Jonathan Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 If you are a rabid, fanatical Bush apologist, this article is not for you. For anyone with the slightest open mind who has supported Bush, this may give you pause. For the rest of us, this is a ray of real hope that change is coming in November.... Bush (41) and Reagan Officials Say Bush (43) Must Go by Katrina vanden Heuvel Today a group of former senior diplomatic officials and retired military commanders--several of whom are the kind who "have never spoken out before" on such matters--issued a bracing statement arguing that George W. Bush has damaged the country's national security and calling on Americans to defeat him in November. It's too early to tell if the statement will have an impact on this fall's campaign. But Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, as the group is called, reveals (again) how dangerously isolated the Bush Administration is not just around the world but even from America's own bipartisan foreign policy and military establishments. This latest missive, as the LA Times and the Washington Post reported last Sunday, is being sent by Democratic and Republican officials who refuse to stay silent in the face of Bush's extremist and ideological foreign policy which, they say, is squandering America's moral standing. These signatories aren't exactly a Who's Who of the American left. Jack Matlock, who served as Reagan and Bush 41's ambassador to the Soviet Union, has signed the statement, as has Ret. Adm. William Crowe, who served as Reagan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar has added his name to the list, and he commanded US forces in the Middle East under Bush Sr. Phyllis Oakley, who served as a State Department spokesperson under Reagan, is another signatory. The vast majority of the signatories are, in fact, either conservative Republicans who served under Reagan and Bush 41 or they are bipartisan, consensus-driven ex-diplomats who served their country from Africa to Asia because they believed in America's leadership role around the world. Now they feel so enraged by Bush's extremist foreign policies that they can no longer stand by as this Administration makes America less secure by upending alliances and alienating much of the world. Against the metastasizing scandal of Abu Ghraib; the botched postwar occupation of Iraq; and the Administration's lies about WMDs in Iraq in the run-up to the war, these old hands are now taking an uncompromising, intelligent stand against what they see as the most arrogant, unilateral and incompetent foreign policy in their adult lifetimes. Today's signatories join a large and growing chorus of former senior officials who were so enraged by Bush's conduct of the Iraq war that sitting on the sidelines simply wasn't an option for them. John Brady Kiesling, now a retired diplomat, led the charge in February 2003 when he courageously quit his foreign-service job with the American Embassy in Athens, and wrote a stinging rebuke to Bush's headlong rush to wage a war in Iraq. Then another career diplomat Gregory Thielmann went public, telling Bill Moyers that Iraq didn't pose an "imminent security threat" to America. Thielmann attacked Bush for hyping intelligence reports and for misleading the American people about the need to go to war in the Middle East. The Administration, he said, "has had a faith-based intelligence attitude.We know the answers--give us the intelligence to support those answers'." Around the same time, retired military commanders were growing aghast at Bush's utterly inept lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq. That's why, for example, the former Centcom commander Gen. Anthony Zinni ultimately went on 60 Minutes last month and argued that if Bush stayed on the current course in Iraq, America was "headed over Niagara Falls." Hoar, the retired Marine general, has publicly declared that the United States is "absolutely on the brink of failure" in Iraq. Meanwhile, other former ambassadors and career foreign-service officers began speaking up, each in their own way and on their own timetables. GOP strategists with ties to the White House were quick and shameless in denigrating those who've spent their life serving the national interest. Ronald Spiers, the former Ambassador to Turkey and Pakistan and well versed in the politics of the Middle East, argued that W.'s policies have unraveled our most important alliances around the globe. Spiers faulted Bush for causing us to lose "a lot of our international partnerships. We've lost a lot of lives. We've lost a lot of money for something that wasn't justified." George Harrop, a former ambassador to Kenya and Israel, spoke for many in the diplomatic corps, and I suspect for even some former Bush I officials like Brent Scowcroft, when he said: "I really am essentially a Republican. I voted for George Bush's father, and I voted for George Bush. But what we got was not the George Bush we voted for." And former Ambassador Joseph Wilson has reminded Americans of just how many lies the Administration was willing to make in its quest to convince people that Iraq posed a nuclear threat to the United States. Then, of course, there are the high-level NSC officials who, after getting a ringside seat for Bush's bungling national security strategies, decided that enough was enough, and that now was the season to speak up and take a stand. Rand Beers left W.'s White House after serving under Reagan and Bush I, and he is now running foreign policy operations for John Kerry's presidential campaign. Richard Clarke, is one of the most experienced counterterrorism officials America has produced in the last three decades; he, too, could no longer stand idly by as the Administration pursued a fool's errand by starting a war against Iraq. Just last month a separate group of fifty-three ex-diplomats and other high-level national security officials wrote a letter to Bush in which they