« Backstory | Main | Mystery Terrorists Identified »

The Pardon

27 Dec 2006 04:25 pm

Because you're all dying to hear what I have to say about Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon:

Here's the thing. Promoting "healing" and a sense of "moving on" was, in fact, arguably more important than seeing Richard Nixon spend years in a jail cell. But there's a proper way to handle situations of that type designed to promote precisely those goals. It's the Truth and Reconciliation Commission model where ancien regime figures confess to their political crimes in exchange for amnesty. The general idea is that such an arrangement does more to promote actual resolution of the issues than would an adversarial trial process in which the accused have the incentive to destroy evidence, deny everything, and stymie investigations.

That's not at all what Ford did. As you'll read here, he took the bizarre step of granting Nixon "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974." Nixon, in response, offered not a confession, but only an extraordinarily vague message of pseudo-contrition:

Looking back on what is still in my mind a complex and confusing maze of events, decisions, pressures and personalities, one thing I can see clearly now is that I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy.

No words can describe the depths of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency -- a nation I so deeply love and an institution I so greatly respect.

I know many fair-minded people believe that my motivations and action in the Watergate affair were intentionally self-serving and illegal. I now understand how my own mistakes and misjudgments have contributed to that belief and seemed to support it. This burden is the heaviest one of all to bear.

That the way I tried to deal with Watergate was the wrong way is a burden I shall bear for every day of the life that is left to me.

Nixon, in short, confessed to nothing. And Ford -- a member of Nixon's own administration, elevated to the Vice Presidency by Nixon himself -- offered blanket amnesty for unspecified crimes.

What's more, by the time of the pardon it had become clear that "Watergate" as such -- a break-in to the Democratic National Committee's headquarters and a subsequent coverup of the involvement of the Committee to Re-Elect the President in the burglary -- was really the least of our Nixon-related concerns. The Watergate incident happens to have been the caper that first led to fruitful investigations of the Nixon administration, but turned out to be merely a small piece of a very large puzzle of abuses of power. Nixon expressed no contrition whatsoever about any of those matters. Nor did Ford in his address to the nation acknowledge that he had just pardoned Nixon not only for "Watergate" but for the whole kit and kaboodle, a series of events whose very occurrences neither Ford nor Nixon even acknowledged.

Consequently, the ostensible goal of the pardon -- national reconciliation -- was simply not achieved. Neither Nixon, Ford, the Republican Party, nor the conservative movement in any of its manifestations acknowledged that the President of the United States had been spear-heading a broad-based criminal conspiracy aimed at suppressing the anti-war movement and other civil society manifestations of opposition to Nixon's policies.

The pardon did, however, achieve its intended purpose of establishing the fiction that there was some particular "Watergate" incident, separate from the overall pattern of Nixonian governance, and limited to a very small roster of personnel.

Share This

Comments (43)

well said, and a fair push-back against premature whitewash.

only complaint:
"its intended purpose of establishing the fiction that there was some particular "Watergate" incident"

having followed events quite closely throughout '72-'74, i can tell you that this 'fiction' was already very well established, and was not measurably altered by the pardon. i don't think that was its effect or its intended purpose.

I saw an interview with Ford some years later where he made the point that, basically, he'd found himself in the position of literally spending 2-6 hours a day on matters pertaining to Richard Nixon and he didn't think that anything short of a war was worth that much of a President's time. I thought when I read the interview that, if he'd said that at the time ("Richard Nixon isn't worth that much of my time"), then he might have won the election.

Of course the Nixonian wing of the party would never have forgiven him...

And as digby notes, it set a precedent for future pardons in much more egregious circumstances: pardons that allow scum like Elliot Abrams to continue to darken American politics today. That said, looking back at 1974 may encourage an important discussion on the kind of pardons that Dubya might scribble out in January 2009.

The Wise People Of Washington who describe the blanket pardon as a way to move forward are those who don't want people looking too hard at the run-up to war in Iraq, but didn't mind Ken Starr's salacious rifling. Funny, that.

Admittedly, it's problematic to graft the T&R Commission model onto events two decades before its inception, but plea bargains or qualified amnesties are very much American in spirit.

