Former U.S. Officials Call for a New Administration

[Scarletwine]

"A group of 26 former U.S. diplomats and senior military officers say that President Bush and his team should be voted out in the upcoming election. The group, in a statement to be released later this week, says the president has squandered alliances and his foreign policies have harmed U.S. national interests." (NPR)

The group includes officials from both Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, several of whom voted for Dubyah the first time, and former military senior staff.

They appeared on NPR lunch and CNN today.

 

[ThatGuy]

You can watch the news conference here.

 

[STING2]

23 former Diplomats, 2 Navy Admirals and a Marine General to be precise. William Crowe is one of the Admirals(he retired from the Navy in 1989) and has been a long time opponent of Republican administrations and was against the use of military force to remove Saddam from Kuwait back in 1991.

There are thousands of former Diplomats and retired Generals out there. The fact that you would have 26 come out to blast one side or the other in an election year is no surprise at all.

 

[ThatGuy]

23 former Diplomats, 2 Navy Admirals and a Marine General to be precise. William Crowe is one of the Admirals(he retired from the Navy in 1989) and has been a long time opponent of Republican administrations and was against the use of military force to remove Saddam from Kuwait back in 1991.

Actually there's a retired Air Force General that you didn't mention: Merrill A. (Tony) McPeak, who was the Oregon chairman for the Dole/Kemp campaign in 96, and in 2000 was a Veteran For Bush. So the group isn't quite as partisan as you make it out to be.

There are thousands of former Diplomats and retired Generals out there. The fact that you would have 26 come out to blast one side or the other in an election year is no surprise at all.

It isn't? Has this sort of thing happened before?

 

[Klaus]

You can read an BBC article about them:

DIPLOMATS AND MILITARY COMMANDERS FOR CHANGE

#William C Harrop
Ambassador to Israel under Bush Sr
#Gen Joseph P Hoar
Commander in chief of US Central Command under Bush Sr; supports John Kerr
#Merrill A McPeak
Former Air Force chief of staff; supports Kerry
#Jack F Matlock
Ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and Bush Sr
#Adm William J Crowe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan and ambassador to UK under Clinton; has endorsed Kerry
#Adm Stansfield Turner
CIA director under Carter; has endorsed Kerry

They are convinced that Mr Bush's policies have made the US more isolated and less safe, and damaged its standing in the world.
And if i look at the list and what they have to say it dosn't sound to me that they all just do it because they like Democrats.
Some don't want that document seen as parts of the next election campaign they even say that the document is in effect calling for the president's removal because he's too damaging for the USA

 

[STING2]

Actually there's a retired Air Force General that you didn't mention: Merrill A. (Tony) McPeak, who was the Oregon chairman for the Dole/Kemp campaign in 96, and in 2000 was a Veteran For Bush. So the group isn't quite as partisan as you make it out to be.



It isn't? Has this sort of thing happened before?

Did I say it was a partisan group?

This sort of thing happens every election year. I'm actually surprised that they only have 26 people in their group considering that there are thousands of retired diplomats and Generals with views that cover the entire political spectrum.

 

[Klaus]

Sing: well it's not "only 26" it's almost a "Who is Who" of the diplomatic US-Corps.
Together they ertr 300 years employed by their country.

I've never seen such a thing. neither under Reagan, nor Bush "I" nor Clinton.

 

[ThatGuy]

Did I say it was a partisan group?

This sort of thing happens every election year. I'm actually surprised that they only have 26 people in their group considering that there are thousands of retired diplomats and Generals with views that cover the entire political spectrum.

Did I say you said it was a partisan group? No, I said that you implied that it was a partisan group, which you did.

And this sort of thing happens every election year? I'm asking honestly because I don't know. Can you give some examples?

 

[STING2]

Sing: well it's not "only 26" it's almost a "Who is Who" of the diplomatic US-Corps.
Together they ertr 300 years employed by their country.

I've never seen such a thing. neither under Reagan, nor Bush "I" nor Clinton.

Let me remind you that there are thousands of Diplomats and Generals with equal or better qualifications than this list and they are not apart of the group. Their total number of years of employment is probably well over a million.

I've seen retired diplomats and Generals of all different poltical stripes come out in every election year and endorse candidate a or b, or make criticism a or b of sitting President. This is nothing special, although the folks at Kerry HQ will do their best to make you think otherwise.

Think about the numbers, 26 retired diplomats and Generals vs. thousands of retired diplomats and Generals

 

[STING2]

Did I say you said it was a partisan group? No, I said that you implied that it was a partisan group, which you did.

