Talk Elections

WASHINGTON - Angered by Bush administration policies they contend endanger national security, 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers are urging Americans to vote President Bush (news - web sites) out of office in November.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, does not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in its campaign, which will start officially Wednesday at a Washington news conference.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said Sunday it would have no response until the group formally issues its statement at the news conference.

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

Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.

"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 C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel, and earlier to four African countries.

"The group does not endorse Kerry, although it more or less goes without saying in the statement," Harrop said Sunday in a telephone interview.

Harrop said he listed himself as an independent for years for career purposes but usually has voted Republican.

The former ambassador said diplomats and military officials normally avoid making political statements, especially in an election year.

"Some of us are not that comfortable with it, but we just feel very strongly that the country needs new leadership," Harrop said.

He said the group was disillusioned by Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and a list of other subjects, including the Middle East, environmental conservation, AIDS policy, ethnic and religious conflict and weapons proliferation.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_el_pr/diplomats_letter_3

Meaningless in the long run.

Yeah, who cares if 26 experts say that the Bush admin has done a poor job.  If you've had the Kool-Aid nothing matters, right?

Won't matter unless the election is decided by 26 votes.

True, but I have to believe that a former director of the CIA has better clue when it comes to foreign policy and national security than Jim the Janitor who voted for Bush.

I could find 100 "experts" to say Bush is doing a good job. What's your point?

And yet these 100 have not come forward.  These are real experts.  Retired Generals, a former head of the CIA, ambassadors to the Soviet Union, Israel, Saudi Arabia.  You aren't going to find people with those kind of credentials.

Like I said, just like Ronald Reagans death this will be forgotten by November.

The real experts are the American people.  These 100 just equal 100 votes in their respective states.

Hmm.. thats interesting.  I care a lot more about what Jim the Janitor thinks.  He's the one who has to live with the policies.  The CIA directors and other elitists make so much money they don't care who becomes President.

But who is more qualified to make statements about foreign policy?  A janitor or a CIA director?

Both in their own ways.

I'm with the Janitor...

Like was stated earlier, the Bush campaign can go out and round up their own "expert" list.  So what?  

Bush should come out with a list of, say, 27 experts.

ROTFLMAO

NEWS FLASH -- GOP says fishermen should be Nuclear Scientists.  Story at 11.

News Flash -- Democrats don't care what working class Americans think.

Oh, wait... that's old news.

I think he ought to forget about these numbnuts and come up with around 55-60 million experts in November :)

If I want to tax advice I go to an accountant.
If I want advice on working out I go to a trainer.
If I want to know how to fly a plane I'll talk to a pilot.

If I want advice on National Security I'll talk to people who (like these 26) have worked in the field.

There are 26 people and 20 of them are former ambassadors.  That told me all I needed to know.

I'm glad you have the money to afford all of those things.... No wonder you have no respect for janitors.

If I want advice on National Security, I'll go to the people who have the responsibility to handle the situation at present, not hack jobs from the past.

Ah, but you don't want advice on national security.  You want to judge the existing policy.

Here is a better analogy:
If I want to know how my food tastes, I don't ask a cook.
If I want to know if my house was painted the best color, I don't ask a painter.
If I want to know if that music sounds great, I don't ask a guitarist.

I ask myself.

Nice Lunar.

Zing

Its not going to do alot, but I think it says alot...If military personnal who know what they are talking about, including former members of the Joints Chiefs, along with dipolomats from both sides of the aisle are saying Bush shouldnt be Commander in Chief, I'm going to give them a few minutes of my time.

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.

Big deal - bureaucrats don't like Bush.  Hah, they never like real Republicans.

I must say, after reading the comments of those from across the isle, you really are a bunch of fools....

If you folks would bother to read just who is on this list, and if you don't know who they are.....would look their records up, you might not dismiss this so carelessly.

These are career service Americans who have dedicated their lives in both the diplomatic corps and the military to advancing the goals of this nation for decades, from administrations of both parties. People that have made it their business.....because of their business, to not be partisan because they are advancing the security and national welfare of all americans no matter which party is in power.

People like Adm Crowe, whom your beloved Reagan had serving as his Chief of the JCS, Gen. Joe Hoar chief of CENTCOM under Bush the elder, Jack Matlock of Reagan's NSC. Not exactly your washed out diplomatic types....

They've avoided partisan politics that is until until now....

