A. Cockburn, ever the contrarian, eulogizes Ford as "our greatest" prez. On Timor, C writes:
"Ford was surrounded by bellicose advisors such as his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger; his vice president, Nelson Rockefeller; his chief of staff,
and later secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld and his presidential assistant, Dick Cheney. The fact that this rabid crew were only able to persuade Ford to give the green light for Indonesia's invasion of East Timor--an appalling decision to be sure -- is tribute to Ford's pacific instincts and deft personnel management. Unlike George W. Bush, Ford was of humane temper and could mostly hold in check his bloodthirsty counselors."
<http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12272006.html>
"Appalling"? Wiping out a third of Timor's population inspires C to say only
this, and then return to praise Ford's "pacific instincts and deft personnel
management"? That in itself is appalling, sort of like saying that the slaughter of Vietnamese by the US was "tragic" or "awful." But at least he mentions Timor, unlike most of the Web and the press.
[WS:] Do you know for the fact that the quoted passage is untrue - that is - it was Ford's own initiative rather than being influenced by his bellicose advisors?
I personally find Cockburn's passage believable. Having a puppet with a popular appeal in the driver's seat while gray eminences are running the show in his shadow seems to be a well established Republican governance style (e.g. the "great communicator" Reagan, the Bubba-Bush, the Governator Schwarzenegger), and not without precedence (Cuba's Castro, USSR's Brezhnev.)
Wojtek