Ex-Diplomats, Military Leaders Oppose Bush

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Read about it here.

[Frank Hipper]

Holy torn rectum, Bushie!

I could be wrong, but isn't a bipartisan coalition of diplomatic notables and military hoi-paloi unifying to urge people to vote out an incumbant president completely un-precedented?

[Knife]

Holy torn rectum, Bushie!

I could be wrong, but isn't a bipartisan coalition of diplomatic notables and military hoi-paloi unifying to urge people to vote out an incumbant president completely un-precedented?

You know, I don't know. However, now that the cats out of the bag, expect a new group to pop up next week to either support Bush or be against Kerry. Tis the way of these things.

[Stormbringer]

Holy torn rectum, Bushie!

I could be wrong, but isn't a bipartisan coalition of diplomatic notables and military hoi-paloi unifying to urge people to vote out an incumbant president completely un-precedented?

A group of twenty or so? I can't think of a specific instance off the top of my head but I would find it hard to believe that's in unprecedented.

[Sarevok]

Reminds me of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity group who are also doing a similar thing.

[Axis Kast]

I could be wrong, but isn't a bipartisan coalition of diplomatic notables and military hoi-paloi unifying to urge people to vote out an incumbant president completely un-precedented?

Well, there were Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and the current Bush administration team in 2000.

And, if you want to go digging - although I'm sure you won't like the comparison -, Abraham Lincoln also had to deal with the same kind of criticisms. George McClellan and the Copperheads ring a bell?

Of course, this whole thing is rather silly, considering that the article in question doesn't even mention the "coalition's" platform beyond vague criticism that the diplomacy in the run-up to war was ham-handed. And, naturally, they provide nothing of their own suggestions as to how the administraiton was supposed to dragoon support from countries which contributed to its intelligence but then denied the need to go into Iraq regardless of what was found.

Not to mention that the so-called "GOP representative's" statements are fairly damning: this is a bunch of old Cold War foagies decrying the shift of strategic paradigms after the Cold War; people who can't accept that the new administration wants to counter terrorism and go after opponents on the state level rather than on the individual or organizational planes.

The diplomatic corps is famous for people who become too attracted to the nations in which they live and work so long. That these naysayers include so many "insiders" in MidEast politics under Clinton, Bush, and Reagan doesn't surprise me. They're obviously uncomfortable: the new assessments don't match their old ones.

[CJvR]

What is this, the third batch of good old boys complaining over the state of the world?

Their whining would carry far greater weight if it hadn't been their policys in the first place that resulted in the WTC attack & the ME beeing the mess it is today.

[Howedar]

Ah, so the Middle East was a lovely wonderful happy place with fluffy bunny rabbits before these men were in power

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well, there were Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and the current Bush administration team in 2000.

All (with perhaps the exception of Colin Powell) top neo-conservatives who looked at the Bush Administration as a vehicle for their pet agendas.

I'd say this more historical collection, with no set or warmongering agenda, gathering members from both the right and left is different.

And, if you want to go digging - although I'm sure you won't like the comparison -, Abraham Lincoln also had to deal with the same kind of criticisms. George McClellan and the Copperheads ring a bell?

And that comparison would mean nothing in face of the coalition's criticism. Vague analogies aren't rebuttals.

Of course, this whole thing is rather silly, considering that the article in question doesn't even mention the "coalition's" platform beyond vague criticism that the diplomacy in the run-up to war was ham-handed.

And will you please provide the a priori good in having a tight-knit cluster of political oppurtunists and warmongers with a set and often dogmatic agenda like the neo-conservatives?

And, naturally, they provide nothing of their own suggestions as to how the administraiton was supposed to dragoon support from countries which contributed to its intelligence but then denied the need to go into Iraq regardless of what was found.

Perhaps it could occur to you, should you escape your confined box of false dilemmas, you might be able to grasp that while these nations, despite the intelligence, did not think it was enough to justify war, or certain enough.

Not to mention that the so-called "GOP representative's" statements are fairly damning: this is a bunch of old Cold War foagies decrying the shift of strategic paradigms after the Cold War;

Wait, I thought that was Rumsfeld and resurrecting National Missile Defense.

people who can't accept that the new administration wants to counter terrorism and go after opponents on the state level rather than on the individual or organizational planes.

