GOP Diplomats and Military

[cwsox]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/...cism/index.html

 

Former officials to condemn Bush foreign policy

 

From Lesa Jansen

CNN

Monday, June 14, 2004 Posted: 2:46 PM EDT (1846 GMT)

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Several former presidential diplomatic and military officials have signed a statement condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy, saying that it has harmed national security, one of the document's signers said Sunday.

 

Many of the signers were appointed by Republican administrations.

 

Phyllis Oakley, the deputy State Department spokeswoman during former President Ronald Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under former President Bill Clinton, said the statement was "prompted by a growing concern, deeply held, about the future of the country's national security."

 

The statement clearly calls for defeat of the Bush administration, she said, although it does not endorse any candidate.

 

"We are on the wrong track, and we need a fundamental change," said Oakley.

20 former ambassadors among signers

 

The statement, which will be released Wednesday, was signed by 20 former U.S. ambassadors, including William Harrop, who was appointed ambassador to Israel by former President George Bush in 1991.

 

Military commanders who signed the document include retired Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command over-seeing the Middle East in 1991; and retired Admiral William Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1985-89.

 

The signers called themselves Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change.

 

Oakley said the group is representative of very senior, former government officials who "have spent their lives working to erect the stature and posture of the U.S. as a leader in the world ... and we simply see that edifice crumbling."

 

Oakley also said that releasing the statement was not an easy decision.

 

"We're all career [public] servants who have never taken a political stand," she said. "What we want to get on record is our profound concern about the future security of the U.S."

[Queen Prawn]

I heard that report on WGN this morning while getting ready for work.

[Texsox]

Everybody has an opinion. If we start polling the military Bush will certainly come out on top, even without all his buddies from his reserve unit who never met him.

[cwsox]

of course everyone has an opinion - is that to discount that career diplomats and military leaders who have never been political should not be listened to when they raise their concerns?

 

I just heard an interview with some of the signers on NPR -

 

when you have non political appointed by Republican folks who, as they say, pledged their lives to national security, raising their voice publicly for the first time to say that course of this administration is placing the nation at risk, well, I'd listen.

 

The full text gets released tomorrow.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Everybody has an opinion. If we start polling the military Bush will certainly come out on top,

Damn Right.

 

 

[Texsox]

of course everyone has an opinion - is that to discount that career diplomats and military leaders who have never been political should not be listened to when they raise their concerns?

 

I just heard an interview with some of the signers on NPR -

 

when you have non political appointed by Republican folks who, as they say, pledged their lives to national security, raising their voice publicly for the first time to say that course of this administration is placing the nation at risk, well, I'd listen.

 

The full text gets released tomorrow.

Of course their opinion is important, but of course the administration will parade some equally pedigreed military and diplomats that claim it is the right course.

[Texsox]

Damn Right.

 

 

Of course Nuke with all the biological and nuclear testing they do on our military personnel, it stands to reason their just off plumb

[EvilMonkey]

of course everyone has an opinion - is that to discount that career diplomats and military leaders who have never been political should not be listened to when they raise their concerns?

What makes you thik career diplomats are not political? They all have their ax to grind with someone or something. What about that career diplomat that they sent to check on uranium purchases in Africa? He didn't have an ax to grind? He just interviewed a few people, then came back and reported what he expected to find anyway.

[1549]

I agree that Bush foreign policy has sucked. The word diplomacy seemingly does not fit into his vocabulary.

 

I fear that a second term may bring this country to war with North Korea, Yemen, or some other country in the 'axis of evil'. There has also been some rumblings about a mandatory military service. There is a good chance I will be in the NROTC anyway, so mandatory service doesn't affect me, however I am against the idea.

 

On one hand, I don't like Bush's use of 21st century brinkmanship (for lack of a better term), but on the other hand, the military has a bad habit of declining when a democrat is in office.

 

Oh God damn these political quagmires

[Texsox]

I agree that Bush foreign policy has sucked.  The word diplomacy seemingly does not fit into his vocabulary. 

