26 Former U.S. Officials Oppose Bush

[mddem2004]

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.....

[mddem2004]

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

[mddem2004]

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....

[mddem2004]

They are jealous of our freedoms and they do try to emmulate us whether they admit to that fact or not.

Lets us hope they do not stop trying to emulate us, the day the world doesn't look up to us as an example, as they have for over 200 years, is the day our sun will set....

[mddem2004]

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.

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.

[mddem2004]

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.

[mddem2004]

Enough of your kiddie talk.....

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.....
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.

[mddem2004]

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.

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.

[mddem2004]

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".....

[mddem2004]

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.

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

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.

[mddem2004]

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."