The New Republic

Here's a snippet from yet another Ford interview, published yet again posthumously, in this morning's Washington Post: ================= What do you think about Vietnam in retrospect? Digging very deeply, what was the mistake? I don't know that you ever looked at [Defense Secretary Robert S.] McNamara's book "In Retrospect," but he says we were wrong, terribly wrong. I know, and that used to bother me, because if we were wrong, why did he participate? I used to sit in the Congress and hear him testify to support the [Lyndon B.] Johnson commitment of 250,000, or whatever it was, U.S. personnel, and he never backed off until he got out.* ============== McNamara's silence bothered Ford, but not enough to speak out himself when the situation more or less repeated itself. Silence of the lambs, one might think, but these were the sheepdogs. Thanks a lot. Dan Buck

- dbuck

December 31, 2006 at 10:08am

Isaac Chotiner & Dan Buck- I agree: it would have been laudable if Ford had come out publicly against the war in 2004 (or in 2002, for that matter, when the Joint Resolution was under consideration). It also would have been laudable to let Nixon go to trial, if only to expose him to the possibility (or probability) of conviction. It would have gone a lot farther, I think, toward healing this country in the end. At the very least, it would have established a precedent, that abuse of power will not be tolerated: by anyone, even the president of the most powerful country on earth. A friend of mine said to me the other day, "All this cosmetizing and ring-dancing around the memory of Ford bespeak some peculiar yearning in the public and its shapers. . ." I think my friend is right. Indeed, I think it's the same peculiar yearning expressed in every wild resolution to every plot of innumerable movies and TV shows and novels: the hero, no matter what mistakes or moral missteps or crimes he has committed, whether lies or theft or fraud or murder--even if the murder is nakedly indefensible, nakedly cold-blooded--in plot after plot after plot, the hero always wins, the hero deserves to win. Or so we are meant to believe. So we want to believe. We want to believe that no matter how low we sink, we shall rise, we must rise, we must triumph in the end. All we need to do is believe it, believe in ourselves, believe that we can win. And we will. (Which, in a nutshell, seems to be Bush's strategy in Iraq.) And so Ford, now that he is no longer with us, has been transformed into another one of our unlikely heroes. Not so much because we think well of him, but because we think well of ourselves for thinking well of him. We think Ford was generous and high-minded for having pardoned Nixon, and we think we are generous and high-minded for pardoning the pardon. We believe in pardons. We believe that this is how life is. We believe that all that matters is how we feel right now, in the present moment. All the rest--our past mistakes, our past lies, our past crimes, even the past itself--all the rest disappears. . .

- JosephCuomo

December 31, 2006 at 11:55am

Mr. Chotiner is either too young, or just incurious if he does not believe that Ford's Pardon was a good thing, or if he disagrees with those who think highly of the post presidential career of President Ford. My Grandfather was an Aide to Congressman Griffin from Michigan in the mid 1950's and I met Congressman Ford in the late 1960s. During these times, Washington was a smaller, more friendly place and government really was closer to the people. Ford is the last President who served as a House Representative. It should not surprise Chotiner that many people support Ford because of this fact alone. Representatives are much more cooperative and respectful of other poiticans and lobbyists because they need their support to pass legislation and help their constiuents. Senators and Governors are from a different class and tend to be more independant and partisan. They need to be as Senior Members or Heads of their State Delegations. Also, Gerald Ford is from the Midwest, not the Eastern Establishment States, Southern Dixiecrats or the Cowboy Western States, making him less objectionable that later Presidents. In addition, the Nixon Pardon should be praised for the role in settling the impeachment proceeding and restoring faith in the Federal Government. My Government Class at the Community College which was taught from and Elitist point of view, taught that Nixon wasn't so much guilty of a crime as he fell out of favor with the Washington Establishment. 'The Irony of Democracy' by Dye & Ziegler argues the country was under siege externally with the Arab Oil Emargo, and internally with race riots and runaway inflation. As such, Nixon's action were really warranted to protect the nation and investigate those attacking Nixon. Nixon himself was aware of the politcal with hunts from his 1952 Checkers Speech, defending himself from allegations of Slush Funds and Improperly accepting gifts as Vice President. Charges that every President since has been accused of. My Grandfather claimed to have eaten lunch in the House Cafeteria and picking up the bill for Congressman Ford, who never had any money. Ford was a real and decent man who was put into a difficult situation and handled it well. Mr. Chotiner says more about himself and his political beliefs when he thinks Nixon should have been pursued for acts while in office. He could learn a thing or two from President Ford.

- CRS9TNR

December 31, 2006 at 12:05pm

I think Ford considered two things in his decision that need to be appreciated. In the first place, those of us who today lament the culture war need to understand that the late 60s-early 70s version was almost a real war - Ford's decision to try to put that behind us is easier to dismiss today - but at that time, there was a palpable basis for that judgment call. I will say here and now that I disagreed with him at the time - I agreed with your view that it was important to bring these criminal acts and actors to justice - but I always felt that his concern about the effect on the nation was justified. Secondly, Ford had an opportunity as President to move the nation forward, but he found that 25% of his and the administration's time was being spent on the fallout of Nixon's crimes. This, I think, was a critical issue for Ford. He felt hobbled by the burden, and I think his decision was as much about freeing himself of it as any other consideration. I think Ford failed to see the benefit to the country of prosecuting Nixon - he seemed to feel the resignation had been enough. Ultimately, he weighed the facts and saw the downside more clearly than any upside. It cost him the Presidency, and my vote, but I think he acted honorably and with the best of the nation in mind. Today, I think he was right, but in light of the criminal behavior of the present administration, I have my doubts. Neil

- purcellneil

December 31, 2006 at 1:11pm

CRS9TNR, thank you for sharing your perspective, which I think goes a long way toward explaining the universally laudable coverage of the Nixon pardon on the TV networks. I'm 37 years old, so I was just a child during the time in question and I guess it's no surprise that I find your response to Mr. Chotiner kind of scattershot and confusing. You chide him for being "too young, or just incurious" but you never actually provide an answer to his argument, as amplified by JosephCoumo shortly before you hit submit. If you ever log back on and re-read your post, why not try to provide a coherent response to JosephCuomo's proposition that putting Nixon on trial was the preferable course of action because "it would have established a precedent, that abuse of power will not be tolerated: by anyone, even the president of the most powerful country on earth." But for an established and enforceable precedent like that on the books, how can true faith in our "Federal Government" ever really be restored?

- cowiche

December 31, 2006 at 1:13pm

Anybody who lived through the 60s, the assasinations of a president, a presidential candidate, and a civil rights saint, the multiple race riots, the draft riots, the riots over Vietnam, Vietname itself, the American cultural revoltuon, the near civil war and ongoing trauma, and Watergate itself--anyone who remembers that time well knows why anothe three years of a Nixon trial would have been debilitatiing. By the time Ford assumed the presidency, the nation had endured a dozen years of dissension and upheaval. We needed very much to be brought together. Nixon had suffered immense humiliation throughout the Watergate siege, and with his forced resignation. The only president in our history to leave office in that ignominous fashion. His reputation was destroyed and he was left isolated and nearly friendless. It would not have served justice any further, but more important, it would not have served the interest of the nation, for Nixon to have been prosecuted and tried. Ford was wise. And history will concur with his decision as are the editorialists and eulogists today.

