| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: Politix | ||
| Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go | ||
| 2004-06-14 | ||
| This may get lots of attention, even if from the LA Times WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America’s national security and should be defeated in November. The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bush’s foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.
snip It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign. A senior official at the Bush reelection campaign said he did not wish to comment on the statement until it was released. But in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that Bush has isolated America in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the U.N. resolution authorizing the interim Iraqi government. One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president. The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq. "Their timing is a little off, particularly in the aftermath of the most recent U.N. resolution," the strategist said. "It seems to me this is a collection of resentments that have built up, but it would have been much more powerful months ago than now when even the president’s most disinterested critics would say we have taken a much more multilateral approach" in Iraq. But those signing the document say the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the U.S. "We just felt things were so serious, that America’s leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administration’s approach," said Harrop, who served as ambassador to four African countries under Carter and Reagan. "A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration — by the arrogance, by the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations," Harrop said. Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained in the post by President Bush’s father during the final years of the Cold War, expressed similar views. "Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power," he said. "But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. We’ve all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things." The GOP strategist noted that many of those involved in the document claimed their primary expertise in the Middle East and suggested a principal motivation for the statement might be frustration over Bush’s effort to fundamentally reorient policy toward the region. snip A Bush administration ally said that the group failed to recognize how the Sept. 11 attacks required significant changes in American foreign policy. "There’s no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious — that those policies were inadequate," said Cliff May, president of the conservative advocacy group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "This seems like a statement from 9/10 people [who don’t see] the importance of 9/11 and the way that should have changed our thinking."
The group’s complaint about Bush’s approach largely tracks Kerry’s contention that the administration has weakened American security by straining traditional alliances and shifting resources from the war against Al Qaeda to the invasion of Iraq. Oakley said the statement would argue that, "Unfortunately the tough stands [Bush] has taken have made us less secure. He has neglected the war on terrorism for the war in Iraq. And while we agree that we are in unprecedented times and we face challenges we didn’t even know about before, these challenges require the cooperation of other countries. We cannot do it by ourselves." | ||
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #13 Patterico links to Rich Lowry's dismemberment of one of these "ambassadors" - a nice fisking |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-14 10:09:35 PM |
| #12 A long time ago (twenty years) Presidents made a habit of appointing career politician to Ambassadorships whether they were left or right of the political spectrum. Of course in todays NASTY world of politics that is no longer so. Funny that no of these 'experts' think that establishing democracy in the middle east is a good thing? Tells you a lot about their political thoughts. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-06-14 4:37:12 PM |
| #11 He is an arrogant, egotistical, and obnoxious SOB who is proof that every now and then, soembody manages to get through all the safeguards built into the system. Ignore him. Done. Thanks. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-14 1:28:03 PM |
| #10 Yeah, I remember those thrilling days of yesteryear when Gen. Wesley Clark was gonna cakewalk to the Democratic nomination. Madonna told me. Wait a second, that was 3 months ago. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-14 12:38:11 PM |
| #9 ..."Red Mike' McPeak did more to damage the United States Air Force than fifty years of fighting the Cold War EVER did. If he told me the sun rose in the east, I would ask a dozen Rantburgers to go outside and check. He is an arrogant, egotistical, and obnoxious SOB who is proof that every now and then, soembody manages to get through all the safeguards built into the system. Ignore him. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-14 12:03:13 PM |
| #8 Folks with this mindset will not be satisfied until: 1.) America accepts blame for all the wrong in the world as some kind of penance for being the most powerful country in the world. 2.) America apologizes for all the crimes in the world and submits itself as the SOLE INDICTED GOVERNMENT, with countries like Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba as our judges. 3.) America grovels to persuade allies to initiate good-willed dialog THAT THEY SHOULD ALREADY BE GIVING AS ALLIES. So, we are supposed to accept blame, apologize, grovel? Shame on anyone who accepts this proposition. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-14 10:47:51 AM |
| #7 "There’s no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious — that those policies were inadequate," ouch indeed!! You almost feel sorry for these guys for willingly placing themselves in a line of fire for John Kerry, he's soo not worth it. Though it will play well to CNN/IndyMedia/HateBush(TM) crowd, it will a get a big yawn from everyone else for being what it is, politics. As for the individuals who signed on, it will be like the Gorelick thing... the world will take note of these specific individuals who fiddled pre-9/11 and laid the foundation for 9/11 to occur and still, today, haven't got a clue. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-14 10:36:16 AM |
| #6 Mitch, I believe he's refering to the well known ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, aka "Chester the Molester". |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-06-14 9:34:52 AM |
| #5 Uh, Edward, could you expand on that insinuation? What rumors? |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-06-14 9:01:24 AM |
| #4 Yea, paragraph 6 reads, "Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said." Then, 7th paragraph from bottom, "Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., though named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan, supported Clinton in 1992. Crowe has endorsed Kerry. Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner served as Carter's director of central intelligence and has also endorsed Kerry. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-14 5:32:14 AM |
| #3 Your basic bull. Most of these folks have not been in a meaningful governmental position for a decade. LA Times Brownstein is masterful though, notice how he cites two names being aligned to Kerry early in the article and then again towards the end. At least he's consistently bias. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-14 5:26:18 AM |
| #2 "Wah waaah! If Bush reorders the Middle East, then the dictators might fall, and then where will I get my supply of little children to molest?!" (According to rumors, this is NOT an exaggeration.) But in any case, that GOP strategist is right on the dot. That they're diplomats - state - should have been the first hint that they lack the standing to criticize the president on this isuse (being themselves at fault for some of the complained-of dictator-coddling), with John Bolton as the glaring exception. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2004-06-14 2:00:07 AM |
| #1 The good folks at http://www.thatliberalmedia.com has the story on this newest 'letter.' Another political play, sponsored undoubtedly by McAuliffe and the DNC, etc. From the site. Other portions of the story on the front page highlight the theme that these officials served under Republicans as well as Democrats: Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia. Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush's father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq. Let's read further, shall we? I'll identify for you the precise moment when the editors jump the story to the back pages -- where, studies show, most readers don't bother to follow the story: Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff [See Statement, Page A26] and here the story jumps to the back pages, which generally signifies that this is the part the editors don't want you to know: Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said. The first hint that this might be a group of Democrat partisans, and it's buried on Page A26. Most readers will never see this. Accordingly, their primary impression is likely to be: Wow, this sounds like a bunch of Republicans criticizing Bush... I found the reference to the story at Right Thinking from the Left Coast |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-06-14 1:17:13 AM |