Former officials to condemn Bush foreign policy
Former officials to condemn Bush foreign policy
From Lesa Jansen
CNN
Sunday, June 13, 2004 Posted: 1:02 PM EDT (1702 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."
From Lesa Jansen
CNN
Sunday, June 13, 2004 Posted: 1:02 PM EDT (1702 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."
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
What kind of response is that, troll?
According to the legends, when a troll yawn he is becoming rock solid
Originally posted by Common Man
Do these people have hidden agendas? Were they organized or underwritten by someone with an agenda?
No.
Next question.
Originally posted by Common Man
Do these people have hidden agendas? Were they organized or underwritten by someone with an agenda?
Yeah, it patriotism. They feel our country is being led astray and that they should say and/or do something to stop it.
Originally posted by Common Man
Do these people have hidden agendas? Were they organized or underwritten by someone with an agenda?
Perhaps the evil Chinese communists druged them and told them to write it.
Originally posted by Common Man
Do these people have hidden agendas? Were they organized or underwritten by someone with an agenda?
Nope!
They have a very open agenda and that is to change the mismanagement of the Bush administration.
Originally posted by midwinter
This smacks of old-school conservatives aligning themselves with democrats to oust the neocons.
That old chestnut. Yeah, we've seen this time and time again.
Originally posted by Common Man
Do these people have hidden agendas? Were they organized or underwritten by someone with an agenda?
Where are you from again so that when I have kids I raise them a few thousand miles away from wherever that is?
Can you think for yourself for once and not let the Limbaughs/Hannitys/Falwells/Savages do it for you?
SDW is a lost cause isn't he? Let me guess....Ret. Adm. William Crowe, who served as Reagan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a pinko commie liberal right?
So is Phyllis Oakley , Reagan's former State Department spokesperson?
Not to mention Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar who commanded US forces in the Middle East under Bush Sr.
Originally posted by faust9
Yeah, it patriotism. They feel our country is being led astray and that they should say and/or do something to stop it.
A funny, sharp and excellent reply. Well said.
The nation is polarized politically because he is completely without tact and political/diplomatic nuance/intelligence and since he is the president many/most feel obligated to march blindly along.
If he were still governator of Texas he would be just another idiot conservatives could use at their whim, but he is the main man and he is making our nation very angry both with ourselves and others, and others with us.
It will take time, but history will bear him out as possibly the worst president in United States history. He is a walking embarrassment.
That's what I think of the article.
Originally posted by groverat
I think it is yet another signpost leading us to view the horrific trainwreck that is the presidency of George W Bush.
The nation is polarized politically because he is completely without tact and political/diplomatic nuance/intelligence and since he is the president many/most feel obligated to march blindly along.
If he were still governator of Texas he would be just another idiot conservatives could use at their whim, but he is the main man and he is making our nation very angry both with ourselves and others, and others with us.
It will take time, but history will bear him out as possibly the worst president in United States history. He is a walking embarrassment.
That's what I think of the article.
Groverat:
I'm curious, since you and I went round and round about all of this a year ago, what you think ought to be different. I'm assuming you still agree that invading Iraq was a good thing? What do you wish Bush had done that he didn't?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Groverat:
I'm curious, since you and I went round and round about all of this a year ago, what you think ought to be different. I'm assuming you still agree that invading Iraq was a good thing? What do you wish Bush had done that he didn't?
Cheers
Scott
You have to put in balance, the reasons presented to invade Iraq, how it was done, and how things are managed today.
Saddam was a tyrant and except the Baathist nobody will cry of his destitution.
Like a former general said, US (and I think this case apply to most occidental countries) are good to win wars, but innefective to win peace since WW2. Even if Iraq is becoming a total mess, I don't think it will be any worse than before, the problem now is that everyone will blame US and the member of the coalition.
US has more unpopular than ever, in the whole arab world, and it's pure irony that a war who was supposed to be against terrorism, will only help it to grow.
The neocons strategy have forgetten a fondamental point : the psychology of people : it's not by force, that the arab world will become democratic : it will be only a long process, that foreign countries can help, but only help.
