More than two dozen members of the military and diplomatic elites from both US political parties are uniting to launch an assault on the Bush administration's conduct of foreign policy, claiming in a letter to be published this week that it has isolated the nation.

The 26-member group, known as Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, includes several people appointed to important positions by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Among them are former US ambassadors to Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union and a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, as well as retired Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, who commanded US forces in the Middle East under former President Bush.

Their letter, to be published on Wednesday, represents an unusually broad attack on a president in an election year from the ranks of the career diplomats inside the Washington beltway.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086940181019

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5408748

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/bush.criticism/

Traitors.........Traitors........Traitors, ....All

Some would say: "Patriots.....Patriots.....Patriots.....every one of 'em."


Only 4 1/2 months to go...and he's gone. *POOF!*

Unfortunately, the damage will be with us for decades.

Don't call a wart a tumor. The problems caused by this little man will gone in 8 years.

Of course one must be vigilant when pulling weeds or another one will grow in its place. The Jeb weed in Florida may want to pop its head out as soon as this one is pulled.

The Jeb weed must have an IQ at least 20 points over the Texas wart.........about 105.

This letter will be a tough sell considering that all of the members of the UN Security Council have signed the new resolution.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7489_A_1230954_1_A,00.html

Man you guys just show your desperation with stupid stuff like this.

The problems caused by this little man will gone in 8 years.

Grumpy, do you really think that even moderate Arab countries, terrorists of all persuasions, much of the rest of the world, and many Americans who lost their loved ones (or those that were seriously injured) will forget in 8 years what this administration has done in just a few years?

Let alone the politicians and pundits who now have a huge axe to grind against the GOP, and all of those who have been economically shafted, etc.

The list goes on and on....

But then again, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a large percentage of American's DO forget what has taken place, then turn right around and elect another nut job Neo-Con like Bush.

This letter will be a tough sell considering that all of the members of the UN Security Council have signed the new resolution.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7489_A_1230954_1_A,00.html

Man you guys just show your desperation with stupid stuff like this.

And since when has George W or anyone else in the present administration cared what the UN security council has to say?

I guess he is just trying to appease people like you who care what everyone else thinks about our national security interests. You get what you want and then complain about it? Gees, there is just no pleasing you guys! LOL!!!

I guess he is just trying to appease people like you who care what everyone else thinks about our national security interests. You get what you want and then complain about it? Gees, there is just no pleasing you guys! LOL!!!
Never question Bush Steam! He can do no wrong! If they produced a video saying he hated the American people while burning a flag you'd find some way to spin it positive. I think you have too much of yuorself invested in proving he is right to ever admit he could be the biggest presidential failure ever. Maybe you should examine why you feel the overwhelming need to make Bush right no matter how wrong he actually is.

He has done some things I don't like, but on the whole, and compared to how his predecessor weakened our national security, defense and disgraced the Office of the President, I'd say he is doing a fine job. History will be the judge though. Hey you and the same "ilk" (a favorite word of the left) trashed Reagan. I think history is viewing him and his achievements in a much different light 20 years later. Just goes to show who the short sighted ones really are. I have a meeting with a contractor. Keep up the lively discussions! I am sure our hosts love it. Chaching! :O)

He has done some things I don't like, but on the whole, and compared to how his predecessor weakened our national security, defense and disgraced the Office of the President, I'd say he is doing a fine job. History will be the judge though. Hey you and the same "ilk" (a favorite word of the left) trashed Reagan. I think history is viewing him and his achievements in a much different light 20 years later. Just goes to show who the short sighted ones really are. I have a meeting with a contractor. Keep up the lively discussions! I am sure our hosts love it. Chaching! :O)


So you really think getting a blowjob is worse than starting a war on false pretenses? And I think it's way too early to judge what Reagan did or didn't do--at least definitively. Reagan made people think he did great things for this country. I'm not so sure that was the reality.

He has done some things I don't like, but on the whole, and compared to how his predecessor weakened our national security, defense and disgraced the Office of the President, I'd say he is doing a fine job. History will be the judge though. Hey you and the same "ilk" (a favorite word of the left) trashed Reagan. I think history is viewing him and his achievements in a much different light 20 years later. Just goes to show who the short sighted ones really are. I have a meeting with a contractor. Keep up the lively discussions! I am sure our hosts love it. Chaching! :O)



No "HISTORIAN" will even begin to try to define Reagan for another twenty years. In order to look at a person with an unjaded eye his political nature must be over, documents must become available and macrocycles have to be able to be looked at. Right now "REPUBLICANS AND PUNDITS" are viewing his presidency as a success but Presidential historians such as Doris Kearns Goodwin won't even debate the issue for decades.

