BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush

Subject: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:11 PM

Former top US diplomats call for Bush's defeat; By Ronald Brownstein in Washington; June 14, 2004

A group of 26 former senior US diplomats and military officials, many appointed to key positions by the Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush snr, is to issue a joint statement this week saying that President George Bush has damaged America's national security.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Mr Bush's foreign policy and urge his defeat in the November presidential elections, several of those who signed the document said. "It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the Administration," said William Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under Mr Bush snr and one of the group's principal organisers. Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former US ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries from Israel and the former Soviet Union to Saudi Arabia and Mexico. Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former career military leaders, including the retired general Joseph Hoar, who was commander in chief of the US Central Command under Mr Bush's father. Some of those signing the document - such as Mr Hoar and a former Air Force chief of staff, Merrill McPeak - have already identified themselves as supporters of John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But the group says most signatories have not endorsed any candidate.
.."A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was undermined by this administration, by the arrogance, the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organisations."

Jack Matlock, who was Mr Reagan's and then Mr Bush snr's ambassador to the Soviet Union, expressed similar views. "Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the US has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power," he said. "But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations." The document will echo a statement released in April by a group of high-level former British diplomats condemning the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for being too closely aligned to US policy in Iraq and Israel. And an open letter to Mr Bush in May from 50 former senior US diplomats accused the White House of destroying the chances of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065033801.html

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:59 PM

Hooray! I especially liked the part:

.."A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was undermined by this administration, by the arrogance, the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organisations."

Its about time! Maybe this is the low point in American history and the American people can set out to re-build their nation and their reputation as leaders in the world. Its gonna take alot to re-build but it can be done. Maybe Bush was the warning that Americans needed to wake up and fly right.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:45 AM

The tide turneth...

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:53 AM

Just to note that this move seems to be spurred on by a similar letter by British dimplomats recently. Bush foreign policy comes under renewed attack, from within (Guardian)

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:04 AM

and what percentage of the population objected to US involvement in WWII against Germany, in say June of 1941? We definitely should not have wasted all that lend-lease material that we sent England and the Soviet Union... The Germans had done nothing to bother us...

And besides, under the "SRS information acceptability" criteria, there are (gasp) Kerry supporters in that group! Makes everything they say worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: TIA
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 08:37 AM

Failure to see the difference between an openly partisan think tank and a group of diplomats and military personnel (both career and appointed) who served under Presidents of both parties reveals beardedbruce as a person more interested in scoring debating points than having an honest debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 09:11 AM

BB, are you asserting that the Iraqis have been doing something of comparable magnitude to Germany's invasions of POland and Austria? What is it you feel they were doing that served as a basis for your comparison?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:55 PM

beardedbruce has already come forth on another thread with the spurious "Hussein = Hitler" argument, implying that if one is opposed to the war on Iraq, one must logically have been opposed to the war against Hitler. "Scoring points" is obviously the name of the game here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:41 PM

I can't think of one national election that has not included large ads in the nation's newspapers featuring well-known people supporting one candidate or another. Common practice on both sides. Nothing to get too excited about I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 07:27 AM

Amos, 14 Jun 04 - 09:11 AM

"BB, are you asserting that the Iraqis have been doing something of comparable magnitude to Germany's invasions of POland and Austria? What is it you feel they were doing that served as a basis for your comparison?"

That's a joke, right Amos? Or does your memory not stretch back far enough to The Gulf War (Iran/Iraq), or the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait that resulted in the UN Operations "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm".

DougR, 14 Jun 04 - 01:41 PM

Very well said Sir. The word from the title of this thread that is significant is "FORMER...." I agree with you, it is of no importance whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 09:32 AM

Bearedbruce not only writes bad poetry but can't look up basic history, Japan attacked the US and declared war, Germany then declared war on the US in support of its ally not the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:05 AM

Teribus:

The Iran = Iraq war was not a ruthless invasion usingt overwhelming force against an unprepared neighbor. We dealt with Kuwait. Jesus X Christmas!

You seem bound and determined to assert the genuine desireability of war in Iraq as though it were some kind of goal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:07 AM

"The Iran = Iraq war was not a ruthless invasion usingt overwhelming force against an unprepared neighbor."