These folks obviously have had enough of the Bush "Vulcans", enough of watching decades worth of work to gain the trust and good will of the world all go up in smoke with 3 1/2 years of the arogant, short sighted, self serving and ultimately self destructive foreign policy of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al........

You know......I gotta say it is just too atypical of you on the other side of the aisle.....

Here we are, a country after 9/11 having the leading Paris newspaper with the headline "WE ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW", and two years after that the Rethuglican controlled House was actually debating on whether to rename the French Fries served in the Capital cafeteria "Freedom Fries" because the French woundn't sign on to Bush's notion of pre-emtive war. Only you ideolgues can't see it......and only ideolgues could blow such good will from the world in such a time.

Yet when we have 26 of the best military and diplomatic minds come together and say enough is enough....without explicitly endorsing Kerry I must add....
all you can come up with is trashing these people as washed up while you stick your heads in the sand with your Bush-Cheney stickers platered over your backsides.

Come Wednesday when this group goes offical, it will be real interesting to see how far the administration, and the Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world go to discredit these true Americans.

Pathetic.....

Basically they are just old washed up bats who most of us really don't care about or for. It's time for America to stand up as AMERICA and to stop cowtowing to the UN and their criminial crew (IE Libya, China, Russia). Blame Bush if you wish but he is standing up for how a lot of Americans feel about the world right now. Their was no pre-emptive war as we never attacked a nation we were ever at peace with. We did go to the U.N. and of course the rejected the idea mostly because of the Oil for Palaces Food issue. We know who are true allies are and who the wishy washy American wannabes are (ie France, Germany and Russia). We are in this war to fight for our survival. Though the enemy is not as obvious as Nazi Germany or ToJo Japan they still wish to destroy us and remove our freedoms. These wishy washy fair weather pests are not gone forever. They will be back of course when things settle down. They've really barely stood by us in most of our history. It's time to get the US out of the UN and let us stand as the sovereign independent nation we are. These 26 washups I have basically no use for and they are in the gang of those who would rather sacrifice our freedoms for a few fair weather friends. As for the French, I say, damn them to hell.

I had hoped I wouldn't have had to remind StatesRats that if it were not for the French Fleet at Yorktown, we may still be speaking with a bit of a Brit accent....

Be that as it may, when we talk of those that would not sign on to "Bush's Premtive War with no real planning way of securing our future" why do we not mention Canada, Mexico, Turkey, Belgium, Holland, Norway, yada, yada, yada..... they opposed the war just as much as the Frenchies....and when we even speak of the nations that do...oh, Britain, Italy, Spain come to mind....whose PEOPLE don't support this war and never did by wide margins. Look at Spains example. Yes there was a terrorist strike on th eeve of an election....but the people NEVER DID support the war. Its the populace around the world that Bush has turned against this country, not Americans per se, but our government, at a time we should have rallied the world behind us against al Quetta.

BUSH BLEW IT

First off their was no "pre-emptive" war as you can not have a preemptive war with a nation you have no peace treaty with. Second. Americas' interests come FIRST whether many people like that fact or not its the truth. The world outside us comes second when it comes to our national defense. Would you rather have all nations on your side but be under constant attack or alienate a few fair weather friends and be free? Third, the nation of France when they won us our Revolution was not the same nation they are today. They were still a monarchy let me remind you and our revolution directly lead to their revolution in 1796. Lastly, the governments make the decisions in most of these so called "free" nations. Not the people. In the end our national security is far more important then what some Canadian or Italian or Spainard thinks is in our "best interest". They are jealous of our freedoms and they do try to emmulate us whether they admit to that fact or not.

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....

And if it wasnt for the Americans the French would be saying... ZIEG HEIL right now...

More like "Zdravstvujte!"

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.

First off .... chill out.... StatesRats should take no offence, none was meant. Its simply a means to convey a southern accent to the word "States Rights". Its actually a take from the 1993 movie Gettysburg and if there are any Civil War reenactors here they will know what I mean. No offence was meant but I'm sure States can defend himself. Enough of your kiddie talk.....

"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."

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.

We were at ceasefire with Iraq. We were not bound to stay out of Saddams kingdom. We do have the help of many nations. We just do not need their help in every action we do. I hope next on the list is Syria and Iran as they are badly needing to be toppled as well. The french are so wishy washy and really haven't been engaged in a war that they actually win for decades. To me they are all talk and no action. And that's only half the time. We did not declare this war. This war was declared in Beirut in 1983. And yes our own security is far more important then that of the rest of the world.