Bingo. Ford's legacy. IOKIYAR becomes the Holy Writ of American politics

Neither Nixon, Ford, the Republican Party, nor the conservative movement in any of its manifestations acknowledged that the President of the United States had been spear-heading a broad-based criminal conspiracy aimed at suppressing the anti-war movement and other civil society manifestations of opposition to Nixon's policies.

Which was exactly the purpose. Had they been forced to make such an acknowledgement, it would have shattered the Rethuglican Party. A lot of people would have had to have been thrown off the sled.

No doubt in my mind that Ford's motives were purely partisan. One only has to look at his record in Congress to see the kind of man he really was. And as president, he vetoed an expansion of the FOIA. Not a very nice man at all.

But as vile and unprincipled as he was, isn't it amazing that by Rethuglican standards he is as pure as the driven snow? I mean, he really was one of the best of them.

Nixon didn't want to resign. "The Final Days" show Nixon's advisors pondering how to pierce his unwillingness to change course.

If Ford's promise of a pardon was the necessary impetus for Nixon's resignation -- would you still oppose it?

I believe Hell would freeze over before Nixon would get up in front of a Truth Commission and admit any kind of wrongdoing. He's not that kind of guy.

If Ford's promise of a pardon was the necessary impetus for Nixon's resignation -- would you still oppose it?

Oh, sure. Impeachment is a rare thing, but shouldn't be so rare that it's more inconceivable than, say, invading another country. And the US could do with the historical example of a president who dares stand against the constitution and suffers the consequences.

You are blaming the wrong person for not holding a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." It was Congress, not the President, who had the power to do this. Congress could have held an investigation and called Nixon as a witness to events during his Presidency. Since Nixon had received a full pardon, he would not have been able to refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, and his pardon would not have given him immunity from perjury charges if he had subsequently lied to Congress. Even if Nixon himself could not be held accountable, the actions of other members of his Administration would be exposed.

Lou, nixon was going to be impeached and found guilty if he hadn't resigned....

A "Truth and Reconcilliation" style inquiry would have been a better approach than Ford's blanket pardon, and I second Keith's comment that COngress should have taken the lead on such an inquiry.

However, I note that Watergate was over 20 years before the South Africa commission. I am not familiar with any example of such a commission prior to 1995. It is hard to fault those in the 1970's who lacked the foresight to invent such an inquiry.

It was Congress, not the President, who had the power to do this

Keith - Thank you for saying this first.

It was the same lack of courage shown by the congress in 1992 when they dropped the Iran Contra issue after Poppy pardoned Cappy and the Gang.

You can't blame Ford for this one. Sorry.

Hopefully someone with a (D) after their name will remember this particular lesson over the next few years.

Neither Nixon, Ford, the Republican Party, nor the conservative movement in any of its manifestations acknowledged that the President of the United States had been spear-heading a broad-based criminal conspiracy aimed at suppressing the anti-war movement and other civil society manifestations of opposition to Nixon's policies.

Awfully broad claims, here, Matt.

I believe there is widespread agreement throughout the poltical spectrum -- which by definition includes plenty of conservatives -- that Nixon was a deeply flawed figure who engaged in widespread criminal abuses. No doubt there exists the occassional tinfoil-hat wearing right-winger, living under a rock somewhere, who thinks somehow Nixon was a victim of liberal conspiracy. But is this view widespread? I think not. I think most Americans who know anything at all about the subject, and almost all conservatives and Republicans included in this category, acknowledge that Richard Nixon's conduct as president was truly, deeply shameful. Moreover, most people realize he got off lightly. It's just that some of us think the country was better off being spared another several years of painful public spectacle for the purpose of reaching a legal verdict when history was perfectly capable of providing one.

jasper, it's not that long ago that trent lott, who as a member of the house judiciary committee voted against recommending impeachment for nixon, voted to convict clinton in his impeachment, and no one even asked him to explain.

methinks you are a little optimistic about the willingness of right-wingers to admit anything....

It was Congress, not the President, who had the power to do this.

Why didn't Congress investigate? Anybody know?

The absolute presidential pardon power is very authoritarian. I've always felt it clashed with the rest of the checks and balances system.

Damn Alexander Hamilton.

As Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg stated in her "Profiles in Courage for a New Century" and then her uncle Ted stated when presenting Gerry Ford with that award.....