Perhaps they're opposed to the current administration doing so incompetently. Invading nations (particularly nations which happen to harbor terrorists only minutely and as an oppurtunistic consequence of our interference with their soveriegnty) and creating long-term occupation and nation-building obligations in a time of economic slowdown and decreased tax revenues. As well as the particular diplomatic climate created by the outright and public snubbing and dismissal of other nations and allies, former allies who so dared to disagree with us.

But I'm sure you have oodles of evidence to mount a cogent proof of your claims of who these people are; "Cold War fogies" unable to grasp the genuis of neo-conservative fantas...er...visions.

The diplomatic corps is famous for people who become too attracted to the nations in which they live and work so long. That these naysayers include so many "insiders" in MidEast politics under Clinton, Bush, and Reagan doesn't surprise me. They're obviously uncomfortable: the new assessments don't match their old ones.

The new assessments, in areas of intelligence, occupation planning, and diplomatic relations with the people by this Administration have been strained and inefficient at best; and totally incompetent and wrong at worst.

Perhaps you can relate to why these men oppose Bush's Administration's analyses and aims and goals when the failure of these theories and supposed evidence to pan out has resulted in your being humiliated in debate on this board time after time after time.

[The Dark]

The diplomatic corps is famous for people who become too attracted to the nations in which they live and work so long. That these naysayers include so many "insiders" in MidEast politics under Clinton, Bush, and Reagan doesn't surprise me. They're obviously uncomfortable: the new assessments don't match their old ones.

Actually, one of those MidEast "insiders" spoke at my college right before Gulf War II (Bigger, Badder, and Bushier) began. John Esposito was an advisor to George H. W. Bush and during the first Clinton term. He estimated that an invasion of Iraq would require 100,000-200,000 American soldiers to occupy the nation for 15-20 years in order to have any chance of it not immediately collapsing into warring tribal states. His estimate of numbers has been solid; and I don't see any complete withdrawal in the near future. Indeed, the current assessments match his perfectly. The neo-conservative approach of "support Israel above all else" is what seems to be unbalanced in my eyes.


More on Prof. Esposito from Al-Ahram:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/645/intrvw.htm

[kojikun]

What I'd like to see is a large number of people in government say "Vote Libertarian!" or something similar.

[Axis Kast]

All (with perhaps the exception of Colin Powell) top neo-conservatives who looked at the Bush Administration as a vehicle for their pet agendas.

I'd say this more historical collection, with no set or warmongering agenda, gathering members from both the right and left is different.[/quote]

As opposed to, say, their counterparts on the other side of the ideological spectrum represented strongly in this new organization, who of course had no high hopes of their own when Bill Clinton was elected to office.

And that comparison would mean nothing in face of the coalition's criticism. Vague analogies aren't rebuttals.

And what, praytell, is the coalition’s criticism? Or hadn’t you noticed that the article never actually tells you any of their platforms whatsoever?

Not to mention that Lincoln’s problems virtually mirrored those of George Bush, Jr. If you refuse to tally the similarities, I’ll do it for you:

The opposition is composed of members of both party structures. In Lincoln’s case, those were Republicans who felt spurned by the former Illinois lawyer’s strong leadership (members of Lincoln’s own cabinet), and Democrats dissatisfied with the high cost and strategic management of the war (McClellan). In George Bush’s, they are moderate Republicans uncomfortable with the paradigm shift, and Democrats already devoted to a candidate of their own. Like Lincoln’s detractors, they also challenge the necessity of the war now being fought.

And will you please provide the a priori good in having a tight-knit cluster of political oppurtunists and warmongers with a set and often dogmatic agenda like the neo-conservatives?

What’s wrong with a set agenda? I happen to agree with the neo-conservative’s position regarding the necessity of reshaping Middle Eastern societies in the wake of the September 11th attacks. I feel that the rhetoric at which so many of its critics so often cringe is simply that: rhetoric. I don’t see American flags over Damascus, do you?

Bush’s critics insist he is providing recruits for terrorists by engaging Iraq; I think that the time for worrying about whether or not we emasculate the Arab world has come and gone. We do. Period. And we would have done so even had we not challenged Saddam Hussein. Better to take decisive action abroad by taking on nations clearly opposed to the United States than let the terrorists come to our shores and then play a defensive game of catch-up for the next eight years.

Perhaps it could occur to you, should you escape your confined box of false dilemmas, you might be able to grasp that while these nations, despite the intelligence, did not think it was enough to justify war, or certain enough.

