Interesting -- diplomats want Bush voted out

[jennyanydots]

26 Ex-U.S. Diplomats Urge Bush's Ouster





By HARRY DUNPHY
Associated Press Writer

June 16, 2004, 9:00 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community.

"Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the world around it," said Phyllis Oakley, former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. "Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy."

Retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, said the Bush administration anticipated a rosy reception after a military victory in Iraq but "we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. So we see here unfolding before us a total disaster."

Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war, said the administration's handling of wider relations with the Islamic world was particularly damaging to U.S. interests in the long run.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, did not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in a statement outlining its views. But one of its members said Sunday "it goes more or less without saying."

The statement suggested Bush's policies had left the United States isolated in the world.

Secretary of State Colin Powell reacted sharply to the allegation, noting that Bush has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in search of support from the international community.

"We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?" he asked.

Powell said the authors of the statement "wish to see President Bush not re-elected. I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people." He commented in an interview with the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television network.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said at least 20 members of the group have been involved in partisan political activities in the past.

"It is not surprising that John Kerry has the support of a group of people who share his belief that the threat of terror is exaggerated," Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt said in a statement. "This is a group that shares John Kerry's pre-September 11th world view and supports John Kerry's failed ideas for treating terrorism as a matter mainly for law-enforcement and intelligence."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said people who leave the Foreign Service can say what they want.

"This is a group of people who have taken a stand, made a statement. They are free to do so," he said. "I think this administration has a record that it is happy to stand on," he added.

Among the group are 20 ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.

Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Bill Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan; and retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq, and Crowe and Turner have endorsed Kerry.

Also included is Jack F. Matlock, who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained the post under the first President Bush, and William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel and four African countries.

Normally, former diplomats and military commanders avoid making political statements, especially in an election year. But last month 53 former diplomats accused the Bush administration of undermining U.S. credibility in the Middle East by its strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

What I found interesting is that it's a bipartisan group.

 

[Pop Daddy]

long post

 

[Truth]

" Long post "

Only for a shallow mind.

Ever think about getting some new material or do you think that reply is still funny ?

Here's hoping you know the definition of rhetorical.

 

[shmoogrrrl]

I'm sure it will get much more press than this open letter by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (http://www.swiftvets.com/Index2.htm), which included a bi-partisan group of 200 Vets (including almost all of John Kerry's chain of command) claiming that Kerry isn't fit to be Commander-in-Cheif.

Oddly, all 200 of them were declared partisan hacks for Bush, yet these 26-29 ex-diplomats, at least 20 of whom have been involved in the Democratic party and NONE of which have come out announcing that they were actually Registered Republicans are a "Bi-Partisan" group.

That is the problem with all these open letters. They all have an agenda.

 

[N.Bailey]

They're certainly entitled to believe what they wish, but the bottom line is, each of them only gets 1 vote. The same that we get, so doesn't sound like their opinion carries anymore clout than ours do.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by Truth
" Long post "

Only for a shallow mind.

Ever think about getting some new material or do you think that reply is still funny ?

Here's hoping you know the definition of rhetorical.

I think this borders on name calling?

 

[Van Helsing]

long post

Try reading it

I saw one of the retired U.S. diplomats talking yesterday and he was scathing of Bush jnr ( saying he hasn't a clue in his oversea policy ) he then said his father was a far better President.


I agree with them

 

[Truth]

N.Bailey,

Should you decide to wait for the ability of Truth to suffer fools to deminish to the point where you will see Truth call another poster a name you are in for futile wait.

It seemed like a simple enough observation, anyone that clicks on a long post and has nothing better to add than to observe that it seemed too long is
saying more about themselves than the post. Till Pete decides that posts should be confined to a certain amount of text, there is no need for a self appointed editor making the same comment enough times that people start including an apology for the lenght of their posts in the Thread title.

Or would you like argue that no individual poster
comes to mind with the mention of " Long Post "

Feel free to click on the
"Report this post to a moderator" link
and voice your concerns about any post by Truth.

To be fair, had more time been taken than the reply deserved an extra " s " would have made a better reply. If this

"Only for a shallow minds"

makes it better for you, fine, either way the orginal post seems more thoughtful and fair than many of the hundreds of times " Long Post " has been posted on the CB in the past.

Marginal amount of irony noted.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by Truth
" Long post "

Only for a shallow mind.

