current course will bring instability and danger

slim pickins

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2002
117
0
0
Group Seeks Change In Security Policy
Dignitaries Fault Bush Administration
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 13, 2004


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.

The statement also mentions a range of other issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and U.S. approaches to HIV-AIDS, the environment and the distribution of wealth.

"We've lost 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," said Ronald Spiers, former ambassador to Pakistan and Turkey, referring to the Iraq war. "This concept of transplanting democracy is a 'fool's rush in where angels fear to tread' idea."

Spiers added, "The damage we've done to key and valuable alliances is going to take a long time to fix."

Bill Harrop, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Kenya, said he and his co-signers became "extremely disillusioned with the administration." He perceives Bush administration "scorn for multilateral organizations, the United Nations and, to some extent, even NATO." He described a "sense of unilateralism, the haughty style of international affairs."

"I really am essentially a Republican. I voted for George Bush's father, and I voted for George Bush," Harrop said. "But what we got was not the George Bush we voted for.

"There is a feeling that the administration from the very outset took a righteous black-and-white view toward diplomacy," said Harrop, who referred to administration "dissembling" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and a "complete failure to prepare for the aftermath" of war.

"It's called the war against terrorism," Harrop asserted, "but in fact it has created terrorism in Iraq. It has made Iraq itself a very dangerous place."

Three State Department workers resigned from the government during the buildup to the Iraq war, saying they could no longer represent official U.S. policy in good conscience. The most senior figure was Mary A. Wright, a decorated and widely traveled diplomat then serving as the number two U.S. official in Mongolia.

"I have served my country for almost 30 years in some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world," Wright wrote Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. "I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of the administration and cannot defend or implement them."

John Brady Kiesling, a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, wrote in his resignation to Powell that the pursuit of war in Iraq was "driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson... Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
i guess that means

i guess that means

the administration should withdraw from office....:rolleyes:

the reigns are turned over on june 30th in iraq.........and last time i looked there`s an election in november......there`s an excellent chance bush get`s the boot....

so just hold on tight,there`s a good chance that kerry will get in and everything will magically be made right....the terrorists will go away.....the oil crisis will disappear....

the french will love us again....and all saddam`s old friends will embrace us again(the new muslim europe)....

so just hang on,slim....

i can`t wait to see the 180 degree turnaround when bush slinks off into the night....

of course i`m being facetious....and to be honest,i haven`t decided what i`m gonna do....but,

things aren`t going to change...the anti-americanism isn`t all bush...

it`s the muslimification of europe.....it`s resentment....it`s envy....it`s a seeming international push toward socialism.....it`s once again the rise of anti-semitism in europe........it`s the european chronic condition of putting there heads in the sand until things are completely out of hand....

it`s many things....


it should be interesting......and scary...
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,408
121
63
Bowling Green Ky
When I got to ---

"The statement also mentions a range of other issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and U.S. approaches to HIV-AIDS, the environment and the distribution of wealth."

--I didn't need to read any further---

Harrop> I voted for Bush--where have I heard that before
:D

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Islamic Terrorism" is bringing instabilty and danger in every part of world they exist.
and aiding them is media where terrorist burn-shoot and cut throats of prisoners and whine about us humiliating theirs--then our liberal press climbs on with front page stories for 20+ consecutive days stirring the pot--60 minutes makes sure everyone in world see the absolute worst scenerio of situation.
Fighting terrorist is hard enough but add to that those aiding and abetting them here---then go back at look at org that were behind and sponsered most of the protest initially in the war and you get a pretty clear picture.
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
The one statement is very close to 100% correct. I voted for George Bush. But I didn't get the G B I voted for. I have to agree.
That in it's self has many Republicans not happy. Just listen tomembers of congress. Not old retired ones. Those in office today. And Why things are locked up in the Senate.You have about 6 republicans there that just seem to worked against all things asked for. Bush has to bring them over for a talking to every other month. So it's not just old BS folks saying some of these things. The one big think is size of government. I believe you and I both agree on that. I dont know what the heck he's doing. I remember when running for Prez. Mr Clinton has a start on smaller government. We will show everyone how to finish that job and there is a big differnace. Said Bush.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Re: i guess that means

