Gerald Ford: "Iraq war wasn't justified"

uscitizen said:
Well damo then you did not vote for Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, etc either.....
Disinginiuous....
Click to expand...
Rubbish. I looked up the information, just as Cypress did. Not disingenuous, just misinformed.

Pretense is not becoming on you uscit.
 
Disignenuous is pretending that silence means agreement when one ex-President would clearly disagree.

Now, we all studied Eisenhower in history class. We did not study Reagan, he wasn't history...
 
Runyon said:
It seems he disagreed with the emphasis on WMD, not the war itself.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/483757p-407239c.html
Click to expand...

He said "I don't think I would have gone to war"


You seriously think Gerald Ford would have invaded iraq because Saddam was an evil person? LOL.

The whole point of invading was a national security threat to america, in the form of nukes, mushroom clouds, and anthrax. You wouldn't have gotten 10 senators to allow bush to invade for ANY OTHER REASON, like saddam being evil.
 
Cypress said:
He said "I don't think I would have gone to war"


You seriously think Gerald Ford would have invaded iraq because Saddam was an evil person? LOL.

The whole point of invading was a national security threat to america, in the form of nukes, mushroom clouds, and anthrax. You wouldn't have gotten 10 senators to allow bush to invade for ANY OTHER REASON, like saddam being evil.
Click to expand...
Let's see he said:

From the story at the link:
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 observed, "but we shouldn't have put the basis on weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush] get his advice?"
Click to expand...

That sounds like he was "against" the war there... Yup! That whole I support the war idea sure tells me he was against it....

I read the whole of your article and didn't find a line that said, "I wouldn't have gone to war." He did say he "wouldn't have done it." but he was talking of the NSA Surveillance, and it was right after he said he thought it might be a necessary evil.

So, basically your article doesn't support your position on this. And the whole "cowardly" garbage is totally unsupportable as he didn't really have any serious negatives to say.
 
Ahh.. Good. I do agree more with Ford with this stuff. However I still notice that not once did he mention the dismay I have at undeclared war, at least he realized that the WMD thing wasn't the justification that everybody thought. I stated back before the war that those "WMD" might meet international law standards of WMD but they were not extremely effective.

It took thousands of plane flights to get all those Khurds and it was doubtless far more expensive than sending troops to do the same. He was far more of a WMD than any of those weapons.
 
Damocles said:
Ahh.. Good. I do agree more with Ford with this stuff. However I still notice that not once did he mention the dismay I have at undeclared war, at least he realized that the WMD thing wasn't the justification that everybody thought. I stated back before the war that those "WMD" might meet international law standards of WMD but they were not extremely effective.

It took thousands of plane flights to get all those Khurds and it was doubtless far more expensive than sending troops to do the same. He was far more of a WMD than any of those weapons.
Click to expand...


"It took thousands of plane flights to get all those Khurds and it was doubtless far more expensive than sending troops to do the same."


I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the no-fly zones were more expensive than invading and occupying iraq?

To the best of my knowledge, the no fly zones cost british and american taxpayers about 1 billion dollars a year. Bush's war is almost up to 500 billion.

That's 500 years of no fly zones.
 
Cypress said:
"It took thousands of plane flights to get all those Khurds and it was doubtless far more expensive than sending troops to do the same."


I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the no-fly zones were more expensive than invading and occupying iraq?

To the best of my knowledge, the no fly zones cost british and american taxpayers about 1 billion dollars a year. Bush's war is almost up to 500 billion.

That's 500 years of no fly zones.
Click to expand...
No, I am speaking to the effectiveness of the "WMD"...

Sarin gas, released in a subway with thousands of people killed maybe 12 of them. This is an enclosed space. Saddam used them on Khurds in the open air, it was a wasteful and costly thing, a horrific act indeed, but not with a WMD that really strikes all that much fear into me...

Basically I state that the "WMD" was never a reason to go to war in Iraq as it simply wasn't that much of a threat.
 
Oh, my bad. thanks.


Yes, I never thought that even if saddam had chemical weapons, they still weren't a strategic threat to the united states. It was stupid to go to war over mustard gas or sarin.
 
Cypress said:
Oh, my bad. thanks.


Yes, I never thought that even if saddam had chemical weapons, they still weren't a strategic threat to the united states. It was stupid to go to war over mustard gas or sarin.
Click to expand...
It was stupid to go to war even if he had controlled real WMD -- nukes, in other words. Waging war because of what someone might possibly do someday is never justified, no matter what the flag-waving ninnies might say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top