 

I fear that a second term may bring this country to war with North Korea, Yemen, or some other country in the 'axis of evil'.  There has also been some rumblings about a mandatory military service.  There is a good chance I will be in the NROTC anyway, so mandatory service doesn't affect me, however I am against the idea.

 

On one hand, I don't like Bush's use of 21st century brinkmanship (for lack of a better term), but on the other hand, the military has a bad habit of declining when a democrat is in office.

 

Oh God damn these political quagmires

We start with the little countries and work our way up to the nuclear ones. When people the world over fear us, we're in trouble. If they resect us and know we act fairly at all times, we have a chance. If they have a bomb and feel cornered, it's AMF time.

[cwsox]

What makes you thik career diplomats are not political?  They all have their ax to grind with someone or something.  What about that career diplomat that they sent to check on uranium purchases in Africa?  He didn't have an ax to grind?  He just interviewed a few people, then came back and reported what he expected to find anyway.

These diplomats were mainly Republican appointees. The military persons speak for themselves.

 

Now this career diplomat you speak of - would that be the one who exposed the intentional lies in Bush's state of the union address? Where upon someone in the White House leaked the CIA cover of the diplomat's spouse (and is there a bigger violation of national security than that?) as revenge? And last we heard, both the vice president and president were seeing private lawyers because of that White House leak?

[Chisoxfn]

How many military officials have their been over say the past 15-20 years as well as diplomats and what not.

 

When 20 people are out giving their opinion I'm not going to go crazy. If it was people in the current administration going nuts or an incredibly high % of people who were part of the military and foreign policies, then that would be another story.

 

To me this is just another example of a minority being played out as a majority.

 

Thats just my 2 cents. I've always said I have had some flaws with the way Bush has done things (mainly his diplomacy or lack of it) but I also respect the fact that in my mind he has done what he has said he would do in regards to Iraq and what not.

 

He may of been wrong about the WOM, but to me he basically does what he says and thats something I respect in a president and on the most part I agree with his decisions.

[Texsox]

If I had my choice of two bosses, one said we need to increase spending, buy more stuff, hire more people, etc. and another that said we probably cannot afford it and it isn't needed, I wonder which one I would want?

[EvilMonkey]

These diplomats were mainly Republican appointees.  The military persons speak for themselves.

 

Now this career diplomat you speak of - would that be the one who exposed the intentional lies in Bush's state of the union address?  Where upon someone in the White House leaked the CIA cover of the diplomat's spouse (and is there a bigger violation of national security than that?) as revenge?  And last we heard, both the vice president and president were seeing private lawyers because of that White House leak?

Yes, that is the guy. But whereas there is evidence that he did a hack job in his 'investigation', there are only accusations that the White House leaked any so called info, which was readily available thru other sources. Her name was known before that article ever came out. Novak cites TWO sources for his inof. Why would two people risk their jobs and/or jail for 'revenge'? And he is anti-war himself, so why would he side with Bush? But the specifics in that case are discussions for another thread. He is merely an example of a VERY political diplomat, who has his own agendas.

[cwsox]

Yes, that is the guy.  But whereas there is evidence that he did a hack job in his 'investigation'

 

No, there is not. He has been substantiated by every measure. Every measure. Substantiated.

 

Why would two people risk their jobs and/or jail for 'revenge'? And he is anti-war himself, so why would he side with Bush?

 

Ask Nixon, Halderman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Dean, et al that question. It happens. Naivete is not a good attribute for looking at the real world. Do a little study as well on revenge from the Bushies. They are experienced at it. G W himself was his father's hatchet man - when G H W wanted someone done in, he sent G W to get rid of them. And as well, those on top - and indeed any criminal - never thimks they will get caught. As a defense lawyer, you would not do very well.

 

And who said the diplomat in question is anti-war? That sounds like spin. He is a professional diplomat who reported a situation and it was misconstrued intentionaly to make a case for war. To be offended by that is called integrity, not being anti-war. In fact, no one in the diplomatic service is anti war because war is and always be a state that does occur. It is the needless war, it is the case for war built on lies, that is objectionable because if you haven't noticed, lots of people die and other bad things happen in war. The decision to go to war must be based on last resort need, not for ideology or any other reason.

