Reason: George W. Bush has damaged America's national security. "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. 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. 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."
Yeah. Sure. The last time something like this happend was in '94 when a group of former military officials came out and said that prior service should not be a determinant in the election of a president. I wouldn't call it "unusual" unless I was trying to hype a dog-bites-man story to read like a man-bites-dog story.
I'd be the first to praise Bush if he had a good record on foreign policy. My views on international affairs are center-right. Yet I can't help but conclude that Bush has severely compromised our national security. In theory, I strongly support the pre-emtpive war concept to fight ruthless terrorist supporting regimes. Unfortunately, Bush has totally discredited this idea, making it IMPOSSIBLE to get any further help from allies (the few we have left). Barring a major terrorist attack, I doubt a President could muster the domestic support for a necessary war. Meanwhile, Iran is now openly insisting on joining the "nuclear club" (whilst sinking their claws into Iraq), Iraq could turn into a theocracy, Osama is living comfortably in Pakistan, and we're out hundreds of billions.
I think the fact that so many are going through this with their eyes closed is part of the problem. I guess this is the "Ignorance is Strength" Orwell was talking about.
And we all know what America-hating, Saddam-loving, commie liberals those ex-Bush and ex-Reagan officials are.
you left out ex-clinton, and ex-carter. Probably on purpose. Or, perhaps, because they are Saddam-loving little commies...
This is simply not news. Sorry folks. Move along. It ranks right up there with Vietnam Vets for Kerry and Vietnam Vets against Kerry.
Dont you have foreigners that need to be kicked out of your country? Look. We in America will worry about the big issues, you just mind your potato patch...
If you call hiding in a cave comfortable. Besides, would you trust Chirac and Co. as allies knowing what they want out of it? I highly doubt you would. As for the oldies, guess they put more energy into dumping on Bush rather than trying to work when they were on the inside.
No. Constant droning, whining, and Monday-morning-quarterbacking, makes one very boring indeed. I blame libs for my real appreciation of sleep. The same boredom-induced sleep I use to get when the reeps were complining for 8 years under Clinton.
Yeah, that's exactly why I left the reference to them in the quote from the article. Gee, I just can't sneak anything past your superhuman powers of observation there, eagle eyes... You can go back to desperately trying to ignore that even some conservatives are now refusing to drink the Kool-aid any longer and are rightly taking your hero to task for his massive incompetence that has damaged our nation. If it helps you get through the day, you can also try to ignore the bipartisan criticism by ranting about "the French" or something, as if anything they may do makes Bush's lies and incompetence perfectly acceptable. Oops, looks like Doyle beat you to it.
Is it really Monday-morning-quarterbacking for those of us who criticized the Thursday game planning?
Actually, I rather hope Kerry wins. For three reasons: 1) Gridlock between the Congress and the White House is good. 2) Liberals are always really funny when trying to rule. 3) No WMD. It does not make a dimes bit of difference. The govt will still spend too much money, tax too much, etc. etc. The argument has long passed in this country as to whether or not the government should do something, but, rather, how much it should do it. You like Liberal statism, Ian likes Conservative statism, and to me, they both stink.