Thirty years max imo.
Until what?
Thousands of people are dead who would be alive.
Mostly Americans, yes. And that is certainly regrettable.
Saddam killed Iraqis, too.
Lawlessness is rampant.
That is only "worse" if the "lawfulness" beforehand was goood. This will come back with time.
Civil war is inevitable.
Civil war is always "inevitable".
Infrastructure is decimated.
Is it now? Are you sure it wasn't worse beforehand?
Innocent people are being tortured and killed.
Again, how is this "worse"? Your explanation does not fit your original argument.
Why should the Arab world become democratic?
An excellent question.
If they can have basic human rights and freedoms I do not mind benevolent monarchies. Democracy has traditionally been the best vehicle to securing those human rights and freedoms.
midw:
I'm assuming you still agree that invading Iraq was a good thing? What do you wish Bush had done that he didn't?
We went round and round about whether or not the war should happen, yes, but not about the competence of Dubya, they are separate issues.
I am glad we went in to oust Hussein and the sanctions, it is fairly clear that the Iraqi people agree with me there. I wish he and his administration didn't suck so much that they would execute the post-war situation so poorly, but what we have today in Iraq is better, IMO (and in their opinion) than what we would have had with another year of sanctions and Saddam. And in 5 years, well there won't even be an argument.
Over the last few decades we have become less and less educated (partly due to more and more television viewing and less reading as a result... and partly due to mediocre education standards). We have become less and less like our parents and grandaparents when they were our age, but somehow we view that as OK. Every year, we spend more and more money we don't have, on things we don't need in order to make impressions that don't matter.
Capitalism is a good thing ? and having material wealth can also be a good thing ?, but losing all perspective on the matters and focusing one's life on the pursuit of material things, at the expense of being in touch with and undertanding the larger picture - the world at large - is a very bad thing ?.
That is who we have become I fear... the signs are indeed all around. Take a look at wht 80% of the television stations out there are feeding us -- look what we're telling them we like and want. Look at what we don't want... history, science, civility, real love, charity.
If the United States as a nation could be turned into a greyscale characiture, it would be tall guy in his early 30s with a huge melon, big pecs and a spare tire... sitting in a Ford Expedition with PDA phone in his hand, calling his wife to make sure the Tivo is set to record that night's episodes of "Celebrity Mole", "Pride Fighting" and "Trump 2: The Reckoning".
Meanwhile in the distance behind his SUV, the National Archives are burning to the ground, along with the memory of all the things that made our nations great. We have willingly isolated ourselves into our own superficial world with no sense of duty to the past, and no sense of ownership for the future... all that matters is now.
We live for now, for the next hollow rush, for the superficial... and even when we get married and have our children... we go through the motions and even install all of our lack of respect for history and our past into them. A generation of absent-minded bourgeois, has given birth and is raising an even more absent-minded and completely spoiled (if that's possible) generation of "future leaders". We have lost our sense of history, of what's important and what makes "a good man (or woman)".
30 years indeed. Maybe 10 if we're not so lucky. And I worry too that Kerry is more of the same. Yet for whatever his flaws, they are less than Bush'. He is a more astute observer and speaker at the VERY least... which is important for any leader in this country. Particularly THE leader.
Originally posted by Moogs
Over the last few decades we have become less and less educated (partly due to more and more television viewing and less reading as a result... and partly due to mediocre education standards). We have become less and less like our parents and grandaparents when they were our age, but somehow we view that as OK.
And what componds this problem is that the changes brought about by the most recent information revolution has tricked people into thinking they are more informed than they really are. This has even evolved into the more sinister form of rebellion against established intellectual checks and balances, as can be observed in the recent major pseudo-science surge. Some people actually believe that groups outside of these established systems have more validity simply because they are outsiders and, therefore, appear to be grassroots opposition to the "elite" of whatever field they are trying to operate in.
This mechanism reinforces false beliefs. Whereas in the past one's access to wacko ideas, conspiracy theories and pseudo-science was limited, the illusion of the internet has bred new life to this kind of ignorance.