A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials
 

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

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.

more---->

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...home-headlines

I don't like this. I see this in LATAM all the time. "Retired officials" often have more power than those serving down here.

Armchair warriors comes to mind.

Everyone has a better idea on how to persecute the war than the war fighters.

I find it amusing the LA times picked up the story.

I’m sure their “joint statement� will appeal to those hollywood actors and actresses possessing the education of a common field mouse.

TS

Right. However the problem I have with it is larger even than that. I don't like the idea of "former" anythings trying to use their influence to dictate policy after they have left service.

My favorites are all the former government and military officials on the various news outlets. All but a very few have strong positions concerning everything that they did not have the balls to bring up while they were in a position to do so. Most are relying on "their sources" for information and have no real current knowledge on which to base thier pontifications. Unfortunately we appear to have an uniformed audience that will take what they say to the bank because this is often the only source of information on which they rely.

Jack Moroney

I would advise not to pay too much attention to the LA Times.

I picked it up for subscription because I thought, hey, big paper, best in the region, lots of shiny new Pulitzers... didn't know about the bias. I'm hardly a FoxNews person, and most claims of 'media bias' really aren't true... but the LA Times just makes my head spin sometimes. It's fucking unreal.

Sounds like this is a State-heavy group with a few military tossed in. Is that really a surprise to anyone?

Political appointees are one thing. However, is there not a general unspoken code of honor of sorts that would make it inappropriate for former military to criticize the Commander in Chief publicly, even if they had reservations (privately) about some of the decisions made ?

Roycroft201

What a dumba - just kidding :D

You would think there would be, wouldn't you?

LOL !

Thanks, NDD.

That didn't stop ADM Crowe from pimping for Klinton, and accepting an appointment as the Ambassador to Great Britain.

I am surprised by GEN Zinni's opposition, though. I like him.

My favorite experts on TV are the ones commenting about something they know nothing about. Unfortunately, the media knows even less, and takes their word for it.

TR

Zinni didn't suprise me...the day after he retired he starting talking about how things should have been done and what needed to happen in the Middle East. To bad he didn't have the backbone when he was CINCCENTCOM...funny how those types get a backbone after retirement.

Article 88 of UCMJ... maybe we ought to take the example of other countries and place retired Generals in "inactive slots" thereby making their "pension" a salary.

LA Times Making (up) news....
 

yes, I'm well aware of the LA time left wing reporting methods, I doubt the general public is.....

Drudge Report

TWISTED: LA Times Poll Had Sample With 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans
Tue Jun 15 2004 10:13:47 ET

Sen. John Kerry "has taken big lead," according "to an L.A. Times poll."

But the Times poll that showed Kerry "beating Bush by 7 points" has created a controversy over whether the poll's sample accurately reflects the population as whole, ROLL CALL reports on Tuesday.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

Developing...


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

I personally do not have a problem with a former (such and such/so and so) saying anything, either pro or con. This Republic was built on the ability of it's citizens to criticize not only the government, but specifically the CinC.

Yes, there has been a coordinated 'coalition' of sorts coming out against Bush. I do not agree with them and have at times come to loath, even hate, them. They are more often than not petty, cheap, below the belt criticisms that sound more like satire than political differences.

What I am seeing is the left's attempts to garner as much support as possible among a diverse voting demographic. Every month there is a new group collecting names against Bush.

I don't like it and like I said it is petty and cheap. But I don't think we should muzzle them.

What should happen in the coming months is a damn good Bush campaign against Kerry. Right now the "amyone but Bush" theme might just get him into the Oval Office.

I am not trying to be negative. I am being a realist. Many of you have a far brighter outlook for Bush in November than I do.

One of the trends I see constantly recurring is a sort of low-level provincial ignorance: every city I go to, either side of the spectrum, seems to think that their prevailing opinion is -the- prevailing opinion. Best example is right here in Santa Barbara, where the anti-Bush forces are so concentrated that when you talk to some of them, they honestly don't understand how Bush has any support at all; I've actually heard some folks talking about how the roughly-even poll numbers -must- be a right-wing media conspiracy, simply because they have yet to meet a Bush supporter. Flipside goes for other places--up in northern Nevada people tend to be equally boggled by the fact that anyone could vote against the man who kicked the shit out of the Taliban and Saddam.

I agree, Sigi.

I don't see any difference between this group speaking out against Bush and anti-Clinton groups rallying against our former President in 1996. To say that these men are ill-informed because they are merely former administrative officials is debatable, but I'll yield that for the moment. However, if the press only printed the opinions of truly knowledgeable individuals, we might be lucky to see one article a year discussing politics.

