Login Here 
(Image via Salon.)
Gee, that Bob Woodward fellow knows a lot of interesting stuff. Like things that, had he reported them earlier, might have stopped a war, or changed an election.
Woodward's latest late disclosure consists of statements by the late President Gerald Ford that Ford strongly disagreed with Bush about going to war with Iraq. The "scoop" is in today's Washington Post.
Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush 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 Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. 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." . . .
"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 number one, 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."
Of course, it's not uncommon or unethical for reporters to interview famous people about sensitive matters on the condition that the information will not be disclosed until much later, like after the person's death. I'm okay with that.
But when a reporter is in possession of information that is vital to the country, that might change whether we go to war or whom we elect for president, and the only reason for withholding the information is to protect the person interviewed from embarrassing his own party -- well, there must be some other principle that applies, don'tcha think? And doesn't a reporter then have an obligation to work his butt off to obtain permission or find some ethical way to report what he knows when we need to know it? Just askin, cause this is getting to be a habit, and it's . . . uh, annoying.
Thanks to Christy for the great pics this a.m.
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Fitz!
But when a reported is in possession of information that is vital to the country, that might change whether we go to war or whom we elect for president, and the only reason for withholding the information is to protect the person interviewed from embarrassing his own party — well, there must be some other principle that applies, don’tcha think?
Journalists don’t care about stuff like that. They care about their ratings, salaries, awards, cocktail weenies, stuff like that.
This seems to me to be another example of Republican cowardice, unwilling to speak out against their own machinery. When do we ever hear of a Democrat secretly disagreeing with Democratic leadership and hiding their opinion lest it upset the policy makers?
Ford showed a lack of leadership by voicing his disagreements to Woodward but keeping it secret until he died. Wise Old Men of Washington my ass. More like scaredy cats afraid of standing on principle.
Fitz! On Dial-up, even.
puppethead @ 3
It’s not unusual for former Presidents to refrain from openly criticizing the incumbent — but on serious matters, they find a way to express there concerns — especially when asked. My problem is that the media, not must Woodward, apparently didn’t ask on the record.
Sorry to disagree, but it was Ford’s choice whether to make his comments public, not Woodward’s. Without the embargo agreement Ford would not have said anything. If you want to blame somebody for not speaking out, blame Ford and the rest of the Wise Old Men.
You can also blame the Washington Democrats for thinking that they could vote for the Iraq War in 2003 and then win elections by concentrating on “Domestic Issues.” Oh, and don’t forget Fox News, CNN and the New York Times, et al, for cheering on the invasion.
Plenty of blame to go around on this one.
Woody for the last three decades has forgotten the difference between news and history. The WaPo and its readers are the worse for it.
Ford never served in the Texas Air National Guard, so what did he really know about war or military strategy? Now, be quiet while the Decider is deciding!
Earl Scheib @ 6
my sentiments exactly.
(love your paint jobs, btw)
Bob Woodward is a sociopath, but not in the same sense as Bushit Co. and fiends.
Bob Woodward is a sociopathic narcissist in the same vein as Ozzie Osborn, who as rumor would have it, had several ribs removed so he could contort himself so as to be able to perform a certain act of self gratification.
Yes, Bob loves himself That Much.
Woodward loves to blow his own horn, as often as it is convenient and properly aggrandizing to his cosmically enlarged (engorged) self image.
The WaPoo indulges his Woodyship because that is what they (as a collective) would love to do for themselves.
My only ray of hope is that the Internet, which is functioning as humanity’s unerasable memory bank at this point, will keep playing back this type of perverted behavior to the world at large.
The MSM is slowly realizing to it’s abject horror that there is actually a record, a narritive if you will, that is beyond their control to shape or control.
The Neo-Cons historic concesssion of writing and revising history is also slipping from their grubby little fingers, causing panic in the rank ranks of the ruling oligarchs.
What a pity to lose control of the narrative, after throwing all that cake at ‘Media Consolidation’.
