Gerald Ford: Kick him when he's dead [corrected]

Comments

8 comments posted
Anyone

that was paying attention would know that Gerald Ford was never Speaker of the House, that he was an appropriator that had very little to do with foreign policy, and that he let Kissinger, Scowcroft, and Rumsfeld do his foreign policy, while he focused on cleaning out Nixon's political operatives and getting the economy on a better footing.

You also might note Ford's assent to Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, the continuation of Operation Condor under his watch, the dirty war in Angola, and several other deeply cynical and anti-democratic policies.

BooMan's picture
Posted by BooMan (not verified) on 28 December 2006 - 2:12pm
You are absolutely right about Speaker

A totally lame error on my part. It was his ambition, but of course it wasn't going to happen with a Democratic Congress.

Nevertheless, I never said Ford was a saint, just better than your average Republican you find today -- and many Democrats as well. If Ford were living his political life today, the DNC would be all over trying to recruit him. Such is how politics has skewed so much over the recent decades.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 28 December 2006 - 3:13pm
I'd agree with you

and if you read the total of my comments on Ford yesterday you'd know that I was very reluctant to criticize him the day after he died. I did, however, want to make a point about the coverage.

BooMan's picture
Posted by BooMan (not verified) on 28 December 2006 - 5:17pm
Presidents die saints

Witness the love-fest over Reagan when he passed. I confess I did not see your other posts. Technorati does not cross-reference. Thanks for your comments here.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 29 December 2006 - 11:34am
nice. real nice.

"In a 2004 interview with Bob Woodward, reported Thursday night on The Washington Post’s Web site, Mr. Ford offered another, less lofty motive for the pardon: his friendship with Nixon, which lasted for two decades after the pardon and which letters show was closer than publicly understood.

“I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon,” Mr. Ford told Mr. Woodward, “because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn’t want to see my real friend have the stigma.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/washington/29par...

bernadene's picture
Posted by bernadene (not verified) on 29 December 2006 - 5:11pm
he was partisan all the way, and allowed, made way for, the

criminals we have now.

evidence:
"And only recently he stated his unbridled opposition to Bush's war on Iraq"

why was this announcement to be made ONLY AFTER HE DIED? if he had one shred of integrity and true honesty, if he was a true "Eisenhower Republican" whom the neocons resemble only by the title and the criminals that vote R or have R after their name in Congress, that support them, he would have made the announcement as soon as he thought of it. dispicable. he was partisan and cared more for POWER, albiet that of the party, than honesty. a true kind and gentle person does not let other people's lust for power and control decide the actions they take in behalf of a moral decision. So his idea of the wrongness of Iraq is TACTICLE in nature, political. or dishonest. "unbridled"? read the statemnt again, it says nothing about even that it WAS WRONG. either way he was aiding and abetting the slaughter, maiming, pilliage and burning of thousands of true innocents.

i did not say or even imply that he was of neocon ilk. he allowed and actually encouraged what has happened today by letting Nixon get away with what he did. and being partisan before decent. like the Republicans today.

i was an adult at the time of the pardon, and to see the events unfold in this way, is not a pretty sight.

bernadene's picture
Posted by bernadene (not verified) on 29 December 2006 - 3:59pm
This logic is akin to blaming 9/11 on Clinton

Blaming Ford for the Iraq disaster doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry. (I'm also not sure what you mean by "tacticle" -- tactical? How is it tactical?)

Why should I attack Ford for not speaking out against the war, when we have a majority of Senators and a majority of Representatives who supported the war? Ford has been irrelevant since January 20, 1977.

As for the Nixon pardon, I'm not convinced that trying him would have changed anything. It certainly wouldn't have prevented Cheney and Rumsfeld from continuing their rise within the party. Again, it's ancient history in today's political scene.

I just find it ironic that a third of the Democratic caucus stands to the right of Ford, yet they enjoy endorsements from people who attack Ford.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 29 December 2006 - 6:49pm
In all fairness...

Some of us have been critical of Ford for a very long time because of the horror of his alliance with Indonesia in the invasion of East Timor. They slaughtered 1/3 of the population. The media has yet to mention that, however, just as they failed to mention all the barbaric and racist things Reagan did, or that Rehnquist was a drug addict. Everyone who had power and who dies suddenly has a sqeaky clean record.

I wasn't all that thrilled with Ford's cowboy rescue of the kidnapped crew, either. Without trying anything else, he just sent in the Marines, resulting in many deaths--more than the number of men kidnapped. But most people thought that was a great thing to do.

The attacks on Ford from the right wing are to be expected. At this point in the Republican Party, anyone pre-Reagan was a sissy and opened the door to "those people."

Diane's picture
Posted by Diane (not verified) on 31 December 2006 - 12:27pm