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the reader to filter fact from fiction. To be honest, I do harshly criticize Bush's foreign and domestic policies. That said, I certainly did not see any worthwhile information presented by the 26 signatories in the article that NDD posted. As it stands, I'll have to wait until the statement is actually released before I can try to assess its validity. And I'm certainly not going to rely on any reporter's interpretation of it - liberal or conservative.

The difference, you two, is that they aren't saying "I am Joe Blow, US citizen and I have an opinion on this matter and have a right to express it just like every other citizen."

They are saying "I'm FORMER GENERAL/UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTH POLE AFFAIRS and I demand you listen because I am somebody more important than the rest of you."

You think anybody would write an article about your or my opinion - either pro or con on ANYTHING? They are politicians using their FORMER positions for political and personal gain. They are not average citizens expressing their right to exercise free speech and discuss issues. When you assume the mantle of responsibility you accept the conditions that go along with it. Once you receive the trust and accept the compensation (no, not just financial) of the public and swear an oath, you don't get to back and be Joe Blow again when your time is up.

They want to be recognized as FORMER - they have to accept the conditions that go along with it. Not to mention they are implying, by the use of their fancy titles and FORMER, that they have some kind of insider knowledge which weights their opinions over everyone elses.

They are either FORMERS who should keep their mouths shut and contribute or Joe Blows who's opinion holds the same weight as yours or mine - not both.

OK, as much as I hate to disagree with my friend SOTB, I don't have a problem with these people using their former titles. Like it or not, resumes affect the weight of one's opinions. For example, I've never met Jack Moroney, but I value his opinions because of what I understand is on his resume. I have no problem with him letting people know why they should care about what he says. Same goes for libs.

Just my .02.

YMMV.

Of course not, you're a lib too. If they want change, they can go vote like everybody else. They don't need to "issue statements".

The Colonel didn't come in here "issuing statements" calling for change and I haven't heard him call himself anything but his name. The deference we show him is our choice, not because he calls himself the FORMER COMMANDER OF XYZ.

Are you going to call yourself "RL - FORMER ATTORNEY AT LAW" when you retire and issue statements calling for the removal of judges? Or are you going to vote for the President and officials that will nominate and approve the kind of judges you feel should be on the bench?

Apples and oranges and you know it.

I agree with this NDD. I do not believe that because someone served that they apply for inteligence status.

I may not like former so and so belittling my President, but that is not his CinC anymore.

He should show respect. I agree.

But thier political influence is why they are so vocal. And a lack of consequence for their view is protected by the Constitution.

I am a lib, NDD.

But agreeing that I both hate thier rethoric and agree to their right of hate speeech, if that makes me a lib, than you must agree that we are fighting for this liberty.

Where? Where in the hell does it say there are is a lack of consequences for their views in the US Constitution?

It is a right that is expected.

Not only is this right expected, it is beyond protection in the Bill of Rights. It is assumed in the Constitution.

Kind of like the 2nd Amendment. The US Government should not even be discussing this issue.

NDD, I meant that the right to oppose the Executive Branch is protected by the Constitution. (I do not know ch. and verse.)

Sigi

You mean the 1st Amendment?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is a big difference in "Congress shall make no law"

And

"There is a lack of consequences for their views"

There are ALWAYS consequences for running your suck. May come later in the form of karma, but they come.

The US government isn't discussing this issue, you and I are. Those people are probably all receiving a pension or something else. You take the money, you accept the conditions - implied contract no counselors? I don't have a problem with them either using their FORMER titles or expressing their views. I have a problem with them doing both and forming a PAC to do it. And I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on either.

WTF does the former Ambassador to the Soviet Union know about Iraq anyway?

"Well, he must know something, he's a FORMER Ambassador."

BS.

There is a differrence, and yes, you and I are discussing this. I agree with what you say, NDD. But if I wish too hard for censorship it applies to me.

I wish there were people who combusted when they said something stupid. Actually self destructed before they could disrespect and sabotage our President.

I agree that BTDT's should show restraint, but for how long? What if Kerry is President in 2008 and we are pushing a Republican?

Is it OK for our side of the Military (Republican) to speak on behalf of our candidate?

I'm not talking about cecnsorship Sigi. I'm talking about a lack of professionalism and them needing to wind their own necks in. I am not advocating the government pass a law silencing dissent, even from the FORMERS. And if I thought for one minute it was honest, I wouldn't get so wound up about it.

They are using a priviledge - the sacred trust of the people given public servants when they are chosen for the job and the fame that goes with that - for their own political ends. If Kerry wins, will they all still be FORMERS? I doubt it.