- ChanRobt

December 31, 2006 at 4:03pm

We were starting to "come together" in the wake of the Nixon resignation when Ford tore us apart again. His popularity rating before the pardon was 70% -- it dropped instantly to 40%. An overwhelming landslide majority of the public thought (correctly) that Nixon was guilty of major crimes and wanted him punished justly for them. Ford prevented that, either because he was a fool or because he was thoroughly dishonest himself (or both). It's true that the percentage of the American pub lic who supports the pardon has gradually risen, over the decades since, to about 60% -- but that's simply because most Americans nowadays either have forgotten or (usually) never learned just how serious Nixon's crimes were in the first place -- just as, in a Gallup poll 4 years ago, 1/3 of the people (and half of those under 30) thought we were on NORTH Vietnam's side in the Vietnam War. (This is why you can get twaddle like Ben Stein saying that Nixon was removed unfairly from office for "a very minor offense". At the time, at least 95 Senators and all but one of the editorial staffers of National Review agreed that he should get the boot.) It would very much have "served the interests of the nation" for a powerful political figure who had committed major crimes against American democracy to be appropriately punished for them; it would have confirmed Americans' desire for their country to genuinely be a "government of laws rather than men". Ford destroyed that opportunity, he greatly furthered Americans' loss of faith in their own government, he wrecked his own popularity as a result, and it was the swing factor in his getting kicked out of office two years later. Too bad.

- moomaw1

December 31, 2006 at 5:10pm

...until CNN pointed it out again just now, that when he issued the pardon Ford told the nation that it was time to "shut and seal this book" of Watergate. Seal it against what? Further revelations of tyrannical behavior by high-ranking (Republican) officials, which would have come out during a Nixon trial?

- moomaw1

December 31, 2006 at 5:14pm

The posters above have it right that the nation was bitterly divided, far more so than today, and the pardon was essential to heal that gaping wound. Another critical point: the nation was still fighting the Cold War abroad-- and trying to recover from the Vietnam humiliation-- and also trying desperately to adress an economic malady that no one had ever seen before, stagflation. Thanks in part to the 1973 oil embargo, also guns 'n' butter, inflation itself had become a major scourge. In short, the new president was up to his arse in alligators and the nation was trying, in the phrase used 22 years later, to "move on." The pardon was essential for both reasons. Trying the former president during this time of searing crises on every single front-- economic, social, foreign-policy-- would have been insane.

- teplukhin

December 31, 2006 at 5:40pm

to be able to agree with both Tep and Chan. Fees strange - don't it? One more thought. Had his successors in the GOP Congress possessed one tenth of the wisdom, decency and statesmanship of President Ford, the relentless and unjust attempts to impeach President Clinton would never have happened. Neil

- purcellneil

December 31, 2006 at 5:48pm

...and thus added to America's problems during this period, rather than reducing them. I've already mentioned that there was a huge landslide majority at the time in favor of trying Nixon -- Ford spat in its face. And in the process he not only did nothing to bolster America's ability to deal with its other problems; he reduced its ability to do so, and its confidence that its government could do so -- and he certainly tremendously reduced the tendency Americans would have had to support his own political views on those subjects. I see, by the way, that Christopher Hitchens has gotten this one dead right in "Slate": "...[T]here was endless talk about 'healing,' and of the 'courage' that it had taken for Ford to excuse his former boss from the consequences of his law-breaking. You may choose, if you wish, to parrot the line that Watergate was a 'long national nightmare', but some of us found it rather exhilarating to see a criminal president successfully investigated and exposed and discredited. And we do not think it in the least bit nightmarish that the Constitution says that such a man is not above the law. Ford's ignominious pardon of this felonious thug meant, first, that only the lesser fry had to go to jail. It meant, second, that we still do not even know why the burglars were originally sent into the offices of the Democratic National Committee... The fact is that serious trials and fearless investigations often are the cause of great division, and rightly so. But by the standards of 'healing' celebrated this week, one could argue that O.J. Simpson should have been spared indictment lest the vexing questions of race be unleashed to trouble us again, or that the Tower Commission did us all a favor by trying to bury the implications of the Iran-Contra scandal. Fine, if you don't mind living in a banana republic...The Ford epoch did not banish a nightmare. It ended a dream -- the ideal of equal justice under the law that would extend to a crooked and venal president." Tragic that something which should be so obvious actually has to be pointed out these days. In this connection, let's also note Timothy Noah's "Slate" comment on the destructive precedent it set: "Why was Ford wrong to pardon Nixon? Mainly because it set a bad precedent. Nixon had not yet been indicted, let alone convicted, of any crime. It's never a good idea to pardon somebody without at least finding out first what you're pardoning him for. How can you possibly weigh the quality of mercy against considerations of justice? Yet it would happen again in December 1992, when departing President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, former defense secretary, 12 days before Weinberger was set to go to trial for perjury. As I've noted before, this was almost certainly done to prevent evidence concerning Bush's own involvement in Iran-Contra (when he was vice-president) from becoming public. The final report from Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh called it 'the first time a President ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness,' but in fact it was the second. Ford's motive was less self-protective; but, as Slate's Christopher Hitchens notes [and as I noted above -- Moomaw], it had the same effect of shutting down further investigation into illegal activities. Without the precedent of Ford's pre-emptive pardon, Bush p

- moomaw1

December 31, 2006 at 6:30pm

...the energy crisis, stagflation, and the Cold War. Little stuff. People today either don't know or already forgot how up to our necks in intractable problems we were at that moment in the mid 70s when Ford took office. A bitterly divisive prosecution and trial was the last thing we needed. It's amazing how often Americans get caught up in their focus on a particular political interest and don't see the much bigger picture. The picture that has to do with our survival as a nation. And thus, their own personal survival or wellbeing. We are in another one of those eras, I believe. The Dmeocrat vs Republican wars, the Left vs Right wars are subsuming the much more vital war. The one between Jihad and the West. Our internecene warfare is seriously taking our eye off the fatal ball.

- ChanRobt

December 31, 2006 at 8:02pm

...I thought you sounded like a different man today, too. Must be the near New Year.

- ChanRobt

December 31, 2006 at 9:09pm

...I thought you sounded like a different man today, too. Must be the near New Year.

