PDA

View Full Version : Top diplomats & mil officials Condemn Bush's Foreign Pol



n4292936
06-15-2004, 02:54 AM
Bush foreign policy under attack


A group of senior former US government officials will release a statement later this week condemning President George W Bush's foreign policy.
The group call themselves Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change.

They say Mr Bush's policies have made the US more isolated and less safe, and damaged its standing in the world.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Washington says former officials have criticised Mr Bush before, but this time the critics are especially well-respected.

They include William Crowe, who as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was America's top military officer and Admiral Stansfield Turner, a former director of the CIA.

The statement follows criticism last month by 53 former diplomats who accused the administration of undermining US credibility in the Arab world with its strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The British government has also come under fire, with 52 former officials attacking Prime Minister Tony Blair's support for Washington over Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

'Arrogance and scorn'

Those signing the statement say they believe the Bush administration has made the international outlook more unstable and dangerous.

"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 organisations," William Harrop, ambassador to Israel under President George Bush Senior, told the Los Angeles Times.

The signatories have also attacked US policy on Iraq, saying that all the assumptions made by the administration before the invasion have been proved wrong.

"It's a plea with the president to more urgently seek multilateral support for what we're doing in Iraq, to go back and forth in strengthening the alliances we've traditionally worked with," Admiral Crowe told the BBC.

'9/10 people'

The group is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Known critics of the administration were deliberately excluded.

However, several individual signatories have said they will back Mr Bush's Democrat challenger John Kerry and others say that the document is in effect calling for the president's removal.

"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," Mr Harrop said.

But supporters of the administration said the former officials were simply trying to hide the inadequacy of their own policies.

"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," Cliff May, president of the conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told the LA Times.

budanski
06-15-2004, 03:01 AM
Big deal. Most of the names on the list were hacks serving with the Carter and Clinton administrations.

I would be interested in knowing what specific intelligence they have been made privy to which would allow them to express informed opinions. Would further like to know their opinions regarding Reagan's Cold War strategy. I have other questions, but since I know these two will never be asked, detailing the remainder would be an even bigger waste of time.

It is a fact that America was hated prior to 9/11. If you really want to know why they hate us so much, have one of these guys to start explaining.

n4292936
06-15-2004, 03:13 AM
Somehow I dont think you become the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or an Admiral by being a hack. Well balanced analysis though :roll:

budanski
06-15-2004, 03:25 AM
Somehow I dont think you become the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or an Admiral by being a hack. Well balanced analysis though :roll:

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.––This one is the arch-turncoat. Elevated by Reagan to the top in respect of his being head of the "600 ship navy" (the USN was the favored service for most of the Reagan years). But he didn't get to be Secretary of Defense under Bush I, so he turned on the GOP big time and came out campaigning for the Clintons in '92.

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.––Sour grapes, from a Marine who was miffed when a) he was passed over for command of Desert Storm in favor of the Army's Schwartzkopf, and b) the said Schwartzkopf did the "Hail Mary" pass in the far west rather than let Hoar's beloved Corps go charging headlong into Kuwait with an amphibious landing.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak - chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.––Primary mission as Air Force chief was introducing a universally-hated uniform.

Their actions to undermine the war on terrorism is proof enough to me that they are democrat partisan hacks.

n4292936
06-15-2004, 04:06 AM
much better :D
I think you're making the common mistake of identifying criticism of George Bush as synonymous with undermining the WOT. You can be a critic of an administrations foreign policy and patriot - they are not mutually exclusive - just ask any Replublican during the last administration. Moreover, GB does not mopolise the right way to wage the WOT. His critics range from the people at the IISS, the Heritage Foundation, the Australian Defence Force Academy, and the US Army War College - all of whom have stakes in a peaceful western hemisphere, and all of whom belong to countries who have vital stakes in the WOT.

Incidentally, nothing you mentioned about the people in question does anything to undermine their credibility as detractors of the admin or reasonable analysts of Middle Eastern FP

Fargin
06-15-2004, 04:17 AM
A very interesting read, ty n4292936.

Secret Squirrel
06-15-2004, 04:24 AM
Somehow I dont think you become the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or an Admiral by being a hack. Well balanced analysis though :roll:

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.––This one is the arch-turncoat. Elevated by Reagan to the top in respect of his being head of the "600 ship navy" (the USN was the favored service for most of the Reagan years). But he didn't get to be Secretary of Defense under Bush I, so he turned on the GOP big time and came out campaigning for the Clintons in '92.

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.––Sour grapes, from a Marine who was miffed when a) he was passed over for command of Desert Storm in favor of the Army's Schwartzkopf, and b) the said Schwartzkopf did the "Hail Mary" pass in the far west rather than let Hoar's beloved Corps go charging headlong into Kuwait with an amphibious landing.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak - chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.––Primary mission as Air Force chief was introducing a universally-hated uniform.

Their actions to undermine the war on terrorism is proof enough to me that they are democrat partisan hacks.

got some proof to back up these claims or are you taking another's words for granted? Actions that undermined the war on terror? where? because they speak out against Bush? because some people are able to see Bush is running American like a totalerian regime by trying to keep his country in a constant state of fear and a new enemy to hate? Why do you think Bush tries to brainwash the masses with terror? Why do you think he likes to slander Kerry regarding the WOT? Plain and simple, its more or less all he has to run on and he's even ****ed that up.