NationStates Jolt Archive

Article here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3573075&thesection=news&thesubsection=world)

WASHINGTON - A group of heavy-hitting former US diplomats and military officials has called on the American public to vote George Bush out of office in November - accusing the president of undermining the nation's interests and failing to provide proper leadership.

The 26 former officials - calling themselves Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change - say they are not explicitly endorsing Democrat John Kerry. But they say Bush's handling of issues ranging from the war in Iraq, through to environmental and AIDS policy, has left them disillusioned.

"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush Administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential," said William Harrop, who served as the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel, and previously in four African countries.

"The group does not endorse Kerry, although it more or less goes without saying in the statement." He said some of those involved in the project felt uncomfortable making such an explicitly political statement.

But he added: "We just feel very strongly that the country needs new leadership."

Among the group are 20 ambassadors appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.

Among the more prominent members are retired Marine General Joseph Hoar, commander of US forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush Sr, retired Admiral William Crowe, ambassador to Britain under President Bill Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan, and Jack Matlock, a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.

The group was last night due to launch its campaign at a news conference in Washington.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said it would have no response until the group issued its statement.

This is not the first time that former diplomats have lambasted the current president.

Last month more than 60 former US diplomats accused Bush of running a one-sided Middle East policy, claiming that the President's open-ended support for Israel was costing the US "credibility, prestige and friends".

Hopefully the noted group is successful in their campaign. IMHO Bush has been extremely harmful to the US in particular and the world in general.

Hopefully, whoever is elected as Bush's replacement can reverse the damage that Bush has done. The US is a great country, but it can be a whole lot better without Bush.

I've seen this article before, and I know why they don't like Bush. The diplomats I can't speak for, because every diplomat has his own style, and probably are uncomfortable with other styles. The military leaders, however, have a reason to dislike Bush. These leaders are use to Cold War tactics: big armies, big guns, and a clear enemy. These days, wars have to be fought with a far more flexible and mobile military, and who is the enemy isn't always clear. It scares to death some tacticians, but they have to realize that this isn't the WWII/Cold War era, when these people ran the military.

I may be young but from what I've seen of George Bush is that he is doing what is necessary to defend the country. Diplomats don't like him because he is dealing with problems that they didn't want to deal with. SOME generals don't like him because he has let his Defense Secretary handle military matters. He only says attack.

I want to keep Bush in office! The Economy is stronger and jobs ARE being created. His opponet doesn't like that because its taking away from his voting block.

I've seen this article before, and I know why they don't like Bush. The diplomats I can't speak for, because every diplomat has his own style, and probably are uncomfortable with other styles. The military leaders, however, have a reason to dislike Bush. These leaders are use to Cold War tactics: big armies, big guns, and a clear enemy. These days, wars have to be fought with a far more flexible and mobile military, and who is the enemy isn't always clear. It scares to death some tacticians, but they have to realize that this isn't the WWII/Cold War era, when these people ran the military.Way to quack out the party line. You are indeed a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.

So then, what would John Kerry do to make things any better than Bush? Because we all know it'll just be Kerry vs. Bush in November.

Way to quack out the party line.

Weak comeback! I'm sure you can do better than that...

These people are disgruntled because all of the policies that they helped to create are becoming dated and are being replaced in the war against terror. I belong to neither party but I can see that if I was in their shoes I would be a little saddend that the policies that I helped to bring about are being discarded and replaced. Though we are facing a new enemy that is much different than the old U.S.S.R. The world is constantly changing and evolving. Things will change whether you like it or not, deal with it.

Way to quack out the party line.

Weak comeback! I'm sure you can do better than that...Don't think that was a comeback. It just so happens that that statement was almost word for word the exact Republican party position on the matter. Classic example of what Orwell called 'duckspeak.'

You know, I thought it was called Newspeak. Maybe I should pull out the ol' 1984 again and double-check.

Is this a surprise? I mean the heavy-hitters wouldn't be all, "We...don't like it." They are, "GET OUT!"

Weak comeback! I'm sure you can do better than that...

How about pointing that the diplomats aren't upset about "style", but because Bush and the neocons are systematically dismantling alliances and international frameworks that took the US 50 years to set up. (Note to all UN-bashers - the US set up the UN. The UN can't do anything substantial against the US interests because of the US veto.)

The US is unsigning treaties - which is well outside normal behavior. The crap going on with NMD and the ABM treaty is rather destabilizing, not to mention North Korea's withdrawal from non-proliferation treaties and our embrace of nuke-proliferating Pakistan. The justice department is writing memos saying that the US is justified in ignoring US and International law regarding torture because the President is above the law, but we can hold other people accountable for the violations of the same law.

No one's helping out the US because the Bush admin isn't interested in allies, just lapdogs. The US turned a profit on the first Gulf War, but this time around the costs are 250 billion and rising. (With a rather large chunk of that US taxpayer debt going directly to corruption.) Remember when we were told Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the war?