Well, maybe not 8 years, but people have a short memory as long as they can watch TV and go to the show. I'll give it 15 years before they stop burning the American flag.

and compared to how his predecessor weakened our national security, defense and disgraced the Office of the President

I see you're STILL not over Clinton, hmm? Can you tell me of one President who has "disgraced the Office of the President" more so than George W. Bush, when he lied get us into a completely unnecessary, distracting, and expensive war that has isolated the United States??

Sorry, LS, but that is nothing less than an impeachable offense, no matter HOW you try to mangle the facts, and is FAR WORSE than Clinton lying about a blow-job.

No "HISTORIAN" will even begin to try to define Reagan for another twenty years.

I've recently heard the well-regarded presidential historian Michael Beschloss quip that the history on Reagan won't be difinitively written for at least 30 years, (for all of the reasons you stated above).

I've recently heard the well-regarded presidential historian Michael Beschloss quip that the history on Reagan won't be difinitively written for at least 30 years, (for all of the reasons you stated above).


And I thought that historeography class I took was going to be a waste.
Beschloss' The Conquerers is great.

Clinton's transgressions against this country far outweigh his lying before a magistrate and a BJ. Please! The proverbial BJ was just the symbol of his legacy - something sordid, for the moment and very selfish!

Steam, you fail to realize, as our ...uh... astute friends on the Left have, that prior to January 20, 2001, the U.S. was loved by the Middle East community. It was only since Dubya took office that we became despised. All those terrorist attacks in the 90's & '00, the Libyan Embassy bombing in '83, and the Iranian hostage crisis back in '79 (etc., etc.) were only figments of our imagination!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Steam, you fail to realize, as our ...uh... astute friends on the Left have, that prior to January 20, 2001, the U.S. was loved by the Middle East community. It was only since Dubya took office that we became despised. All those terrorist attacks in the 90's & '00, the Libyan Embassy bombing in '83, and the Iranian hostage crisis back in '79 (etc., etc.) were only figments of our imagination!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As an astute friend in the left I can't tell you the number of times I have brought up Mossadadq, the Shaw, Suez, Yom Kippur war, Angola, etc. So please don't lump us in with the myopia which is the world of the STEAM. I use them as reasons as to why they hate us. Something that the RIGHT seem to want to dismiss with a "but we are so friendly so freedom loving how can they hate us. But since they do for no reason let's go and nuke them."

Clinton's transgressions against this country far outweigh his lying before a magistrate and a BJ

Ok, tell you what, gentlemen: you list Clinton's "transgressions", and I'll list Bush's. Caution - this may start to resemble "wishing in one hand and sh!tting in the other (to see which fills up first)".

Doris Kearns Goodwin? LOL!!! You mean that plagiarist? She is a liberal through and through and will never have anything good to say about any conservative or Republican. Who cares what she thinks? She thought Clinton was a great president. LOL!!! That's a good one!

I think that we have a "Challenge" here........
PLEASE.........................No cut and paste jobs.....Put it in your own words...........

The lack of support for this adminstrations flavor of intermantional relations is far more widespread then just the diplomatic core. The core of this lack of support has to do with the implementation of the PNAC doctrine...

Doris Kearns Goodwin? LOL!!! You mean that plagiarist? She is a liberal through and through and will never have anything good to say about any conservative or Republican. Who cares what she thinks? She thought Clinton was a great president. LOL!!! That's a good one!



As a historian in training let me tell you one thing unequivically. I do not have the opportunity to bend evidence to suit my premise. I begin with a question and an empty trough I then fill it with evidence. As RED MENACE I am sure will attest the harshest critics are fellow researchers, professors, etc. Many that I have come to know can't wait to write the rebuttal against a poorly research premise. As far as Goodwin is concerned it depends on who you ask as to who does or does not think her writing or research on The Kennedys is her own or not. In the end she has to answer for herself. I used her as an example of one of any thousands of historians that will say the same thing. Until the political era ends, the macrocycle is over and documents formerly classified become available no one that is concerned with historical truths would dare touch Reagan.

Once again you parsed a name and disregarded my statement which is just as true without her name as it is with hers.

