Ford's posistion on the war. The lefty blogs have latched onto Woodward's Dowdified version of the conversation and annointed him the next Cindy Sheehan.

Aso, since when did a sigle blog post by Bill Bennet = "the right's explosion of indignation at Ford"? Nice try though.

I think the words "speak now or forever hold your peace" are appropriate here.

Ford did speak at the time. The words are, therefore, inappropriate.

Nothing is more chickenshit than "I told you so", especially when it comes from the grave.

Ford had no ability to take back the statement after death if it turned out not to match the conventional wisdom. He committed to a position at the time in a way which guaranteed that it would come out when he died: if his position was one that was held to be correct, it would be to his credit, if it was one that had since been discredit it would be to his discredit.

He may have denied the nation the value of his insight at a time when it made a difference, and I think he could legitimately be faulted for that.

But to characterize it as an "I told you so" from the grave presumes that Ford somehow actively decided to release the statement based on how things had turned out at the time he died, which is nonsense.

When you're 93 years old, you're physically fragile. While Ford had a right to his opinion, he didn't want his face on TV or his phone ringing off the hook because of it.

One day my 80-ish year old landlady gave a former tenant a right cussing out. Didn't like where he parked his car. Worked herself up into a frenzy. Was dead three days later. Everyone fingered the ex-tenant, but he was simply an excuse. At any age, you've a right to your opinion. When you're 93, you've also a right to your tranquility. Forget that & you could be dead in a hurry.

Ford's opinion wasn't the magic bullet that would have stopped this war, or changed a single thing about it. That power resides in the Congress. It still does, by the way.

Former Presidents have traditionally muted their criticism of their successors, and it's a pretty good tradition.

We don't need to recreate in this country the situation that pops up in so many countries with parliamentary systems, in which former heads of government snipe away at their successors' decisions. Once you've been President, and unless you intend to run again for public office, you've done what you can and need to step aside. The Presidents who come after you will know how to get in touch if they want your advice.

Nothing is more chickenshit than "I told you so", especially when it comes from the grave.
Posted by: Red State Mike

except when you're right ... and you've seen the depths of depravity to which your already depraved part has fallen.

Former Presidents have traditionally muted their criticism of their successors, and it's a pretty good tradition.

I'd argue that its a pretty dumb, elitist, and anti-democratic tradition.

We don't need to recreate in this country the situation that pops up in so many countries with parliamentary systems, in which former heads of government snipe away at their successors' decisions.

In parliamentary systems, those "former heads of government" are often still members of parliament from opposition parties, and thus it would be very odd for them not to "snipe away" at their successor's decisions. Anyhow, I fail to see how people with knowledge and experience withholding informed criticism is a benefit in a democratic society.

Once you've been President, and unless you intend to run again for public office, you've done what you can and need to step aside.

I wasn't aware the Presidents stopped being citizens when they left office.

The Presidents who come after you will know how to get in touch if they want your advice.

I wasn't aware that citizens in a democracy were to only give their opinion about the government when their input was demanded by government officers.

But to characterize it as an "I told you so" from the grave presumes that Ford somehow actively decided to release the statement based on how things had turned out at the time he died, which is nonsense.

He had two years to edit and modify the statement and say things like, "Back two years I thought this, but now I think that." Or to let his comments be released after the Bush presidency had ended. He was smart enough to know an ex-president's words have impact. he should have spoke up when it could have made a difference, or late enough so it would have been historical interpretation, instead of just being more ammo for finger pointing (either way the war could have turned out) while things progress.

Compulsive gambler Bill "Blackjack" Bennett is certainly just the man to talk about "decency", having almost bankrupted his family with his gambling habit. Maybe the GOP can get the Rev. Ted Haggard to speak to Ford's indecent support of gay rights or Mark Foley to speak to Ford's widow Betty about the indecency of alcohol use.

These gaping conservative assholes are absolutely shameless, I swear.

And the winner of this year's World's Smallest Book is.....

Shrub's RoloDex - Blank and terse

Two years ago, when Ford was interviewed about Iraq, he probably thought that he would still be alive when the war ended. If this is correct, then he was being a loyal American not to criticize while the war was on, or at least a loyal Republican, and current criticisms are misplaced.

