• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

diplomats/officials: Bush damaged national security (aka bush=screwed this wednesday)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Santo

Junior Member
By Ronald Brownstein Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush (news - web sites) has damaged America's national security and should

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bush's foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.

"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers.

Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia.

Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush's father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).

Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said.

It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign.

A senior official at the Bush reelection campaign said he did not wish to comment on the statement until it was released.

But in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that Bush has isolated America in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the U.N. resolution authorizing the interim Iraqi government.

One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president.

The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq.

"Their timing is a little off, particularly in the aftermath of the most recent U.N. resolution," the strategist said. "It seems to me this is a collection of resentments that have built up, but it would have been much more powerful months ago than now when even the president's most disinterested critics would say we have taken a much more multilateral approach" in Iraq.

But those signing the document say the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the U.S.

"We just felt things were so serious, that America's leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administration's approach," said Harrop, who served as ambassador to four African countries under Carter and Reagan.

"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 organizations," Harrop said.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained in the post by President Bush's father during the final years of the Cold War, expressed similar views.

full article: here
 

Ripclawe

Banned
The GOP strategist noted that many of those involved in the document claimed their primary expertise in the Middle East and suggested a principal motivation for the statement might be frustration over Bush's effort to fundamentally reorient policy toward the region.

How nice, more "arabists" to add to the 2 groups of a couple of months ago, forgive me if I don't care what a bunch of status quo diplomats have to say. But at least this time they put the kerry supporters in the initial story so they don't have to backtrack later in the week.
 
more from the article:

"The core of the message is that we are so deeply concerned about the current direction of American foreign policy … that we think it is essential for the future security of the United States that a new foreign policy team come in," said Oakley.

Much of the debate over the document in the days ahead may pivot on the extent to which it is seen as a partisan document.

A Bush administration ally said that the group failed to recognize how the Sept. 11 attacks required significant changes in American foreign policy. "There's no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious — that those policies were inadequate," said Cliff May, president of the conservative advocacy group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

"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."

Along with Hoar and McPeak, others who have signed it are identified with the Democratic Party.

But in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that Bush has isolated America in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the U.N. resolution authorizing the interim Iraqi government.

One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president.

The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq.

"Their timing is a little off, particularly in the aftermath of the most recent U.N. resolution," the strategist said. "It seems to me this is a collection of resentments that have built up, but it would have been much more powerful months ago than now when even the president's most disinterested critics would say we have taken a much more multilateral approach" in Iraq.
 

Diablos

Member
I just want to see this administration bite the dust, I really do. Nearly everything they've done has sickened me.

Their stupid fucking Iraq war, ignoring real threats (e.g. North Korea), dicking everyone around with their color-coded warning system, spending way too much money on stupid shit like space exploration (space is good, but with the way the economy is today, it can be put on hold), cutting back on money reserved for helping maintain the environment... I could go on.
 

Drensch

Member
Good ol' predictable ripclawe. Like all good republicans he starts the damage control with an attack on the criticizer, not the criticism.
 

Diablos

Member
bush.jpg
 
ignoring real threats (e.g. North Korea)

I don't think a man afraid of triplets is a threat. Surely his fear of death would be greater than that of triplets -- which would be guaranteed if he used nukes.

:lol :lol I laugh at that picture everytime I see it.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Outlaw Pro Mod said:
I don't think a man afraid of triplets is a threat. Surely his fear of death would be greater than that of triplets -- which would be guaranteed if he used nukes.

:lol :lol I laugh at that picture everytime I see it.

A guy supposedly afraid of triplets might just be crazy enough to push The Button if someone looks at him funny. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S, North Korea continues to be. The entire doctrine of "installing" democracy and hoping that will fix everything is a bit naive.
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
Drensch said:
Good ol' predictable ripclawe. Like all good republicans he starts the damage control with an attack on the criticizer, not the criticism.


youre just just an anti bush whore! i wont listen to your hogwash!

lalalahear1.gif
 

Ripclawe

Banned
xsarien said:
A guy supposedly afraid of triplets might just be crazy enough to push The Button if someone looks at him funny. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S, North Korea continues to be. The entire doctrine of "installing" democracy and hoping that will fix everything is a bit naive.


NK is China's puppet, Kim jong won't push the button because someone looks at him funny. He may be paranoid but he is not stupid. We wouldn't have these problem with NK if it wasn't for the ridiculous nonsense of Madeline Albright running signing useless "peace" agreements.

Good ol' predictable ripclawe. Like all good republicans he starts the damage control with an attack on the criticizer, not the criticism.

The criticism itself is status quo nonsense mixed in with cowardice, that is the stuff diplomats are made of.

