I saw that this was coming out yesterday, and now that it is out, it is time to bring it to this forum.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/...cism/index.html

The long and short of it is that over 2 dozen former diplomats and military leaders and includes both Democrats and Republicans that have served under every administration since Truman have called for the ouster of Mr. George W. Bush. Quotes from the include:

the United States is now "crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it."

Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, a former U.S. Air Force chief of staff who had endorsed the Bush 2000 campaign, Wednesday said of Bush's Iraq policy, "Because of the Pollyannish assumptions that were made by the administration in going in there that ... bouquets would be thrown at us and so forth, we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. And so you see here, unfolding in front of us, a terrible disaster." (Under Bush Senior)

"When there is one prominent rival to President Bush in this election, obviously we think Senator Kerry should be elected, but we are not here to speak for him. We are here to say there must be a change."

For independent voters still "on the fence", how much weight do you give to these types of reports?

Are these people genuinely concerned with the future of the country, or are they out to get the Bush administration?

Are the Republicans missing the obvious by failing to see the need for change within its own party?

For those of you that hold disdain for Michael Moore, does your disdain carry over to these individuals?

My opinion is that those people are truly concerned for the future of this country that's why they did something that people of their stature usually don't do. It doesn't change my mind since I am not sitting on the fence.
However, I'd be interested to know (and this is sort of a follow-up question for people who believe that these diplomats are driven by something other than their concern for the United States) - what needs to happen so they will abandon their candidate? It seems to me that if Jesus himself would step down on Earth and proclaim that Bush leads the country in the wrong direction, GWB would still get 40-45% of the popular vote. Does it mean that only very very few "independents" will be influenced by today's event?

For independent voters still "on the fence", how much weight do you give to these types of reports?

I'm definitely an independent, but I got off the fence a while ago after the good moves from 9/11 got twisted into the demagoguery of the Iraq War.


Are these people genuinely concerned with the future of the country, or are they out to get the Bush administration?

Here's a guess: BOTH[/I]. I think they are definitely concerned, but even if you're concerned, they have a level of experience in the government that they could work from within to change things. In this case, they chose to go public, so I think they're also trying to sink the administration.


[B]Are the Republicans missing the obvious by failing to see the need for change within its own party?

Republicans are NOT stupid. They do not miss the obvious. Unfortunately, the party chose to back the Bush horse without even a challenge, so now they're stuck. They can't publicly abandon him without losing the White House (and maybe one of the houses of Congress), so they have to soldier on and say "well, at least he's better than Kerry, that waffler!", which is a weak argument for supporting a sitting President.


For those of you that hold disdain for Michael Moore, does your disdain carry over to these individuals?

Doesn't apply. Why would I hold an entertainer in disdain, regardless of his/her politics? That's putting more emphasis on their politics than I do most politicians!

For independent voters still "on the fence", how much weight do you give to these types of reports?

Having fallen off the fence quite a while back, it doesn't change my position. I've always thought that the arguments for invading Iraq were insufficient, particularly when it turns out the evidence justifying such an invasion was weak or wholly fabricated. I also fundamentally disagree with the "doctrine of preemption". That said, for the folks who remain on the fence such reports, testimonials, white-papers and documents will have an effect.

Are these people genuinely concerned with the future of the country, or are they out to get the Bush administration?

Yes and yes. Being out to get Dubya and being concerned for the future of the country need not be mutually exclusive goals.

Are the Republicans missing the obvious by failing to see the need for change within its own party?

It depends on the type of Republican, I think. For the hard-core socially conservative Republicans, Dubya does it for them. For the fiscally conservative Republicans, I do wonder. To me, it seems impossible to advocate fiscal conservatism and support Dubya. But, perhaps, there are no more fiscally conservative Republicans.

Also, to echo amf: if the sole goal for the Republican party is to get a Republican in office at all costs, then Dubya is the only way to go. There are no other Republican candidates for President. The same can be said to be true for Democrats and Kerry. In that sense, independent voters are the most likely to be fair-minded as they don't zealously follow party lines.

I can already see the spin on this from the Bush camp.

These are just another bunch of dis-enchanted people and are telling lies or twisting truth for some future gains.

Remember other past critics of Bush that were at one time in his adminstration. The same spin was applied to them also.

It really doesn't matter who comes out against Bush, there will still be that same group, that will defend him no matter what he does. That really is sad when people cover up their eyes and refuse to see or stop up their ears and refuse to listen.