He had two years to edit and modify the statement and say things like, "Back two years I thought this, but now I think that."

No, he didn't: once he made it to a third party, he had no power to "edit" or "modify" it. He had the same power anyone who made a private or public statement had to make additional, later, statements.

Or to let his comments be released after the Bush presidency had ended.

So? Why should he have chosen that option?

He was smart enough to know an ex-president's words have impact.

He was probably smart enough to know that that's not all that true.

he should have spoke up when it could have made a difference, or late enough so it would have been historical interpretation, instead of just being more ammo for finger pointing (either way the war could have turned out) while things progress.

If, as you state, it influences the dialogue while "things" are progressing, it can make a difference and your criticism is invalid. If not, your criticism that it influences the dialogue while "things progress" is invalid. Either way, your criticism is invalid.

But thank you for repeating Bennett's argument while adding nothing to it, including especially any reason to subscribe to it.

The dude was 90 years old.

So maybe it would have been nice for him to make his opinion known, but at ninety, maybe you're allowed to expect that a lot of younger, fitter people (like those employed in congress) can also see reason and speak out about something that's clearly a stupid idea.

Oh, never mind.

Everybody knows the Bush admin's MO when they're criticized, especially by someone they think should be on "their side." It's hard to blame a 90 or 91 year old man (his age in '04 when this interview happened) for not wanting to subject himself to it. As stated upthread, it was Congress and the electorate's job to deal with them first, and a few words from Gerry Ford wasn't really going to change much.

It'd be nice to get some clarity about whether Woodward's version (I wouldn't have gone to war) or the Daily New's (they justified it incorrectly) is more accurate. Since it was Woodward's interview, I'd lean to his version in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Oh, and last week, when the Miss USA kerfluffle was going on, I thought there was no one's opinion on matters of morality I could be less interested in than those of Donald Trump.

Bill Bennett just jogged my memory.

Bennett brings new meaning to the expression "hit me" when the Blitzdroid asks him a question.

Ted Turner, where are you lad? They've ruined your toy.

Edmund Burke said "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Yes, Ford was in his 90s - but he was former president. He was responsible for bringing Cheney and Rumsfeld into a position of power. He had a special responsiblity to speak up and condemn the justification for war in real time - not years later. But, he's not alone. So many of our leaders and former leaders sat quietly by and said and did nothing.

It's pretty clear that Gerald Ford was a liberal America-hater.

Shades of Ed Anger...does Al work for the Weekly World News?

And Deep Throat was how old when.........

Bennett is such a gross blow-hard. How is what he's doing-criticizing a dead man-any better? Who's the real coward? He's a big bag of stale air. The right wingers just can't stand to have someone speak the truth. Ford was right; this war is a mistake, and some tortured reasoning went into creating it.

"Shades of Ed Anger...does Al work for the Weekly World News?"

Ed Anger is a better, more trusted journalist than Peppermint Lopez, or any of the rest of those CNN hacks. Come to think of it, so is Al.

Perhaps Ford was worried about retaliation after seeing what happened to Joe Wilson.

Ted Baxter, the newsman on the old Mary Tyler Moore show, was a composite of LA's Jerry Dunphy and George Putnam. Putnam of the right and Dunphy of the bewildered -

All three of them could do a better job, even though they have passed on or were fictional, than Soledad Canyon and the rest of the twits trying to curry favor with FAUX.

humor mode = ON

Bennett: "Ford is a traitor to American and should be shot. Now watch me pull this slot machine arm."

Nothing is more chickenshit than "I told you so", especially when it comes from the grave.

Coming from someone chickenshit enough to murder people from miles away; that’s some mighty fine irony.

just sayin: "I thought there was no one's opinion on matters of morality I could be less interested in than those of Donald Trump. Bill Bennett just jogged my memory."

Yeah, ain't it rich? And just look at who gets the prime-time air time?

Meanwhile, I had to tune into the BBC to hear John Edward's announcement of his presidential candidacy. Not only that, but "The Beeb" reporter actually interviewed him for five minutes afterward -- and asked specific questions about Edwards' take on the expanding war on the Horn of Africa. Imagine that -- asking a presidential candidate about the intricacies of foreign policy.