 

Out of curiousty, my son is a Marine; when might you be enlisting to put yourself in a place where your body will be where your words are?

[kapkomet]

Out of curiousty, my son is a Marine; when might you be enlisting to put yourself in a place where your body will be where your words are?

Here we go again.

 

Dammit, that aggravates me. So, if we choose not to enlist, we have no say or are not able to disagree with the government, republican or democrat?

 

I hate it when the arguement turns into that, and it's shallow as hell. Why did that need to be said here?

 

:headshake

[Chisoxfn]

Here we go again.

 

Dammit, that aggravates me.  So, if we choose not to enlist, we have no say or are not able to disagree with the government, republican or democrat? 

 

I hate it when the arguement turns into that, and it's shallow as hell.  Why did that need to be said here?

 

:headshake

Couldn't agree more. Their are other ways to serve your country. I have the uptmost respect for Nuke and every other that go out and fight though. I wish them all the very best and I hope they stay safe. I appreciate what they do and I never take it for granted.

 

At the same time, just becasue I'm not in the military, doesn't mean I don't have an opinion or can't be in favor of some type of military action.

[mreye]

These diplomats were mainly Republican appointees.  The military persons speak for themselves.

Mainly? 1 in 20?

 

 

The statement, which will be released Wednesday, was signed by 20 former U.S. ambassadors, including William Harrop, who was appointed ambassador to Israel by former President George Bush in 1991.

[mreye]

Out of curiousty, my son is a Marine; when might you be enlisting to put yourself in a place where your body will be where your words are?

And of course, when all else fails, pull the "You've never served, my son has, you can't have an opinion until you put your life on the line" routine. :headshake

 

DON'T QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!

[cwsox]

Mr Eye, your math sucks. Check again the signers of the statement.

 

 

It is always a valid question about what a person is willing to out their own life on the line for. Coming out of the anniversary of DDay and the dedication of the WW2 memorial we have been reminded again of sacrifice.

 

Jas, I beieve that indeed if you favor military action you must yourself be willing to participate in it. To send others out to do what one will not do one's own self, that is an issue. And the question was put to Evil Monkey in that he makes lights of the outing of a CIA operative and the use of false reports as a justification for going to war.

 

But the reaction to that takes away from the point that a group of mostly/all Republican appointed diplomats and military persons who have been apolitical have taken a stand that deserves to be listened too all the more because of who they are.

[kapkomet]

Oh what the hell. Let's make this political, 'cause it already is.

 

So, when Bill Clinton sent troops over to Somolia, to die, I guess that makes Bill Clinton someone who needs vetted because he himself wasn't enlisted and in the line of fire. Or what about the Balkans?

 

Oh, that was a UN sanctioned event. That makes it different. But, nonetheless, Clinton chose to put troops in harms way, so why the hell don't you roast his ass the same way you are so quick to any Republican who does so?

 

Why don't you say these same things to Apu on his points? Because you agree with Apu, so no need to question that, is there?

 

Disclaimer - and it's sort of messed up that I even have to say this but I will anyway - I'm not trying to start something with Apu, I only use this as a point of reference because often times cw and Apu are closer aligned in political terms, as say cw and mreye, and that's the point I'm trying to make, not to be personal, so please don't roast my ass for it.

 

Anyway, you only reserve comments like that for people who disagree with you. And that's what bothers me. I can't speak for others, but I'd guess the same thing bothers others here.

[cwsox]

Bush sent the troops into Somalia.

 

Clinton and Kosovo was a NATO operation,

 

In any action the cost of that action must be weighed, and who bears that cost. That is a matter whether you decide to go to a Sox game or want universal health care or buy dinner at Damons or go to war. Someone has to pay.

 

I ask that question not when people disagree with me. I ask it when people advocate a course that they themselves will not support with their own selves. It is easy to send others to do something that one will not. Who pays the cost? "Others, while my life goes on." In all of life, you should never ask another to do what you will not do and never advocate that for which you are unwilling to bear the cost.

 

I have very grave problems with those who are in favor of war as long as others go and they themselves will not fight it. I might suggest that I am not the one who needs to re-examine my values on this. I am often wrong on many things but on this I stand and suggest however humbly I may that others need to re-examine their own selves in this light.

