Ford Disagreed With Bush on Iraq

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is an interesting article where President Ford gives his views on the Iraq invasion. He is critical of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372929/

This is interesting for me because this is about the fourth person that has implied that Cheney has become much more combatitive than he used to be. All have worked with him in the past.

And I still must repeat my impression of the war.

1. We went to war to eliminate WMD's, not to free anyone.

2. AFTER we found no WMD's, we undertook this "get rid of Saddam free the people line" and we were woefully unprepared. We had a very large number of people spread out looking for WMD's. But we had nowhere near the manpower to accomplish "lets get the Democracy machine working apparatus ready to go". If there was, we would have had many more troops ready to take over institutions and prepare ASAP to handover the institutions to Iraqis.

3. By the time we realized what a huge task we had undertaken, we had released chaos by creating a huge power vacuum.

4. The thought now is we cannot leave immediately because we have caused a huge mess. We must make an attempt to create some sort of government that can bring some sort of order and let the Iraqi's take over from there.

This is why I dont get the war was a mistake. The mistake was there were no WMD's. So mission accomplished. We feared an attack, and there was no hint of an attack against us. Leave and let the greatful Iraqi's take over the collateral damage of removing Saddam. And thats where it went amiss. There was no real exit plan because we did not intend to free anyone in the first place. That became the new purpose after we found no WMD's.

What am I missing? I was living here reading the papers... Am I the only one that witnessed the shift in purpose?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

What am I missing? I was living here reading the papers... Am I the only one that witnessed the shift in purpose?

A good point. I do remember the gradual turn it took once we gave up on WMDs -- it went from "attacking them there before they attack us here" to "getting rid of a cruel tyrant."

Those are two very different reasons.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is an interesting article where President Ford gives his views on the Iraq invasion. He is critical of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372929/

Interesting article. Ford was an interesting guy. Turned down being Reagan's VP.

The '76 election he lost to Carter was very close. If he had won that election, chances are very good the "Reagan Revolution" would never have happened and the political landscape of the last 25-30 years would have been much different.

RIP Gerald Ford.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

This is interesting for me because this is about the fourth person that has implied that Cheney has become much more combatitive than he used to be. All have worked with him in the past.

And I still must repeat my impression of the war.

1. We went to war to eliminate WMD's, not to free anyone.

2. AFTER we found no WMD's, we undertook this "get rid of Saddam free the people line" and we were woefully unprepared. We had a very large number of people spread out looking for WMD's. But we had nowhere near the manpower to accomplish "lets get the Democracy machine working apparatus ready to go". If there was, we would have had many more troops ready to take over institutions and prepare ASAP to handover the institutions to Iraqis.

3. By the time we realized what a huge task we had undertaken, we had released chaos by creating a huge power vacuum.

4. The thought now is we cannot leave immediately because we have caused a huge mess. We must make an attempt to create some sort of government that can bring some sort of order and let the Iraqi's take over from there.

This is why I dont get the war was a mistake. The mistake was there were no WMD's. So mission accomplished. We feared an attack, and there was no hint of an attack against us. Leave and let the greatful Iraqi's take over the collateral damage of removing Saddam. And thats where it went amiss. There was no real exit plan because we did not intend to free anyone in the first place. That became the new purpose after we found no WMD's.

What am I missing? I was living here reading the papers... Am I the only one that witnessed the shift in purpose?

I think there were actually numerous reasons why we invaded Iraq: 1. I think they thought Saddam had WMDs. 2. I think they thought Saddam was a long-term threat to the region, even if he wasn't an imminent threat. 3. I think they thought he was trying to develop nuclear weapons. They didn't really know what the time-table was for him geting them, but even if it was 10 years, they figured we would be much better off taking care of him now because it would be too late in 10 years. 4. Another reason we invaded was because Saddam was not agreeing with the terms of the cease-fire of the first Persian Gulf War. He was shooting at our planes over the no-fly zone. He wasn't cooperating with the inspectors. Etc.

Anyway, there were numerous reasons as to why we invaded Iraq. 5. We thought that a democracy could work in Iraq and having a democracy there would be a huge positive for the region. 6. I think the human rights element gave them an additional justification for invading. You had a guy(Saddam) who was murdering tens of thousands of people.

So I think there were numerous reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam. I think that all these reasons were in fact mentioned. However, when you're trying to sell something, it can be more effective to focus on your most powerful selling point. Focusing on your most powerful selling point is usually more effective than focusing on 8 different selling points. I think the Administration thought their best selling point to the Amercian people was the WMDs. And I think the Administration believed there were WMDs. But I don't think that WMDs were the only reason they went into Iraq.