Meanwhile, American media obsesses over the self-promoting, pompous, womanizing buffoon who recently fathered a child out-of-wedlock, yet has the temerity to "forgive" the sins of a 20-year-old girl who imbibed alcohol and had sex.

Go figure.

Jimmy Carter Ford...

Cute Steve, but it is pretty easy to ape the ideologues.

I’ve never forgotten how Ford and his wife implied that Carter was racially prejudiced because he belonged to a Baptist church that voted to ban Black membership. Of course, they well knew that Carter was the only member to speak publicly in favor of admitting Blacks. Like all Republicans all my life, Ford did have a nasty streak.

But to Ford’s credit, he did reconcile with Carter and work productively with him several times over the years.

Former Presidents have traditionally muted their criticism of their successors, and it's a pretty good tradition.

That’s not correct. They have traditionally muted their criticism of their immediate successor for a year or two, i.e., a honeymoon period.

I trolled a minor-league right-wing blog this morning who apparantly hadn't gotten the memo. He more or less went into a fury when I pointed out Ford's criticism of Bush and he wound up deleting my comments. It was too funny!

Censor warning!!!!!!

Big brother is watching you!!!

Play nice!

"I had to tune into the BBC to hear John Edward's announcement of his presidential.." - Donald

No question the BBC is the standard bearer of professional journalism throughout the .........

Oh I just couldn't finish that with a straight face.

cmdicely, nice piece of misinterpretation. I actually thought you would have agreed he should have spoke up back in 2004.

cmdicely, nice piece of misinterpretation.

What, precisely, am I supposed to have misinterpreted?

I actually thought you would have agreed he should have spoke up back in 2004.

Um, I did. In my first response to you, I said he could legitimately be faulted for not doing that. Nothing I have said since has stated or implied a change in that position. Now, you were saying things about "misinterpretation"?

He had two years to edit and modify the statement and say things like, "Back two years I thought this, but now I think that."

No, he didn't: once he made it to a third party, he had no power to "edit" or "modify" it. He had the same power anyone who made a private or public statement had to make additional, later, statements.

By "edit" and "modify" I mean the ability to address his previous comments at a later date with additional comments.

Or to let his comments be released after the Bush presidency had ended.

So? Why should he have chosen that option?

In order to avoid influencing events, since he chose not to influence them at the time he made his comments.

He was smart enough to know an ex-president's words have impact.

He was probably smart enough to know that that's not all that true.

I think the current hub-bub around his comments proves you wrong. The fact that Presidents tend to avoid commenting on their replacements suggests they know it too.

He should have spoke up when it could have made a difference, or late enough so it would have been historical interpretation, instead of just being more ammo for finger pointing (either way the war could have turned out) while things progress.

If, as you state, it influences the dialogue while "things" are progressing, it can make a difference and your criticism is invalid. If not, your criticism that it influences the dialogue while "things progress" is invalid. Either way, your criticism is invalid.

What I meant was, we are past the "go/not go to war" phase, but not in the phase where it is history. We are in the finger pointing I-told-you-so cover-your-ass phase where democrats apologize for voting for the war and repubs try to distance themselves etc. In short, his comments are not really constructive, and don't speak to the current situation other than he thought it was a mistake. Ankle biting from the grave.

Censor warning!!!!!!
Big brother is watching you!!!
Play nice!

So says the little bitch who apologizes for Bush's efforts to strip away everyone's civil liberties, use the NSA to spy on peace groups and US citizens, and who only complains about being censored when he, for instance, makes jokes about veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Who pissed in your cornflakes, little bitch? You're all over the place humiliating yourself today. What's it like to accomplish nothing on a regular basis?

I didn't think little jay would show his face here again, after making such an ass of himself prior to the elections.

Hey little j, how'd that turn out for you exactly? Did you and Karl Rove share the same math? Sulk much, loser?

By "edit" and "modify" I mean the ability to address his previous comments at a later date with additional comments.

And, as I noted, anyone who makes comment can address them at a later date with additional comment.

In order to avoid influencing events, since he chose not to influence them at the time he made his comments.

Why should he have chosen not to influence at some later time, just because he felt like not exerting influence at some earlier time? At any rate, since his comment was about the the right justification to cite in selling the decision to go to war it was of largely historical interest in 2004, much less at the time it was released.

