Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go

[Johnny Stew]

Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go
Los Angeles Times
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.

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.

A senior official at the Bush reelection campaign said he did not wish to comment on the statement until it was released.

But in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that Bush has isolated America in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the U.N. resolution authorizing the interim Iraqi government.

One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president.

The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq.

"Their timing is a little off, particularly in the aftermath of the most recent U.N. resolution," the strategist said. "It seems to me this is a collection of resentments that have built up, but it would have been much more powerful months ago than now when even the president's most disinterested critics would say we have taken a much more multilateral approach" in Iraq.

But those signing the document say the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the U.S.

"We just felt things were so serious, that America's leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administration's approach," said Harrop, who served as ambassador to four African countries under Carter and Reagan.

"A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration — by the arrogance, by the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations," Harrop said.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained in the post by President Bush's father during the final years of the Cold War, expressed similar views.

"Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power," he said. "But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. We've all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things."

The GOP strategist noted that many of those involved in the document claimed their primary expertise in the Middle East and suggested a principal motivation for the statement might be frustration over Bush's effort to fundamentally reorient policy toward the region.

"For 60 years we believed in quote-unquote stability at the price of liberty, and what we got is neither liberty nor stability," the strategist said. "So we are taking a fundamentally different approach toward the Middle East. That is a huge doctrinal shift, and the people who have given their lives, careers to building the previous foreign policy consensus, see this as a direct intellectual assault on what they have devoted their lives to. And it is. We think what a lot of people came up with was a failure — or at least, in the present world in which we live, it is no longer sustainable."

Sponsors of the effort counter that several in the group have been involved in developing policy affecting almost all regions of the globe.

The document will echo a statement released in April by a group of high-level former British diplomats condemning Prime Minister Tony Blair for being too closely aligned to U.S. policy in Iraq and Israel. Those involved with the new group said their effort was already underway when the British statement was released.

The signatories said Kerry's campaign played no role in the formation of their group. Phyllis E. Oakley, the deputy State Department spokesman during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, said she suspected "some of them [in the Kerry campaign] may have been aware of it," but that "the campaign had no role" in organizing the group.

Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director, also said that the Kerry campaign had not been involved in devising the group's statement.

The document does not explicitly endorse Kerry, according to those familiar with it. But some individual signers plan to back the Democrat, and others acknowledge that by calling for Bush's removal, the group effectively is urging Americans to elect Kerry.

"The core of the message is that we are so deeply concerned about the current direction of American foreign policy … that we think it is essential for the future security of the United States that a new foreign policy team come in," said Oakley.

Much of the debate over the document in the days ahead may pivot on the extent to which it is seen as a partisan document.

A Bush administration ally said that the group failed to recognize how the Sept. 11 attacks required significant changes in American foreign policy. "There's no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious — that those policies were inadequate," said Cliff May, president of the conservative advocacy group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

"This seems like a statement from 9/10 people [who don't see] the importance of 9/11 and the way that should have changed our thinking."

Along with Hoar and McPeak, others who have signed it are identified with the Democratic Party.

Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., though named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan, supported Clinton in 1992. Crowe has endorsed Kerry. Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner served as Carter's director of central intelligence and has also endorsed Kerry. Matlock said he was a registered Democrat during most of his foreign service career, though he voted for Reagan in 1984 and the elder Bush twice and now is registered as an independent.

Several on the group's list were appointed to their most important posts under Reagan and the elder Bush. These include Matlock and Harrop, as well as Arthur A. Hartman, who served as Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1981 through 1987; H. Allen Holmes, an assistant secretary of state under Reagan; and Charles Freeman, ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the elder Bush.

Many on the list have not been previously identified with any political cause or party. Several "are the kind who have never spoken out before," said James Daniel Phillips, former ambassador to Burundi and the Congo.

Oakley, Harrop and Matlock said the effort began this year. Matlock said it was sparked by conversations among "colleagues who had served in senior positions around the same time, most of them for the Reagan administration and for the first Bush administration."

Oakley said frustration over the Iraq war was "a large part" of the impetus for the statement, but the criticism of President Bush "goes much deeper."

The group's complaint about Bush's approach largely tracks Kerry's contention that the administration has weakened American security by straining traditional alliances and shifting resources from the war against Al Qaeda to the invasion of Iraq.

Oakley said the statement would argue that, "Unfortunately the tough stands [Bush] has taken have made us less secure. He has neglected the war on terrorism for the war in Iraq. And while we agree that we are in unprecedented times and we face challenges we didn't even know about before, these challenges require the cooperation of other countries. We cannot do it by ourselves."

