26 Former U.S. Officials Oppose Bush

[The Duke]

Like super said, 20 of the 26 were ambassadors.  End of that discussion.

In any case, there are far more qualified people who didn;t join this idiot group who are critical of the administration.  There are far more qualified people who have a glowing view of the adminstration.  In spite of the fact that Lunar's logic is clearly better than Wakie's on this, I'll play a round on Wakie's field because I am a nice guy.

So, Wakie.  Who should I trust, a former ambassador to Great Britain who I've never heard of, or Former Secretary of State and Treasury George P. Schultz, who supports Bush?  Schultz is more qualified, and this by your own logic makes him right doesn't it?  Or I could ask former Defense Secretaries Casapr Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Dick Cheney, William Cohen and Secretaries of State James Baker, Al Haig and Lawrence Eagleberger?  Or, the current Secretaries of State and Defense who they will vote for.  How about CIA Directors George Tenet, James Woolsey, and Bill Casey?  All will vote for Bush.

This parade of credentials is a lot more impressive than the washed up diplomat parade you've brought to our attention, but it will not sway your vote I think.  All you are trying to do is blind people by throwing fancy titles in their face, when in fact there are well educated, well qualified people on both sides of nearly every issue, and putting together a list of 26 semi-qualified people isn't that impressive when put into persepctive.

[The Duke]

The support of the world means nothing to me if it hamstrings our ability to act in our own defense.  If forced to choose between popularity in Europe and safety at home, I will choose the latter without fail.

[The Duke]

The support of the world means nothing to me if it hamstrings our ability to act in our own defense.  If forced to choose between popularity in Europe and safety at home, I will choose the latter without fail.

Agreed.....our security should not and never has depended upon the popular whims of europe or any where else. "Act in our own defence"? I take you have bought in to this Bush conceived notion that Iraq is the Central War on Terror. Please....Iraq has to date been a distraction and even a force multiplyer to our real enemies.

And StatesRats....yes France is different now than it was in 1783, I was humoring you...

But I do hope you are in the minority (and think you are) when you think that this War on Terror can be fought without the help of any and all nations we can get. And your notion of "no pre-emtive war without a peace treaty first"....I dare say I doubt we have a specific peace treaty or even a non agression pact with most nations of the world.

One more thing on the Frenchies, did it ever occur to you that they were acting in THEIR own security interests when they refused to sign onto Bush's PRE-EMTIVE WAR....what with having fought muslim extremists for decades and having 5 million muslim citizens and all. Bush has burned far too many bridges with those we will need in this war. If you don't think we need the French you are sadly mistaken....

If you agree that our security should not be subject to foreign veto, why are you complaining about a lack of international approval?  If you really mean what you say, lack of approval wouldn't bother you.

Has Iraq been a distraction?  No, it is only such is you consciously choose to ignore evidence of Iraqi links to various terrorist groups, including his proud declaration that he funds Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

Is calling StatesRights StatesRats a mature way to behave?  No, it is trollish.  The vorlon set up a special kiddie thread for people like you, go there and blow steam.

The difference with iraq and the rest of the world is that there was no commencement of hostilities with Guinea-Bissau.  There was with Iraq, and the war of 1991 never technically ended, it had a temporary cease-fire whose terms Iraq had failed to meet.

Were the Frenchies acting in their own security interests?  In a way, much as it could be argued that Germany in 1939 was only acting in its security interests by retaking the Rhine, or that Japan had no choice but to conquer East Asia and take its resources or to erect a defensive barrier against the Americans by seizing the Marianas.  In France's view, their prime strategic objective should be to work towards the weakening of the United States and the emergence of a continental EU Superpower, with France at the head.  I will let the readers decide if this is somethign we should just live and let live about.

[The Duke]

Enough of your kiddie talk.....

I suppose this is laso a vague movie reference that I shouldn't be bothered by?

The real problem with you folks is that you just don't get it.

Did the world object to Afghanistan....no. Did we ask permission....no. The same could be said of Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya etc. etc.

Why did they object in the case of Iraq, countries from every continent in the world?

Because Bush has "bet the farm" on this pre-emptive war BS of a policy. The cost benefit ratio should we fail is far too high, not just for us but for OTHERS in the region as well. That includes Europe.

I hope we succeed, we have to succeed. But I ask you....Again.....where are the WMD, where is the evidence of links to Al Queda....our real enemy.....that warrents our GI's to die for??? You presume that I think it was the right policy to begin with therfore why should I care for international approval.

I can assure you, in my view this will be should we fail, the biggest strategic mistake we could have made at this time. I was against this since August 2002 when I saw it coming.

Just how many terrorists did we recruit by invading Iraq compared to the number we have killed? A war based solely on intelligence, without direct clear evidence of a threat, or even overt act will always illicit more hatred than defeat our enemy.

You might say f**k'em ....we'll bomb them too!

Well, that does seem to be the Bush doctrine...doesn't it?

Your comments on the Frenchies you should save for the Limbaugh show or Vorlorns thread for the seriously mis-informed....I won't give it credence by commenting.

Funny that you mention how the whole world was behind us when we bombed Libya, since in reality, Mitterand denied us the use of French airspace for that mission.  So much for your theory.  France in fact view blocking American power to be a major goal of its foreign policy.

Where is the WMD?  The sarin shell, the bio-trailers, the assembly line for drone planes, the SCUDS that were fired at coalition forces, the scientists Saddam employed, none of this has convinced you.  You have simply made a decision that Bush is bad, and like a religious zealot, you cling to the ideal that he is always wrong.  How about Al Qaeda connections, well, I refer you to my thread on the topic, the the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, to the court ruling of Judge Harold Baer, etc.  Just type "Salman Pak" into Google and see what comes up.  Not that it will matter.  I'm sure there is a convenient explanation for everything you'll find, something tat lets you sleep soundly at night.

Whatever.  I'm over this thread.  Laaaaaaate.

[The Duke]

I didn'treference just one article, Hayes has several articles and a book.  And it isn't old, the book was just published this month.