Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
The 26 ex-diplomats and military leaders say his foreign policy has harmed national security. Several served under Republicans
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

June 13, 2004

WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November.

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.

"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers.

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.</blockquote>

Real conservatives are beginning to turn on Dubbyuh, many having been critical of his administration from day one. They are beginning to see what a true disaster this adminstration is turning out to be for the conservative movement.
 
Are they suggesting a different republican candidate for 2004 or are they wanting Kerry to become president?
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<h2><a href=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-diplo13jun13,1,2988486,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines>The 26 ex-diplomats and military leaders say his foreign policy has harmed national security. Several served under Republicans.</a></h2>

<blockquote>By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

June 13, 2004

WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November.

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.

"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers.

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.</blockquote>

Real conservatives are beginning to turn on Dubbyuh, many having been critical of his administration from day one. They are beginning to see what a true disaster this adminstration is turning out to be for the conservative movement.

I've got three issues with this:

1) It is from the L.A Times. Slightly southpaw in bias.
2) The dramatic headline and link takes us to a registration page.
3) These are all has beens? Only one name has been given of the 26. Granted, the article is not due to come out until Wed.

ok, 4th issue - if the article is not coming out until Wed., why is it even being alluded to now? Is the elite media now giving teasers and trailers of their "news"? Smack of "BREAKING NEWS...DETAILS NEXT WEEK".
 
Originally posted by HGROKIT
I've got three issues with this:

1) It is from the L.A Times. Slightly southpaw in bias.
2) The dramatic headline and link takes us to a registration page.
3) These are all has beens? Only one name has been given of the 26. Granted, the article is not due to come out until Wed.

ok, 4th issue - if the article is not coming out until Wed., why is it even being alluded to now? Is the elite media now giving teasers and trailers of their "news"? Smack of "BREAKING NEWS...DETAILS NEXT WEEK".

Actually this is old news.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=e6ecc1a32a71fb11
 
Oh these guys don't have an agenda, they just want Bush gone:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065033801.html?oneclick=true

A group of 26 former senior US diplomats and military officials, many appointed to key positions by the Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush snr, is to issue a joint statement this week saying that President George Bush has damaged America's national security.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Mr Bush's foreign policy and urge his defeat in the November presidential elections, several of those who signed the document said.

"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the Administration," said William Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under Mr Bush snr and one of the group's principal organisers.
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
So do they want Kerry? Thats still my question.

~BULLHORN~ ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!

They are all noise, all the time.

The diplomats got lots of media attention in May, but a yawn from the voters. They are trying again.
 
Originally posted by Kathianne
~BULLHORN~ ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!

They are all noise, all the time.

The diplomats got lots of media attention in May, but a yawn from the voters. They are trying again.


Thats what I figured------bash Bush----offer no solution--chicken to say that they think Kerry would be better? OF COURSE !
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
Thats what I figured------bash Bush----offer no solution--chicken to say that they think Kerry would be better? OF COURSE !

Actually, I would prefer a combat tested veteran running a war over a deserter who had a cushy sinecure in the Texas Air Force all because he was the son of Congressman George W. Bush. And lets not forget the string of failed businesses the little sociopath left behind him.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Actually, I would prefer a combat tested veteran running a war over a deserter who had a cushy sinecure in the Texas Air Force all because he was the son of Congressman George W. Bush. And lets not forget the string of failed businesses the little sociopath left behind him.

Bully, what about my post, rehashed diplomatic letter from May with some disgarded generals thrown in?
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Actually, I would prefer a combat tested veteran running a war over a deserter who had a cushy sinecure in the Texas Air Force all because he was the son of Congressman George W. Bush. And lets not forget the string of failed businesses the little sociopath left behind him.

I didn't ask who YOU wanted--we all know that--I want to know what all these ex-whatevers wanted. Did they say Kerry would be preferable? I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
I didn't ask who YOU wanted--we all know that--I want to know what all these ex-whatevers wanted. Did they say Kerry would be preferable? I doubt it.

Some do, some don't...But since he's the only alternative...
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Some do, some don't...But since he's the only alternative...

Then this "news"is rather pointless isn't it? You guys dig yourselves a pretty big hole to find the negatives on Bush. Too bad you have no one to help you out of it.
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
Then this "news"is rather pointless isn't it? You guys dig yourselves a pretty big hole to find the negatives on Bush. Too bad you have no one to help you out of it.

Dubbyuh's dug his own hole, and any who might help him are either in the hole with him or shoveling the dirt in to bury his sorry ass.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Actually, I would prefer a combat tested veteran running a war over a deserter who had a cushy sinecure in the Texas Air Force all because he was the son of Congressman George W. Bush. And lets not forget the string of failed businesses the little sociopath left behind him.

So you have a combat tested veteran in mine cause there aint one running.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Actually, I would prefer a combat tested veteran running a war over a deserter who had a cushy sinecure in the Texas Air Force all because he was the son of Congressman George W. Bush. And lets not forget the string of failed businesses the little sociopath left behind him.


Why don't you go ask all the men who served under Kerrys command who they want for a commander in chief and most of them would say Bush.I guess that's why most of them were mad at Kerry for using photos of them back in 'Nam in a commercial without their permission!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top