I think the current hub-bub around his comments proves you wrong.

I don't think it does at all. Any evidence of minds being changed?

The fact that Presidents tend to avoid commenting on their replacements suggests they know it too.

It suggests they know that commenting impacts how they are perceived, certainly. I think you are stretching to draw anything more from it.

What I meant was, we are past the "go/not go to war" phase, but not in the phase where it is history.

He originally made the comment in 2004, which was already in that stage you describe it being in now. Your complaint, strangely identical to Bennett's, that he should have made the complaint public at the time or held it until the end of Bush's presidency (which will likely still be in that same stage) therefore seems, well, not at all justified by that characterization of appropriate times for comment.

We are in the finger pointing I-told-you-so cover-your-ass phase where democrats apologize for voting for the war and repubs try to distance themselves etc. In short, his comments are not really constructive, and don't speak to the current situation other than he thought it was a mistake.

Actually, in supporting the war and criticizing the focus on WMD in selling it, they speak directly to the current situation of collapsing support for the war, and, were they not so thin-skinned kneejerkers in reaction to perceived criticism, actually (to the extent Ford is granted credibility) buttress the case of the defenders of the present policy, by providing a pivot to blame the current perceived failure not on the actual misguidedness of the war, but on the botched job of communicating the need for and mission of the war; a position from which they can then argue for a new conception of the mission that should have been held from the start.

People like Bennett (and you, for that matter) demonstrate their lack of seriousness and absence of character when they fly off the handle about this.

Ankle biting from the grave.

This only makes sense if, besides the other criticisms of your general perception of the comment I've made, you presume Ford maliciously chose the present moment to die. Which assumption I find highly suspect. I mean, its Gerald Ford we're talking about, not Karl Rove.

In short, his comments are not really constructive, and don't speak to the current situation other than he thought it was a mistake. Ankle biting from the grave.

Not constructive, but certainly instructive.

Gerald Ford adds his name to a long list of respected Americans dismayed by Bush's abject misrule.

Do you think Ford thought his opinion amounted to "ankle biting?" I doubt it. I think we are fortunate to know Ford's opinion because he is a man whose character is widely admired.

He originally made the comment in 2004...

I am assuming he thought it was a mistake at the time the war began, otherwise he was just Monday morning quarterbacking in 2004.

People like Bennett (and you, for that matter) demonstrate their lack of seriousness and absence of character when they fly off the handle about this.

I'm not "flying off the handle" about this, and I for sure am not the one who brought it up here (Benen is). Your attitude appears to be better late than never. Mine is say something when it can have an impact, if you really believe it.

SecularAnimist
still wondering Mike, have you blah, blah, blah...

Why don't you quit being a coward, Secular/RSM/Heavy/functional, and just use your own SecularAnimist handle when you attack me. What are you scared of? Afraid people will recognize you for a moron?

I shall paraphrase a quote that the great LBJ said about Ford:

GWB has done to America what panty hose did to finger fucking.

Brave words from an anonymous coward, Red State Murderer.

Come on, there's no call for that. If you disagree, then nail him with some facts and do a little happy dance when he can't respond.

I'm all for the flamethrower attacks, but RSM has a track record here, and he doesn't deserve that shit.

offensive personal attack has been deleted and IP address recorded

Does anyone remember the other day when we were talking about that idiot Cokie Roberts?

This, from Woodward's most recent story on Ford:

On April 6, 1971, for example, Nixon called Ford to find out what was going on with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-La.). Boggs had just taken to the House floor alleging that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was regularly wiretapping members of Congress, and Nixon wanted to know why Boggs was going public.

"He's nuts," Ford told Nixon in the call picked up by Nixon's secret taping.

"He's on the sauce," Nixon said, suggesting the majority leader was drinking. "Isn't that it?"

"Well, I'm afraid that's right, Mr. President."

"Or is he crazy?" Nixon asked.

"Well, he's either drinking too much or he's taking some pills that are upsetting him mentally," Ford replied.

Too funny.