That is the difference between a Quiet Professional and a FORMER.

I've said all I'm going to say about this.

Ferratus ,

(1) The only problem I have sometimes is that most "uneducated" citizens usually tune to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC. Sometimes the press prints the only "knowledgeable individuals" it thinks is, well, uh, ....."knowledgeable." That doesn't make their judgement any better than mine.
(2) It is the reader who must filter the message, yes. Some readers need guidance. Some writers are bias. It takes time to figure out the difference.

In my opinion, the actions of these 'Formers' is not wrong in the slightest, although personally I would have liked to see more support for the incumbent government in times like these. On the other hand, it would be far less harmful for the govt. if the press did its job and actively critiqued, from BOTH sides what these Formers were saying and if they had the expertise to do so.

People listen to the media: it would 'mediate' the effects of these Formers.

JMO,

Solid

Most of the discussion here has focussed on the propriety of these former officials using their titles to advance their agendas. Wihtout getting into that, I would use NDD's question here to open a little discussion of the other aspect of this - the substance of their argument.

I don't know much about Amb. Hartman, but I do about Amb. Matlock. Matlock was Ambassador to the USSR from 1987 to 1991, the period when that regime collapsed. Matlock was one of the principle architects of the approach, made infamous in Pres. Bush's 1991 "Chicken Kiev" speech, that placed stability in the Soviet Union ahead of the aspirations for independence of the various republics.

The administration of the current President Bush has outlined a philosophy and a policy that says that the old policy of maintaining Middle Eastern "stability" by supporting various strongman regimes was a chimera. It did not bring real stability and became a breeding ground for the terrorist mentality we face today.

The preference for stability led us to support undemocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Imperial Iran and elsewhere in the region. It led us to tilt toward Iraq as a buffer against Iran. When allied forces expelled Iraq from Kuwait, rather than deal militarily with the regime in Baghdad at the time, or support the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings, we sought stability. We would have been perfectly happy with a military coup that put another, less Saddam-y strongman in power, but we couldn't tolerate instability (to be fair, there were prudent arguments for this - the threat of Iran filling the regional power vacuum being foremost - but prudence is often the enemy of justice).

These 26 officials represent the old school, and they don't like the new approach. They have many allies within the military and intelligence and diplomatic communities, too, so expect "unnamed sources" in State, the CIA and elsewhere to leak information in support of them.

Of course, the biggest irony of these people coming out of the woodwork now is that they are already winning the fight. The Administration seems to only be paying lip service to democracy-building in the Middle East and seems to be just looking for a face-saving way out of Iraq. The recent elevation of Iyad Allawi, the CIA's man in Baghdad, seems part of this, as does the ceding of so much power over the democratization process to a UN official not exactly known for his democratic credentials, Lakhdar Brahimi. The deal with Libya looks good on the short-term WMD threat front, but bad on the long-term front, as Western companies flood into Tripoli to make deals with a dictator who still supports terrorists. Even our Arabic-language radio station does more to promote Britney Spears than to promote democracy. And don't get me started on State's hostility to regime change in Iran.

F*ck you. :)

You defer to him because of his experience and because you know him. True, it's not just the title, but for someone who doesn't know who he is, hearing that he is "Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Special Forces" gives him instant credibility on a lot of issues.

I just think this is a legitimate part of political discourse in both directions. If you guys would do the same sort of thing, it just might have a positive effect.

I just turned on my computer and suddenly my ears started to burn so I thought I'd figure out the source. I thought I might add my 2 pfennigs on this. Acually NDD and I have never met but I think I can say with some level of confidence that I know him from a professional standpoint based on what he represents to me as a Special Forces soldier with exceptional skills. I know that I could depend on him and I know that I would do everything I could to ensure that I met my responsibilities to ensure that we accomplished whatever task we might have should I ever have the priviledge of serving with him. But actually, I never have been hung up on titles or rank because I know full well, that at least in terms of officers, titles and rank are never acheived alone but as a result of a lot of folks that worked with you or in spite of you to accomplish the mission. Let me put it another way, no officer ever accomplished anything by himself so when you see titles and rank you are seeing the end result of efforts by a lot of folks and the measure of that man's success is really a measure of the company he keeps-at least in Special Forces. Now I am not saying that we do not have our shitbirds, nor am I saying that folks don't get carried along thru politics or who they know vice what they do, but all in all, in our business I would like to think that is rarer than in the conventional army. You see, SF soldiers just will not tolerate incompetence and they will weed them out and send them packing. I have seen it done.
So unless you really know the person in question you are drawing your conclusions based on perceptions of what you think that title should represent based on your understanding of what that means to you. I think that might fall into the arena you legal guys like to call circumstantial evidence. So let me recommend a course of action here. While you can judge to some degree the level of success a person might have achieved by his rank or title you really can't judge the person, nor can you judge his credibility in subjects or skill sets unless you know specifically what he did or did not do. This may surprise you but I only take pride in the fact that I was able to work with and for SF soldiers and the fact that I finished my career as a colonel has a lot more to do with them then it does me. You see I always considered myself a soldier that just happened to be an officer and that leverage allowed me to use whatever power I could for one purpose and one purpose only-enable my soldiers to succeed. It was there success that allowed me to achieve whatever I wore on my collar or chest. IMHO real credibility is accorded to a person only by those who know him and not by his title or rank. The long and the short of it around this house is that rank/title has no effect, I still have to take out my own garbage.
:D