- ChanRobt

December 31, 2006 at 9:09pm

apologies

- ChanRobt

December 31, 2006 at 9:11pm

That simplistic formula ignores the obvious question: who is more at fault for executing it? Apply that reasoning to the Watergate period, and you would conclude that Nixon's legal opponents were just as much at fault for opposing his moves toward tyranny as he was for making them. Pfui. Similarly, in this period we have (A) unmistakable moves toward authoritarianism by the Bush Jr. Administration that have no counterpart in present or past behavior by the Democrats (at least since Woodrow Wilson), and are alarming even some Republicans who were relatively unfazed by Watergate; and (B) a disastrously wrongheaded military policy whose wrongheadedness is now recognized not only by most Democrats and independents, but by a steadily growing bloc of Republicans -- and which is, by itself, very seriously WEAKENING our ability to fight the war against authoritarian Islam, and has been doing so almost from the start. Are we really supposed to believe that "both sides are equally to blame" for this, any more than they were equally to blame for Watergate (or for slavery), and that both sides should therefore draw back to an equal degree? Particularly, I may add, when the anti-Bush side (like the earlier anti-Nixon side) has grown to landslide majority status as his administration's dishonesty and incompetence have both become steadily clearer?

- moomaw1

December 31, 2006 at 10:26pm

. . . are absolutely right. The Nixon pardon was a travesty. CRS9TNR: "In addition, the Nixon Pardon should be praised for the role in settling the impeachment proceeding and restoring faith in the Federal Government." That is a preposterous statement. The pardon did not "settle" the impeachment process; it aborted the process. And for whom was faith in the Federal Government restored? That segment of the populace consisting of Nixon apologists and those who didn't want "Welcome Back Kotter" pre-empted by televised hearings and news bulletins of the trial proceedings? That Ford's presidential performance would have been compromised had Nixon been prosecuted is just more rationalization and excuse-making by the apologists. If judicial action against a criminal is "disruptive", then perhaps we should rethink our whole system of law. Why not blame the system for being disruptive rather than blame the criminal for breaking the law? As president, Ford could have taken the high by concentrating on doing his job while completely ignoring the criminal proceedings. He probably would have been re-elected in '76, with the likely consequence of sparing us Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. The Nixon Apology (which is really at the root of all this-- the apparent concern for order and stability in governmment is just a smoke-screen) is historical revisionism at its worst. The biggest fraud is that Nixon was a closet liberal who supported progressive legislation. His stance on domestic legislation was a compromise with a Democratic Congress that was necessary, in part, to enable his pernicious and criminal foreign policy (there is nothing "liberal" about killing tens of thousands of Cambodian villagers by illegal bombing). And, of course, the Great Society was still very popular and-- while in deceleration-- still had considerable momentum. Anyone who claims to believe that Nixon changed his stripes and became a liberal, either knows nothing of Nixon's political career, or is being disingenuous. At minimum, the prosecution of Richard Nixon might have given pause to the present Criminal-in-Chief.

- wmsberry

December 31, 2006 at 10:43pm

"As president, Ford could have taken the high road . . ." And what's with all the pretense about the pardon as some sort of noble, high-minded act of patriotism? Let's not forget that-- before the ascendancy of the Nixon Apologists-- it was widely believed that the pardon was the result of a deal that allowed Ford to become president in the first place.

- wmsberry

December 31, 2006 at 10:54pm

I wasn't alive during the Ford Administration, and I don't know whether the pardon was wise or not. But is there any actual evidence that Pres Ford pardoned Nixon in exchange for the Presidency? If not, it seems an unfair accusation to make.

- ryanburke

January 1, 2007 at 2:06am

It's always fun to speculate-what if Lee had captured Washington in 1862? What if Hitler had consolidated a defensive line on the Don instead of reinforcing failure at Stalingrad? What if Bush had listened to Shinseki and followed the careful State/Central Command plan for the occupation of Iraq? But we have to live with the history we've got. I think there are good points on both sides of the "pardon debate", but we can't go back there now. What about putting Henry Kissinger on trial at The Hague for his manifest and multiple crimes against humanity? It's still not too late...

- Robert Powell

January 1, 2007 at 6:06am

That is a fair question. Obviously, had such a deal been made, it would have been a closely-held secret. I am not the one who made the accusation. I was twenty-five years old at the time of the Pardon, and can attest that there was a great deal of cynicism at the time concerning it. It was, in fact, "widely believed" that a deal had been struck. Neither is there any evidence that the pardon was a high-minded act of nobility and patriotism. Few, apparently, believed it was at the time. Hence my point about historical revisionism. There is no more reason to impute noble motives to Ford's act than to impute base ones.

- wmsberry

January 1, 2007 at 7:04am

It's easy to forget what an unexpected choice Ford was at the time. When he was picked as Agnew's replacement as VP, he was just an obscure (and "obscure" is no exaggeration) congressman with a moderately promising political career. This fact alone generated a lot of suspicion in the editorial press and among the public. Few people, even among the politically aware, had ever heard of the man. Given the progress of events at the time of Ford's selection, and the relevant time-frames, it seems probable that Nixon already knew he was not going to survive for the rest of the term. These facts can be considered as presumptive or circumstantial evidence that there might have been a pardon deal.

- wmsberry

January 1, 2007 at 8:39am

teplukhin, ChanRobt & purcellneil- All three of you seem to be making the same argument, in order to try to justify Ford's pardon of Nixon. teplukhin, you write: "In short, the new president was up to his arse in alligators and the nation was trying. . .to 'move on.' The pardon was essential for both reasons." purcellneil, you write: ". . .Ford had an opportunity as President to move the nation forward, but he found that 25% of his and the administration's time was being spent on the fallout of Nixon's crimes. . . .[Ford] felt hobbled by the burden, and I think his decision was as much about freeing himself of it as any other consideration." And ChanRobt, you write: "By the time Ford assumed the presidency, the nation had endured a dozen years of dissension and upheaval. We needed very much to be brought together." First, the pardon did nothing to bring the nation together--except, perhaps, by way of overwhelming opposition to it. Second, the pardon did nothing to free Ford to govern. Indeed, the nation's support for his administration evaporated, precisely because of the pardon. As moomaw1 has so aptly put it, ". . .there was a huge landslide majority at the time in favor of trying Nixon -- Ford spat in its face. And in the process he not only did nothing to bolster America's ability to deal with its other problems; he reduced its ability to do so, and its confidence that its government could do so. . ." Third, it is almost amusing to see you, ChanRobt, and you, teplukhin, make the argument that the criminality of one's conduct can somehow be overlooked or forgetten simply if circumstances dictate this (even if, in this case, the circumstances clearly did not). I mean, come on now, you two guys sound like aging hippies. Poor little President Ford FELT he couldn't govern unless the bad man walked, poor little President Ford FELT that social harmony was more important than truth, poor little President Ford FELT that circumstances were more important than law. Talk about moral relativism, talk about situational ethics! teplukhin and ChanRobt, you two are making exactly the kind of argument you abhor.