excoriated the President for sacrificing America's credibility in the Arab world and squandering America's status as honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The statement issued today marks the high-water point of dissent among diplomats and military commanders who cannot stomach Bush any longer, but there is still time, and a need, for more high-level officials to come forward and voice their opposition to policies that are undermining our security. The anger towards W., and the antipathy towards his extremely dangerous policies has now, at long last, reached a critical mass. Today's statement reveals just how extremist the Administration's approach has been, and the staggering stupidity of their radical ideologies. This letter is a profound wake-up call to all Americans: George W. Bush must be defeated. Copyright © 2004 The Nation ------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 By: Katrina vanden Heuvel A committed leftist, closeted communist & editor of the leftist magazine "The Nation". Now there's somone who the reasonable can objectively say she has no ax to grind or harrbors no negative predispositions towards the current adminstration. Geeze you couldn't find anyone more partisan and biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Bush has worn out his welcome and it's time for someone new to lead the people. He has let down a lot of us and doesn't deserve 4 more years in my eyes. A lot of people think he stole the job anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 He may or may not deserve 4 more years... Quite a few people say no. Him stealing the election is foolish to say... Anyone over the age of 18 should know better... Florida probably wont do any better this year from the way it looks and if Gore would have won his home state it wouldnt be and issue. You wanna be mad at someone. Be mad at the man that cant win with the people that put him in office to begin with... That should tell you something there also... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 That all Americans are entitled to their own opinions and vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Even though he will win we are going to have so many grown people crying for another 4 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 psssst, nobody tell JB that we didn't draft K2. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford psssst, nobody tell JB that we didn't draft K2. thanks there is my boy buff let me see with all this negative press about Bush have we heard ANYTHING form Kerry, NO, he has no ba$$s He is a thinner Dukakis and that is all, he has no plans on how to change anything right now and if he was smart he could win the election but he won't. He might be a good speaker but he has no plan, and because of that he will lose this election. When he does make a peep in public the next day he flips on it and looks bad, and then he trys to say the economy is bad then the next day a report comes out and completely destroys his accusations. I prayed the dems would put a formidable opponent against bush but they haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224486/ Best advice for Kerry: Be invisible Bush may self-destruct by the time November election occurs By Howard Fineman MSNBC contributor Updated: 10:47 a.m. ET June 16, 2004WASHINGTON - I’ve figured out what Sen. John Kerry needs to do to win the White House this November: wrap himself in Harry Potter’s Invisibility Cloak. If the Massachusetts senator can only stay out of sight for long enough, George W. Bush’s presidency may sink into the sands of Iraq. Bush’s decision to go to Iraq is one of the most fateful calls any president has made — right up there with Harry Truman’s decision to send aid to Greece and Turkey, JFK’s secret agreement to pull American missiles out of Turkey to end the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Ronald Reagan’s deal with Gorbachev to begin winding down the Cold War. Because Bush’s decision was so important — and because it was so clearly his own to make — it’s central to the campaign. The questions of the season are and will remain: Was it worth so much blood and treasure? Did it make us safer? The American public seems to be slowly but steadily coming to the conclusion that the answer is “no.” Trend lines matter in politics, and the trend of support for the war Bush launched in 2003 has been steadily declining for months, dragging the president’s job-approval rating with it. Even if things go reasonably well in Iraq after the official handover date of June 30 — a huge and probably unwarranted assumption — there are growing indications that most voters will see the original decision to go there as wrong, even if they accept the underlying, and still controversial, theory of pre-emptive war, and even if they don’t want a rapid pullout of U.S. troops. An accumulation of stories is taking its toll on Bush, and Kerry has nothing to do with them: the failure to find WMD in Iraq; the failure to establish a clear, convincing connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; the failure to win substantial global support for the war; the failure to anticipate the costs and risks of rebuilding post-war Iraq; the failure to explain the roots and rationale for the abuses now being unearthed at Abu Ghraib. Scandal is a key factor The prison scandal is particularly important because it has the potential to hurt Bush with his core base, religious conservatives. Deal Hudson, a conservative Catholic writer and editor (and a close ally of Bush politico Karl Rove), told me that the horrific Abu Ghraib images — and the president’s reluctance to issue a heartfelt, personal apology for the behavior that produced them — have cost Bush among Catholic conservatives, many of whom were ambivalent about whether the war was justifiable under church law. As he seeks to defend the war — arguing that the world is far safer with Saddam behind bars — Bush is