[1549]

Oh what the hell.  Let's make this political, 'cause it already is.

 

So, when Bill Clinton sent troops over to Somolia, to die, I guess that makes Bill Clinton someone who needs vetted because he himself wasn't enlisted and in the line of fire.  Or what about the Balkans?

 

Oh, that was a UN sanctioned event.  That makes it different.  But, nonetheless, Clinton chose to put troops in harms way, so why the hell don't you roast his ass the same way you are so quick to any Republican who does so?

 

Why don't you say these same things to Apu on his points?  Because you agree with Apu, so no need to question that, is there?

 

Disclaimer - and it's sort of messed up that I even have to say this but I will anyway - I'm not trying to start something with Apu, I only use this as a point of reference because often times cw and Apu are closer aligned in political terms, as say cw and mreye, and that's the point I'm trying to make, not to be personal, so please don't roast my ass for it.

 

Anyway, you only reserve comments like that for people who disagree with you.  And that's what bothers me.  I can't speak for others, but I'd guess the same thing bothers others here.

First of all CW would never have a reason to use some sort of comeback against apu if they agree on an issue. comebacks and critical remarks are reserved for the opponent in an argument not an ally.

 

The whole veteran thing has been an age old question. Is it fair that the fat man in the suit calls for war, and the young man just starting a life has to go fight it? During the civil war the aristocrats of southern society called for war, yet they were not the ones fighting. In the north the fat cats wanted to see a war to help their industry, yet they paid for people to fight for their sons.

 

The higher classes of people have always had more support for war than the lower class. The higher class is of status and represents the country, they want their country to flex its muscles. The lower class meanwhile doesn't get college exemptions and ends up on the front lines.

 

However, it is my belief that you don't have to put yourself in the line of fire. There is a good chance I will be in the armed forces in 2005, but even if I do serve, I will always feel the opinion of the non-vet will be just as valid as mine. However the ability to have an opinion comes with responsibility. Hopefully people will always realize the death and terror that come with war.

[mreye]

Jas, I beieve that indeed if you favor military action you must yourself be willing to participate in it. To send others out to do what one will not do one's own self, that is an issue

But, the problem I have is you attack first! You don't know everyone's stories. You don't know that I cut a toe off in a lawnmower and am "not fit" for service. In a previous post you attacked Reagan for "convientently getting out of serving." But, the truth is, he did. He just didn't go to war. Do you want to know why? Do you care to know why? His eyesight was so incredibly bad that he was just about leagally blind. That's why he had such a photographic memory. He couldn't read anything that was more than a few inches from his face. That's the fact! You know what those are, right?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But, the problem I have is you attack first! You don't know everyone's stories. You don't know that I cut a toe off in a lawnmower and am "not fit" for service. In a previous post you attacked Reagan for "convientently getting out of serving." But, the truth is, he did. He just didn't go to war. Do you want to know why? Do you care to know why? His eyesight was so incredibly bad that he was just about leagally blind. That's why he had such a photographic memory. He couldn't read anything that was more than a few inches from his face. That's the fact! You know what those are, right?

The Reagan sight thing was purposefully overlooked by cwsox as are countless other facts about the Gipper because he was an evil crazy ignorant cowboy who lead us down a path of ruin etc...etc.... Everybody in the leftist intelligentsia (sp) , to which cwsox is a card carrying member, said Reagan was not fit to be president, said we couldn never beat stagflation with supply side policies, said we could not stop the spread of communisim and that the best we could was to contain and coexist with it and pray they didnt come over here and "bury us" like Khruschev once said. They said America's best days were behind us and that we were going down the s***ter faster than a wad of toilet paper.

 

Reagan proved them wrong on all counts and they can't stand it. It burns them up that this cowboy, this "B" movie actor went to Washington and made things happen and that America loved him for it. I understand why people like cwsox hate Reagan so much. I'd be pretty perturbed if my whole ideology was crushed and discredited in 8 short years & I'd be pretty pissed off as well if I had crow shoved down my throat for an equal amount of time.