A common theme among our foreign allies is a concern that we Americans seem to think we are standing alone against a world teaming with enemies.

Perhaps they've heard too much of the (false) accusation that our war in Iraq is "unilateral".

Recently, I learned that the American fraction of the overall force in Iraq, at least during the initial invasion, was lower than it was in the Korean war, and that we had fewer allies in that war than in the invasion of Iraq. This is one more reason why I call the "unilateral" accusation false.

And while we're loading up late President Ford's legacy with compliments, let's also compliment him for his wisdom. The news:

"In an interview never before published, former President Gerald Ford said President Bush and his chief advisers "made a big mistake" with their justifications for the Iraq war.

Ford made the comments in a four-hour interview in 2004 with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. The interview was conducted at Ford's home in Beaver Creek, Colorado.

"I don't think, if I had been president -- on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly -- I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war," Ford said in a part of the interview broadcast on CNN's "Larry King Live" Wednesday.

"I would have maximized our efforts through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer," the former president said."

Hmph. Another Defeat-o-crat, wouldn't you say?

That's only a brief snippet. Other comments by Ford on the war are far more damning.

Cyberactor

I think you will find that not all Republicans support the policies of the Bush administration. Many are free-thinking intelligent people who care deeply for their country.

Observer from Up North:

I heartily agree with you. In fact, I know many such Republicans who are conservatives to the core (more in the Reagan mode) and are simply horrified at what this Administration has wrought. I simply thought it best to point out that, given the praise being offered this week to Jerry Ford, that he be given additional credit for seeing what the rabid Bush-lovers cannot: that the war in Iraq was a mistake from start to finish.

It is a bitter pill for the Bushies to swallow, but swallow it they must.

Thank God we have CO here to give insightful commentary on America.

"I think you will find that not all Republicans support the policies of the Bush administration." Really? You mean Americans dont all blindly follow every tenet of a political party? WOW, that IS big news!

Next up, CO will inform us in a shocking expose that some Americans like pizza and some dont.

I think you will find that not all Republicans support the policies of the Bush administration. Many are free-thinking intelligent people who care deeply for their country.

Notice the sly allusion that supporting any Bush policies would negate a person's ability to 'intelligently free-think.' Liberals just cant shed their superiority complex, its what makes them such fun to be around.

All those democrats who supported the authorization for force against Iraq must be feeling pretty stupid right about now, how many were there again? Hillary must be having a hell of a time; one day shes the smartest woman in the room, the next she can barely tie her own shoes...her waffling on support of the war is obviously to blame.

Lose the Bongos

Yes, you are right. Those who gave their support for the invasion of Iraq, initially, and who now see that they were mislead by the Administration, have come to regret their decision. There was, after 9/ll, such an emotional impact on the nation, the ability to access the situation clearly was questionable. Yes, there were a few who did not buy into the hype, Russ Feingold being one, but the majority felt it was their patriotic duty to follow and support their President during this awful time in U.S. history.

I dont have a problem with regretting a decision, we all do that, I have a problem with not standing up and admitting personal culpability.

If, as you say, certain politicos were unable to shed their emotional instability and think clearly about impending action against Iraq, then they should resign. Today. They read the public mood and decided to go with the popular flow into war, now that the war has become difficult they are making excuses for their decisions; "Bush lied, it was all about oil, its a Rovian plot, the Israelis set us up" etc. They had a duty to the American people NOT to go blindly into this, they took the easy road and failed in their duty and want to blame anyone or everyone else.

You can bet your Doc Martens™ that if the war were going extremely well these same people would be vying for a chance to eat lunch at the Crawford Ranch, its why the libs love to compare this war to Clinton's attack on Serbia. The only problem we have is that this is war and war isnt easy; when people run from the hard stuff then they are just fair-weather patriots.

Lose the Bongos

I agree again. Those who went along with the decision to invade should not have let their emotions override their reason. At the time, it was difficult to fathom the, 'support without question', that Bush received for the invasion of Iraq from the opposing party. The shock factor may have played a role, I don't know. But you are right, those politicians who approved the idea, should resign, Bush & associates included. How many, do you think, would be left to govern?

Astonishing. The war isn't going well and the blame lies with...the Democrats? Bush & Co., they shouldn't resign. No, it was those waffly, blowin-in-the-wind Democrats who supported the original resolutions on Iraq that are culpable.

You would demand, say, Hillary Clinton's resignation, but not Dick Cheney's? John Kerry should quit, but not George Bush? It is unfathomable to me that the unrepentent Republicans, who supported the war then and still support it now, in its current, disastrous shape, they are the beacons of morality. But the Democrats who realized they had been duped and now regret their decisions...THEY are the spineless ones?

Go back and look carefully at the Gerald Ford article. He gave that interview over TWO YEARS ago and knew, even then, that the decision to go into Iraq was a mistake. Now, the only ones willing to admit that the invasion was a regrettable blunder are those on the left side of the aisle...and you want them to QUIT?

As I said- astonishing.