"I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us. He eminently deserves this award, and we are proud of his achievement".


http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Gerald+Ford/Remarks+by+Senator+Edward+M.+Kennedy.htm

Knowing that this decision was unpopular (it cost him his press secretary) yet still doing so - however unwisely it might seem - tells me that he was thinking of something besides his own bacon. It's hard to think of the current White House resident being able to do that.

I feel certain Gerald Ford did any number of bad things under the radar, but since I'm largely ignorant of what those things may have been I'm going to praise him for the being the man to do least in office since Calvin Coolidge, and doing practically nothing is better than doing what most presidents do a lot of - which is bad.

Also, colds suck.

But at least it isn't August.

As a wise man once said, summer colds are the worst.

Why didn't Congress investigate? Anybody know?

Congress did investigate. Hearings were held in the summer of 1973. My memory's a bit faint as to whether or not they extended into '74. But lots of shocking revelations came to light (enemy lists and so forth). The press aggressively brought many details to light, as well. Perhaps by the time Nixon left office Congressional Democrats simply felt we knew enough, and no further investigation was warranted.

I sent the following to Josh Marshall but seems appropriate to share here
+++++++++++++++++++++

I browse frequently but rarely comment but I need to get this off my chest.

I was thirty when President Ford pardoned Nixon. In one stroke, Ford nullified all his former and future good deeds. Just when we thought politics had reached its lowest and we had finally turned the corner, Ford made his announcement. The public rolled their eyes and realized it was business as usual. I liked Ford but I could never trust him after that act. Carter was elected as much on the anybody-but-Ford platform as for anything else he stood for. In retrospect, I do give credit to Ford for doing much good but I will never forget how he wasted the opportunity to bridge the vast political divide that existed in in this country.

Google Chapter 28 of the Walsh Report and you'll find that the main person GHW Bush was protecting was GHW Bush. He escaped the Iran Contra episode with an undamaged reputation, mostly because he succeeded in withholding key information from Walsh.

Poppy Bush was not an adventurist or a fantasist, but to me he was a deeply sinister guy.

Not to be a complete jerk (or maybe to be a complete jerk but not especially care; isn't it more impolite to talk nasty about someone when they're still alive, and can like hear it and stuff?), how exactly was Professor Ford - as the Guardian put it - a "force for reconciliation"?

Didn't something like 3/4 of the American people think Nixon was a shit by the time Ford took office? Honestly, with the exception of maybe Hitler sucked yes or no and liquor makes you feel nice true or false there are few things I gather Americans at the time could agree about. Why do you need "reconciliation" when almost everyone more or less thinks the same thing?

If the "reconcliation" was between people and government wasn't that special little moment something like an abject failure? Faith and trust in government declined in succeeding years and decades. As I recall (and to be sure I was more concerned with which Thtar Wars action figures I might acquire at the time than what some old douchebags might do in Washington) Mr. Reagan ran against government in 1980, and like totally won.

I don't know of many conservatives (although there are some, chiefly ex-employees like Buchanan and Stein) who still admire or defend Nixon. Furthermore, they often seem eager to point out the generally accurate fact that Nixon was not very conservative. This contrasts with Iran-Contra where they are eager to defend a conservative hero (or more accurately, eager to ignore the issue).

actually, congress did investigate, in rather great detail, starting with the ervin committee hearings ("what did the president know and when did he know it?") and including the exemplary work of the rodino judiciary committee and leon jaworski (something no one will ever say about the hyde judiciary committee and ken starr, that's for damn sure). there was a very detailed record of exactly what crimes nixon committed: that's why the judiciary committee vote to recommend impeachment was strongly bipartisan; that's why the house was ready to impeach, and the general consensus at the time was that the senate would have convicted somewhere between 80-20 and 85-15.

so i'm not sure what, exactly, the congress was still supposed to have "investigated." even today, anyone who wants can familiarize themselves with the record (tony lukas' book, whose title escapes me, was always my favorite).

Matt, you're a smart guy. I always enjoy learning from you.

Your arguments are almost always seamless.

There never was any "healing" or "reconciliation." Only justice heals, and we never got any.

People like Matt don't understand anything but their own class privelage. Healing was far less important than justice, it always is. Without justice, there can never be any real healing. what you call "healing", wasn't healing at all. It was an attempt by men of your class to excuse one of their friends from treason and sedition. You would never have accepted a pardon for a "lesser" person.