I know what StatesRats was about. I found no offense to it. I am a reenactor myself. Talking about preemptive wars. (singing Yankee doodle)

StatesRights:
Company B, 9th Virginia Inf. (They were mostly Maryland Boys that went "South of the Border")

You're right....there was a cease fire....a UN Cease fire.

We operated under the auspices of the UN, as did the No Fly Zones.

And as for toppling the Syrian and Iranian Govts, I would support measures to change their regimes without invading to do so. However, I would fare a guess that most Americans forget the fact that the Syrians gave an Armored Div to the Coalition in the 1991 war.

Its (generally) not the people of these countries we need to concern ourselves with, its their governments and the extreme religious elements they harbor. But if we go attacking nations without due cause (as I believe Iraq was) we will only continue to fuel the very arguments the real terrorists have against us. Once we begin killing innocents without clear morale justification for the war, we've already ceeded the morale high ground.

Its my belief that history will show that the majority of the Iraqis that are now taking up arms against us are not connected to Al Queda, or any other terrorist group, but are fighting for their own sence of Iraqi Nationalism. What we don't need, in addition to the real war on terrorism, is to be confronted with an Iraqi civil war whose conditions were set forth by our occupation of that country.

I agree, but you must admit that the Iraqis are d*mn glad that Saddam is gone and most are actually glad we freed them. I can see how some could say we have over-extended our stay, but we will be out soon enough.

Co. D. 16th Virginia Infantry here :) Former, when I lived in Maryland :) Tidewater and Isle of Wight boys mostly. I was also in the 1st Minnesota USA. And I did civilian as well.

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


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.

Lt. Gov. Ford, that didnt really convince me that Iraq had WMD. What that proves is that they tryed to have them. There's no doubt that they had some missiles when Saddam fired them on the Kurds back in the early ninetys, however times change. Saddam knew we were coming, he shipped them off or destroyed them, or possibly didnt have them at all. Frankly, I'm wondering if Bush lied to the country, or it was a personal vendetta against Saddam. Now we have men and women there dieing for a lost cause.

    26 former officials oppose Bush? Well, pack it in everyone, elections over.

lol Sk, I really hope you're kidding.

Lt. Gov. Ford.....
I did your google search, read the article you referenced. Pretty convincing stuff. Except theres one problem...Thats all old stuff that has since been disproved. Look at the date the site was last modified...Dec 14, 2002.
Let me quote you from Bush's own hand picked head of the Iraq survey group testifying before Congress on pre war intel ..."We got it nearly all wrong".....

Yes Sadaam had Al Samud missles that were modified for longer ranges that were not allowed under the cease fire agreement. They themselves were not illegal, only there modified ranges. But as had been shown during the war they were extremely inaccurate and unreliable. Problem again was that before the war Hans Blix's group were actively destroying them before the war started.

The supposed bio trailers.....CIA now says most likely used for hydrogen production.

Hell even Sec State Powell publically stated he regrets making his presentation before the UN because it was so damn off the mark.

I'm not here to defend Sadaam, I hope Bush's policy works in Iraq because like I said earlier he's bet the next 50 years of US credability on it....it has to work. My point is that there were and are bigger fish to fry in the new dangers this country faces and Iraq has been a costly distraction in the real war on terror.

As for the French....your right our F-111's were denied fly over rights while ladened with bombs....so what ......didn't stop them did it.

MDDem,

And I'm sure if we did go after some of those "bigger fish" you would voice your opposition just as loudly as going after Iraq.

You forgot to add the squadron of newer MiGs (including a variant which was not yet know to the Western World) burried just outside of the Baghdad airport where US troops had marched 3 months before their discovery.  It took a windstorm to uncover one of the tail sections of one of the jets.  Now imagine that most of the chemical weapons we are looking for can be stored in just a few tanker trucks.  Much smaller than a MiG.  And yet it took chance to discover the planes, it will take even more to find these chemicals.  But, that's just one theory.  Here's another by the UN.

An interesting development by the UN regarding WMD finds:

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_3985.shtml

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

MODU, a quick review of michnews.com leaves me with a feeling that they are a conservative biased news source.  Note the Bush-Cheney '04 banner on their front page (no Kerry banner).  They also contain links to the Drudge Report and Limbaugh but none to any liberal commentators.

I'm not saying this news story is true or false, just pointing out that your source may be a bit biased.