It could also be that the military people aren't upset because the Cold War went away, but because their troops were sent into harm's way with insufficient resources: Not enough equipment. Not enough body armor. Not enough troops to guard arms caches or WMD sites.(The weapons being used on US soldiers today were frequently looted from Iraqi arms depots left unguarded after the invasion.) Oh, yes, WMD - American soldiers sacrified in pursuit of a lie.

Not to mention the irony of torturing people for freedom, and refusing to allow local elections in a country we invaded to bring democracy (http://www.juancole.com/2004_06_01_juancole_archive.html#108698703778823853).

(Only one link in this post, since apparently posts with evidence scare you.)

I've seen this article before, and I know why they don't like Bush. The diplomats I can't speak for, because every diplomat has his own style, and probably are uncomfortable with other styles. The military leaders, however, have a reason to dislike Bush. These leaders are use to Cold War tactics: big armies, big guns, and a clear enemy. These days, wars have to be fought with a far more flexible and mobile military, and who is the enemy isn't always clear. It scares to death some tacticians, but they have to realize that this isn't the WWII/Cold War era, when these people ran the military.

That is rather simplistic to suggest that a commander is only of one mindset. A commander has to adapt.

Where do you think the current command structure learned their trade? What did they train for? Soviet Style combat!

Sorry but that argument does not fly.....

Well I hope this group becomes a little more vocal, that way more people will know about them

I've seen this article before, and I know why they don't like Bush. The diplomats I can't speak for, because every diplomat has his own style, and probably are uncomfortable with other styles. The military leaders, however, have a reason to dislike Bush. These leaders are use to Cold War tactics: big armies, big guns, and a clear enemy. These days, wars have to be fought with a far more flexible and mobile military, and who is the enemy isn't always clear. It scares to death some tacticians, but they have to realize that this isn't the WWII/Cold War era, when these people ran the military.


they they should like Bush because he seems to endorse using the big guns.

what they want is someone who understand diplomacy and political reprecussions for their actions. Maybe bush does know the reprecussions but he doesn't seem to care, if that is so

hmpf. I like the man. I especially like what hes been doing to increase the pay those of us int he service recieve. The american military is understaffed, underpaid, and overworked. We use technology 30 years old because congress doesnt want to pay the $$ to keep us on top. so we make do with old planes that are well beyond their service life. Did you know the avg B-52 bomber (the BIG one) was built around the same time its current pilot's GRANDFATHER was born?

You have no idea how many good Marines, with primising careers and great potential, I see leave the service and go into the private sector because they simply cannot afford to feed their loved ones if they stayed in. I've seen SgtMajor's (an E-9, as far as you can go as an enlisted, typically takes 22+ years) who have to use food stamps to help buy food because the cost of living near the base is so out of proportion to the housing and food allowance they recieve to pay for those needs of their families. Officers have it a bit better, asthey get substantially larger paychecks, but even they have trouble. Recruitment levels gets lower every year (despite a small surge immediately after 9/11 the trend continues). Why? Because beyond the Montgomery GI bill and other benefits that apply only to the service member himself , there isnt much to look forward to in terms of providing for a family, at least until you put in a 20 years and can collect retirement pay.

The recent series of pay raises Bush has helped push through have helped convince a large number of people to stay in who would have otherwise gotten out. But the private sector still outpays for the same job specialties by a vast margin, and keep in mind many job specialties arent marketable outside the military (basic infantry is the simplest example).
--
and like it or not, clinton and company wouldnt have had the balls to prosecute any type f war on terrorism, let alone depose Sadly Insane from his roost in Iraq. Granted, I feel a few things could have been done sooner, or faster. personally, I would have turned suspected terrorist camps and their supporters in glass parking lots. In a choice between them and us, I choose us. There is no middle ground. Either you support us and the elimination of terrorists, or you support them, either directly or indirectly by doing nothing.

As a famous general once said "I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." In simpler terms: Fuk em. Kill em all, let God sort em out. You can fight and kill ourmilitary. Thats part of our job description. But a cowardly act against our families and loved ones, innocent civilians? Aiding and abetting terroists? Denoucning your american citizenship to go fight and live with terrorists? Turning traitor and throwing a grenade into a mess tent of your fellow soldiers/sailors/marines while they eat because you decided you dont like the war on terrorism and think you owe more allegience to your muslim beliefs than to your duty to your country? Ok, fine. Justbe ready when we come knocking, and send your ass straight to hell.

But a cowardly act against our families and loved ones, innocent civilians? Aiding and abetting terroists? So I take it that you weren't a fan of Ronnie "I cannot recall" Ragun? :roll:

Here is my opinion.

If our military is 30 years behind today, it is 60 years ahead of the rest of the world. Why does our military have to be completely 100% up to date if we're attacking countries like Iraq. Countries that really are 30 years behind today's military standards...I mean, AKs and RPGs, yea, those weren't built yesterday...