The fact of the matter is, without that pardon there wouldn't have been an Iraq War. There wouldn't have been an Iran contra. Every President from that Nixon on would have known that actions have consequences and that they can't hide their criminality behind their office. It set a terrible precident, which has allowed the media to ignore the sins of every Republican since, in the interest of "healing". They don't call bullshit on Reagan, or on Bush, because of that pardon. They just don't see a point.

This post is long on the Monday morning-quarterbacking, and short of any concept of what was happening in 1974 and what Ford was facing as President. Also, equating the crimes of Nixon over six years with the 50-year system of Apartheid is a bit much. Also, calling Nixon, the man who declared we are all Keynsians now, opposed quite noisily in National Review, and was chased from office, ultimately, by Barry Goldwater, is a bit lacking in historical nuance.

What was Ford facing in 1974, when he decided he had to close out the whole Nixon problem?

* Stagflation and high unemployment
* the end of Vietnam
* an increased assertiveness by the USSR.

The mid-70s wasn't just Soul Train and really bad clothes. It was an economic disaster zone, caused in part by Nixon's really bad economics, the oil embargos, really poisonous partisanship (the legacy of Vietnam and the domestic spying conducted by Nixon), and general inattention to governance during the last year of Nixon.

Ford was not wrong in feeling this somehow had to stop. The pardon was his way of doing it. And he paid a real political price for doing it. Congress, which was as Democratic as it ever would be during this era, had ample opportunity to examine everything in excrutiating detail. There were hearings on the Nixon Pardon, and Ford famously appeared as a witness.

Yet this didn't happen. Has our host ever thought why?

There are arguments that the pardon was counterproductive. Certainly, it allowed folks to trot out every conspiracy theory under the sun, and it allowed Nixon to rehabilitate himself, instead of disappear into permanent disgrace. Also, the precedent set has not been well used, though I notice that Bush I and Clinton used the pardon late in their Presidency, rather than have the guts to use it before an election. (The GOP got killed in 1974, and the pardon was a reason). But Ford's reason for the pardon was a reasonable one, and sometimes, a President has to make a tough decision based on the alternatives available and known to him.

The original post and many of the comments are pretty anachronistic: as Jim points out, "truth and reconciliation" hadn't been invented in the 70's. If well and deeply done, the truth and reconciliation process seems much better than "justice" as a way to dissolve hurt, hate, resentment and revenge without inciting another cycle of same. Too bad we can't clone Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.

So, uh, now that we all agree that "healing" and "moving on" is MUCH more important than enforcing the law or holding people accountable if they do something wrong, when do we abolish the court system?

Or does the "healing" and "moving on" stuff only apply to those at the top of the social pecking order?

I swear, some of the idiotic comments from progressives on this make me want to vote GOP in 2008. Since you guys love Republicans so much, let's give you all the Republicans you can handle and then some.

Pray tell, how was the then Soviet Union "more assertive" in the mid-70's? That is the line the neocons, in their earliest incarnation, pushed upon us, and it was just as wrong then as it is now.

So, uh, now that we all agree that "healing" and "moving on" is MUCH more important than enforcing the law or holding people accountable if they do something wrong, when do we abolish the court system?

Why would you make this comment with respect to Gerald Ford's pardoning Nixon? The whole Watergate scandal was one big civics lesson on how even the most powerful man in the land is not above the law. Nixon, after all, was indicted by the House of Representatives, and faced sure conviction by the Senate. In the end the American people removed him from office. If that's not an example of "holding people accountable" I don't know what is.

jasper, just to keep the historic record straight: the judiciary committee recommended impeachment with 3 articles. nixon resigned before the house voted on the recommendation, so he was not "indicted by the House of Representatives," although as i noted at 11:11 p.m., you're right that he would have been, and he would have been convicted.

actually, congress did investigate, in rather great detail, starting with the ervin committee hearings ("what did the president know and when did he know it?") and including the exemplary work of the rodino judiciary committee and leon jaworski

Sorry, my comment was unclear. I meant, why didn't Congress do anything after Nixon resigned? As was pointed out above, after the pardon, especially, Nixon would have been forced to answer all of Congress's questions. Now, though, we're left with a somewhat murky record about Nixon's culpability. I would have thought that, even just to complete the historical record, Congress would have sought Nixon's testimony about what he did or did not do.

jasper, just to keep the historic record straight...