- JosephCuomo

January 1, 2007 at 12:46pm

blackton John Cleary MrCookie williamyard icarusr acgraves teplukhin ChanRobt purcellneil moomaw1 wmsberry cowiche drdannyu wbc5 WandreyCer mpatrickhendri epackard sethgentry JackR heltizur1 rishy dubyadoubte hewstino jfabermit mghogwild walto010 sfjamiesf spoonman hustveit stgla sighthnd and basman- H A P P Y T A L K B A C K N A T I O N N E W Y E A R to you and yours! Warm regards, Joe

- JosephCuomo

January 1, 2007 at 1:05pm

Following up with my previous post and addressing the issues identified, let me begin. First, Kaplan thinks that President Ford's reticence to publicly criticize a sitting President is respectful and thoughtful. Chotiner wonders why this is a sign of Character. My belief is that Ford wanted to communicate to a constituency, Bob Woodward, his thoughts on the war privately so that he could maintain his relationship with President Bush. Chotiner not surprisingly wanted Ford to publish a statement and stand by them. That is what Journalists do. Politicians usually speak privately of disagreements and through proxies like Woodward. Imagine if Ford had gone public with his criticism of Bush, and had been asked to clarify and expand them as he and Bush were at Reagan's 2004 funeral. It would have been easy for Ford to just ignore Woodward's request and move on, but he provided his views and allowed them to be made public after his death to support both Woodward and Bush. Second, the whole Pardon thing. Let's get a few points straight: Chotiner asks what would have been so bad about prosecuting a president who broke the law. The three crimes the President was under impeachment for were Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power and Contempt of Congress. These charges against a sitting President would be very hard to prove and would involve a lot of litigation. Assuming these would be settled in two years is optimistic and na

- CRS9TNR

January 1, 2007 at 1:19pm

CRS9TNR- You write: "Like Vice President Gore conceding defeat after the Bush v. Gore decision, [Ford] had to make a decision to move on [by pardoning Nixon]." But Gore's decision to support the Supreme Court's ruling--essentially to award the election to his own opponent--was a demonstrably selfless act: a decision to uphold the law of the land, as interpreted by our nation's highest court. Ford's decision, to protect an accused criminal from prosecution (a criminal who had given Ford his job, by the way, a criminal who represented Ford's own political party), was exactly the opposite; it was a highly questionable decision to circumvent the law--indeed, it made a mockery of the law: by exempting one of our own leaders from it. You also write: "If Presidents are always open to investigation, how is an Executive to act?" But presidents who violate the law should be subject to investigation, as well as prosecution. If we are a nation of laws, then every citizen--not just most or some--every citizen must be subject to those laws. As I said in the second post on this thread, prosecuting Nixon would have, at the very least, established a precedent, that abuse of power will not be tolerated: by anyone, even the president of the most powerful country on earth. And given the current administration and its theory of the unitary executive--a theory that posits that the president's authority cannot, and should not, be checked by congress or the courts, a theory that allows one man to stand above the law, a theory that has led to warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition and data mining and torture--given the monumental abuse of power of this current administration, such a precedent seems all the more relevant now, and all the urgent.

- JosephCuomo

January 1, 2007 at 2:09pm

"the Nixon Pardon should be praised for the role in settling the impeachment proceeding . . ." Of course Nixon's resignation obviated the impeachment process-- my error was the same as yours (see the above quote). I would revise the sense of my remarks to: "The pardon aborted any further proceedings against Nixon". About Ford's obscurity: You are simply wrong. Clearly Ford was a "somebody"; he was a member of the United States Congress, after all. But he would likely have made very few top ten lists (apart from the Nixon White House) for VP replacements at that time. This was all common knowledge at the time. That he was overwhelmingly confirmed is not particularly significantly. Except for the occasional Democrat/ Republican blood feud, presidential appointments of any kind are generally "overwhelmingly" confirmed. In the case of Ford, there was probably a sense of relief that Nixon had not chosen another corrupt ideologue like Spiro Agnew (or himself). This all leads back to my point about historical revisionism. Revisionism comes a lot easier when we look at history through a backwards telescope, as it were, by considering everything in the context of our own time. An examination of what was actually happening at the time will tell us a good deal more about-- well, about what was actually happening at the time. If you are not aware that the belief that there was a pardon deal was very wide-spread, then you just don't know the history of the time.

- wmsberry

January 1, 2007 at 2:11pm

is frustrating. "That he was overwhelmingly confirmed is not particularly significant". [not "significantly"]

- wmsberry

January 1, 2007 at 2:19pm

Another very odd post by you, CRS9TNR...It's clear that you FEEL strongly about the pardon, but you're having trouble turning that emotion into coherent, well-reasoned arguments. Yes, Hitchens has some wacky opinions...but that doesn't mean he's not right about this issue. The essential problem here is that Ford lied. In public he supported the war, but in private he recorded his doubts for future reference. He wanted it both ways. If you have mixed feelings about the war, but you don't want to speak out against the current president, then say nothing. I find no integrity and no honor in what Ford did whatsoever. Having said that, I think it's possible Ford's Woodward comments may have been a little bit twisted and overblown. If you parse them out, he appears to quibble with the justification for the war, the way it was sold to the public, but all-in-all Ford still supported the venture. --- To me, the pardon apologists are simply suffering from It-All-Worked-Out-in-The-End syndrome, where they look back from the perspective of decades and attach to that initial 'seed' event (in this case, the Pardon) all good things that have happened in the intervening years (nation came together, peace and prosperity, lower gas prices, Disco, whatever). It's simply a rationalization. Pearl Harbor was a good thing because it woke us from our national isolationist slumber and led to Hitler's defeat. The fact that the Viet Nam war is over, and we're all alive and the Republic is still healthy is NOT validation of the pardon. It didn't have to have happened that way for 'everything to have worked out'.

- swainscheps

January 1, 2007 at 2:45pm

Ford might have pardoned Nixon--to get that little troll, and all of the the other little trolls who hated him so, TO SHUT UP. Trolls like Hitchens didn't want Nixon tried because of his great crimes against humanity--they wanted him tried because he was a nasty old square who got elected even though they didn't approve of him. The slow-motion spectacle of his various crimes and lapses being dragged out into public view, humiliating him and, by extension, all of the people who had dared to vote for him, had given them figurative and probably literal orgasms for over two years at the time of his resignation. Pardoning him meant that they would have to go find something else to do. As for Nixon, getting pardoned deprived him of his great chance to play the Noble Martyr at any trial have had, The Last Good Man brought down by the forces of Satanic Degeneracy. Did the pardon Heal Our National Wounds? No. But it made things a lot quieter for a while, and that's got to be a good thing . . . Of course, it also brought us Jimmy Carter, so it was hardly an unalloyed blessing.

- norval13

January 1, 2007 at 7:37pm

Although the national situation may have made the pardon necessary (I was not alive at the time and it's tough to imagine at this point how angry people were then), I always am annoyed when I hear how Watergate proved the "system works." Obviously, it didn't, due to the pardon.