*

The signatories

Although not explicitly endorsing Sen. John F. Kerry for president, 26 former diplomats and military officials, including many who served in Republican administrations, have signed a statement calling for the defeat of President Bush in November. Their names and some of the posts they have held are:

Avis T. Bohlen — assistant secretary of State for arms control, 1999-2002; deputy assistant secretary of State for European affairs, 1989-1991.

Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. — chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.

Jeffrey S. Davidow — ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002; assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1996.

William A. DePree — ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987-1990.

Donald B. Easum — ambassador to Nigeria, 1975-79.

Charles W. Freeman Jr. — assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs, 1993-94; ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992.

William C. Harrop — ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991.

Arthur A. Hartman — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981-87; ambassador to France, 1977-1981.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar — commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.

H. Allen Holmes — assistant secretary of Defense for special operations, 1993-99; assistant secretary of State for politico-military affairs, 1986-89.

Robert V. Keeley — ambassador to Greece, 1985-89; ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980-84.

Samuel W. Lewis — director of State Department policy and planning, 1993-94; ambassador to Israel, 1977-1985.

Princeton N. Lyman — assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, 1995-98; ambassador to South Africa, 1992-95.

Jack F. Matlock Jr. — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991; director for European and Soviet affairs, National Security Council, 1983-86; ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981-83.

Donald F. McHenry — ambassador to the United Nations, 1979-1981.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak — chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.

George E. Moose — assistant secretary of State for African affairs, 1993-97; ambassador to Senegal, 1988-91.

David D. Newsom — acting secretary of State, 1980; undersecretary of State for political affairs, 1978-1981; ambassador to Indonesia, 1973-77.

Phyllis E. Oakley — assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, 1997-99.

James Daniel Phillips — ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990-93; ambassador to Burundi, 1986-1990.

John E. Reinhardt — ambassador to Nigeria, 1971-75.

Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith — deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.

Ronald I. Spiers — undersecretary-general of the United Nations for political affairs, 1989-1992; ambassador to Pakistan, 1981-83.

Michael Sterner — deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs, 1977-1981; ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-76.

Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner — director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1977-1981.

Alexander F. Watson — assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1993-96; deputy permanent representative to the U.N., 1989-1993.

*

Source: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change

[gldstwmn]

July is going to be a very ugly month for Bushco.

[dissention]

This is great. Thanks for posting it, Le Stwe. I can't wait to see what the pundits do with this sucker!

Ann "The war is going MAGNIFICENTLY well" Coulter will never get the knots out of her panties (or boxers, depending on who you ask).

[CKFive]

Though these people may be largely unknown to the American public. The importance of this must not be underestimated. Bush has fomented an attitude that dissent is un-American. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect to his leadership of this nation.

Many of my fellow lefties like to throw around words like fascist and nazi, but this idea that consensus building is weak and that to hold an opposing viewpoint is treasonous. This frightens me, when no one dares disagree all the rest of the elements of true fascism can fall into place.

I almost pumped my fist in the air when I heard that this protest was about to be released. It provided a brighter feeling to me than Senator Kerry’s recent ascent in the polls.

(Which was pretty nifty as well)

[gldstwmn]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...401EDT0628.DTL

(06-14) 11:01 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The White House rejected calls Monday from Ronald Reagan's family and others to relax President Bush's restrictions on stem-cell research in pursuit of potential cures for illnesses.

Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 that limited federal help to financing stem cell research on 78 embryonic stem cell lines then in existence. Because day-old embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted, the process is opposed by some conservatives who link it to abortion.

Shortly before Reagan's death, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and 57 other senators asked Bush to relax the restrictions. Nancy Reagan has long argued that using stem cells from embryos could lead to cures for a number of diseases like the Alzheimer's that afflicted her husband. Bush opposes using embryos for stem cell research.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush continues to believe that his policy is the right one.

"The president came up with a policy that will allow us to explore the promise of stem-cell research, and do so in a way that doesn't cross a certain moral threshold that he set," McClellan said. "And I think he articulated his reasons for arriving at that decision. And that is his position, and that remains his position."

Moreover, he said, "we are still at a phase where we are conducting the basic research so that we can better understand the promise of stem-cell research. There's a lot we don't know at this point."

McClellan would not directly answer questions about whether Bush would be open to relaxing his policy if current "basic research" begins to show promise.

But, he said, "The president doesn't believe we should be creating life for the sole purpose of destroying life."

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

"The president came up with a policy that will allow us to explore the promise of stem-cell research, and do so in a way that doesn't cross a certain moral threshold that he set," McClellan said. "And I think he articulated his reasons for arriving at that decision. And that is his position, and that remains his position."

What a gas.