And this sort of thing happens every election year? I'm asking honestly because I don't know. Can you give some examples?

I spoke briefly about Admiral Crowe and what he did in the past, that does not at all mean that I implied the entire group was partisan. This helps me understand of course how people say Bush "implied x or y".

"And this sort of thing happens every election year? I'm asking honestly because I don't know. Can you give some examples?"

Yes, every election year, there are some retired Diplomats and Generals that decide to become involved in the process in a variety of ways. Such groups or individuals rarely impact the process and have flurry of media coverage over one or a couple of nights and then are "usually" easily forgotten in the election craze in the final months. It is normal for retired individuals from the government to be involved in a variety of things politically especially in groups similar to this.

 

[ThatGuy]

I spoke briefly about Admiral Crowe and what he did in the past, that does not at all mean that I implied the entire group was partisan.

What did it mean, then? You had 26 other people that you could have mentioned. Why single out the most partisan member of the group if you weren't trying to tar the entire group with the same brush? Was it random chance?

This helps me understand of course how people say Bush "implied x or y".

I'm glad I could be of service, though I would have thought that you would have been able to figure it out without my help.

Yes, every election year, there are some retired Diplomats and Generals that decide to become involved in the process in a variety of ways. Such groups or individuals rarely impact the process and have flurry of media coverage over one or a couple of nights and then are "usually" easily forgotten in the election craze in the final months. It is normal for retired individuals from the government to be involved in a variety of things politically especially in groups similar to this.

You learn something new every day. Thanks.

 

[STING2]

What did it mean, then? You had 26 other people that you could have mentioned. Why single out the most partisan member of the group if you weren't trying to tar the entire group with the same brush? Was it random chance?




I'm glad I could be of service, though I would have thought that you would have been able to figure it out without my help.



You learn something new every day. Thanks.

First, I don't know for a fact that Admiral Crowe is the most partisan member of the group. Second, the reason I talked about Admiral Crowe is because I know more about him than any other member of the group.

I don't see how you could say I was trying to imply the entire group was partisan based on that.

 

[melon]

Pssst...let me let you all in on a bit of Republican-speak:

If you're remotely liberal and you make a position that runs contrary to any of the official GOP stances, you are "partisan." So, by their logic...

Liberal = "bad" (as defined by good old Ronnie)
Partisan = "liberal"
Partisan = "bad"

I wouldn't be surprised if "partisan" was one of the words that Newt Gingrich encouraged Republicans to use in the mid-1990s to describe Democrats (among of a whole slew of other words).

Likewise, folks, this was the other logic:

Conservative = "good"
Bipartisan = "good"
Bipartisan = Conservative

Alas, Democrats really do fail on knocking out their logic holes. Is it because the Democratic Party is stupid? Or spineless? Or both? Or is it because they secretly want the GOP to succeed, because the entire legislature makes so much money that they'd benefit from Bush's wealthy tax cuts?

Gotta love American politics. They make you oh-so-squishy and optimistic inside!

Melon

 

[ThatGuy]

First, I don't know for a fact that Admiral Crowe is the most partisan member of the group. Second, the reason I talked about Admiral Crowe is because I know more about him than any other member of the group.

I don't see how you could say I was trying to imply the entire group was partisan based on that.

If you don't see it then I'm never going to make you see it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[ThatGuy]

I wouldn't be surprised if "partisan" was one of the words that Newt Gingrich encouraged Republicans to use in the mid-1990s to describe Democrats (among of a whole slew of other words).

Melon

Here's a link to Gingrich's list of "good" and "bad" words. Partisan isn't on the bad list, but liberal is.

 

[Popmartijn]

Think about the numbers, 26 retired diplomats and Generals vs. thousands of retired diplomats and Generals

From the same BBC article that Klaus linked to:

Another former ambassador, Phyllis Oakley, said the need for change was unprecedented.

"Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it," she said.

"Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy."

The former officials have launched their call for change in a presidential election year, but the group is made up of both Democrats and members of Mr Bush's Republican Party.

Known critics of the administration were deliberately excluded from it.

And while it may be true that there are thousands of retired diplomats, there is of course a hierarchy in importance of those diplomats. This group includes some persons with highly respectable carreers. They aren't just some diplomats who are looking for a new job or need the attention from the media.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Scarletwine]

Sting

Examples please.

I never seen a group that included so many appointed by former Republican Presidents on any list calling for a change in administration, especially from diplomatic corp or military.