- zacwbond

January 1, 2007 at 8:33pm

Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton. How many times are we going to let presidents make a mockery of our justice system. Presidential pardons have allowed guilty men to go free and denied the accountability that the people demand. Finally yes there was a deal, Nixon was insane. He rather burn the US to the ground than face a trial. If Ford hadn't agree to pardon him, Nixon would have to be dragged kicking and screaming from the White House and hung.

- Yminale

January 2, 2007 at 11:12am

Yminale, I don't get your obsession with a "deal". Nixon was hardly in a position to make any deals. His own Congressional party leadership told him the jig was up and that he faced certain impeachment. What possible leverage would Nixon have had over Ford to force a deal? And, what if Ford agreed to the "deal" and then double-crossed Nixon after the resignation? Was he going to sue him for breach of contract? Go to the New York Times and complain? And with all the leakers in D.C. and all the media types looking to be the next Woodward-Bernestin since 1974, do you really think a "deal" would not have been reported on by now? Nixon was loathe to resign both for his own interests and because he thought it was a very bad precedent to set. But, iognominous as it was, ultimately resignation was better from Nixon's standpoint than impeachment, a long and wrenching trial, and removal from office. Strong Constitutionalists might argue that impeachment and trial, no matter what the outcome, would have been a better precedent.

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 12:42pm

JosephC writes, "...the pardon did nothing to bring the nation together--except, perhaps, by way of overwhelming opposition to it... pardon did nothing to free Ford to govern. Indeed, the nation's support for his administration evaporated, precisely because of the pardon." I don't think Ford so much expected the pardon to bring the nation together as that he feared a long, protracted, wrenching, and bitter trial of Richard Nixon would be yet another trauma for the nation and would be a continuation of forces that were tearing the nation apart. Yes, Ford lost a lot of goodwill and approval rating points for the pardon. I don't think he had any illusions that the outcome would be otherwise. And, in fact, it has been argued that he knowingly damaged his own presidential ambitions in what he felt were the best interests of the nation. Again, you have to look at the entire context of the times. The nation had been weakened after a long period--more than a decade of assasinations, trauma, and civil strife. Plus the first loss of a war in our history (1812 Korea were more or less a draw). Meanwhile, and very importantly, we were in the midst of a forty year's Cold War with the Soviet Union. We risked looking dangerously weak and might tempt our enemies to rash action were this perception of weakness and deep divide to be prolonged for what might have been five more years. This is not a question of "moral relativisim and situational ethics". This was a geopolitical question and the danger to the United States of appearing fatally weak. As was proven a few years later when Carter policies made us look so feckless and tepid that Iranian rebels invaded and occupied our embassy with impunity. So little did they fear Carter that they sat on us for 400+ days. You seem to feel that a trial, conviction, and jailing of Nixon would have powerfully demonstrated that no man was above the law. Well, Nixon's forced resignation proved we didn not have an imperial presidency after all. Had he ultimately been tried and jailed, not only would Nixon personally have sufffered, but so, too would the pretige and mystique of the presidency. Americans would not have enjoyed the spectacle of a former preident in the clink, not matter how much they might have abhorred many of Nixon's actions. As has been pointed out many times, Nixon's main crime and stupidity was attempting to coverup a burglarly which he hadn't ordered. He did not have political enemies murdered or imprisoned or prosecute other such policies of despotism. Essentially he was guilty of using his office to cover up emabarrasing political problems.

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 1:02pm

...the extent to which the pardon impeded Ford's ability to govern. Ford did not become a reviled figure because of the pardon. He was not left twisting in the wind. Essentially, he ended his honeymoon prematurely and cost himself the goodwill of some in the opposition who were giving himthe benefit of the doubt. But, because of his essential personality, temperatment, and obvious decency few people hated Gerald Ford or held him in contempt. And pardon or no, he did sucede in bringing a measure of peace, calm, and equanimity to the country.

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 1:08pm

ChanRobt- You write: "We [the United States] risked looking dangerously weak [if Nixon had been brought to trial] and might [have] tempt[ed] our enemies to rash action were this perception of weakness and deep divide to be prolonged for what might have been five more years. . . . This was a geopolitical question and the danger to the United States of appearing fatally weak." I'm sorry, ChanRobt, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion, that had Nixon been put on trial, our nation would have looked weak and thereby encouraged the Soviets--or any other enemy state--to, as you put it, "rash action" against us. If the resignation of a sitting American president did not encourage the Soviets--or anybody else--to rash action against us, why would the prosecution of a FORMER president have any effect at all? If you want to make such a claim, ChanRobt, you need to provide evidence, such as a declassified Soviet file suggesting any strategic geopolitical interest in the prosecution of a former president. You also write: "Had he ultimately been tried and jailed, not only would Nixon personally have sufffered, but so, too would the pretige and mystique of the presidency." The point of a democracy, ChanRobt, is precisely to demistify its leaders, in stark contrast, for instance, to the mystical regard with which one holds a king. Indeed, the American experiment might be seen as a direct antidote to the doctrine of divine right: a new nation whose polity derives from a profound acknowledgement of the ineluctable fallibility of human beings, whether they be rich or poor, senators or street sweepers, presidents or kings. Indeed, our consititution is designed with this inherent fallibility in mind: limiting the power of any given individual--even the president--via lawfully imposed checks on his or her power. Simply put, this is a nation of laws, ChanRobt, and decidedly not a nation of divine right, or royal whim, or presidential mystique. And yet, Ford's pardon suggested just the opposite, in that it exempted one man--one of our leaders--from the consequences of his crimes, thereby effectively placing that one man above the law. Or, as Nixon himself put it in May of 1977, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. Thirty years later, another American president would make virtually the same claim, in order to rationalize his own abuse of power, from the massive violation of FISA to the neutering of regulatory agencies to the prolific use of signing statements (undermining the very bills he has signed) to extraoridnary rendition to torture to detention without charge. As I said in the second post on this thread, ChanRobt, prosecuting Nixon would have, at the very least, established a precedent, that abuse of power will not be tolerated: by anyone, even the president of the most powerful country on earth.

- JosephCuomo

January 2, 2007 at 3:09pm

Excellent points, Isaac. Obviously, the death of a president should not be occasion to emphasize the negative, but the whitewashing of Ford's political career, including his brief and accidental presidency, throughout the mainstream news media has been foisted on the public without regard for any negative whatsoever. Consider Woodward and Brokaw on Russert on Sunday. Was there a negative word uttered at all? Even The Pardon was spun as a positive. But, even there, the revisionism continues. It is not simply a matter of whether or not Ford ought to have pardoned Nixon, or ought to have done so when he did. At a time when Republicans were distancing themselves from Nixon, Ford was, even before he replaced Agnew, the ultimate party man, a sycophant who was happy to do Nixon's bidding. Is that not part of the problem? He was wrong to pardon Nixon so prematurely, in my view, but it was hardly a surprise that he did so. But what troubles me is that so much of the focus has been on The Pardon, on his allegedly steadying influence after Vietnam and Watergate, and on his Broder-friendly bipartisanship. Where is the focus on arguably the most troubling policy decision of his presidency, his support for Indonesia's brutal invasion of East Timor, a truly horrible and reprehensible foreign policy decision that essentially enabled the massacre of well over 100,000 people, a third of East Timor's population? Perhaps that ought to be mentioned along with the glowing praise. -- Micha el J.W. Stickings

- mjwstickings

January 2, 2007 at 3:33pm

"What possible leverage would Nixon have had over Ford to force a deal?" I think that's an easy one: leaving quietly now versus challenging the whole way down -dragging out the proceedings, defying the removal from office, calling in the army to blockade the white house, forcing a major constitutional showdown. Nixon's rep was toast anyway, but he could have fought it for another year. Every second of the 72-76 term was going to be valuable to Ford. Nixon leaving when he did meant Ford would get plenty of time to legitimize his presidency, become his own man, and be entrenched by the election of '76. Lotta good it did him.