The good news and the bad news for the likes of Bobby Woodyward is summed up from that old pearl from the summer of 68 in Chicago:
“The Whole World is Watching, the Whole World is Watching”
You Toob for the You Boob.
Earl Scheib @ 6
Yes, it was Ford’s condition that Woodward was honoring. But it is also Woodward’s obligation as a reporter to find ways to report what he knows in a timely manner. I’m not suggesting that Woodward break his word to Ford. But when he comes into possession of critical information whose disclosure may have an effect in real time, what should he do? At this point, Woodward would have known that a former Republican president had serious misgivings about the choices and judgment of the current President. Does a reporter not have an obligation to explore that story with others in that Administration, including those who might have known Ford’s views, and then report what he finds?
I dont’disagree that others also failed here.
Scarecrow — Being able to get The Peanut to preschool without having to tie myself in knots to get back and put a post up this morning? Priceless. You are spoiling me. :) And I very much appreciate it. Just wanted to say so here.
I wonder if it ever occurred to Bob Woodward to even ask again if they could go on the record — or if it was all about maintaining his relationship with Ford, and not risking even asking in case it would put him out of favor? The fact that I keep asking myself that question, over and over, about Woodward is irritating enough — but the fact that his actions and his own statements have raised that question in the first place ought to have people at the WaPo asking questions as well.
morning scarecrow! and firepups!
Earl Scheib @ 6
of course…. but in this case woodward’s got two problems. one is that he has a conflict of interest: keeping all these “embargoed” interviews in his pocket gives him leverage over the wapo (and possibly others). second, woodward has made quite a habit of keeping important info to himself and releasing it timed to best advance his own interests - not the public’s right to know.
makes it look verrrry possible that even if ford hadn’t insisted on embargoing the interview… woodward would have preferred it. did woodward ever ask permission to release some of this? with woodward’s history, i doubt it.
Scarecrow @ 11
I had the same feeling when Bush at War was published. I wanted to know why this information was not on the front page of the Washington Post in real time. The answer is that Woodward stopped being an investigative reporter a long time ago, and the Washington Post stopped being a reliable source of political news simultaneously. I’m not sure why — greed seems the obvious answer — but I just don’t know.
The Washington Post of the Watergate years is gone with the wind. I’ve accepted that and moved on.
According to LBJ, Ford played too much football wearing a leather helmet. But the comments attributed to Ford by Woodward show him to be a genius compared to today’s centrist democrats and liberal media.
There are numerous, too numerous, ways for a reporter to get the word out to the street, if they really wish to. Some are ethical, others, not so much.
If you knew a crime was going to be committed, say, invading a COUNTRY on false pretenses, would you honor the privacy privilege?
Or how about if Woody knew that Valerie Plame would be outted?
This sounds similar to a discussion a group of women clergy had years ago about reporting child abuse in a state where breaking the clergy-”penitant” confidentiality was actionable by law and we could be held liable for breaking it even to report the abuse. As a group we decided that we would find some way to let the authorities know. We needed to do that for the sake of the child. Haven’t checked up on all of the laws now to see if they changed, but in that state at that time that’s what we were given to deal with.
Again, we would have found some creative way to get the word out to someone who could have done something about it.
What with all the Ford hagiography going on, will be interesting to see how war-supporting Republicans handle this little gem.
I’m usually with you, but I can’t say I agree on this one.
But when a reported is in possession of information that is vital to the country, that might change whether we go to war or whom we elect for president…
I think you give the Ford interview too much credit. A couple of dozen diplomats, et al., publicly rebuked Bush and the Iraq War in 2004 and it got no traction. Many serious people whose credibility and capabilities were not questioned at all (prior to their criticism) were critical of the Bush administration and the Iraq War and still Bush sort of won (we don’t need to go into the whole voting machines thing here).
