As I noted earlier, the pardon of Nixon was a distasteful and unpopular decision, and there was no upside here for President Ford. He had to determine whether the need for Nixon's criminal prosecution outweighed the likely further damage his trial would undoubtedly have caused the country's political institutions, particularly as likely additional revelations about Nixon's professional conduct emerged.

Ford had a lot of very real problems to grapple with, Vietnam, etc. After consultation with Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski, he concluded -- quite reasonably, in my estimation -- that another two or three years (at least) of national obsession over Nixon's scandals was not in the country's best long-term interests. It was entirely a judgment call on Ford's part, and he paid a huge political price for it. But he also succeeded in putting Watergate behind us.

ScottW314: "The very notion that Cheney could pardon GWB pre-trial is so un-American that I cannot not believe you are spending time defending it. The context was almost identical."

... you are equating Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, a documented historical event, with mere conjecture about what Dick Cheney might have done, were he to have somehow ever assumed the presidency -- which of course never happened. Therefore, they are most certainly not "almost identical" in context, because the latter has no context at all. Rather, it's pure fiction, and has no absolutely no basis in reality.

And honestly, nobody's ranting about Texas Republicans here. I've already noted the validity of your arguments, but President Ford's decision to pardon Nixon needs to be considered and examined in accordance with the contemporaneous times in which it was rendered.

You and others here are looking back upon events which occurred 40 years ago, with the obvious advantage of four decades' worth of hindsight. Yes, had President Ford known then what we know now about the behavior of today's Republicans, it might well have factored into his decision making, and he may well have let Nixon hang.

But that in itself is an inherently unreasonable supposition from an historical perspective, not unlike wondering what would have happened to us in the Second World War, had Japan invaded and occupied Hawaii immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Because Gerald Ford was no soothsayer, any more than the rest of us were back then or are now. He had to base his decision upon the best available information and advice he could get at the time. How was he ever to reasonably project and assume what future Republicans might or might not do as a result of Watergate, two or three decades hence?

Hell, Ford didn't even foresee the immediate and mortal internecine threat that Ronald Reagan would pose to his presidency, only one year later. Like most people at the time, Ford assumed -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that most Republicans would acknowledge the reality of Watergate and be reasonable and rational in their reactions to it.

Even had Nixon been tried convicted and imprisoned, no doubt a number of today's right-wing Republicans today would still be clamoring about seeking payback for his "persecution" by Democrats. Oh, wait, they already have.

But that said, I also cited several credible sources to underscore my own contention, while you've otherwise done very little here but fulminate about the subject. And I'd be willing to wager that more people across the country will probably tend to agree with my own take about Ford's pardon, than they will with yours -- particularly when you fail to support such an assertion with anything other than your own umbrage.

Ford repeatedly and adamantly denied that there was ever any quid pro quo deal. And to further underscore his denials, he answered a congressional line of inquiry personally, voluntarily going to Capitol Hill and allowing himself to be questioned under oath by members of a House sub-committee about the circumstances of the pardon. Also, Haig himself acknowledged that Ford had dismissed outright any talk of pardons prior to Nixon's resignation.

Schorr, OTOH, made it sound like Haig walked away from Foggy Bottom with the notion that the pardon was a done deal, but he offered only his own conjecture to support his opinion.

(That said, I must nevertheless acknowledge my immense respect for Daniel Schorr. He stands as one of the 20th century's truly courageous and great journalists, and I used to really look forward to his analysis of the week's events every Saturday morning on NPR's "Weekend Edition.")

I'm afraid you may be right that negative perceptions about Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon will eventually die off only with the passing of our generation, who watched and experienced the unfolding of the Watergate scandal first-hand, and who obviously still harbor some very intense feelings about Nixon's criminal conduct.