Clever how you included "Bush & associates" into the mix, well maybe not so clever. I didnt say "those who approved", I said those who are making wild excuses for their actions and showing the seat of their pants. Why should anyone who simply approved the operation resign, because this war like all others is turning out to be actual war and not a quick, tidy peacekeeping operation?

Read my last post again, its the people who cant accept that war is difficult who are the ones running. They ALL liked it in the beginning, now that the slog has surfaced certain ones are slinking away with muttered whining about how great Iraq was under Saddam. If this struggle were along the lines of the Gulf War, you wouldnt be able to swing a cinnamon latte without hitting a liberal trying to hug a soldier or wave the flag.

Accept that this war is tough and get on with the process of winning it, pissing and moaning that you were duped simply makes you look like a petulant fool living in the past.

Astonishing. The war isn't going well and the blame lies with...the Democrats? Bush & Co., they shouldn't resign. No, it was those waffly, blowin-in-the-wind Democrats who supported the original resolutions on Iraq that are culpable.

You would demand, say, Hillary Clinton's resignation, but not Dick Cheney's? John Kerry should quit, but not George Bush? It is unfathomable to me that the unrepentent Republicans, who supported the war then and still support it now, in its current, disastrous shape, they are the beacons of morality. But the Democrats who realized they had been duped and now regret their decisions...THEY are the spineless ones?

Go back and look carefully at the Gerald Ford article. He gave that interview over TWO YEARS ago and knew, even then, that the decision to go into Iraq was a mistake. Now, the only ones willing to admit that the invasion was a regrettable blunder are those on the left side of the aisle...and you want them to QUIT?

As I said- astonishing.

Clever how you included "Bush & associates" into the mix, well maybe not so clever. I didnt say "those who approved", I said those who are making wild excuses for their actions and showing the seat of their pants.

Read my last post again, its the people who cant accept that war is difficult who are the ones running. They ALL liked it in the beginning, now that the slog has surfaced certain ones are slinking away with muttered whining about how great Iraq was under Saddam. If this struggle were along the lines of the Gulf War, you wouldnt be able to swing a cinnamon latte without hitting a liberal trying to hug a soldier or wave the flag.

Accept that this war is tough and get on with the process of winning it, pissing and moaning that you were duped simply makes you look like a petulant fool living in the past.

Oops, looks like there is more than one poster here who was fooled by the strange refresh algorithim. So solly!

Anyhoo, what astonishes me is the lack of reading comprehension on your part. I didnt say anyone should resign because of the current war situation, real-time battle plans have a natural seesaw to them, I was referring to those who are wildly refusing to take responsibility for their own acquiescence.

Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, Levin...all the usual suspects who years ago thundered about Saddam Hussein being such a threat are now claiming they were unwittingly duped into voting for military action. If they claim this then they should resign, do you want a political representative who can have their vote so easily swayed on something so serious as war?

I hear the dems bloviate about the misgivings they had before the war, yet they went along with the tide seemingly aware that it would turn out as it did. That makes them either stupid or ethically corrupt. This has nothing to do with the current situation in Iraq, because again, if the war were going well Levin and Kennedy would be elbowing each other out of the way to gain a photo-op with Bush.

As a politician you can have regrets about your decisions, just dont grumble and whine that your purportedly superior intellect which is good enough to make decisions about American tax and social policy was somehow co-opted to approve a war. Get on with winning a war that cant be undone.

Cyber must work for the NYT, his selective choice of Ford's statements qualify him as lead editor.

More of President Ford:

'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 (Ford) observed, "but we shouldn't have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake."

Are those the 'damning' Ford statements about the war to which you were referring?

No, in fact, Horsey. I was thinking more of this:

"I don't think I would have gone to war," he said in July 2004, a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously.

In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Dick Cheney--Ford's White House chief of staff--and then-Defense Secretary Donald 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."

Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

"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 No. 1, 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."

About Vice President Dick Cheney, Ford’s former chief of staff: "He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," Ford said. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as vice president. He said he agreed with former Secretary of State Colin Powell's assertion that Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. "I think that's probably true."

That stuff. Any more questions?

Cyber,

And that is a nice opinion of the late President's...and it has as much affect as your opinion, or mine. As for my opinion, I would have staked our liberation of Iraq on the clear and consistent Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease fire...but President Bush, prevailed upon by Tony Blair, decided to use the WMD issue to attempt to get the UN on board. I also would have gone sooner, with a smaller force...and that seems to have been the original plan but, once again, the need to try and get the UN on board delayed matters and so we went later, with a larger force.

What you are trying to do is to say that since Gerald Ford took issue with Bush Administration policies, that Ford is a genuis and Bush (and supporters) are dunces. What it really amounts to is Ford hold the arguable position that we shouldn't have gone in to liberate Iraq - a position that I think is wrong and, much more importantly, Presidents Clinton and Bush, and Congressonal majorities in 1998 and 2002, thought wrong.

Meanwhile, we're there - and the question to be asked of you is: do you want us to win, or to lose? Ford wanted us to win.