And why? Because they don’t tally threats using the same score card. We can’t expect France or Germany to agree with our threat assessments of Iraq because they aren’t the United States. Their security agreements and security concerns aren’t our own. It isn’t that I sit in a box and mute the protestations of much of Western Europe; it’s that I refuse to accept that we’re looking at the situation through the same eyes and thus that their criticisms are custom-tailored to our situation, as so many seem to do (yourself included).

Wait, I thought that was Rumsfeld and resurrecting National Missile Defense.

Rumsfeld isn’t decrying the paradigm shift; he’s accepting its arrival. A National Missile Defense is useful even if we’re moving past the Cold War.

Perhaps they're opposed to the current administration doing so incompetently. Invading nations (particularly nations which happen to harbor terrorists only minutely and as an oppurtunistic consequence of our interference with their soveriegnty) and creating long-term occupation and nation-building obligations in a time of economic slowdown and decreased tax revenues. As well as the particular diplomatic climate created by the outright and public snubbing and dismissal of other nations and allies, former allies who so dared to disagree with us.

But I'm sure you have oodles of evidence to mount a cogent proof of your claims of who these people are; "Cold War fogies" unable to grasp the genuis of neo-conservative fantas...er...visions.

I expect my leadership to take on security problems regardless of the economic situation. It’s one thing to have your eye on the wallet, and another to allow yourself to be in thrall to monetary considerations. Not that our economy is going to be single-handedly wrecked by our contributions to the effort in Iraq anyway.

The snubbing was unfortunate, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that even had we extended only white-gloved hands and sweet words would the European community have done an about-face. The Germans, for example, were acknowledging that they believed Saddam to have nuclear weapons programs ongoing, but at the same time refusing to consider military action whatsoever – even when it was already agreed unanimously that the sanctions regime was full of holes.

You’ll have to excuse me if I take with a grain of salt all the pundits who insist that a better man would have had France marching at our side, or cry that we should never take action without the immediate approval of the rest of the First World. It is often forgotten that we are now competitors despite also remaining allies, and that the shared threat of the Cold War has now given way to a new situation in which the problems posed by state-supported terrorism are greater for the United States than they are for Europe, which faces more significant threats from organizations themselves.

The new assessments, in areas of intelligence, occupation planning, and diplomatic relations with the people by this Administration have been strained and inefficient at best; and totally incompetent and wrong at worst.

Perhaps you can relate to why these men oppose Bush's Administration's analyses and aims and goals when the failure of these theories and supposed evidence to pan out has resulted in your being humiliated in debate on this board time after time after time.

Yes, there were problems. But first of all, I don’t think another administration would ever have made Iraq a priority (and that’s not a value judgment; I happen to think that the Bush administration is somewhat more keen to judge Iraq as a legitimate danger than let’s say, Gore’s might have been). Secondly, I don’t think that, let’s say, John Kerry, would have done any better in the same situation. If you’re so certain that he would have mobilized a coalition, you’ll have to explain what he would have done to entice the Western Europeans to back off promises of abstention laid down even while they were still contributing to a faulty intelligence picture.

I also think that the military did fumble its expectations about post-war Iraq – but that’s also a military issue. As much as people like Dick Cheney did anticipate a nice, happy welcome for Americans, I think most of the military was also prepared to fight a somewhat longer, more protracted war against larger numbers of uniformed Iraqis and under conditions in which terrorists, guerillas, and partisans would have played a significant, but not primary, role. Nothing in our experience really suggested that Iraq would turn out the way it did, and so it’s on you to explain how planning would have proceeded differently under somebody else’s watch.

Actually, one of those MidEast "insiders" spoke at my college right before Gulf War II (Bigger, Badder, and Bushier) began. John Esposito was an advisor to George H. W. Bush and during the first Clinton term. He estimated that an invasion of Iraq would require 100,000-200,000 American soldiers to occupy the nation for 15-20 years in order to have any chance of it not immediately collapsing into warring tribal states. His estimate of numbers has been solid; and I don't see any complete withdrawal in the near future. Indeed, the current assessments match his perfectly. The neo-conservative approach of "support Israel above all else" is what seems to be unbalanced in my eyes.

Why are you responding to a point about the short-sightedness of the U.S. diplomatic corps with an argument regarding a White House advisor?