Howard: thanks for the clarification.

well, al, now we're entirely in the realm of speculation, but i think apalled moderate at 10:00 a.m. is onto the heart of the reason why.

if your only experience of impeachment is the hyde farce, it may be tough to understand just how strong the emotions were that were stirred by the nixon impeachment. it took a long time before people could understand that: a.) the watergate break-in was not an isolated incident; b.) nixon was perfectly prepared to lie about covering up the plumbers. the revelations were wrenching and, for the time, all-consuming. (today, when a disappearing white teenage girl can command the same attention that the impeachment of nixon once did, it's hard to imagine, i know.)

therefore, given that the historic record was clear about nixon's crimes, and given that if there had been a quid-pro-quo for ford becoming president very few wanted to know about it, and given that economic conditions were deterioarating with no attention being given whatsoever, i think the congressional consensus was to let sleeping dogs lie.

PS. the Lukas book whose name i couldn't recall last night was "Nightmare: the underside of the nixon years," and if you want a thorough account of both nixon's criminality and the nixon imeachment, that remains an excellent go-to source.

PPS. Jasper, no problem!

"I think most Americans who know anything at all about the subject, and almost all conservatives and Republicans included in this category, acknowledge that Richard Nixon's conduct as president was truly, deeply shameful."

With the exception of George Will and perhaps a few others, I don't ever recall a convservative speaking ill of Nixon on moral, ethical, or personal grounds. They criticize him for detente, EPA, going to China, price controls, and all the like. But they never condemn him for his deep, abiding, and abject criminality. Hell, Michael Barone has spent the past decade trying to convince the country that Nixon was a good man who only got chased out of office by all of those hateful and America-hating liberals and reporters. (Read his preposterous U.S. News cover story on Nixon from around 2000 or 2001.) Or take a gander at Rick Perlstein's excellent talk at some conservative shindig last year, where one prominent winger -- no doubt echoing the views of his fellow travelers -- declared "I didn't like Nixon until Watergate."

People are acting as if this all happened in a vaccuum. Lots of people, including the Attorney General, went to jail. There were many criminal trials of all the underlings and justice, in a major way, WAS served.

The thing is, Watergate dominated the news and the nation's consciousness for 2 years, and the way I remember it, everyone was played out and just generally sick of the whole thing. The major factor was accomplished - we got rid of Nixon and his whole darkness and Imperial delusion. And we wanted to, and needed to, turn to other things. A Nixon trial would have dragged the drama on for years afterward - why put the country through that. I hated Ford for what he had done with the pardon, but then a strange thing happened. About 6 weeks later, Nixon suddenly needed emergency surgery for a life-threatening phlebitis episode, and he was suddenly in the news again. And it occurred to me - After August 9, he HAD disappeared from the stage and the nation was rid of him. It was this weird blast from the past, even though it had only been 2 months, when he was suddenly in the news again with his health issues. After Nixon and his scandals 24/7 for years, it was a complete breath of fresh air that he wasn't in the spotlight anymore, and I realized that I, and everyone else, had indeed moved on - and the only thing that did that was the pardon - otherwise the whole drama would have continued playing out and we would have continued living it for the next couple of years.
It's easy to be enraged in the abstract now, and talk about the need for "justice" if you didn't go through it. But after August 1974, we, as a nation, were exhausted and traumatized. We had won - we got rid of the guy. He didn't dominate our lives any more. Believe me - in the scheme of things, that proved to be enough. In law, a cause of action can only be brought if one is damaged and one seeks a remedy. Very few people were actually personally damaged by Nixon in the "cause of action" sense. But for the damage he did to the nation as a whole, just getting rid of the guy so we could move on was remedy enough. It really was exhausting

Andy--just anecdotally, remembering my own reaction at the time: I was 17-18 during Watergate. I despised Nixon. I watched the hearings intently, with a sense of awe at history unfolding before my eyes. I remember the sense of amazement, almost disbelief at seeing the "Nixon Resigns" headline in the NYTimes. Kept my copy of it for years.

Funny thing is, I have virtually no recollection of the pardon. I suppose I thought it was a cop-out, and maybe it's just because it didn't surprise me, but it really made no lasting impression compared to everything else. So I guess that fits with your sense of feeling like it was old business by then.

