Appointees of Reagan, Bush I, and military men have formed a group opposed to the current President. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...84&e=2&u=/nm/20040613/pl_nm/bush_opponents_dc Former Officials to Criticize Bush Foreign Policy Sun Jun 13, 5:11 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of former U.S. officials is urging voters to defeat President Bush (news - web sites) in the November election, saying his policies have isolated the United States, a spokesman for the group said on Sunday. The group of 26 former diplomats and military officials, including appointees of former Republican presidents Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and George Bush, plan to issue an open statement on Wednesday criticizing Bush's foreign policies. "We just came to agreement that this administration was really endangering the United States," said William Harrop, a former ambassador to Israel under the previous Bush administration. The signers are a mix of Democrats and Republicans, Harrop said. They include Jack Matlock and Arthur Hartman, two former ambassadors to the former Soviet Union during the 1980s. Also in the group are several other former ambassadors and retired military officials, the group said. Signers of the statement are concerned that the administration has undermined U.S. leadership in the world and alienated U.S. allies, Harrop said. As an example, Harrop cited the decision to launch the war in Iraq (news - web sites) without sufficient international support. "Our view is that the President Bush administration has chosen American domination of the world as in our best interest," Harrop said. "We don't think that's going to work." Harrop said the group was not aligned with Bush's Democratic challenger in the November election, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites). "But we want an alternative and that's the alternative," Harrop said.
Not so fast: from http://www.thatliberalmedia.com A Tale of Two Letters Bias doesn't get much clearer than this. The lead story in today's Los Angeles Times trumpets a letter, written by 26 former diplomats, calling for the defeat of President George W. Bush. On the front page, the story goes out of its way to suggest that the letter is a bipartisan effort. The editors save for the back pages (or entirely omit) significant evidence suggesting that the signatories are partisan Democrats. Not one word of the Bush perspective appears on the front page. It's all on page A26, safely out of the view of the average reader. The L.A. Times's prominent and sympathetic treatment of this letter stands in marked contrast to its coverage of a letter that was released in May by hundreds of former military men, many of whom served with John Kerry, questioning Kerry's honesty and fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. The letter, which was signed by every officer in Kerry's chain of command in Vietnam, was buried by the L.A. Times in stories appearing on pages A21 and A20. In the little coverage the paper did provide, the stories ignored the central accusations of the letter, and gave prominent play to the spin that the letter was a partisan hit job.
That would make it a bi-partisan effort. The article doesn't claim that it was all Republicans. But the article does contain statements from Reagan and BushI appointees. What thatliberal media fails to take into account is that it's not news for the Democrats to call for Bush to lose in the upcoming elections. The reason the story is in fact news, is because it has to do with prominant diplomats appointed by Ronald Willson Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush, that want Bush to lose the election. The fact that a number of the people in this organization have donated to Democrats may show they put their money where their mouth was. Or they could be the Democrat part of bi-partison. And the Democrats and liberals are said to whine and complain?
Thank god, snopes obscenely partisan slant on things like camel spiders, insects that live in beehive hairdos, and kentucky fried rats needed a counterweight. This is probably a more appropriate comparison, from the former right wing hitman himself. http://mediamatters.org/
The fact that 10 0f the 26 have given to Dems makes that statement a lie. It's very easy now to track political contributions using the web. Richard Clarke, for example, has only given to two candidates, both Dems. But, of course, he's non-partisan.
How? There are other democrats than Kerry. How many of them have given money to Republican politicians over the years? Why can't you just read what they have to say before attacking and smearing them? Can you understand how independents get turned off by: (1) attack and smear response to all criticism, combined with (2) "whoops" after-the-fact mea culpas on at least a monthly basis. From the outside, the administration can start to look like a teenager constantly caught in a lie. "Well, Johnnie's lying! I did not steal that thing! ... Oh, well, okay I took it, but only because I thought you had bought it already, dad. I thought it was ours! .. Oh, okay, well I knew you hadn't bought it, but I... uh... thought it was... free? Can I just go to my undisclosed location now until dinner?"
It doesn't make Clarke's non-Partisan in this particular election. But if the group has people from both parties in the group, that makes them BI-PARTISAN. But your argument does little to deal with the issue. Even if every single one was a lifelong Democrat the fact still remains that folks who were appointed by Republican President Ronald Wilson Reagan, and Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush, are actively campaigning to remove G.W. Bush from office. You can try and put up whatever smoke screen you want about these people's donations and party affiliations. None of that changes the fact that there are people appointed by the named REpublican administrations that believe G.W. Bush is a danger to our nations foreign policy. They want him gone.
In this case it is the president and the policy. Watching Bush in the Russert interview and his last significant press conference was one of the most disturbing spectacles I have ever seen. I'm sure that sober, even minimally objective statesman are appalled at the current situation.
So Bohen was a Bush I appointee who had the good sense to oppose SDI, and feels that the current Bush's foreign policy is one that is detrimental to the U.S. She actually sounds quite reasonable, and it appears she has good judgement. The article also had a conclusion where the writer put words and ideas into Bohen's mouth and mind, that were his own creation. Either way how does any of this change the accuracy of the original story?
Don't know if he is non partisan or not, but he is a registered Republican who voted for George W. in 2000. Now he is donating money to Dem candidates. What does that tell you, gwayneco? It tells me that George W. will most likely be shovelling sh*t in Crawford after January 20, 2005.
How the heck does this support your contention that this group is overly partisan? 10 out of the 26 or 38% have given money to Dem. Pres. candidates. So what about the other 62% of them? Frankly I find it odd that for a group that opposes GW Bush that all of them haven't given money to the Kerry or other Dem campaigns.