Had the interview been published at the time, it would have been answered by the noise machine calling Ford senile, saying he should be dead already, and so on. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the noise machine to turn what he said into a story about the noise machine attacking him. They would have said he was rude, that you shouldn’t criticize a sitting president during a war, that we are safer, that Ford is 91 years old and his brain isn’t so good anymore, and so on. I don’t for one second believe that the Ford interview would have altered the election results. I also don’t believe that what he said was “vital to the country”. A lot of people said what Ford said at the time, so this wasn’t secret information. The entire story devolves to “a former Republican president was critical of the Iraq War”. The interview contained no new insights and is only notable because it was Ford saying it. I don’t find anything in there “vital”.
Woodward would not have access to so much information if he had a reputation for outing it. As I see it, “better late than never.” The glass is half full.
mandrake @ 19
are there any war supporting Republicans left besides McCain and Lieberman?
Just the post I was hoping to find this morning! Exactly so. The moral equivalency game the cocktail weenie set plays to stay cozy is morally bankrupt.
Yesterday, listening to Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell make references to brunches with Cabinet officials and dinners and family sleepovers with former presidents, well, conflict of interest doesn’t even begin to describe it. Liek calling Everest an anthill.
Saddest of all, each of these people [I will call them journalists no more] have likely totally rationalized that “they” are somehow un-coopted, uncorrupted, that they magically found some way to dance the tightrope, that they can “do their jobs.”
B.S.
Props this morning to John Edwards–go for it!
And to Prince Harry…more cojones than all of Bush’s administration and “war cabinet” put together.
What Woodwart has done is a crime in my book because he essentially drove the get away car while ‘the real bad guys’ accidentily murdered the bank guard in the course of ‘their job’
The war in Iraq is a CRIME folks, not simply a ‘bad’ decision.
Woodwart was instrumental in his Omissions in allowing it to proceed smoothly.
Good morning, Christy — happy to help. Enjoyed talking to the Peanut; did she help find the picture?
What real-time effect? The interview was in July 2004, over a year after the war had begun. In any event, lots of old-Guard Republicans like Scowcroft spoke up against the war before it began, to no avail.
As for Woodward, if he wants to assure that nobody will ever speak to him again, he could have adopted Scarecrow’s course to action. Not that Woodward’s sources drying up and him having nothing to write would be a bad thing, necessarily.
Scarecrow @
11
Ask Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. I imagine they have some thoughts on the matter.
norbizness @ 26
The information that a former Republican President had serious misgivings about the war was relevant to the public debate in 2004. Of course this was too late to prevent the 2003 invasion. But this kind of information might have affected the public debate about what to do next. Would it have changed a thing? I don’t know. But I don’t think we can resolve the issue I’m raising in hindsight, by saying that there were other voices raised but the Bush folks didn’t listen to them either, so what does it matter. If the media takes that position, there seems little point in having them.
There is actually a reason that the word ‘new’ is in the word ‘news’, believe it or not.
For the most part, what Woodwart is passing off is not new, or news for that matter.
What gems of ‘not new news’ will Booby treat his adoring subjects to in the future?
You see, Booby knew the Moon was actually not made of green cheese years ago, he was just waiting for the right moment to spring it on us.
“What is past is prologue”
“What is Woodward is past prologue”
I believe the technical term for Woodward’s actions would be unindicted co-conspirator in many other situations.
Respect the confidentiality requested at nearly all cost but always with a good measure of common sense. Ford’s words would’ve had no effect earlier.
Reporters, bleah!
The Edward R. Murrow days are well and gone behind the horizon and leaving not so much as a pale reflection upon the darkening sky. We are left with these darkling luminaries to light up the airwaves, and they are a bleak and dreary lot. Who trusts these people any more? Who ever did? I guess I could make a case for blame against Murrow for allowing us to think there was ever honor in the profession.
I offer this, as exhibit A, as example of the most obsequious, posthumous, necrophiliac brown nosing I’ve come across, (and there have been many).
So Gerald Ford was unwilling to publicly oppose the war until after he was dead. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that he won’t be getting a profile-in-courage for this one.
montag, if you’re around, thank you indeed for the moon article. It is long, yes. but it clarifies a lot about the shift in the media. All the news money can buy, indeed.