Jack Moroney

I agree with everything you've said, sir. My point is only that I find it helpful to know something about the background of someone expressing a political point of view. A mere "former" title is incomplete information, but it is at least some indication of whether the person's prior experience uniquely qualifies them to speak on a particular subject.

As I indicated in my first post above, I could care less what most former employees of the State Department have to say, at least as to most topics.

NDD, if you ever call me a lib again, I'll call you a Yankee college boy. I mean it. LOL

OMG!!! LOL Must resist childish temptations....
That post is more tempting to most of the regulars on this site than it was for you to put that Bush flyer out in your yard in the land of libs. LOL

Maybe just a little hijack won't hurt.

"RL IS A LIB... RL IS A LIB.... RL IS A LIB... " :p

Lib

So I'm the only one that has a problem with this? Fine. Just to be clear once more, it is not partisanship. I don't like it when it comes from either side. It is not a call for censorship. I object not to their voicing their opinion, but to their use of titles to place their opinions above others and the allowing the use of their titles for political partisanship and political attacks.

I object to the implication that because someone is a retired diplomat or general, they are automatically experts. I object to the same in the use of "experts" on Fox and other channels.

I object to the sudden discovery of literally thousands of SMEs on terrorism and guerrilla warfare overnight now that there is a buck to made in it.

I object to Air Force Generals mentioning the word "guerrilla" when all they have is theory in a classroom. I object to the use of the word by ANYBODY who has never attending a class at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and Home for Wayward Boys and then gone out and put it into practice in the jungle or the desert.

There are very few what I would call SMEs on terrorism and guerrilla warfare and some of them I know, most of the others I know of. There is more knowledge about these two subjects on a good A Team than in all the talking heads combined.

And I object to them acting like the pathetic man who's one shining and greatest moment was scoring the winning touchdown ina high school football game and then does nothing with the rest of his miserable life, yet has the unmitigated gall to call himself a FORMER athelete and criticize the players on the field.

So, to the Al Bundy Coalition for Change, I say STFU or put your helmet on and get back in the game.

Of course, that's just me, I could be wrong.

Colonel, that was one of the finest posts I have seen on the internet in a long time.

It looks like all of the Ambassadors on that list are professional foreign service officers. The news reports seem to be trying to give these guys extra legitimacy by connecting them to the Reagan and Bush I administrations (imagine the same AP story citing instead of Matlock, "Amb. McHenry, who served as UN ambassador under Pres. Carter").

But what really seems to be the main theme is that they represent the foreign policy establishment. As noted in my post above, this is at best a "status quo" establishment (at worst a bunch of self-important wine-swilling cheeseheads who think navigating the cocktail and canape circuit is more important than advancing America's interests and who seem to view the role of ambassador as apologizing to foreigners for the actions of crass declassé Americans not fit for the august ranks of the Foreign Service).

I only know three of them personally - McHenry, Newsom and Oakley - though none very well. The Ambassadors Oakley have been pains in the ass to me and quite a few colleagues of mine for a long time in places ranging from Afghanistan to Somalia.

Of course, my low opinion of ambassadors long predated my first day of class at the School of Foreign Service, and goes back to the original Star Trek, where pretty much every ambassador was a pain in the ass.

Know what's really funny?

If you believe, as I do, that "War is a continuation of politics with the addition of other means." Or that conflict is the almost inevitable result of a failure at diplomacy:

When do soldiers have to do our jobs?

When the diplomats fail at theirs.

So what they're really saying is "We failed, but we don't like the way you are resolving our failure."

Good point, Yankee college boy.

LOL - At least I'm not a lawyer.:D

OK, you win. LMAO

F**king Lib...