Ever think about getting some new material or do you think that reply is still funny ?

Here's hoping you know the definition of rhetorical.

I'm not the type to report threads to the moderators. Sue me?

I would very much love to hear why you feel your response here added anything to the discussion? You may not have liked reading a response of, "Long Post," but it added as much as your comments did!

 

[Truth]

If the reply did nothing more than offset the possible impression to jennyanydots that the Thread was too long or leads to less " Long Post " posts here on the CB in the future then it seems there might be a few people here that consider it a net plus.

Care to say what " Long Post " added to the discussion ?

 

[flaps]

I'm not N.Bailey; however,

Originally posted by Truth
Care to say what " Long Post " added to the discussion ?

It made me smile.

But then, I'm simple-minded like that.

 

[jrydberg]

So a more accurate title would be "A few partisan ex-diplomats want Bush voted out"

But I guess that wouldn't make as much of a dramatic impact

 

[browneyes]

Originally posted by Truth
N.Bailey,

Should you decide to wait for the ability of Truth to suffer fools to deminish to the point where you will see Truth call another poster a name you are in for futile wait.

It seemed like a simple enough observation, anyone that clicks on a long post and has nothing better to add than to observe that it seemed too long is
saying more about themselves than the post. Till Pete decides that posts should be confined to a certain amount of text, there is no need for a self appointed editor making the same comment enough times that people start including an apology for the lenght of their posts in the Thread title.

Or would you like argue that no individual poster
comes to mind with the mention of " Long Post "

Feel free to click on the
"Report this post to a moderator" link
and voice your concerns about any post by Truth.

To be fair, had more time been taken than the reply deserved an extra " s " would have made a better reply. If this

"Only for a shallow minds"

makes it better for you, fine, either way the orginal post seems more thoughtful and fair than many of the hundreds of times " Long Post " has been posted on the CB in the past.

Marginal amount of irony noted.

Long post.

 

[Saffron]

I read the original post and I found it interesting. What I would like to contribute to this thread is:

This is the funniest thread I've read all day! Bwahahaha!

New debate: Should people be allowed to post "long post" more than once or twice, or maybe even up to a billion times, or is posting "long post" two times one too many?!

LOL! I thought the "shoes off, shoes on" debate was the funniest, but this may turn out ot be even funnier!

PopDaddy ... I may not be anywhere near you when it comes to your political convictions, but I'm right by your side on this one.

Long post, long post, long post!

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Truth
Care to say what " Long Post " added to the discussion ?

You obviously have not been around long enough to understand. Pop Daddy can say more with two words that you have in all of your 100+ posts.

Well said, Pop Daddy!!

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Pop Daddy
Long post.

Originally posted by browneyes
Long post.

ITA!!!

BOT, these 26 diplomats are free to express their opinions. I hope they are not so full of themselves to think that their opinions truly matter. What truly matters is what happens when millions of Americans go to the polls on Nov. 2nd. That's the only "opinion" that truly matters and counts.

 

[Pete's Mom]

Originally posted by browneyes
Long post.

Darn! You beat me to it!

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
ITA!!!

BOT, these 26 diplomats are free to express their opinions. I hope they are not so full of themselves to think that their opinions truly matter. What truly matters is what happens when millions of Americans go to the polls on Nov. 2nd. That's the only "opinion" that truly matters and counts.

It seems as if even the conservative news shows are finding fault with Bush now. Bill O'Reilly seems to even agree that Bush botched things with the war, Do you watch his show?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
It seems as if even the conservative news shows are finding fault with Bush now. Bill O'Reilly seems to even agree that Bush botched things with the war, Do you watch his show?

Occasionally ... if there's nothing else on and I need some help falling asleep.

Even that staunch arch-conservative icon, Rush Limbaugh, has criticized the Bush Administration on a number of points. Just because one is a Republican and/or a conservative doesn't mean you have to agree with everything this administration says/does. I know I don't.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Occasionally ... if there's nothing else on and I need some help falling asleep.

Even that staunch arch-conservative icon, Rush Limbaugh, has criticized the Bush Administration on a number of points. Just because one is a Republican and/or a conservative doesn't mean you have to agree with everything this administration says/does. I know I don't.

Quick...Somebody get Karl Rove on the phone and tell him that Steve is slipping.....They need to get over there with a new batch of neo-con kool aid STAT !!!!