Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

thanks for the piece, ci

foxfyre

This is hardly a matter of some folks like one candidate and some folks like the other.

This is a matter of former senior military and diplomatic staff (many of whom were appointed by Reagan or Bush sr, as the piece notes) who have taken a step which has few precedents...to jointly and publicly call for the defeat of the Bush administration for actions and policies which have had grave negative consequences for America and for Americans.

I dunno, blatham, I think it precisely does boil down to some folks prefer one candidate while others prefer another; that's pretty much the definition and design function of political campaign rhetoric, after all. Were it otherwise, there would be no point to the excersize.

The idea that the democrats are able to assemble 26 ex-diplomats/military types to speak against George Bush is more relevant than what thousands and thousands of others who have served and are serving in the military are saying? Only to those who wish to believe that I think.

Foxy
Do you think the Republicans can do the same?

What seems to be rather relevant to me here guys, is exactly who those folks are and what they are saying.

Can either of you recall precedents? This many people who have functioned at such a high level in government, in military, in intelligence, and in foreign affairs who have gotten together and publicly made such a statement?

Never in history; past or present.

Never heard of any of them, except Stansfield Turner.

Probably a bunch of Democrats, and Turner must be 200 years old. Some Democrat stuck a pen in the old guy's hand...

This is done all the time.

No biggie.

Well, au, there are the millions of current and former military personnel and government functionaries NOT campaigning to unseat The Incumbent. That a few disaffecteds out of so overwhelmingly many of less negative position might be found is unsurprising. What these few say is of far less importance than for whom, and for how many, they speak.

blatham, consider the attitude of the Kennedy/Johnson "Insiders" re George McGovern. Admittedly, McGovern was not a sitting executive defending the incumbency, but a wholebuncha "Big Names" within his party were less than comfortable with McGovern's candidacy. And there were the '96 campaign's "Democrats for Dole", while in '79/'80 there was much, and quite vocal, disapproval within The Democratic Establishment regarding then-incumbent Carter. It doesn't take much digging to come up with folks, celebrity or otherwise, either for or against any just about any proposition. Hell, there was much acrimony surrounding Melissa Gilbert's first and second retentions of the presidency of The Screen Actor's Guild (a post made famous by Ronald Reagan :wink: ), fer chrissakes.

I think the links I provided shows that thousands and thousands have done/are doing the same for GWB. Do I think the Republicans could find 26 high-ranking military officers and/or ex-diplomats who would sign on in support of the President? I think they could do it by sundown. I hope they don't because it's such a cheesy ploy.

Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991 wellknown outsite the USA, at least. :wink:

Sofia finds it too cheezy to find high ranking people to support Bush. That about says it all!

Bio for Joseph P. Hoar, Marine General. Looks like mostly desk jobs to me at least for the last many years.

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Whos_Who/Hoar_JP.htm

Bio for Admiral Crowe. Somewhat more impresive but CSIS is a think tank pretty well dominated by Democrats though some, like Sam Nunn, I do admire and respect.

Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr. became a counselor at CSIS following his retirement from military service in 1989. In his more than 50 years of service, he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chairman of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and United States ambassador to the United Kingdom. During a 47-year military career, Admiral Crowe commanded U.S. forces in the Middle East, was the commander-in-chief of NATO forces in Southern Europe, and headed the nation's largest geographical military operation-the U.S. Pacific Command. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Admiral Crowe received a master's degree in education from Stanford University and a master's and doctorate in politics from Princeton University.

Here's Matlocks' partial bio. As a career diplomat, it could be expected he would not be hawkish and would object to GWB policies for that reason if he didn't have any others. At least I don't know of any hawkish diplomats.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/events/pressreleases/matlock.html

For goodness sakes, you guys.

Timber, you at least tried, but none of you have offered up a precedent example where such a group of people with this sort of experience in government, military and intelligence service have called for the removal of a sitting president because of the damage done in international relations and in security.

There is of course the precedent case from Britain of two months past where another group of longtime foreign service people publicly called for Blair to disengage his policy agreements in the middle east with Bush because of the damage being done to peace and security.

Or even the cases of Richard Clarke or the US ambassador to Greece. Or Scocroft before the outset. All have said the same things.

You can, and likely will, continue to deny there is something quite unprecedented and significant to all these top level people acting in the manner they have, but the examples and comparisons you offer are not adequate to the task you wish of them. This is important.

timber, you know better than foxfyre and sofia what I've been arguing for two years now. There isn't much I've been mistaken about. The two suppositions I made that proved wrong were that some weapons would be found and that house to house combat would follow the invasion. Truly, that's the only two things I think I've been wrong about. I don't say this as nyah nyah, but merely to tell ya again...this crowd in this administration is uniquely incompetent and arrogant, and that is hurting you. Maybe very badly.

Just for track-record giggles, blatham, check This out. Heck, my biggest miss back then may have been in assuming Kerry had let me down ... I originally thought him likely the strongest of The-Footnotes-To-Be, then, obviously prematurely, bemoaned his apparent-at-that-time failure to garner his party's nod.

I disgree categorically with your contention " ... this crowd in this administration is uniquely incompetent and arrogant, and that is hurting you ... "; I happen to feel the shrillness, pessimism, and partisan hyperbole of The Left, in general, and The Democratic Party in The US in particular, play beautifully into The Republican's game. The way Ifigure it, you folks are still "mis-underestimating" us folks ... bigtime. Cool by me :cool: .

Lest I forget, thanks for all of that. It makes our job so much the easier

I have resisted making that claim I made in the last post for two reasons; it's not terribly honorable and, more important, to back it up I'd have to do what you did above and I'm wayyyyyyy to lazy to do it.

But I do promise to keep on helping you out in the manner you describe.

Believe me partner, we appreciate, and look forward to continuing to be able to count on, your side's efforts in such regard.