Ford, Carter and Clinton should have been speaking out in loud voices, repeatedly, egged on by self-styled reporters. The voice from the galaxy of White House “formers” I heard protesting the war was that of former Vice President Al Gore; with no thanks for that to the MSM but with all thanks due MoveOn.
I’ve put a new thread upstairs.
Thanks for all the interesting responses. Several of you think Woodward had no further obligation to try to report the “news” when it was “news.” I respect that. However, one reason is intriguing:
It wouldn’t have made any difference, because Bush doesn’t listen anyway. [so should reporters just stop asking other officials what they think and reporting it?]
I’ll leave it at that and see you upstairs.
Agree that without the promise of confidentiality Ford WOULDN’T HAVE SAID IT TO WOODWARD. Also agree that if Woodward violated his oath he’d never get any more background or off the record information. I don’t much care for Woodward, but I don’t blame him for this one.
Two Scarecrows? Hm.
Maybe he ran himself thru a xerox machine.
are there any war supporting Republicans left besides McCain and Lieberman?
Cheney/Rove.
I agree, Ford’s words would have been disregarded.
Does this mean that nobody should have bothered to speak out, ‘on the record’, because they too would have been disregarded?
If you didn’t go on the record before the invasion of Iraq, I don’t give a rat’s ass what someone says their opinion really was back then.
Self serving to the extreme comes to mind.
How do you hold anyone accountable if they don’t go ‘on record’ Before events?
What exactly does Booby do for a living? Sit on information until it is of no use, and then tell everyone?
1,377 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Gentleman Jim and the Firepup Patriots:
“The war in Iraq is a CRIME folks, not just a bad decision.”
And that is the point we are reaching already and the investigations haven’t even started yet. There is no way out for Bushco but to attempt to expand the war and keep the resources of the country from bein’ brought to bear on the problem… which is, of course, Bushco.
The Chimperor and his sycophant enablers have no safe exit and that is why none of ‘em includin’ Bob Woodward will go quietly into that good night. The whole rotten bunch of ‘em are all tied up in this together - Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, the neocons, Mrs. Clinton, Joe Likuderman, Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden. The only Democrat to successfully recant his support for this fiasco and save his political career is John Edwards and I sure as hell won’t vote for ‘im.
This whole thing is unraveling and nobody can get control of it…the investigations are gunna expose enough shit that the corporate media will not be able to deoderize it. And given that there is no safe exit for the perpetrators of all this criminal activity, they will go down and take the whole country with ‘em. God damn their eyes!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER, GOD IS WATCHIN’!!!
mandrake @ 38
Cheney/Rove.
We don’t know if the Bush family supports the war. We do know that they won’t serve. In either case, it may be because, as royalty, they don’t involve themselves with commoners.
Where is the honor in withholding vital information due confidentiality if the motive is personal profit? When someone inhabits an area of conflict of interest for their profession, the intent is always questioned. The vital and timely information that Woodward received in his dual role as WaPo reporter and independent author appears to have been held for future personal gain over exposure for public good.
mandrake @ 19
The newscast hagiography is what struck me as out of proportion to Ford’s importance. Yes, he was a President, and yes he seemed a decent guy, but he was hardly a Great Man of history. Then it occurred to me that among TV journalists, at least, there is a disturbingly ardent devotion to Presidents (Republicans at least). You’d think they were venerating the Sun King. The Bush-idolatry is perhaps just a particularly acute form of President-worship.
I appreciate the general anger at Woodward, but doubt anything Ford could have said would have turned the tide. Btw, Ford didnt need Woddward to make his opinion public.
As for Woodward, he stopped being an intrepid journalist eons ago, as we know. I don’t know if anybody would have paid Ford any attention back in 2004 anyway.
The war was still “fresh and new and exciting,” just like a revolutionary new kitchen gadget or deoderant. Things had not gotten quite horrifying enough for the public to wake themselves from their war delirium.
