News Bush made Iraq a very dangerous place

[pelastration]

Group Seeks Change In Security Policy
Dignitaries Fault Bush Administration
Sunday, June 13, 2004; Page A20

Quotes of : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37557-2004Jun12.html

Angered by President Bush's conduct of foreign policy and dismayed about America's diminished reputation abroad, more than two dozen former top diplomats and military leaders will release a statement this week calling for a change in U.S. national security policy.

Members of the group -- a mix of Republicans and Democrats -- have served in capitals from Moscow to Tel Aviv and Lima to Kinshasa. The list includes a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former head of U.S. Central Command, a former CIA director and a decorated array of former ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state and defense.

"We all have this extremely strong feeling that this administration has failed in its responsibilities to the nation," H. Allen Holmes, former assistant secretary of defense for special operations, said yesterday. "We have never been so isolated in the world, and feared. It's incredible that the United States should be in that position."

As a group, they are the latest and most prominent collection of former national security figures to complain about the direction of Bush administration foreign policy. They came together at a moment of growing public doubt about Bush's handling of foreign affairs and the war in Iraq.

While their views are largely shared by Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the group avoided including people connected to the Kerry campaign. To gain the maximum impact, organizers said, they also tried not to enlist figures whose anti-administration views are well-advertised.

"Our ethos is that we're professionals. We serve the president, whatever party. It's very unlike the vast majority of people in our group to do this," Holmes said. "If you're working for Kerry, we don't really want you in the group. This is supposed to be independent."

Among the signatories are former ambassadors to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock and Arthur A. Hartman. Also voicing support are former CIA director Adm. Stansfield Turner, former Joint Chiefs chairman William Crowe Jr., former Air Force chief of staff Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak and former Central Command chief Gen. Joseph P. Hoar.

Others include Phyllis E. Oakley, former chief of the State Department's intelligence operation, as well as former ambassadors Avis Bohlen and Charles Freeman and onetime U.N. ambassador Donald F. McHenry.

The group calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change.

The one-page statement, which will be released formally Wednesday at a Washington news conference, criticizes the Bush administration for ineffectiveness in its approach to the world. It mentions Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- on which the White House has strongly backed hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- and cites evidence of increasing anti-American attitudes among Muslim young people.

... and more.

----
Similar: [PLAIN]http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/bush.criticism/[/URL] : Former officials to condemn Bush foreign policy

 

[Zero]

How long before they are declared "crazy", I wonder?

 

[pelastration]

How long before they are declared "crazy", I wonder?

Yes, and accused to give the wrong message to the outside world.

 

[Adam]

Like every other member of the administration who has spoken out against Bush, they will be painted as malcontents and accused of having "sour grapes".

 

[loseyourname]

Doesn't anybody remember the Spanish-American War? The administration lied about the Maine incident basically so that it could take Spanish land and put the US into the business of imperialism. It was probably the least just war this nation has ever been involved in, and yet TR is revered as one of our greatest presidents.

 

[member 5645]

Doesn't anybody remember the Spanish-American War? The administration lied about the Maine incident basically so that it could take Spanish land and put the US into the business of imperialism. It was probably the least just war this nation has ever been involved in, and yet TR is revered as one of our greatest presidents.

Start another thread if you wish, but that is one overly simple explanation of the Spanish-American war.

 

[loseyourname]

Perhaps, but I still think it would do us good to remember it. The US refused to give power to the Filipinos after ousting the Spanish colonial government and faced guerilla battles with Filipino freedom fighters, the same people it supported when they were attempting to overthrow the Spanish. Heck, the US also helped to install Batista's dictator-ship in Cuba, which eventually resulted in the Cubans' support of Castro and communism, which nearly led to a nuclear war.

Wars can have unintended consequences, and sometimes it isn't all that hard to see what those will be if we just look with an honest, open eye.

 

[studentx]

Like every other member of the administration who has spoken out against Bush, they will be painted as malcontents and accused of having "sour grapes".

Both sides do it. Evrybody who speaks out in favor of Bush or this war is attacked fiercely and personally insulted, a ''warcriminal'' .

 

[Adam]

Both sides do it. Evrybody who speaks out in favor of Bush or this war is attacked fiercely and personally insulted, a ''warcriminal'' .

Your point?

 

[Zero]

Enough sniping at each other.