Lets be quite clear...I may be Liberal but I am no pacifist. I supported Gulf War I, and Afghanistan. I'm not even saying that at some point we may have had to go after Sadaam. But I do believe that the way this president went about it was inept, the timing was wrong, and an all out invasion was his first and only real scenario the administration was willing to allow to unfold. A scenario that happens to have been the most costly and most risky in terms of having an outcome you don't predict (what we've seen for months now) I believe thats why these 26 Military/Diplomats (what this thead is about) came together against a 2nd Bush term.

Now we are in a situation that, with 135,000 troops in Iraq - 40% are reservists, and no real international support (Guns and $'s) we will be really hard pressed to react to a Korean flare up let alone the Chinese/Taiwan situation. Many Conservatives also think that Syria, Iran and North Korea are shaking in their boots now after our Iraq example. I think quite the opposite. When they see how enept our occupation has been and how bogged down we are it may even enbolden them.

We still have to insure that Afghanistan remains stable and will have to be committed there for years to come. Now if you want to reinstate the draft and increase defense spending to the point it will become a real drag on our economy (because it will all be deficit spending of course with the Rich getting their nice Bush tax cuts and all) then fine......just say thats what you want and let the electorate decide.

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.

I gotta ask you.....If these were verifiable, don't you think the media, Fox included, would be all over it. Come on.....

Why is a Republican controlled Congress conducting 2 investigations into the pre war intelligence if they got it so right....

Again I quote Bush's head of the Iraq survey group to Congress......."We got it nearly all wrong".....

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

http://www.reuters.ch/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5387821 (http://www.reuters.ch/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5387821)

These are the same engines the Blix and his boys knew that Sadaam had and were in the process of destoying before Bush invaded. The Al Samoud was not a banned weapon, only the modified engines for longer range, which (if my memory serves)  was still under 150Km.

What matters is that they were able to identify facilities that were totally dismantled and moved.  Even though the few items which they have currently tracked in Europe are not necessarily part of the banned weapons programs, it shows that he had the ability to move and/or hide material with relative ease.

We had another thread about becoming a diplomat. Seems you can basically buy your way into the office. Doesn't sound like it takes much of a rocket scientist to get the spot.

That's what was suggested by a person posting on here.  And while the position of Ambassador to Liechtenstein is a relatively unimportant position which can be given to a campaign donor, Ambassador to Israel or the Soviet Union should always be a senior state department official.

I heave read that even G.H.W. Bush hasn't supported all the policies of his son. But does that mean he doesn't want to see him re-elected? Absolutely not. I'm just pointing something else out.

A fair and valid point.

Excerpts from todays Wash.  Post:

The Bush administration does not understand the world it faces and is unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, an eminent group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged today.

"Our security has been weakened, "Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted." The statement fit onto a single page, but the sharp public criticism of President Bush was striking, coming from a bipartisan group of respected former officials united in anger about U.S. policy.

Also today, the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks said it found "no credible evidence" that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had worked with al Qaeda on the Sept. 11 attacks or any other missions in the United States.

Significant players in the Bush administration have worked to connect Hussein in the public's mind with Sept. 11 and anti-American terrorism, an effort that largely succeeded. As recently as this week, Vice President Cheney said Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda.

"Why the vice president continues to make that claim beats me. I have no idea," said Phyllis Oakley, a signatory of the anti-Bush statement and a former director of the State Department's intelligence office.

Oakley and the other 26 signatories described Bush administration "manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction" and "a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of Sept. 11."

Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, said he was the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996 and joined Veterans for Bush in 2000. Now he is advising Kerry. "This administration has gone away from me, not vice versa," McPeak told reporters.

.......the Bush administration has taken steps that have alienated allies and undermined U.S. interests -- ultimately making the world a more dangerous place for Americans.

Noting the arrests without trial of Muslims since Sept. 11 and the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman criticized a "post 9/11 atmosphere of hysteria."

"I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," Freeman said, "and of the role some people in the administration played in setting the tone and setting the rules."

"You can embark on all the public diplomacy you wish, but if there is no substance to the policy, it's very difficult to sell," McHenry said. '

"You can't sell product no matter how extensive your P.R. efforts are if the product is lousy," McHenry continued. "I think that, unfortunately, is the situation in which the United States finds itself in many parts of the world."

Among those who signed the statement are Adm. William J. Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Ronald Reagan, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, appointed by George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.

The participants include a pair of former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, two former ambassadors to Israel, two former ambassadors to Pakistan and Adm. Stansfield Turner, onetime director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Bush from the outset "adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations," the statement says. "Motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, it struck out on its own."