For independent voters still "on the fence", how much weight do you give to these types of reports? Not an independent. This may carry some weight with some independents, with others, nary a whit.

Are these people genuinely concerned with the future of the country, or are they out to get the Bush administration? I don't know. My guess is that some are genuinely concerned, some are out to cover their own *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** by sinking the Bush Administration, and some are a mix of both.

Are the Republicans missing the obvious by failing to see the need for change within its own party? No. Conversely, one could ask "are some Democrats missing the obvious that the Islamofascists have repeatedly stated their intentions of destroying the United States, the West, and Israel, and Saddam's Iraq was busy bankrolling and shielding many of those selfsame practictioner's of the 'religion of peace'?" Some Republicans agree with your assessment, others have come to different conclusions. It ain't "obvious" that change is needed, at least not the sort that you suggest.

For those of you that hold disdain for Michael Moore, does your disdain carry over to these individuals? No, but if their fraudulent behavior ever rises to Moore's soaring heights, they'll earn their share of disdain.

Are these people genuinely concerned with the future of the country, or are they out to get the Bush administration?

I would like to know who the 26 ex-statesmen are. So far, I've only seen their
release, complete with the talking points about how diverse they are, plus responses from the usual politicians. Haven't seen a list of who they are, except for the Air Force general who is working for the Kerry campaign. I'm guessing that all / most are promised jobs in the new administration, so that could skew their motivation just a bit. Will wait to see more facts before it swings me one way or the other.

Carlitoswhey

They are;

Avis T. Bohlen — assistant secretary of State for arms control, 1999-2002; deputy assistant secretary of State for European affairs, 1989-1991.

Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. — chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.

Jeffrey S. Davidow — ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002; assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1996.

William A. DePree — ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987-1990.

Donald B. Easum — ambassador to Nigeria, 1975-79.

Charles W. Freeman Jr. — assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs, 1993-94; ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992.

William C. Harrop — ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991.

Arthur A. Hartman — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981-87; ambassador to France, 1977-1981.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar — commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.

H. Allen Holmes — assistant secretary of Defense for special operations, 1993-99; assistant secretary of State for politico-military affairs, 1986-89.

Robert V. Keeley — ambassador to Greece, 1985-89; ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980-84.

Samuel W. Lewis — director of State Department policy and planning, 1993-94; ambassador to Israel, 1977-1985.

Princeton N. Lyman — assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, 1995-98; ambassador to South Africa, 1992-95.

Jack F. Matlock Jr. — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991; director for European and Soviet affairs, National Security Council, 1983-86; ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981-83.

Donald F. McHenry — ambassador to the United Nations, 1979-1981.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak — chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.

George E. Moose — assistant secretary of State for African affairs, 1993-97; ambassador to Senegal, 1988-91.

David D. Newsom — acting secretary of State, 1980; undersecretary of State for political affairs, 1978-1981; ambassador to Indonesia, 1973-77.

Phyllis E. Oakley — assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, 1997-99.

James Daniel Phillips — ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990-93; ambassador to Burundi, 1986-1990.

John E. Reinhardt — ambassador to Nigeria, 1971-75.

Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith — deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.

Ronald I. Spiers — undersecretary-general of the United Nations for political affairs, 1989-1992; ambassador to Pakistan, 1981-83.
(I'm not sure, but is this the same Ronald Spiers who is in 'Band of Brothers'?)

Michael Sterner — deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs, 1977-1981; ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-76.

Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner — director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1977-1981.

Alexander F. Watson — assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1993-96; deputy permanent representative to the U.N., 1989-1993.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...lssaybushmustgo

This comes on the heels of GEN Zinni's criticism (another interview here) and builds upon the impact of Dr. Jeffrey Record's critical paper, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, published by the US Army War College back in December.

Here is another recent paper, in which a professor at the US Naval Post-Graduate School takes a critical look at the strategic implications of the Iraq war.

...and much of this criticism and rancor goes back to the pre-war months and how the administration ended up almost completely ignoring the recommendations of the State Department's Future of Iraq Project in favor of Rumsfeld's misguided approach; not to mention their summary dismissal of the opinions and recommendations of so many other true regional experts who strongly disagreed with the in-crowd.

All of this criticism must be taken into account - and given the appropriate weight for the source. The criticism is political, of course, but I believe that all of these former military and diplomatic professionals are genuinely concerned with the future of our country - and that's what politics is about, eh?