But, this just adds to the drip-drip of Iraq war criticism . Every lil drop counts! (hope)
The newscast hagiography is what struck me as out of proportion to Ford’s importance. Yes, he was a President, and yes he seemed a decent guy, but he was hardly a Great Man of history. Then it occurred to me that among TV journalists, at least, there is a disturbingly ardent devotion to Presidents (Republicans at least). You’d think they were venerating the Sun King. The Bush-idolatry is perhaps just a particularly acute form of President-worship.
The Reagan spectacle was the most egregious and nauseating of all thus far. If Ford is the Sun King, what would that have made Reagan?
punchlines, please
Morning everyone. Wonderful discussion to start the day. Thanks AGAIN, Scarecrow!
Christy. Are you lurking there anywhere?
I’ve only had one decent viewing of that Eisenhower Foundation conference you attended, but it seems to me one of the presenters dealt with some of these problems really well.
The fella who did a really good job explaining what MSM has become, and why it’s not working well at all - e.g., profits a la Wall Street being the only game these days, and that warping the whole basis & function of news media.
Sorry to be bumbli-vague - I know it’s late, but I’m still sipping the 1st cuppa. *blush*
Is there a transcript of that conference? I’d love to revisit your comments, those of that guy I’m rememberizing, & a whole lot more.
p.s., glad you guys have arranged things so Christy doesn’t have to rush around like a maniac tending lil’ Peanut plus feeding us rabid firepups more raw chow in the mornings. it’s obvious this is going to be a long, long haul. we’d far rather everyone stays healthy, sane, and moderately happy for the duration. heaven knows, the daily news doesn’t provide much cheer…
FDL’s the absolute best. anything to keep it going(!) ;->
There are plenty of reasons to bash Woodward, the ultimate suck-up. But on this one, he made the right call. If someone gives you an interview based on a specific understanding which you agree to, you uphold the agreement. Sure, doing so helps Woodward, but it’s also your word. Your source has got to be able to trust you.
Would leaking the interview have made a difference on going to war? Don’t think so. Ford at that point just did not have the stature to make a real difference, IMHO.
mandrake 46
don’tcha think some of this incessant blabber about [Ford = “decent-man decent-man decent-man”], headache-commercial-style, comes as a direct rebuke to the lil’ brat now sitting in that oversize chair? At least, that’s what immediately occurred to me yesterday. Right off the bat, it seemed almost a slap in jr’s face. eh? or is that just wishful thinking on my part…
Adie at 47 — They are going to make transcripts available at some point soon. Am hoping to get a bit of a write-up about the conference later today for everyone — I’m hoping to finally get the time today to do the write-up for you all. As soon as transcripts are up, I’ll certainly link them.
Kimster @ 47
I think there are separate issues here. I never suggested that Woodward should violate his word and leak/report what Ford said despite the promise and condition. I agree that would have been unethical. But I”m asking whether a reporter’s obligation ends there.
If a reporter acquires information that is relevant to the moment, does he/she have a further obligation to continue looking for similar/confirming information (or seeking a release from Ford, in this case) that can be published in a timely fashion? I”m using the Woodward example to raise the issue, not simply to bash Woodward.
Nor do I disagree with those who believe that this news would not have made a difference at the time. Hindsight tells us that. But I don’t think that solves the issue of what a reported should do in real time.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 49
any video links? i’ve missed alot of posts recently - to say nothing of missing most of the comments :(
Christy. Thanks!
There was lots of fodder for discussion and future policy-corrections(!) in that conference.
You were dynomite. Your statement and comments were riveting, if you’ll pardon my tendency to gush. *g* It really tickled me to see other conferees paying such close attn to you also. You gave them an outstanding glimpse into why they need to pay attn to good blogs, and take them seriously. Bravo!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 50
I saw this conference and found it extremely enlightening! Just so happened it was repeated on CSPAN2 this morning and I was lucky enough to have been around to tape it.