You cannot win a war like the one in Iraq these days. There are too many rules and human rights that come into play. But this adminstration did not have a plan at all. A failed plan is better than no plan at all.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Ford's crtiticism of the Iraq war actually got quite a bit of press on the news tonight. They were talking about it on the ABC news. George Stephanopolis talked about it for a while. They also had Bob Woodward on because he was the one who did the interview with Ford.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think there were actually numerous reasons why we invaded Iraq: 1. I think they thought Saddam had WMDs. 2. I think they thought Saddam was a long-term threat to the region, even if he wasn't an imminent threat. 3. I think they thought he was trying to develop nuclear weapons. They didn't really know what the time-table was for him geting them, but even if it was 10 years, they figured we would be much better off taking care of him now because it would be too late in 10 years. 4. Another reason we invaded was because Saddam was not agreeing with the terms of the cease-fire of the first Persian Gulf War. He was shooting at our planes over the no-fly zone. He wasn't cooperating with the inspectors. Etc.

Anyway, there were numerous reasons as to why we invaded Iraq. 5. We thought that a democracy could work in Iraq and having a democracy there would be a huge positive for the region. 6. I think the human rights element gave them an additional justification for invading. You had a guy(Saddam) who was murdering tens of thousands of people.

So I think there were numerous reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam. I think that all these reasons were in fact mentioned. However, when you're trying to sell something, it can be more effective to focus on your most powerful selling point. Focusing on your most powerful selling point is usually more effective than focusing on 8 different selling points. I think the Administration thought their best selling point to the Amercian people was the WMDs. And I think the Administration believed there were WMDs. But I don't think that WMDs were the only reason they went into Iraq.

The American people were given reason #1 (and reason #3 which falls under reason #1). We went in with huge numbers of units to detect biological weapons (which could be highly mobile facilities) and those searching for various gases, etc... The British clearly went with us because of reason #1. I dont think I read anything about the British wanting to nation build.

We were therefore woefully unprepared for #5 and #6, and by the type of forces sent in, we had NO plans for #5 and #6.

The other reasons were lauded well after #1 detected nothing (except a few minor gases that were far from ready to be launched)

[lg1965]

we went in there to remove him. wmd is a selling point to the american public. saddam was the most volatile of all the opec members, and he could no longer be trusted with the responsibility of overseeing 7% of opec's oil production. whether the u.s. invasion was supported by france, germany, britain, russia, or china is neither here nor there. the real fact is you don't hear the saudi's saying a single word. now isn't that strange? last i remember, there were quite a few muslims in saudi arabia. alot of arabs there, too. i think the ruling family might even have those kinds of leanings. so, is the battle between christian and muslim? is it between arab and jew? naah! it's about keeping the black goo moving.

now, there is a battle between terrorist and "civilized", but iraq isn't that battlefield. the "war on terrorism" is the old have-nots against the have's battle that will rage forever. it's kind of like the movie "diehard". the thiefs go into the building, making a statement about freeing this group and that group, but all they're really doing is re-distributing wealth.

remember, most zealots, whether they're zealotry is for allah or democracy, are unwitting puppets. while the terrorists go out and blow themselves up, and the freedom fighters go out and impose their will on others, there are those that "represent" them, sitting at negotiating tables picking up the loose change.


the saudi's silence speaks more than the loudest blusterings.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

we went in there to remove him. wmd is a selling point to the american public. saddam was the most volatile of all the opec members, and he could no longer be trusted with the responsibility of overseeing 7% of opec's oil production. whether the u.s. invasion was supported by france, germany, britain, russia, or china is neither here nor there. the real fact is you don't hear the saudi's saying a single word. now isn't that strange? last i remember, there were quite a few muslims in saudi arabia. alot of arabs there, too. i think the ruling family might even have those kinds of leanings. so, is the battle between christian and muslim? is it between arab and jew? naah! it's about keeping the black goo moving.

now, there is a battle between terrorist and "civilized", but iraq isn't that battlefield. the "war on terrorism" is the old have-nots against the have's battle that will rage forever. it's kind of like the movie "diehard". the thiefs go into the building, making a statement about freeing this group and that group, but all they're really doing is re-distributing wealth.

remember, most zealots, whether they're zealotry is for allah or democracy, are unwitting puppets. while the terrorists go out and blow themselves up, and the freedom fighters go out and impose their will on others, there are those that "represent" them, sitting at negotiating tables picking up the loose change.


the saudi's silence speaks more than the loudest blusterings.

The Saudis were scared to death of Saddam. They viewed him as a real threat just like Kuwait viewed him as a real threat. They wanted him out of there as bad as anyone.