- swainscheps

January 2, 2007 at 4:30pm

JoeC writes, "...The point of a democracy, ChanRobt, is precisely to demistify its leaders, in stark contrast, for instance, to the mystical regard with which one holds a king." Americans do not want an imperial presidency. But, they're not enthralled with a carry your own garment bag presidency, either. We have done well when our presidents have had prestige and a measure of "mystique". The executive needs to be able to execute. And our president is both the head of government and the head of state. We intentionally do not have a parlieamentary system. You write, "...there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion, that had Nixon been put on trial, our nation would have looked weak and thereby encouraged the Soviets--or any other enemy state--to, as you put it, "rash action" against us." No, nobody had any "proof" at the time that such was the case. But, there was an ongoing worry during Nixon's troubles that the Soviets might be emboldened by an apparent Constituional crisis in the U.S. Such worries were voiced in and out of government at the time. Ford probably could not have "known" that there was any reason for concern in this regard. But, such worries were a likely factor, but not the main factor in the pardon decision. Ford made a judgement call. I have no trouble understanding and even having much sympathy for those who say Nixon ought to have been made to face the law like any other citizen. I'm not a monarchist, either. And in 1888 or 1928, in an America not being serriously challenged by a foe armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, it would be easy to agree with your position. For a nation in the midst of a deadly Cold War, a nation that had just come through the worst challenge to its unity and integrity since the Civil War, there were many good reasons remove Richard Nixon from the national focus. The pardon pretty much achieved that. To say that a very long trial of Richard Nixon, just because he was an ex-president, was not potyentially destabilizing is to ignore the context of that era. Gerald Ford made a judgement. I'm not claiming it is unassailable. I'm saying that weighing all factors, he made the right judgement. You get your shot at him. And historians will get theirs. And, of course, there will be no final decision. Meanwhile, if you really belive that Richard Nixon got away with something, I don't think you are fully comprehending the depth of the humiliation and agony he was subject to. His thirty-year enemies won, and brought Nixon down as no president had ever been brought down before. Maybe not sufficient punishment by your lights. And certainly it was not punishment by a legal definition. But, justice does come in different forms sometimes. And though is accomplisments re China and in other spheres ought to be at least mittigating, I don't believe Richard Nixon will ever be totally rehabilitated by history. As Shakespeare understood, "The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft' interred with their bones."

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 4:50pm

swainschepps writes, "...leaving quietly now versus challenging the whole way down -dragging out the proceedings, defying the removal from office, calling in the army to blockade the white house, forcing a major constitutional showdown. Nixon's rep was toast anyway, but he could have fought it for another year." Swain, once the party elders told Nixon the votes weren't there to proetect him, the game was over. He knew it. Dragging it out would have just helped guarantee not only his impeachment, but his removal. You say his reputation was "toast". Well, yeah. But by resigning to prevent a debilitating fight that would have been awful for the nation, he was demonstrating what could eventually be interpreted as statesmanship and selflessness. Which is how some have interpreted his resignation, in part. And since he understood that rmeoval was close to inevitable, what was the point in doing more damge to himself and all of us before he left. But, why I say he had no leverage for a deal is that no matter what deal he might have though he was making, there was nothing he could do once out of office to stop Ford from ignoring whatever guarantees he may have thought he had. Nixon was at Ford's mercy. He might have asked for a pardon. Hoped for one. Expected one. But he had no way to enforce one. Meanwhile, I have never read any inside report that he had made a deal. Only the conjecture of his enemies. In our era, things that large rarely stay a secret. Although, it's possible that's one that Gerald Ford took to his grave.

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 5:02pm

...Happy New Year.

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 5:07pm

ChanRobt- Thanks for acknowledging that, as you put it, ". . .nobody had any 'proof' at the time that [had Nixon been prosecuted]. . . .the Soviets might [have] be[en] emboldened by an apparent Constituional crisis in the U.S.," and would have thereby been encouraged to take some "rash action" against us. The fact that there was no proof at the time, and that there remains no proof today, should go a long way toward deflating the argument that Ford was somehow protecting the homeland by pardoning a criminal ex-president (and doing so even before the man was convicted or tried). I am also relieved to hear you say that you have "much sympathy for those who say Nixon ought to have been made to face the law like any other citizen." But I think you misunderstand my rationale in this regard, in that you also write: ". . .if you really belive that Richard Nixon got away with something, I don't think you are fully comprehending the depth of the humiliation and agony he was subject to." Believe me, ChanRobt, I don't really care whether or not Nixon was humiliated or punished enough. That's not the point. The point is whether or not he was subject--like every other American citizen--to prosecution for his crimes. The point is not to make a man suffer for his crimes, the point is to acknowledge that crimes have been committed, the point is to acknowledge, and delineate, the truth--that Nixon abused the powers of his office. The point is that the pardon established a dangerous precedent: that all men and women in this nation are not equal under the law, and that the president, in particular, is above the law. Or, again, to quote Nixon himself, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." As I said above (in my post of 2007-01-02 15:09:54), our current president has used virtually the same argument--virtually the same language--to rationalize his own monumental abuse of power. Which is to say, ChanRobt, the precedent established by Ford's pardon of Nixon has not served this nation well.

- JosephCuomo

January 2, 2007 at 7:46pm

Thanks for the good wishes, ChanRobt. (I don't know if you noticed, but I already wished you a happy new year some twenty posts back. But just in case. . .) A very happy New Year to you, my friend! John Cleary- Thanks for your good wishes as well. Warm regards, Joe

- JosephCuomo

January 2, 2007 at 7:51pm

...and was responding in kind. best, voice of chan

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 10:31pm

... "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." That has line has been mocked by virtually everyone-- probably even G. Gordon Liddy, since it was first reported. I have heard George Bush delcare that he "...was the Decider..." etc, but I haven't heard anything akin to "when the President does it..." And when non-state combatants are captured on foreign battlefields this administration has maintained that those people are not entitled to the Geneva rights of soldiers in uniform. I think you have to bring more specificity to the charge that Bush, like Nixon, has declared any action he chooses to take to be, by definition, lawful.