Additionally, the comment about B-52's...while I don't know for sure that it is incorrect that they are all that old, I highly doubt it. And I'm just going to do some math for you. Suppose a pilot is 21. That would mean he was born in 1983. Suppose his parents were 17 when he was born, that means 1964, and 17 years ago for the year his grandparents were born, make 1947. Now, if that is just the average pilot, that definitely means there are even older B-52s. Now...I don't know where this guy is getting his facts from, but my grandfather was a tailgunner for a B-52H. He flews missions over Korea and Vietnam. The B-52 he flew in took absolutely no damage over the entire war, and where is it? It is in the air museum at Barksfeild Air Force Base in Shreveport, LA. Why would the air force retire a B-52 that was essentially in mint condition if it's only about 40-50 years old when the average B-52 is 60+ years old? Hmm...

Okay, and on the people in the military not getting paid well--because my grandfather is retired Air Force, he can get onto the Air Force Base at Barksdale. You know why he goes there? Gas, groceries, prescriptions, etc. The fact of the matter is, even if military personnel don't get paid as well as they could in the private sector, I doubt many of them are really on food stamps (that's not to say none) as they can surely all get into the stores on the nearest base. Those store things extremely cheap because they don't have to charge any taxes and the stores on the bases aren't trying to make profits.

Our military isn't underpaid or understaffed. I do however believe it is overextended. We have troops in a large number of places all over the globe. What are they doing? Policing the world, keeping peace, removing regimes, securing oil, etc. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing on the military. The military does their job as best they can and I highly respect that and any memer of any branch of the military, and even the Coast Guard. I know quite a few. The fact of the matter is however, in the past 3 years, approximately 10% of the graduates from my high school have entered some sort of military service. I don't know what a good percentage is, but we don't really need as big of a military as we have in my opinion. And 10% of the American population entering the military yearly is a pretty good chunk. In fact, with technology going the way it is, the world is almost turning into the prequel to The Matrix. Things are becoming more and more robotic, causing more damage with less manpower.

If we need any thing, it's more diplomats and more diplomatic efforts. What is the role of the president? Commander in Chief, sure. But that isn't his sole role, and claiming to be a wartime president is asanine. All that means is that if the war in Iraq is over by elections (it should have been over a very long time ago), there is absollutely no reason to election GWB. I mean, after all, there is no war, and he's only a war time president. Too bad he didn't tell us that before we voted him in. I can't remember the exact number, but something like 41 White House officials have ties to the oil industry, so I guess that explains why we hate Saddam. What could we do instead of pay for a war? Research oil-alternatives. A ton of money was put into that war. Has anyone noticed that Bush isn't so willing to put money foward for any sort of research because it's "immoral," yet he was ready to go to war in Iraq before any one else was. If you want to talk about immoral, how's killing a bunch of Iraqi soldiers (who definitely have no tie to Al Qaida), and capturing Saddam (who has been killing the Kurds in the north because of their religious sect, which is the same as Osama) and for what? Because he supposedly has WMDs? (Note, the reason of him killing his own people wasn't even a reason until we found out he didn't have WMDs really, plus, we didn't declare war on Nazi Germany when Hitler was killing his own people, they declared war on us) (And on that note, the Vatican didn't ever get around to condemning Hitler [Catholics don't like Jews that much either], but the Pope did say something against Bush's war in Iraq).

Well, my ranting was much, much longer than I expected it to be, and I feel pretty confident that I left out about 80% of the vital points I meant to make, but I doubt very many people will actually read this at all any way since it is already as long as it is...

</soapbox>

I've seen this article before, and I know why they don't like Bush. The diplomats I can't speak for, because every diplomat has his own style, and probably are uncomfortable with other styles. The military leaders, however, have a reason to dislike Bush. These leaders are use to Cold War tactics: big armies, big guns, and a clear enemy. These days, wars have to be fought with a far more flexible and mobile military, and who is the enemy isn't always clear. It scares to death some tacticians, but they have to realize that this isn't the WWII/Cold War era, when these people ran the military.

That is rather simplistic to suggest that a commander is only of one mindset. A commander has to adapt.

Where do you think the current command structure learned their trade? What did they train for? Soviet Style combat!

Sorry but that argument does not fly.....
I didn't suggest they were of one mindset. I suggested that, for many commanders, the realities of war may have changed too drastically for them to keep up. Besides, the US has been fighting Cold War style for longer than our grandparents have been alive.

I've seen this article before, and I know why they don't like Bush. The diplomats I can't speak for, because every diplomat has his own style, and probably are uncomfortable with other styles. The military leaders, however, have a reason to dislike Bush. These leaders are use to Cold War tactics: big armies, big guns, and a clear enemy. These days, wars have to be fought with a far more flexible and mobile military, and who is the enemy isn't always clear. It scares to death some tacticians, but they have to realize that this isn't the WWII/Cold War era, when these people ran the military.Way to quack out the party line. You are indeed a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.
It's not duckspeak. I've only heard about this group from that article, and no Republican speaks in there. I thought of what to say myself.