26 Former U.S. Officials Oppose Bush

[??????????]

Meaningless in the long run.

[??????????]

Who gives a sh**t.

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?

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

[??????????]

Who gives a sh**t.

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?

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.

[??????????]

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

Both in their own ways.

[??????????]

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.

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.

Zing

[??????????]

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....

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)

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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

lol Sk, I really hope you're kidding.

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[??????????]

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.