Beg to differ Amos, that war lasted the best part of eight years, in terms of lives lost it was the third most destructive conflict of the 20th century coming in after the Second World War and the Great War.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:34 AM

T., is your point that Iran and Iraq's war was grounds for us to invade? After it was over?

The only action by Iraq that is comparable to Germany's in WW2 was th einvasion of I raq, and GWB didn't need to handle it. His father took care of it, remember?


Bruce was arguing that American protest against W's war in Iraq was similar to protesting American involvement against Germany in 1941. Aside from the claim for prescience, which we can justly ignore, the analogy falls apart on a factual basis.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,FedUp
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:50 AM

Propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 12:05 PM

DougR says "I can't think of one national election that has not included large ads in the nation's newspapers featuring well-known people supporting one candidate or another. Common practice on both sides".

True enough, but can anyone cite any previous national election where a BIPARTISAN (appointees and career folks under presidents of both parties) with credentials remotely similar to these people (below) made a public statement against a candidate WITHOUT explicitly supporting the other. I think this is unprecedented, but am open to being proven wrong by someone with a better memory than me.

Avis T. Bohlen — assistant secretary of State for arms control, 1999-2002; deputy assistant secretary of State for European affairs 1989-1991.

Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. — chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.

Jeffrey S. Davidow — ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002; assistant secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1996

William A. DePree — ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987-1990.

Donald B. Easum — ambassador to Nigeria, 1975-79.

Charles W. Freeman Jr. — assistant secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, 1993-94; ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992.

William C. Harrop — ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991.

Arthur A. Hartman — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981-87; ambassador to France, 1977-1981.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar — commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.

H. Allen Holmes — assistant secretary of Defense for special operations, 1993-99; assistant secretary of State for politico-military affairs, 1986-89.

Robert V. Keeley — ambassador to Greece, 1985-89; ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980-84.

Samuel W. Lewis — director of State Department policy and planning, 1993-94; ambassador to Israel, 1977-1985.

Princeton N. Lyman — assistant secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1995-98; ambassador to South Africa, 1992-95.

Jack F. Matlock Jr. — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991; director for European and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, 1983-86; ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981-83.

Donald F. McHenry — ambassador to the United Nations, 1979-1981.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak — chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.

George E. Moose — assistant secretary of State for African affairs, 1993-97; ambassador to Senegal, 1988-91.

David D. Newsom — acting secretary of State, 1980; undersecretary of State for political affairs, 1978-1981; ambassador to Indonesia, 1973-77

Phyllis E. Oakley — assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, 1997-99.

James Daniel Phillips — ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990-93; ambassador to Burundi, 1986-1990.

John E. Reinhardt — professor of political science, University of Vermont, 1987-91; ambassador to Nigeria, 1971-75.

Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith — deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.

Ronald I. Spiers — undersecretary-general of the United Nations for Political Affairs, 1989-1992; ambassador to Pakistan, 1981-83.

Michael Sterner — deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs, 1977-1981; ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-76.

Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner — director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1977-1981.

Alexander F. Watson — assistant secretary of State for Inter-American affairs, 1993-96; deputy permanent representative to the U.N., 1989-1993. Source: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:02 PM

Uh, probably the last general election TIA. The importance of those named is largely in the eye of the beholder. True they held responsible positions in government or in the military but so what? Pure politics in my opinion. Were the Republican Party willing to spend the money, I'm sure they could find a like number of individuals with equal responsibility in government and the military to sign on to an ad supporting GWB. They (like me) might question the viability of such an ad though.

Question, TIA (and others who believe such an ad is effective)would such an ad sway YOUR vote? Bush haters are going to vote against him regardless of how many such ads run in the newspapers. Any undecideds who are swayed by it likely would have voted against GWB anyway when the chips are down.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:28 PM

"Uh, probably the last general election TIA."

no factual citing of any such thing in response to TIA's query, just another partisan bleat from dougR

"True they held responsible positions in government or in the military but so what?"

er, um, well...it might mean that they have experience and er, well...maybe they KNOW something we should at least consider without writing them off as "bush haters".