- ChanRobt

January 2, 2007 at 10:39pm

ChanRobt- You write: "I think you have to bring more specificity to the charge that Bush, like Nixon, has declared any action he chooses to take to be, by definition, lawful." I guess you must have missed it, ChanRobt, but this has been, in essence, the Bush administration's first line of defense. This can be seen in the administration's adherence to the theory of the unitary executive, a theory which posits that the authority of the president cannot be checked by congress or the courts. This is no mere abstraction. As Jeffrey Rosen (in "The Power of One," TNR) and Elizabeth Drew ("Power Grab," NYRB) have pointed out, the abuses that might arise from such a theory have already taken hold: from the massive violation of FISA to the neutering of regulatory agencies to the prolific use of signing statements (undermining the very bills the president has signed) to the defense of torture and detention without charge. According to Elizabeth Drew (in the above cited article), "Grover Norquist, a principal organizer of the conservative movement who is close to the Bush White House and usually supports its policies, says, 'If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws you don't have a constitution: you have a king.' He adds, 'They're [the Bush administration is] not trying to change the law; they're saying that they're above the law and in the case of the NSA wiretaps they break it.'" Also, from the same article by Drew: "The concept of a unitary executive holds that the executive branch can overrule the courts and Congress on the basis of the president's own interpretations of the Constitution, in effect overturning Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the principle of judicial review, and the constitutional concept of checks and balances." And: "The term 'unitary government' has two different meanings. . . . The [one] which is used by Bush, gives the executive power superior to that of Congress and the courts. Previous presidents have asserted the right not to carry out parts of a bill, arguing that it impinged on their constitutional authority; but they were specific both in their objections and in the ways they proposed to execute the law. . . . Bush asserts broad powers without being specific in his objections or saying how he plans to implement the law. His interpretations of the law, as in his 'signing statement' on the McCain amendment, often construe the bill to mean something different from--and at times almost the opposite of--what everyone knows it means." (By the way, the words "unitary executive" are used by Bush in signing statement after signing statement after signing statement. If you'd like to see for yourself, just go to whitehouse.gov, and do your own search.) Also from the Drew piece: "Another egregious use of the signing statements occurred when Bush said in March [of 2006] that, in interpreting the bill reauthorizing the Patriot Act, he would ignore the requirement that the president report to Congress on the steps taken to implement the law, thus denying that the executive should be accountable to Congress. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued an angry protest calling Bush's use of signing statements 'nothing short of a radical effort to re-shape the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.'" And: "Bush went still further in his extraordinary claim of supreme power on December 17, 2005, when he acknowledged that, as revealed in The New York Times the day before, the government was conducting warrantless wiretapping of domestic calls. He claimed that he had the power to order such taps 'to save lives,' regardless of what the existing law said." Simply put, ChanRobt, the Bush administration's implementation of the theory of the unitary executive is the logical extension of Nixon's assertion with respect to the unlimited powers of the president: "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." One last quote from Drew, ChanRobt: "James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47: 'The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many. . .may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'"

- JosephCuomo

January 3, 2007 at 1:06am

And it can't have any efficacy if the courts do not uphold it. So, we'll see how this plays out.

- ChanRobt

January 3, 2007 at 8:24am

The Congress has used their version of signing statements for decades. When Congress passes a law, many times it expresses what the Congressional majority believes the law means. However, that statement is not part of the law, any more than a signing statement is. The courts have tradionally given slight weight to these precatory statements. Scalia, in particular, has been dismissive of any thing that is not part of the law as written, in cluding "legislative history." So, unitary executive theory or no, the courts are under no obligation to consider a Congrssional statement or a Presidential signing statement when they interpret the law.

- butchie b

January 3, 2007 at 9:53am

ChanRobt- No, Bush didn't invent the signing statement, but he did (via the unitary executive theory as delineated by John Yoo and others) pervert it, profoundly. Like you, ChanRobt, I hope the courts do not uphold what he has done. But in the interim, Bush has used, and will continue to use, the theory of the unitary executive to act as he pleases, without regard for the law. And not just in terms of signing statements, but on many fronts, from illegal wiretapping to extraordinary rendition to the neutering of regulatory agencies to torture to detention without charge. And I'm afraid that, for now at least, we are stuck with the consequences of his actions. One more thing, ChanRobt, a number of observers have said that Bush's implementation of the theory of the unitary executive can be traced directly back to Dick Cheney, and his belief that the power of the presidency--the unitary power of the presidency--was undermined some thirty years ago (in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam), and that Cheney's ideas in this regard were formulated during his years in the Ford administration. . .

- JosephCuomo

January 3, 2007 at 10:15am

JosephC and Chan - i agree with you both that the Court has not yet weighed in on the legal value of signing statements, and I, like you, hope that the Court (especially Scalia) is consistent with its precedents in considering the value of 'legislative intent'. My real concern is that my understanding of the Yoo/Cheney/Bush theory of the unitary executive is that the power to determine constitutionality rests as least as much with the President as with Congress or the Court And the President is the only one who has an army and the rest of the resources of the Federal government to enforce his opinion. God help us if this President, or any other, decides to use those resources to override a Court decision. As one who was politically active in the Nixon years (and a non-pareil "Nixon hater"), I never felt worried that even Nixon would take such a step. But W scares me to death.

- cjohnson005

January 3, 2007 at 1:03pm

...there is another form of "signing statement". It's called the federal bureaucracy. This institution, which survives all elections, frequently interprets our laws through its own prism and executes them in a way not forseen or intended either by Congress or the president. Eisenhower, former general that he was, was frequently surprised and frustrated to discover that his directives were not always carried out with the crispness and and unquestioning action to which he was accustomed. Often very much the opposite was the case.

- ChanRobt

January 4, 2007 at 8:54am

...presidents have been denounced and feared for the way they weilded power. Often in what appeared to be (and were) extra-constitutional ways. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR all did something Bush has not come close to doing: interned American citizens on American soil for their political activities-- or in the case of the Japanese-- the fear of activities they might take. Whatever concerns and complaints one might have with Bush regarding Guantanamo and captured combatants, for instance, these are not people who have been jailed for the ordinary activities of an American citizen. And as with Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt, Bush's criticized actions have only come about and been made possible because of extraordinary hostilities directed against the integrity of the nation.

- ChanRobt

January 4, 2007 at 9:01am

...is internal vigilance." So I am glad that, and it is right that, you and others constantly scrutinize the executive (or the Congress, for that matter) for any actions they might take or attempt to take that are in contravention of the Constitution and of our inalienable rights. Any debate is not about the right and duty to question, but whether abuses are in actuality being perpetrated. Better that scrutiny and criticism be excessive than scrutiny not be brought to bear.

- ChanRobt

January 4, 2007 at 9:07am

I mis-wrote, "...'The price of freedom is internal vigilance." Maybe that's what it Jeffferson really oughta have said. But, I beleive he called the kind of vigilance to be "eternal". Accorrding to the Bush-a-phobia tyhpes, what we really do have is internal vig.