operating in an increasingly hostile media environment. In journalism, as in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. After 9/11 there was an understandable willingness to cut him slack. That era of good feeling is gone, replaced by a media that feels burned, embarrassed and lied to — and doubly wary of the validity of good news coming from Iraq. There is some; but you won’t see it on TV. Bush is further hampered by his inability to perform a crucial function of his office: the president as educator, schooling people in the reality of the world, so he can inspire and lead them in it. His almost desperate distaste for public discourse — his unease at answering questions, his famous smirk, his garbled syntax when not reading from a speech he’s carefully studied, edited and practiced — all these are no longer a cause for jokes; they seriously weaken his ability to make his political case. One of the defining myths of our democracy is the notion of a president “growing” in office: the callow and underestimated fellow commanded by fate to rise to challenges he and we thought were beyond his capacity. A year before he was elected, Bush told me that Truman was his favorite president and model in foreign affairs. Truman, of course, is the patron saint of the underestimated — and the beau ideal of “growth in office.” Has Bush grown? Has Bush grown or changed in any way? He has become a good deal more sure-handed in relationships with other world leaders. As I hear it (from a good European source), he dealt amicably and shrewdly with the G-8 leaders who gathered with him in Sea Island, Ga., the other week. He didn’t get what he wanted — NATO troops — but at least he was willing to ask; on other, non-Iraq issues, he was well-prepared and eager to cut deals. Still, a prideful Bush has in essence answered “no” — vehemently — to the question of whether he’s changed or grown. With Bush there is only one gear: forward. In George W. Bush’s view, the act of looking back, of going over your mistakes to assess them and find other ways, is wimpy behavior. In the months after 9/11, Americans admired Bush for his tough talk and stick-to-his-guns approach. Now they are at best ambivalent about it. Polls show that nine in 10 Republicans approve of his job performance — a level of partisan loyalty unmatched by any president. But the problem is that GOP voters aren’t a majority — and few voters outside the base are as supportive. Bush’s campaign handlers had hoped that their TV spots would destroy Kerry. They haven’t. Bush is hoping to stress the economy and his domestic ideas — but most of the media is not going to be paying much attention. As I see it, nothing much is going to matter in this campaign besides the TV debates — particularly the first one. If Kerry is going to win, the historical analogy to look at is 1980. The American people had had it up to here with Jimmy Carter. They were ready — desperate — for an alternative. They weren’t paying all that much attention to the former governor of California. In the first debate, they finally looked at Ronald Reagan and decided that, while he certainly wasn’t perfect, he was safe enough — and that was all they needed. Carter’s brilliant polltaker, Pat Caddell, always said that the decision to debate Reagan cost his boss the election. Bush has no choice in the matter, I don’t think. He has to debate. Indeed, there will be three of them. Yes, Bush will be underestimated once more. He always is. But if Kerry uncloaks himself as a minimally acceptable alternative, that may be the end of the matter. Watch for Kerry to throw off the Invisibility Cloak. When it happens — and I predict that it will be late in the campaign — it will be the crucial moment. Howard Fineman is Newsweek’s chief political correspondent and an NBC News analyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224486/ Blah, Blah, we have been hearing Kerry was going to come out swinging, he has never done that and I don't see him starting now. Maybe he can surprise me, but I doubt it. My family has known him for quite some time and he doesn't change much, except when he is told he is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 you should use the :blahblah: smiley. It's better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford you should use the :blahblah: smiley. It's better you mean :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah: thanks Honestly I think the dems going into this year were caught off guard on how Bush's rating has dropped. They were thinking we don't have a big chance so didn't care to much on who ran for president. Now they see what has happened I bet some of the dems think they have a chance to win this year, but if we had a better person it would be a lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 This would be a much better intro: “If you are a rabid, fanatical nutjob, this article is for you. For anyone with the slightest open mind you might want to do something else with the 2 minutes of your life it would take to read this pap.” Bush should be voted out of office but not because some ex-ambassador to Timbuktu is seeking media attention. Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmorris Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Even though he will win we are going to have so many grown people crying for another 4 years **It really doesnt matter what side of the fence you support, if your that optimistic, your either misinformed or dilusional. In fact, even staunch supporters are predicting he'll need to pull a hat trick, and do some great spin doctoring. Getting Osama in the waning moments couldnt hurt his cause. Either way I'm sure it makes you feel great to torture the suffering masses (a quality I don't altogether despise). None the less, I think the right could find better representation, and I'm sure most conservatives would atleast privately agree with this, as I've been noticing an under current of negativity from both sides. Or maybe that's just my own bias clouding my judgement. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by fmorris **It really doesnt matter what side of the fence you support, if your that optimistic, your either misinformed or dilusional. In fact, even staunch supporters are predicting he'll need to pull a hat trick, and do some great spin doctoring. Getting Osama in the waning moments couldnt hurt his cause. Either way I'm sure it makes you feel great to torture the suffering masses (a quality I don't altogether despise). None the less, I think the right could find better representation, and I'm sure most conservatives would atleast privately agree with this, as I've been noticing an under current of negativity from both sides. Or maybe that's just my own bias clouding my judgement. Cheers. I'd offer that both sides could offer someone better qualified as canidates and I be surprised at those who'd argue with me on that. And I also agree that it's your own bias that cloud(s) your judgement as it does most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by fmorris **It really doesnt matter what side of the fence you support, if your that optimistic, your either misinformed or dilusional. In fact, even staunch supporters are predicting he'll need to pull a hat trick, and do some great spin doctoring. Getting Osama in the waning moments couldnt hurt his cause. Either way I'm sure it makes you feel great to torture the suffering masses (a quality I don't altogether despise). None the less, I think the right could find better representation, and I'm sure most conservatives would atleast privately agree with this, as I've been noticing an under current of negativity from both sides. Or maybe that's just my own bias clouding my judgement. Cheers. Just because Bush will win doesn't mean I am a big supporter. I am angry at the democratic party because they do have a chance on winning this election but if they had a better candidate they would win by a lot. I think bush is laughing very hard right now because it is only june going on july and all the bad information is coming out today. Who is going to remember the prison abuse come november, no one. Iraq will be in the hands of Iraqi's so if anything happens there you can't blame us anymore. Our army in Iraq will be allowed to act as an army again and just go after the terrorists in Iraq instead of sitting and waiting for bombers. The economy is already taking off and will be humming come November. The number one issue for every sitting president is the economy, because of this Bush will win. Kerry can not keep saying the economy is bad when the next day he is shown how wrong he is. He has no legit plans yet (this is going to be key). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 The Dems are waiting for the Iraqi turnover.........its only 2 weeks away. Everybody is waiting to see how it goes. They are already talking martial law. They do that.....by the time their convention rolls around, it'll be almost a month since the turnover. Then you've got a bigger stage to start a "message" or whatever stupid idea they've got cooking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford The Dems are waiting for the Iraqi turnover.........its only 2 weeks away. Everybody is waiting to see how it goes. They are already talking martial law. They do that.....by the time their convention rolls around, it'll be almost a month since the turnover. Then you've got a bigger stage to start a "message" or whatever stupid idea they've got cooking. Bufford, Martial law is what Iraq needs. This will only help our position there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 what about the elections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford what about the elections? that isn't till Janaury of 05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 only 6 months of Martial Law? That would be impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 JB, It doesn't matter what you or I think. You live in a state that will select Bush this November regardless if you actually voted for Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 This election is a funny creature. Right now, Bush still has the very, I would say "irrationally", staunch support of the Republican party. It looks like this election is one of those, "Who do you least want to be President" deals. Right now, Kerry is up 5 or 6 points, which was unimaginable 6 months ago. If he gets a post convention bounce into the double-digits in July, that's going to be hard for Bush to overcome, even if we double our GDP and Iraq changes its name to "Jeffersonia." BTW, booma, I don't think anyone is going to forget that US soldiers tortured Iraqi detainees in my lifetime, much less by November. And the economy is not the number 1 issue in every campaign. Its generally one of the top players, but its also where Kerry has an edge on Bush in the "Who do you trust" polls. I think the the #1 question this year might be "Is America more safe or less safe as a result of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq?" And what you have at the beginning of this thread is a bunch of diplomats and military folks giving the answer that Republicans don't want to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by flashback BTW, booma, I don't think anyone is going to forget that US soldiers tortured Iraqi detainees in my lifetime, much less by November. yes they will because the people who did are going to be in jail, what is funny is most of the us knows this happens in our own jails, the bottom line is guards went overboard and they will be dealt with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghetto-smoove Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by Jay Master Jay A lot of people think he stole the job anyway. He did steal the election..remember Bush was SELECTED, not ELECTED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.