Here's a story from Yahoo this morning. They say that Gerald Ford "Ford disagreed with Bush over Iraq invasion". Okay, fine. Makes it sound like Ford would never have invaded Iraq. Now first off, that's a matter of opinion. Secondly, it falls into the category of "appeal to authority", which I recall being listed as one of the primary logical fallacies.
And thirdly, it's not quite true. What he actually said is that he thought Bush over-emphasized the WMD argument. Which is of course true. (Remembering that the Senate resolution authorising force had twenty-some other reasons). Here's that quote: "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."
Ford also said that he would have tried other means-sanctions, restrictions, etc- first.
Again, fine. Of course, we had tried sanctions, restrictions, etc before, and they never worked. But that's a minor problem, now isn't it?
Now here's an interesting thing: I first read the Yahoo article about 20 minutes ago. Looking over it again as I write this, I discovered that it isn't the same article. The newer version has things that I absolutely did NOT see in the original one. Things that I believe would have been slightly more favorable to Bush.
I hate to go all tin foil hat paranoid here, but why was this story changed in the course of 15-20 minutes? Either that or there are 2 versions of it.
This appears to be the case. Check this out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061228/pl_nm/ford_interview_dc_3 (This is the original piece)
And here's the latter one:
Same headline, different article with different slant to it. Curious, isn't it?
(I hope that both links work. Now the original one seems to have disappeared entirely.)