I don't know about you, but I'll now be able to sleep at night knowing that "man" is setting the moral threshold's for me and everyone else.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

[Moreover, he said, "we are still at a phase where we are conducting the basic research so that we can better understand the promise of stem-cell research. There's a lot we don't know at this point."

Fund it properly so you will know. These people run our country? It gets more shocking with each new day, folks.

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

But, he said, "The president doesn't believe we should be creating life for the sole purpose of destroying life."

Tell that to his mistress' fetus he so readily aborted when he got her pregnant in the early eighties.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=dissention


Tell that to his mistress' fetus he so readily aborted when he got her pregnant in the early eighties.[/QUOTE]

Since Bush doesn't read, he probably doesn't realize that the majority of the stem cells don't even come from this type of procedure- they come from invitro clinics that no longer have use for the embryos. He said it in a speech once, however I doubt he remembers it. Probably fed to him through the earpiece.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Tell that to his mistress' fetus he so readily aborted when he got her pregnant in the early eighties.

Prove it. You cannot and you know it. Moreover, Larry Flynt could not and he knew it - the woman denies will denty it - or at least that is what Flyntt said on Cnn's Crossfire. Yet, you assert it as a fact - BTW - it allegedly took place in 1971 - He married Laura in 1977 - thus, you are incorrect in the use of the inflammatory word mistress as well

Here is an article on it:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/elec22.htm

There are many if you do a google search for "bush abortion mistress" - most articles come from the peripheral media as the main stream media declined to carry the story because it could not be proven

Once again, I think this is why the far left and the far right have no credibility - they just say these things knowing they cannot be proven and hope people accept them as fact

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Prove it. You cannot and you know it. Moreover, Larry Flynt could not and he knew it - the woman denies will denty it - or at least that is what Flyntt said on Cnn's Crossfire.

I can't, Larry can. Wait until his book is published in August.

He's got so much dirt on the Shrub's it boggles the mind. And he's always had a great track record, IMO.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, I think this is why the far left and the far right have no credibility - they just say these things knowing they cannot be proven and hope people accept them as fact

Sorta like how you can't prove voodoo economics do much good for the economy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I can't, Larry can. Wait until his book is published in August.

He's got so much dirt on the Shrub's it boggles the mind. And he's always had a great track record, IMO.

Larry Flynt said although he has what he considers evidence, he cannot prove it. He will name the woman because he is scared of a libel suit, which means he cannot prove it and she denies it - the rest is just circumstantial. In fact, here are his words:

Now the incorrigible Larry Flynt says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine - in a book to be published this summer by Kensington Press.

"This story has got to come out," the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine honcho told the Daily News' Corky Siemaszko. "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the White House about this whole abortion issue."

Flynt claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s.

"I've talked to the woman's friends," Flynt said. "I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion," Flynt said. "I got the story nailed."

Flynt wouldn't disclose whether he plans to name the woman.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/goss...p-144622c.html
______________________________________________________

Moreover, even if he can prove it, what will it matter It was over 30 years ago. It can easily be dismissed as a mistake (one of many) by W in his youth. I think this is one of those issues that people on the surface give lip service to, but many of the same people would do or have done the same in their private life - draft dodging is another. So, while it clearly is contrary to his pro life stance and makes him a hypocrite in that light, I do not see this over 30 year old incident having much sway over the vast majority of Bush supporters. I mean all he has to do is admit it and act contrite, which granted are not two things that come easily to him Let us hope Larry Flynt's book has longer teeth than this

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Sorta like how you can't prove voodoo economics do much good for the economy.

By your own admission, you cannot prove it has not - nor can you show any other explanation for the suddenly found money that is driving the current economic recovery - if you can, let's hear it. Touche'

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, even if he can prove it, what will it matter It was over 30 years ago. It can easily be dismissed as a mistake (one of many) by W in his youth. I think this is one of those issues that people on the surface give lip service to, but many of the same people would do or have done the same in their private life - draft dodging is another. So, while it clearly is contrary to his pro life stance and makes him a hypocrite in that light, I do not see this over 30 year old incident having much sway over the vast majority of Bush supporters. I mean all he has to do is admit it and act contrite, which granted are not two things that come easily to him Let us hope Larry Flynt's book has longer teeth than this

We don't need the majority of his supporters to change their minds, we just need a small fraction of them to do so.

And do you honestly think that if Flynt had it aniled, Bush would admit to it and call it another youthful indiscretion? Ha! The man who lied about being arrested? About having his license suspended? About his cocaine use? Gimme a break.

I think Flynt does have it nailed and I'm inclined to believe him. He hasn't failed me yet. He even got a few Republicans to resign a few years ago over some of their indiscretions.