As Mustang points out, all criticism must be evaluated.

I do find it funny that some of the comments are outdated a bit:



Insults to allies? I guess we can roll out the "old Europe" comment from Rumsfeld. The US has consistently praised its allies, while acknowledging that some have a difference of opinion. I have not heard any insults from the White House.

Indifference to partners in the region? Is that why Bush went on Arab TV?

general disdain for the United Nations and international organizations that the administration still finds difficult to conceal I guess Bush should stop asking the UN for additional Resolutions (beyond the four that have passed unanimously since the Iraq war). We have done everything possible to get the UN on board. THEY cut and run in Iraq. We are still trying to get them back in there, as an organization. What more can we reasonably do?

There is no need for disdain of these individuals. Of course people will have differences of opinion. You just need to take them with a grain of salt

I won't add to this debate other than I'm expecting a similar group to come out in support of President Bush.

If this does not happen, then it will look like the consensus among senior and retired diplomats is for change.

Combined with Amlord properly pointing out that some of the quotes were a bit dated by events, I'm guessing that the Republicans will indeed work to come out with this list, but that it'll take a few months to get enough people together... the same as it probably did for this list of diplomats to get together.

Dated or not, were all of these critisisms not valid at some point? I would submit that they were. In fact I think several of us here on AD have echoed them in various threads over the past few months.

I have asked this question before, and I'll ask it again. How many people must come out of the wood work before people start to question their support for the Bush administration? 50, 100, 1000, it doesn't matter?

I don't know a lot of names on that list, but I do know that William Crowe and Stansfield Turner have few peers in their field that equal their ability. Diplomats and people who work in agencies like the people in this list, aren't exactly the most political by nature. At most, they will resign and labor on in some think tank or university, it's very rare for them to speak out, epecially in such a unified way. I do believe that they are geniunely concerned about this nation and where it is heading. I believe that some newbies came into Washington and changed things up a bit, and these guys didn't like it. I'm not saying that the criticism isn't well deserved, but when any change is made, it rattles the veterans, and perhaps that is what Bush is facing. It could be that Bush has his own plan and that the majority of people in these foreign policy areas aren't just in tune with Bush's idea of how things should be run. With that being said, I wonder if the president is at all concerned with their opinion-I like math, but I would be a fool if I were to ignore the advice of those who know more about it than I and just trudged along doning what I wanted, in a willy-nilly fashion. Does anyone have any evidence that these guys are being paid by some leftist front group or something?????

There is no need to "tear down" everyone who disagrees with you. Maybe the Bush administration, after years of attacks against it, feels that way.

Does disagreeing with someone constitute "tearing them down"?

Does pointing out that their talking points are over a year old (like John Kerry's ) constitute "tearing them down"?

There is no need to "tear down" everyone who disagrees with you. Maybe the Bush administration, after years of attacks against it, feels that way.

Does "YEARS OF ATTACKS" constitute a "tear down"?
Why oh why would the Bush administration get attacked for years?

Does disagreeing with someone constitute "tearing them down"?
Simply disagreeing? No. But if the disagreement is deep enough, on big enough issues, then "tearing them down", might be appropriate.

Does pointing out that their talking points are over a year old (like John Kerry's ) constitute "tearing them down"?

The fact that most of Bush's major screw up's are over a year old does not take away from the screw up's. The fact that George W. Bush's majority of LIES were told over a year ago does not take away from the fact that he lied to ME, YOU, and the rest of the world. I am glad that there is an American out there like John Kerry to make sure that we don't forget the track record of George. W. Bush.

For independent voters still "on the fence", how much weight do you give to these types of reports?

About as much weight as I give my 26 next door neighbors opinions.

[QUOTE]Are these people genuinely concerned with the future of the country, or are they out to get the Bush administration?

A third option is possible. These are people looking to get their names back into the public spotlight, which I suspect is partially true.

Are the Republicans missing the obvious by failing to see the need for change within its own party?

I suspect that the latest polling data, combined with what Russian Prime Minister Putin had to say today might make the DEMOCRATS, not the Republicans thinking they made a mistake, not visa versa.

For those of you that hold disdain for Michael Moore, does your disdain carry over to these individuals?

No, Michael Moore is a cheap shot artist who will play hard and fast with the truth ("see I walked into this bank and they gave me a gun......"), these folks are expressing their opinions, no different you or me.

Red