"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 organizations," Harrop said.

As Machiavelli says better to be feared than loved. diplospeak makes me want to puke, just a bunch of resentful diplomats whose opinions are no longer listened too for good reason. out of touch and thinking this is a pre 9/11 world.
 
Ripclawe said:
As Machiavelli says better to be feared than loved. diplospeak makes me want to puke, just a bunch of resentful diplomats whose opinions are no longer listened too for good reason. out of touch and thinking this is a pre 9/11 world.

You know, Machiavelli is also generally considered to be wrong, or at least seriously morally bankrupt. Calling someone "Machiavellian" is not a complement. :p
 

Mumbles

Member
Ripclawe said:
NK is China's puppet, Kim jong won't push the button because someone looks at him funny. He may be paranoid but he is not stupid. We wouldn't have these problem with NK if it wasn't for the ridiculous nonsense of Madeline Albright running signing useless "peace" agreements..

Albright has nothing to do with NK's half-sane actions, they've been like this since Bush Sr. was president. Everyone knows that Kim Jong Il isn't trustworthy, which is why every treaty signed with them has verification built in, and why we continue to monitor them.

And actually, China hasn't been all that happy with NK lately, either.
 

arter_2

Member
man America is scary in this day and age. All I want is a good friggan president for once. To bad that I am able to vote on friggan inuaguration day, just in time to see bush sworn in again [crap].
 

Socreges

Banned
How come such a vocal case was made against Clinton for him to be impeached because he received oral sex from another women, but Bush hasn't had anything of the sort, despite so much important criticism? Why are personal relationships so critical to Clinton's performance, but issues that actually affect the American people and the rest of the world are not to Bush?

Understand what I'm saying. Not that Bush should be impeached or that Clinton should be allowed to womanize, but that it just doesn't make any fucking sense.
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
Socreges said:
How come such a vocal case was made against Clinton for him to be impeached because he received oral sex from another women, but Bush hasn't had anything of the sort, despite so much important criticism? Why are personal relationships so critical to Clinton's performance, but issues that actually affect the American people and the rest of the world are not to Bush?

Understand what I'm saying. Not that Bush should be impeached or that Clinton should be allowed to womanize, but that it just doesn't make any fucking sense.


clinton was impeached for lying not for hittin it
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
sp0rsk said:
clinton was impeached for lying not for hittin it

More to the point, they got him on a technicality. The goal was to humiliate him, and the whole episode - to this day - makes me sick. Stick any given senator under the same lamp, ask them if they've cheated, they'd give the same exact answer.
 

Socreges

Banned
sp0rsk said:
clinton was impeached for lying not for hittin it
The movement I would say had alterior motives, although if that was their base, wasn't it kind of sketchy? Revolving around the loose definition of "sexual relations"? Or did he, in fact, lie?
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
Socreges said:
The movement I would say had alterior motives, although if that was their base, wasn't it kind of sketchy? Revolving around the loose definition of "sexual relations"? Or did he, in fact, lie?

i think thats obvious, im just trying to beat ripclawe to the punch.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Ripclawe said:
As Machiavelli says better to be feared than loved. diplospeak makes me want to puke, just a bunch of resentful diplomats whose opinions are no longer listened too for good reason. out of touch and thinking this is a pre 9/11 world.

And here's the outer-core of the neocon mindset, which is "The solution to getting rid of people who are pissed at us is to piss them off even further, and do it with minimal international support."

Rip, why don't you actually devote more time in your posts to what they're actually saying, not what their phantom motives might be, or shallow digs at their credibility?
 

FightyF

Banned
clinton was impeached for lying not for hittin it

Exactly.

On the other hand, Bush lied to the public about Iraq having WMDs. At least Clinton's lies didn't cost the world 20,000+ lives.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
How nice, more "arabists"
Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who speaks Arabic be involved in US Middle East policy. Let's staff the CPA with kids who chill with the Heritage Foundation. That'll work out just spiffy!
As Machiavelli says
Machiavelli also said not to trust foreign exiles, but I guess it's a bit too late to heed that nugget of wisdom.

PS Clinton was impeached for lying (and I really think that's what he did, despite his splitting hairs), about a question that was latter disallowed in a case that was settled out of court. He should just have stuck with "I don't recall." So hard to disprove.
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
Why should Clinton have had to answer a question regarding supposed blowjobbery under oath in the first place?
 

Socreges

Banned
Minotauro said:
Why should Clinton have had to answer a question regarding supposed blowjobbery under oath in the first place?
Because the fate of the American people depends on it.