Perhaps Ford was worried about retaliation after seeing what happened to....

paul o'neill

Perhaps Ford was worried about retaliation after seeing what happened to...

john dilulio

Perhaps Ford was worried about retaliation after seeing what happened to...

the 9-11 widows..

Perhaps Ford was worried about retaliation after seeing what happened to...

richard clarke

offensive personal attack has been deleted and IP address recorded

Thank you!

I am assuming he thought it was a mistake at the time the war began, otherwise he was just Monday morning quarterbacking in 2004.

If by "it" you mean the war, I'd assume he didn't think it was a mistake at all, since he didn't criticize the war at all.

Your attitude appears to be better late than never.

That's because you are falsely imputing a value judgement of Ford's actions to my description of your criticism of those actions as logically inconsistent internally, as well as misguided in its particular points. Personally, I think Ford's critique of the Bush Administration's efforts to sell the war was unlikely to make a difference once the public effort to justify the war had reached full steam, and was unlikely formed before that point as the evidence wasn't available to judge the effort until then.

Mine is say something when it can have an impact, if you really believe it.

And yet you also criticized Ford precisely because, in your description, what he said could have an impact now, and it wasn't delayed until it could have even less impact. Which is why I described your position as inconsistent.

And yet you also criticized Ford precisely because, in your description, what he said could have an impact now, and it wasn't delayed until it could have even less impact. Which is why I described your position as inconsistent.

I really don't believe that Ford's desired impact of his words was to serve as fodder for the chattering classes to argue over whether the horse should or should not have ever left the barn while the horse is in fact currently running around out in the pasture and needs to be corraled. I am consistent in my belief, which is that Ford should have spoke up at the time if he felt so strongly about it, when his words could have had real impact.

I'm with Yellow Dog. Each and every Republican who is now criticizing Bush's decision to invade Iraq, especially those who thought it was the wrong thing to do AT THE TIME, is responsible for the dead and maimed soldiers, sailors and marines who have been shot or blown up since November 2004.

By criticizing Bush early, but embargoing that criticism until after his death, Ford showed particulary complicit cowardice.

Too bad. I sort of liked the guy when he was alive. Voted for him, in fact.

But now he joins Colin Powell in the Republican Hall of (Iraq) Shame.

I am consistent in my belief, which is that Ford should have spoke up at the time if he felt so strongly about it, when his words could have had real impact.

Then why did you follow Bennett in suggesting that he should have, if he didn't release it immediately, delayed it not until the war was over, but instead until Bush was out of office?

You are consistent in opposing anything that in fact occurs that produces discussion critical of Bush, and in spouting multiple, internally inconsistent, excuses why each particular instance of criticism should not have occurred. Beyond that, you have little consistency.

Then why did you follow Bennett in suggesting that he should have, if he didn't release it immediately, delayed it not until the war was over, but instead until Bush was out of office?

You should have quoted my entire text. Don't argue about whether the horse should have left the barn or not while it is still running around the pasture. As for waiting for thewar being over or Bush being out of office, don't get stuck on stupid. My very first post was "speak up or forever hold your peace". As to when he should let his opinion be known if not when he formed then, then it should "late enough". Now is not that time.

You are consistent in opposing anything that in fact occurs that produces discussion critical of Bush

My stance that he should have spoken up back when he had the opinion flies in the face of that. You're just scared that you might actually agree with me that he should have spoken up before the war started, so you focus on minutiae.

he should have, if he didn't release it immediately, delayed it not until the war was over, but instead until Bush was out of office?

Because the impression is he didn't have the spine to deal with the political impact of disagreeing or interfering with a sitting President. In that regard it looks cowardly. Moreover, Ford had a well earned reputation for class and dignity in avoiding creating political problems for either party in the WH. By delaying his disagreement until after his death AND the end of GWBs term he would have maintained his long and distinquished record of class and dignity.

All-in-all it's a minor issue which will blow over quickly. GHWB and GWB will show total class and deference to the memory of Gerald Ford and threat his family with total respect.

Ford should have spoke up at the time if he felt so strongly about it, when his words could have had real impact.

Ford did not disagree with taking out Saddam. His problem was the positioning of WMDs are the primary justification to the UN. He did not have strong feelings and he would not have had any impact. Bush had very wide support at the time in fact. Remember, he voted for it before he voted against it