"Were the Republican Party willing to spend the money, I'm sure they could find..."

could you cite any source indicating these people are being paid for their statement dougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:41 PM

There is a famous picture of John Kerry and 20 of his fellow soldiers in Viet Nam.   Kerry talks about this picture all the time.   (Oh- did I mention that John Kerry fought in Viet Nam?    I thought you might have forgot if Kerry didn't mention it 50 times a day.

In that picture, 12 of the people have come out in writing against John Kerry.   4 are dead.   2 won't go on record with a comment. 2 are for him.   So, of the people that knew him best in Viet Nam (did I mention that Kerry fought in Viet Nam?) 12 of the 14 on record support Bush and feel Kerry is not qualified for office.

Now who do you believe.    Former amabassadors or the people who fought side by side with him- did I mention that Kerry fought in Viet Nam?   But lets not talk about it.   As Kerry said on the Senate floor, we should not judge anyone on the basis of whether they served in Viet Nam.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:52 PM

Uh, Northwest Guest, I did not infer that those people were paid to be included in the ad. You may not be aware of it but newspaper ads cost money. Even newspapers slanted toward one candidate or another would provide such space for free I believe.

My comments were based on MY opinion that ads such as these do little good, and little harm.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: TIA
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 02:51 PM

"Uh, probably the last general election TIA"

DougR - Names please, and I actually might be swayed !!!!

Larry K - Interesting point about the Kerry photo, but this group quite pointedly does NOT endorse Kerry. It ain't about Kerry, it's about Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 07:37 PM

"You may not be aware of it but newspaper ads cost money."

i am very familiar with how advertising works, newspaper and otherwise. i have read the article in the first post and several others i found on the web and nowhere do i see this "statement" referred to as an advertisment or as being printed as such in a newspaper. all the articles i read refer to it as a statement that will be released in washington on wednesday. i would presume it would be reported as news due do the distinguished nature of the signees.
do you have any source showing that this will be introduced as a paid advertisment in newspapers across the country dougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 08:08 PM

Yes! Let's get this LSOS out of the White House! And his LSOS vice president too...with all his ties to Enron, Haliburton and the prison scandels!

Peter Woodruff
a patriotic American who sees through the BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 08:14 PM

LSOS is short for Lieing Sack of Shit.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:24 AM

...still waiting for the list of names from the uh, last general election...

Subject: RE: BS: Former Diplomats & Military Against Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:20 AM

DougR and I are on the polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I agree with him that this is a common practice at election time.

Where I disagree with DougR is on this statement:

"Even newspapers slanted toward one candidate or another would provide such space for free I believe."

Wrong. The newspapers never give out political advertising for free.

I realize most people nowadays aren't aware of this, but back in the Old School days, nearly every newspaper had an editorial slant that supported either Republicans or Democrats. That editorial slant was known and understood by the newspaper readership, and the news given was interpreted accordingly. It wasn't considered controversial, partisan, or political. It was simply a recognition that there was no such thing as truly objective, unbiased reporting of news.

The era of tv network news seems to have undermined the very important critical thinking skill once shared by American voters. Very few people nowadays knows and understands how and why they need to determine the editorial slant of the tv and radio network news that they watch and listen to, or read in their papers BEFORE accepting what they say. People take the news literally as truth, much in the same way that the most conservative religionists take their holy books literally.

This is not a good thing.

I also disagree with DougR about this particular group of leaders making this announcement being insignificant.

I believe it is very significant that such a large, powerful group of diplomatic and military leaders is willing to publicly state their opposition to Bush administration policies in the post-9/11 era. In any era, you rarely see this sort of a group become involved in the political debate, because diplomats and military leaders are supposed to be able to serve the interests of the US, and not one political party or president over another. So the way they conduct themselves is to stand apart from the political debate, even though their personal political opinions are usually known within the political establishment in New York and Washington.

The US' aggressive, beligerent unilateralism and Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war has been disastrous for the US on a military and diplomatic level. I believe that is why this particular group is now speaking out. That they are speaking out in the wake of their equivalent group in Britain, is likely a strategical move, but that should give Americans pause. But it isn't.

Too many Americans keep viewing the global impact of our government's actions through the red/blue lens of American political divisions. That is a really big mistake. The standing of the US has plummeted around the world in the last two years, from the point of being at an all time high in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. That too should be giving Americans pause, but isn't.