Historiagraphically speaking it takes decades or more to develop a sense of what happened. The civil war has been rewritten several times just as to whether the war was an inevitability or not. Following the war there developed the "devil theory" where both sides blamed the other. James Ford Rhodes changed that and looked at the war as an inevitability. Following WWI it was thought of as a waste as we looked back on the civil war through the lense of the horrors of WWI the term repressable concept with James G. Randell leading the way. WWII sways this again to the belief in the necessity of the civil war among scholars. Then comes the view generally accepted today known as "potter's view". So you see people and events change over time.

The proverbial BJ was just the symbol of his legacy - something sordid, for the moment and very selfish!

I'm unfamiliar with the BJ proverb. Could someone please enlighten me about the proverbial BJ? ;)

tmb, you've got to be kidding - actual scholarly research, critical thinking, empirical evidence, corroborating testimony, historical documents, observed behavior, anthropological evidence, etc., etc. - this is NOT how history is properly done, you silly crank!!

You jump on the latest media bandwagon when the talking heads proclaim that a former president was "great", after watching a few CBS sound bites of old press conferences and photo ops.

DUH! What the hELL are they teaching you guys nowadays???

And since when has George W or anyone else in the present administration cared what the UN security council has to say?

Since they appeared to swing their way......

I guess political events and partisan ideals "sway" the view. That happens over time :O) The events are what they are. People interpret them differently based on their own bias'. Man I can't imagine you as an historian based on what I have read here. I am not saying you don't know the facts or don't have the knowledge. Those are easily seen. I just don't see the unbiased eye that a true historian must have in order to recant events without coloring them. I am also surprised that you do not see anything valid or profound in what is happening before our eyes. I would think that you would at least give Bush credit for trying what others just dared to speak about, but didn't have the balls to implement. You do know that regime change was officially adopted by the Congress as US policy under Clinton, don't you?

This letter will be a tough sell considering that all of the members of the UN Security Council have signed the new resolution.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7489_A_1230954_1_A,00.html

Man you guys just show your desperation with stupid stuff like this.

If Bush's little caper works out, and it probably will, Iraq will emerge the darling of the Middle East, oil gushing forth amidst palm treed oases of McDonald's franchises. Conservative Arabs once hostile to Israel, will moderate their political views as they become economically dependent on the emerging international economy powered by the internet, with the US as a major player, if not dominant. Pax Americana. The US dominates the world by surveillance technology and police actions. The only enemy are a few wild spirits, like Osama Bin Laden. The rest of the world basks optimistically in the economic wealth (not to mention government security!) brought by the Americans, and remains silent. Is this true?

Or, will it be Fortress America, the big swaggering Goliath, that steps on little people and turns them into terrorists? It seems like when you go to war, you're throwing caution to the winds, must have absolute faith that what you're doing is right, eventually your intentions will be understood, and everything will work out. In the ensuing violence and and turmoil, there are always the doomsayers, the ones who are convinced Iraq is going to hell, and the Americans having started the fire, are fanning the flames of their war on terrorism in the wrong country. But as long as events signal the next step forward, at some point, everyone will start to have some belief that they will succeed, out from under the foot of "The Great Satan."

The larger issue in world politics and indirectly US security, is still whether the US has the right to attack a sovereign nation unprovoked, and also whether mechanized military warfare is an honorable way to resolve conflicts, or is even now necessary between states.

In this instance, it means "famous". It must have been one hell of a ...... :O) I am sure there is a story attached to it somewhere too. Oh yes. The blue dress :O)

I'll get started on it when I have a few hours to waste. Clinton provided a lot of fodder for the cannon :O)

As far as I know being a historian has nothing to do with giving up your political bias. In fact looking at the past is the easiest way to shelve the present. If one is constantly looking with one eye on the present he/she is doing a disservice to the past, both eyes should be firmly fixed on the past. If Bush succeeds and his Bush Doctrine proves fruitful, I in my dotage of age (since it will take that long for the above described to come to pass political era, macrocycle, documents) I will give him full markers for his successes.
Just as Eisenhower has been rehabed since we learned he didn't live on the golf course or how Johnson has been humanized by the release of his audio tapes (brought to you live on C-span2 if you want some fun), hell even Nixon was elevated back to respectability before his death, Bush will get fair treatment historically, but it would be foolish for me to look at the present and extrapolate some future historical perspective.

Premptive war is nothing new, only telling the American public is new.

I'll get started on it when I have a few hours to waste. Clinton provided a lot of fodder for the cannon :O)
as does bush jr.