I agree with Adie, this was an excellent conference and I was also so grateful to see and hear you speak for the first time. Most impressive! Excellent job of representing the blogging community. You sound like an incredibly busy woman and your energy must be boundless.
Thank you so much for doing what you do.
Selise at 52 — If you click on the Eisenhower Foundation link at the bottom of this C-Span page, you get a clip from the conference. I don’t know if there is any other clip available…but I found this via a Google search for you.
You guys are making me blush. It was an amazing conference, and I hope that I’ll be able to get a lot more information from the folks at the Eisenhower Foundation as their public discussions go forward on these issues this year — heading into the 40th anniversary of the Kerner Commission.
Adie @ 49
I think this is an interesting point. As a matter of fact, it DID occur to me. I’m not betting on it being intentional on the msm’s part, though.
selise @ 52
If you want to view tape of the Eisenhower Conf. (held Dec.12,06), C-Span 2 has been re-playing it on a pretty regular basis. Must have thot it was important - heh.
To catch Christy, make sure you see it from close to the beginning. The 1st 2 times I viewed it, I only got to see that distinctive redd-hedd from the back, & missed the comments.*grump*
Besides, lots of presenters were interesting, & their follow-up comments even more-so.
VERY worthwhile viewing imo.
Try this link:
http://www.c-span.org/VideoArc.....mp;Page=14
mandrake 57
agreed… it doesn’t seem calculated or intentional at all… it just sorta happened…
and intentional or not, the implication lurking in the back of everyone’s mind is floating out there, palpable…
that kind of thing is the sort of stuff for which rover used to be paid obscene gobs of $$$…
enjoy it for free, folks…
bar & pops in agony much(?) *yeeeouch*
hide the pretzels n’ booze, & better hand another happypill to pickles if she’s to be on camera anytime soon….
Thanks for the post and information, Scarecrow. Do we know for a fact that Ford ask that the information not be revealed??
Woodward did the nation a disservice. I can’t help but believe he held the information close because of his own need to “break” the story and claim the insider’s knowledge.
He got way to used to the intrigue surrounding “Deep Throat” and was pissed that he never got to “break” that news.
(jmo)
We’re talking about life and death and yes, Gentleman Jim– a CRIME.
Adie @ 59
One other thing we keeping hearing that will NOT work in our favor, to paraphrase: Ford helped the national heal by pardoning Nixon.
Hear that, future President?
woops, “nation”
Christy Hardin Smith @ 54 and Adie @ 57
thank you! i will rip an mp3 from the cspan stream so i can listen to it on my ipod!
delurking-
did anyone notice George (behold my wonderful hair) this morning on GMA saying, loosely quoting, could you imagine the impact this could have had on the runup to war, a former republican president saying this, golly gee!
By the way, Scarecrow, love your stuff.
I, too, agree that Woodward did as he should——honored the terms of his agreement with Ford for the interview.
I also doubt that Ford’s doubts, had they been made public, would have had any affect on the Bush administration’s determination to go to war.
I also believe that Judith Miller, whatever her shortcomings, did the right thing by protecting her (probably onerous) sources…and she went to prison for upholding her promise of anonymity. Of course, both the left and right hate her…
I think protecting a free press is important regardless of the politics of the story or the situation.
mandrake @
62
BUT, Nixon HAD ALREADY RESIGNED, & his powerbase was NIL - in shambles &/or jail, no?!
somehow, that makes a HEEEUUUUGE difference to me in re strategery. Jr. & that faceshooterfella MUST be removed from office, ASAP! append the “usual” imho, ianal, ymmv, ad lib. i’ll just sit here & stew over the consequences if it’s not done, & hold up looming world war, rampant poverty, global warming, etc. etc. etc. as justification for being so silly. You think jr & bigthyme have any intention of tackling those frivolous lil’ sidelights while amassing their $legacy$?
Apologies for rant - but this little game of “chicken” they’re playing will, without question, have enormous consequences. There’s only one fragile world involved here, trying to keep from going !BLOOOEY! If “we” don’t tackle some/all of these things, the world’s children will have no.legacy.at.all…. Z.E.R.O.
go ahead. tell me i’m wrong. please. *shudder*
FWIW: Here’s Bill Bennett’s take over at The Corner:
The Decent Thing [Bill Bennett]
Since “decency” seems to be the watchword of the day and the consensus modifier for Jerry Ford (a view with which I generally concur), may I nevertheless be permitted to ask this: just how decent, how courageous, is what Jerry Ford did with Bob Woodward? He slams Bush & Cheney to Woodward in 2004, but asks Woodward not to print the interview until he’s dead. 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? 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. The way Ford does it with Woodward, he doesn’t have to defend himself…he simply drops it into Bob Woodward’s tape recorder and let’s the bomb go off when fully out of range, himself. This is not courage, this is not decent. 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. There’s a 3. Don’t say anything critical of George Bush to Bob Woodward at all.
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.
Posted at 8:33 AM
Woodward didn’t push Ford to go on the record because at the time Woodward was very pro Bush. I’m sure he dismissed Ford as an old and not very bright, or important guy. Now that his bush love has bit him on the ass, he is trying to rehabilitate his image as an impartial journalist/historian/insider-that-still-matters by pulling out poor old Ford’s words on bush and Iraq. I wouldn’t be surprised if woodward suggested to Ford that it would be more seemly to (and politic) to put his criticism in a can until it couldn’t make a difference. If Iraq was going well and woodward was still feeling the bush love, Ford’s comment would only be a footnote in the next woodward’s ‘i love bush’ book.
July 2004 — that’d be right at the height of the Swift Boating versus Kerry.
Thing is, there’s no guarantee that the press would have given Ford’s comments anywhere near as much play or respect as the BLATANT AND OBVIOUS LIES of the SBVfTers. And we all know by now that nothing anyone says or does (short of a Khartoum-style massacre, and even THAT might not be enough) is going to convince Bush to pull our troops out of Iraq; shaming him won’t work, it’s been tried.
But coming out now will deflate any efforts by Bush to try to get a “bump” out of Ford’s death, and it might help some other Republicans to start backing Democratic plans for withdrawal.
Scarecrow @ 11
I am not a Woodward fan, however in this case, blame Ford before you blame Woodward. Besides which Ford’s opinion, had it been made public at the time, in July of 2004, would have been ignored as coming from a gaga 91 year-old, or, at best brushed off by the administration as the ramblings of a aging former president entitled to his opinion but who did not possess the info they had. Sound familiar? Released then, released now, it makes no difference.
This administration functions in a solitary echo chamber. Period.
and why does a former President who presumably cares about the best interests of the country refuse to let his viewpoint be known if it is at great variance with the destructive, idiotic, disastrous, oppressive “policies” (speaking generously)of boy-George? why “embargo” the interview for two years? aren’t these “great” men supposed to give a shit about the country or is it all protecting their class and looting the treasury?
Riesz Fischer @ 1
Countdown to January 22 when truth, justice and the american way determines with mis-remembering is a valid defense. Didn’t Scooter go to Columbia Law School? In what section does Columbia teach “Mis-Remembering and other I-got-nothing-here defenses”?
lina at 14: could have something to do with the fact that the Washington Post is losing money hand over fist, and the Washington Post Company is absorbing the loss with profits from their tutoring and test prep businesses.
Their tutoring and test prep businesses have been doing very well indeed since NCLB came in.
Late as usual, scarecrow. It’s so hard to find a wireless connection on the road. I so look forward to your posts.
My dad was a journalist in a by-gone era. I believe he would have taken the view that loyalty is to country before person, especially when the stakes are high. Don Bush has it all backwards - I mean all backwards - in his loyalty expectations. But that’s what you expect from a crime family.
Neither Woodward nor The Washington Post have any credibility any more.