- ChanRobt

January 4, 2007 at 4:50pm

which was not that President's have and still might take actions that are non-constitutional, but that the President might overrule the Court's decision by refusing to comply. In fact,the Court's record is mixed in this area; it upheld FDR's actions in Korematsu v US but ruled Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional in ex parte Milligan (in this case Lincoln had declared martial law and was relying on legislation (Habeas Corpus Act) passed in 1863. I'm guessing the Wilson reference is to his administrations enforcement of the Espionage Act and, perhaps Wilson's proposal to extend it. The only relevant case here is US v Schenck in which the court upheld Schenck's conviction with a strongly worded endorsement of the government's authority in wartime. I can find no evidence in any of these cases that the Presidents involved either asserted or acted upon a belief that they could unilaterally override the court's decision. IIRC only Andrew Jackson (supposedly with a statement to the effect that "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.") refused to enforce a Court decision (Worcester v Georgia).

- cjohnson005

January 5, 2007 at 3:32pm

...except you're expecting Bush to do some sort of Seven Days in May extra-constitutional thing. But, to my knoweledge, he has yet to defy any U.S. cout. And, as I say, he has yet to excede actions or policies of Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt. Bush has never done anything on the scale and anti-constituional magnitude of F. Roosevelt who interned without trial American citizens, confiscated thier proerty (they were never truly compensated except years later with a token payment). And he's the great icon of liberalism. Would somebody cite for me something that Bush has done against American citizens on American soil that is so Constitutionally anethical? He's done some wiretapping and bank record checking. But there were international elements in both those actions. And Wilson, another Democrat, under the Espionage act under his auspices Amerricans were prosectued and jailed for their political beliefs and actions. Lincoln closed down some Copperhead newspapers as ell as suspending haeas corpus in certain instances. Nixon ordered tow attorneys general to take actions they considered illegal and both quit on him. I think if Bush were to order American soldiers to take extra-Constitutional actions, they would refuse the order, confident that courts would uphold their actions. But, it is only in heated liberal imaginations that such events have or will take place. As a conservative though, I would be wary of any actions of his that would create dangerous precedent. So, all of you, keep up your bric bracking and sniping. It's far better than silence.

- ChanRobt

January 6, 2007 at 8:24pm

...But, to my knoweledge, he has yet to defy any U.S. court. And, as I say, he has yet to match, let alone excede, actions or policies of Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt.

- ChanRobt

January 6, 2007 at 8:28pm

Another Embargoed Piece from the Grand Rapids Press regarding Ford's Motivations for the Pardon. This Article validates my previous posts and is provided to keep the record accurate. Jan 14, 12:49 PM EST Ford said quick pardon of Nixon was for good of nation GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) -- In his years after leaving the presidency, Gerald R. Ford was consistent in saying that pardoning former President Richard Nixon was the right thing to do - even though it contributed to his loss in the 1976 presidential election. In more than 25 years of interviews he gave with his hometown newspaper on condition that they not be published until after his death, Ford explained the reasoning he used to issue the pardon just a month after being sworn in to replace his disgraced predecessor. "I met with a very close group of advisers and discussed whether I should do it and when I should do it - Bob Hartmann, Don Rumsfeld, Jack Marsh," Ford told The Grand Rapids Press. They debated whether to wait for Nixon to be indicted, whether to wait for Nixon to go on trial or even whether to wait for the likely appeal of any verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The more I heard about the delays and the constant turmoil that would be generated - whether it was six months, a year and a half - the more I became convinced that, if I was going to do it, it should be done promptly," Ford said. Nixon left the presidency and Ford took over on Aug. 9, 1974. On Sept. 8, Ford granted Nixon a full pardon for his role in the 1972 break-in at the Democratic Party offices at the Watergate building in Washington. Ford died on Dec. 26 at age 93 and was laid to rest on the grounds of his presidential museum in Grand Rapids. Maury DeJonge, then a Grand Rapids Press reporter, began the interviews with Ford in 1979. Mike Lloyd, editor of The Press, took over the interviews in 1981 and wrote Sunday's story about the interviews. Ford said he discussed the pardon with his wife, Betty, who he said "has terrific common sense and political intuition." "I don't think she would have done it, but she didn't condemn me for it. She understood how much those problems were affecting my concentration regarding more serious matters," he said. Ford said he did not want any more press conferences dominated by questions about Nixon, his tapes, his papers and his problems. "The pardon got Mr. Nixon off the front page with some political penalty to me," he said. "But presidents ought not to stick their fingers in the breeze to get public reaction and then make a decision. "You're president. You make important decisions based on your best judgment. You can't be oblivious to what public opinion might be, but if you're absolutely certain that what you are doing is right, whether it's economic, national or otherwise, you ought to do it. "If there's a penalty politically, that's part of the game. Sure, it may hurt, and it did in this case. I don't know if that was the crucial thing in the election. But, if it was, so be it. It was still right for the country." Ford acknowledged the pardon hurt his chances against Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976, saying "Some people have never forgiven me and never will." He said he anticipated an antagonistic reaction from the public but said he was surprised that it persisted. But the 38th president also said the pardon wasn't the only cause of his defeat. "The main problem was that the economic recovery was about a month delayed, from the public's point of view," he said. "We got bad statistical data in October. In November, the data was good." Asked whether the Watergate scandal should have cost Nixon the presidency, Ford said: "When you go back and look at Watergate and the things that culminated in his resignation, the political atmosphere was such that he had no choice... If he had stayed on and fought, it would have been a high probability of impeachment in the House of Representatives and a conviction in the Senate... Plus, he was smart enough to know that during that process, the U.S., domestically and internationally, would have been impotent. "I think what he did was absolutely mandatory under the circumstances, which means he gave up the presidency." The late president said the actual break-in at the core of the Watergate scandal "was not a major criminal event" in and of itself. "It was politically stupid," he said. "I have never understood what they were trying to get... The tragedy of Watergate was the president's implication in trying to cover up a minor criminal event. If he had just told the people involved... to confess and take whatever the penalty was... "His cover-up made it a very serious matter and brought about his resignation." Ford also recalled the sadness he felt as he and his wife walked the Nixons from the White House to the military helicopter for his exit from Washington. "I was walking with his wife and my wife," Ford said. "We had known the Nixons over 25 years as friends - personally, politically and socially. With the tragedy of an American president having to resign, I felt sorry for him, for his family and for our country. "I never had the ambition to be president," he continued. "My total political ambition was to be Speaker of the House. So I had not connived or done anything to promote my own career to be president. Plus I liked Dick Nixon. I admired him for most of the things he did. "I said, 'I'm sorry, Dick. I hate to see this happen.'" --- Information from: The Grand Rapids Press, http://www.mlive.com/grpress

- CRS9TNR

January 15, 2007 at 12:42pm