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.