Bigfoot,

I'd also put it that all too many of our political leaders - especially among the critics, think that the Iraq campaign only affects the United States and Iraq...countries all around the world, for good or ill, have a stake in what happens in Iraq...our success is the success of all forces of good, our loss would be the victory of the forces of evil, not just in Iraq, but all around the world. Small, friendly States which look to us for protection are worried that we might scuttle Iraq...and then these small States will have a choice to make: cut a deal with the forces of evil, or trust an American which just cut and ran from Iraq?

Horsey? LOL, schools in your area are still on Christmas break, I see.

Just one question as long as youre asking; which Ford should we believe, the one you are desperately trying to portray as THE source for Iraq war insight or the one who conveys not disapproval of the war itself but rather the basis on which it was justified?

If you read both of the statements we provide, you will see he supports getting rid of Hussein, just not framing the war as a WMD concern.

BTW, Ford also said this about Cheney as a person, rather than as a administration member: "Dick's a classy guy, but he's not an electrified orator."

"I don't think, if I had been president -- on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly --

As he saw them "publicly," Cyberasshat. Way to cherry-pick. It's what you do.

BTW, I know a whole lot of libs who totally agree with the President's stance on Iraq. They totally agree that it was a great move to topple Saddam, as he was a supporter, host, and trainer to terrorists. These libs, and I know lots, living here in the People's Republic of Maryland, are behind this administration, because even they admit that you can't handle these Islamist thugs with frisbees in the park and flowers in your hair.

BTW, not only does Obama-sama have big ears, Cindy Sheehan has a huge nose...

*Chuckles*

Have I mentioned I like the name change Keefer? :)

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC

I look forward to seeing what Yon has to say again. It's nice to see a reporter who goes out into the field and talks to the troops. Asks them what they think and actually publishes it. While I still prefer to hear things from the soldiers themsevles (It's easy when you work near/on a military base.) seeing it published helps.

BTW, I know a whole lot of libs who totally agree with the President's stance on Iraq.

keefer

Right-wing Republicans do not hold the patent on ignorance.

Right-wing Republicans do not hold the patent on ignorance.

Ya see? No matter how you present the debate, the libs will ALWAYS fall back on "yeah, but youre just stupid." Its the default statement for those who run out of insight, a cheap way to modify lack of intellect I suppose.

Bongos, CO has been trying, unsuccessfully, for about two years, to make me agree with him on Bush and Iraq. I never have, and never will, because CO's a Canadian creep who's only here to instigate. He's got this big ego, and can't satisy it in bed with his two toy-boys. Disregard the fool; he's a lobotomized lib clone...

"Bongos, CO has been trying, unsuccessfully, for about two years, to make me agree with him on Bush and Iraq. I never have, and never will"

keefer

The majority of your fellow Americans have changed their opinion on Bush and his failed policies, because they possess the intelligence to do so. And, keefer, 'never say never'.

As much as I admired President Ford...
I believe he was wrong in another area...the Soviet Union...Reagan was right.

Once again CO you attack the intelligence of those who disagree with you. An awfully immature tactic which does nothing to prove you're correct.

Once again CO you attack the intelligence of those who disagree with you. An awfully immature tactic which does nothing to prove you're correct.

What do you expect, Gozer? CO's a kook, probably hopped-up on Horse, lying around with his two lovers. His country, just like Europe, is being overrun by extremists, and he chooses to ignore it and attack our country's policies. He's clearly ashamed of his nation's inability to stop the extremists. Soon, he'll move south, where he can mooch off of America for protection.

In other words, CO is a wuss, a keyboard ranger. Harmless as a daisy, a real girly-man...

Coupla things, Mark:

First, you mention how just about everybody wanted to see Saddam Hussein toppled prior to the war and you're absolutely correct. True, we had him contained and he posed no real threat to us but, yes indeedy, he was a bad guy and it was a good idea to get rid of him if we could.

So the real question is: Did we do it right? When we invaded Iraq, did we do so in a way that allowed us to win the war, give the Iraqis their freedom and squelch any insurgency that may have popped up? The answer, of course, is no. At every turn, this Administration made fatal errors- by sending too few soldiers in the first place, by disbanding the Iraqi army, by ousting all the Baathists, by invading with too few allies to share the burden, by muffing the occupation, allowing the looting, the utter collapse of the infrastructure...on and on and on. The list of mistakes is endless.

So when you ask me "Do you want to win?" the answer is self evident. I wanted us to win three years ago and that opportunity was blown. So, for all intents and purposes, thanks to these many blunders, we've already lost. I'm not happy about it (though you like to claim that the left delights in America's defeat) and, in fact, it angers me that our country now appears so weak that countries that should fear us (i.e. North Korea and Iran) instead take advantage of the current situation by thumbing their noses at us.

From the very start, victory was attainable. But in order to achieve it, we had to be smart. Bush and his crew were not. And so here we are.

Now a question for you: Do you really think that we conducted the invasion and the occupation properly? Or is it possible that poor decisions at the outset of the war led to the current disaster?

I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting your answer.