Re: i guess that means

gardenweasel said:

so just hold on tight,there`s a good chance that kerry will get in and everything will magically be made right....the terrorists will go away.....the oil crisis will disappear....

the french will love us again....and all saddam`s old friends will embrace us again(the new muslim europe)....

so just hang on,slim....

i can`t wait to see the 180 degree turnaround when bush slinks off into the night....

of course i`m being facetious


GW,

Maybe you are being facetious, as you mention, but I suspect that if Kerry gets elected, then we'll be flooded with posts/articles etc like this for four years. What will be forgotten is who got us into this abortion in the first place. Honestly, anybody inclined in the future to bash Kerry for ANYTHING to do with Iraq should be speaking up now 10 fold.

There is no good solution and no matter who is in office, this will be an albatross in so many ways for years to come. But let's all try to remember who put us there. It's a lot easier to get into messes than to get out of them.

It goes back to the old, 'well, if you're so smart what should we do about it.' Of course the answer is, 'I would have been smart enough to have not let this happen, but i'll do my best to clean up after you.'
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
what i`m saying is

what i`m saying is

anti americanism is nothing new....it`s a constant....it goes with the territory...

the slurs change, but the hostility stays the same...

just look at the last century...... ater the u.s. jumped into ww1 and broke the bloody stalemate in europe, wilson was unceremoniously blown off by our "allies" and our nation was called "uncle shylock" for insisting that our loans be repaid.......that was one of the reasons (although not the only one) that americans were so hesitant to get involved in ww2.,,,,

again in ww2, the u.s. played a crucial role along with the brits and russians in winning the war...... after the war was over, we didn't demand that we be paid back the tens of billions we were owed and we even sponsored the marshall plan to help rebuild europe...... and more importantly, we were protecting the europens from the soviet union. .....what country in history has done so much in such a short period for other nations?....i think it`s us....

then, when the korean war rolled around, who was europe suspicious of -- their american allies or the soviets, chinese and n. koreans? ...you got it -- us.



then reagan got into office and started trying to actually defeat the soviets and guess what?......... he was portrayed as a dangerous, warmongering, cowboy just like george bush is today....... as reagan and america won the cold war, we got support from britain and to a lesser extent germany.............. as far as the rest of europe goes, we only received minimal assistance from them and reagan was even vigorously protested in europe for doing some of the very things that helped us win the cold war.............

later on,several treaties that came down the pike in the u.n., (kyoto & the international criminal court are two prominent ones) were primarily designed to tie down the u.s. .................

now,afghanistan, who we helped save from the soviets in the 80`s allowed their terrorist allies to attack us on 9/11......south korea who we defend from dangerous north korea, complains about our troops......turkey who we have constantly plugged for e.u. membership wouldn't even take 30 billion dollars in loans and cash to help us out......france(f-ck france) who we liberated in ww2 and protected from the soviets for 45 years has been stabbing us in the back at every opportunity.....

the truth is that if we're doing anything because we expect gratitude from another country, we're going to be sadly disappointed.....

so, I don't worry so much about anti-americanism..... it has always been around and always will be......as long as we are the preeminent economic and military power in the world...

but,as long as our economy and military stays strong,it will be in the best interests of other countries to stay friendly with us.....regardless of how much they resent and envy us....

the war in iraq wasn`t in many european`s best interests.....economic best interests....we removed one of their cash cows(saddam)....they could care less that we are a-1 on the terrorist hit list...that saddam had a nasty habit of trying to produce wmd`s(that`s a fact....whether they were there when we invaded,he had chemical and bio weapons and tried to build a nuclear reactor which was bombed out of existence by the israelis)........but times are changing...the terrorists are expanding their "countries to do" list.....

when it`s in their best economic and/or security interests,these countries will agree with us....then they`ll come up with "moral" reasons WHY they should agree with us.....

this is nothing new...all these generals and politicians that were cited previously,need to brush up on their history....
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top