Seriously, besides convention and "morals", is there anything that strictly prohibits American presidents from adultery?
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Why should Clinton have had to answer a question regarding supposed blowjobbery under oath in the first place?
It was during the Paula Jones civil suit, and her lawyers argued that Clinton's consensual, adulterous sex life should be allowed as evidence. The judge later decided that it should not be allowed, and struck the question and answer from the record.

How Ken Starr figured into all this (as a conduit of information to Jones' lawyers, I think), I can't really remember. Most of the details are lost to me now, but I do remember that it was supremely silly.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
xsarien said:
And here's the outer-core of the neocon mindset, which is "The solution to getting rid of people who are pissed at us is to piss them off even further, and do it with minimal international support."

Rip, why don't you actually devote more time in your posts to what they're actually saying, not what their phantom motives might be, or shallow digs at their credibility?

I already did, their opinions are clouded by the lame position because America is not back to kissing everyone ass and being "humble" we are now isolated and making people angry. Just do a little research and you will how wrong and myopic they are. The entire notion of us being isolated, making people angry so much they don't work with us is illogical.

Some countries may not like the awaken America where we throw our weight around and prefer the clinton era of can't we all just get along(even that version pissed off France quite a bit) But we are not going to get isolated like these morons are saying. America is far too big, too important economic wise and the threat of terrorism is far too great NOT to work with us.

What are they going to cite? the Pew polls about how European dislikes us? The same thing went on with Reagan in the 80's, we seem to survive that just fine.


Yeah, heaven forbid that someone who speaks Arabic be involved in US Middle East policy. Let's staff the CPA with kids who chill with the Heritage Foundation. That'll work out just spiffy!

Actually, the term Arabists refers to former diplomats,ambassadors, officers who work for arab governments/businesses or arab related special interests groups..etc.

Similar Diplomats cried about the same thing in early May

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...2.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/05/02/ixportal.html
 

Dilbert

Member
Drensch said:
Good ol' predictable ripclawe. Like all good republicans he starts the damage control with an attack on the criticizer, not the criticism.
I agree with this post. Also, I agree with this avatar:

(should be a picture of Drensch's avatar, but it's not showing up...)

Yummy. Now, where was I?

Oh, that's right -- Ripclawe was throwing around Machiavelli quotes without bothering to actually read The Prince. The problem with citing the "better to be feared than loved" bit is that the REST of the thought is: "...but NEVER hated." Consider this excerpt from Chapter 17:
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony (inheritance). Besides, pretexts (pretence, excuse) for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse.
Machiavelli devotes an entire chapter, in fact (Chapter 19) to advising a prospective prince about the dangers of being hated. His focus is more on conspiracies (appropriate, given the heavy analysis of Roman emperors on which The Prince is based), but you can make a decent comparison between the use of the term "conspiracies" used in the translations and the modern concept of terrorism.

One last thing: If you're really going to give Bush points for being Machiavellian, then you have to deduct MASSIVE points for Bush being a fucking hypocrite. Machiavelli's ideal prince was AMORAL, acting in all cases in the way which was most effective for preserving and expanding his rule...and our "prince" appeals to God and decency and moral imperatives at every opportunity. So which character is he -- Machiavellian conqueror, or moral crusader? Pick one...and adjust your arguments accordingly.
 

Socreges

Banned
While keeping in mind that you did, indeed, just completely own Ripclawe, I would like to add [just as an aside] that at times I wonder if Bush's advisors are closet Machiavellians. For instance,
What makes him [Prince] despised is being considered changeable, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, irresolute; from these qualities a prince must guard himself as if from a reef, and he must strive to make everyone recognize in his actions greatness, spirit, dignity, and strength."
That seems to me the absolute core of Bush's demeanour, however much we may personally see through it.
 

seanoff

Member
As far as i can tell from the history, what Clinton did was hardly the most salacious thing ever in the White House.

JFK with various people

A lesbian first lady whose lover lived with her in the White House

etc.

One thing i like about Australian politics is that personal stuff is kept out as no-one can live the perfect life so the agreement is people in the glass house will not start a rock fight because everyone loses.
 

iapetus

Scary Euro Man
Fight for Freeform said:
At least Clinton's lies didn't cost the world 20,000+ lives.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

:p
 

seanoff

Member
It has been well documented that Eleanor Roosevelt preferred women to the company of her husband, FDR. According to Lillian Faderman, author of To Believe in Women, she had a long term relationship with journalist Lorena Hickok and penned these words to her beloved, "Funny, everything I do my thoughts fly to you. Never are you out of my heart ."


links etc

http://www.gaussian.com/ptownfringe/lorena_extras.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom