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.

Their tutoring and test prep businesses have been doing very well indeed since NCLB came in.

Fitz!

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”?

Earl Scheib @ 6

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Adie @ 59

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….

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?

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*