Here's a thought as to why: your sense that two months later it was a shock to hear about Nixon at all is a clue. The pardon was necessary to get the presidency, finally, away from Nixon. More months of trials and investigations would have kept it squarely in his sweaty, criminal hands, maybe even taking it with him right into a criminal cell somewhere. I'm speaking of it in an emotional or symbolic sense obviously. We felt like we'd exposed the sick old bastard for what he was and now it was our right to forget about him and try to recover one of the chief symbols of our national identity--our presidency, not his--that had taken so many body blows since the JFK assassination forward.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that it was a mistake. The Imperial Presidency has come back with a vengeance and maybe it couldn't have if more of the nixonian vileness had been laid out for the rats and buzzards to pick at. But I think we also needed to try and hold on to a few shreds of the national mystique, and Nixon wasn't worth the further damage it was going to do to follow it through to the bitter end. Better to send him off into obscurity.

If only he and the rest of his wrecking crew would have stayed there.

Ford did use the "this is taking too much of my time" argument at the time of the pardon and during the 1976 campaign, not just years afterwards. I remember him saying it quite frequently as one of his main rationales for the pardon.

Of course, the argument doesn't hold a bit of water. All a president has to say is "don't bother me about this again!"

>Of course, the argument doesn't hold a bit of water. All a president has to say is "don't bother me about this again!"

Interesting take, Virginia. So the President doesn't have to concern himself with any legal proceedings that he is a party to, just by saying so. If only Clinton had realized that legal fact, everything would have turned out so much better. Well, perhaps W. will get it right.

By the time 1976 rolled around, "It was taking too much of my time" was a stale excuse. If he'd said it at the time of the pardon, it might have played better.

I remember a poll that was taken at the time of the pardon, which violated every stricture about poll question formulation. It asked, "Do you think Nixon has 'suffered enough?'" Something like 60% answered "No."

That's vengeance talking, and while it's understandable, and even forgivable, people might reflect on how well it serves a nation to follow policies of vengeance, an emotion that often gets its targets confused, oh, wait, here I am talking as if events of 30 years ago might have some general lessons to teach about current events, and that can't be right, can it?

This is exactly why this congress can't just let this lie, although there are a lot of here-and-now issues they've got to tackle, chiefly extricating our troops from Iraq and starting to provide some oversight of the corrupt and incompetent administration. As painful as it may be, and it certainly will be, this assault by the Republican Party on the very fabric of our democracy has to be investigated and the perpetrators permanently expunged from public office, no matter where it leads and no matter who suffers. I don't what's happened in the past 6 years to be happening again 10 years from now because a criminal president recycles the present group of thugs into the administration.

And if it permanently destroys the republican party, so much the better. It's shown that it doesn't care about America, at least as most of us define it.

You'd think he was Ghandi, judging from the media frothing over his "decency" and "healing" abilities.

But before anyone mistakes Ford's giving a blanket pardon to Nixon for a selfless desire to "heal" the nation rather than a self-serving quid pro quo pact with his sure to be impeached pal, let's read the explanation that Ford himself gave for it.

Since he demanded that the explanatory interview, with Bob Woodward, be kept secret until he was safely dead, it is only now that good Americans may read Ford's own explanation of why he gave Nixon a pass, and let him waltz out of the White House without so much as a "sorry" to the people victimized during Nixon's diseased governance.

Yep, Fordie did a heck of a job, defending and covering up for the indefensible, Richard Nixon, and that is his Real legacy:

"I looked upon him (Nixon) as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma," Ford told Post reporter Bob Woodward.

Ford's remarks, which he asked not be released until his death, add to the rationale for pardoning Nixon a month after he resigned as president in 1974.

Ford had claimed that he issued the pardon to allow the nation to move past Watergate and begin a time of healing, not for personal reasons.

Nixon and Ford had been acquainted since the late 1940s, but the depth of their friendship was not widely known. Nixon confided in Ford and sought his help during the Watergate crisis when Ford was House minority leader, the Post reported.

"I think that Nixon felt I was about the only person he could really trust on the Hill," Ford told Woodward.
He also called himself Nixon's "only real friend."

http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061229/UPDATE/61229002


Comments closed January 10, 2007.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.