Once again your article gives proof to the fact that they are a bi-partisen group. It's also heavily laden with editorial comment and supposition. Meanwhile none of it changes the fact that diplomats appointed by REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS REAGAN, and BUSH I now oppose the election of the current Bush as President.
There have been many "firsts" for Bush. Bush Censure by Envoys May Be a First, Historians Say June 18 (Bloomberg) -- The statement by 27 former diplomats and military officers on Wednesday calling for the defeat of U.S. President George W. Bush may be unprecedented. ``Their prominence and seniority and influence when in their diplomatic or military posts, and their number, is really remarkable,'' said Richard Kohn, the Pentagon's chief Air Force historian from 1981-1991 and chairman of the University of North Carolina's peace, war and defense curriculum in Chapel Hill. The group, which includes Democrats and Republicans, said Bush's foreign policy and the war in Iraq have damaged U.S. security. Its statement may sway voters already concerned by reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers and the conclusion by a bipartisan commission that Saddam Hussein had no connection to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The investigative commission, appointed by the president, found no evidence that Hussein's regime worked with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization to plan the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. Bush, 57, responded that Hussein and al-Qaeda had ``numerous contacts'' outside of the attacks that justified the U.S. war in Iraq. ``Bush's credibility has been damaged by Iraq,'' said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Schwab Soundview Capital Markets in Washington. Democratic presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry ``has greater potential to get traction on issues like this,'' Valliere said. Group's Statement ``From the outset, George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations,'' said the group, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, in a statement Wednesday. They said Bush should be defeated, without explicitly endorsing Kerry, 60. The group included Jack Matlock Jr., President Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union; retired Admiral William Crowe, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman under Reagan; Charles Freeman, President George H.W. Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia; and retired Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak, who is advising Kerry's campaign. ``I can't remember anything comparable to that,'' said historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., 86, who was an adviser to President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat. ``I can't remember a precedent.'' Schlesinger won the Pulitzer Prize for his 1965 book, ``A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House.'' For the complete article, go to: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=alMjDzShgJkQ&refer=us
From: www.andrewsullivan.com WHAT THEY SAID: In honor of president Reagan's funeral, here's a useful corrective to the notion that his legacy was always celebrated. Today, almost everyone concedes his historical significance. But that wasn't what was said at the time. Here's a smattering of commentary from the 1980s. "A few years from now, I believe, Reaganism will seem a weird and improbable memory, a strange interlude of national hallucination, rather as the McCarthyism of the early 1950s and the youth rebellion of the late 1960s appear to us today." - Arthur "Always Wrong" Schlesinger, Washington Post, May 1, 1988.
Two out of 27 in an elction that was 50/50 is bipartisan? Did they all reveal who they were voting for? Was it 2 and 25? Or was it 2 and 2 with 23 people not publicizing their vote? Did they all vote Dole in 1996, but then didn't support Bush in 2000? You seem to be trying to make major leaps of conclusions with very little information.
So what we have is 2 of 27 voted for Bush. 10 of 27 have given money to Dems. That leaves 15 of 27 haven neither voted for Bush or given money to Dems. That seems like a pretty well rounded group. And Again none of that fails to contradict the fact that Diplomats appointed by REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS REAGAN AND BUSH I, NOW WANT PRESIDENT BUSH GONE! Forgive me for yelling, but you try and derail the main point behind all of this. The main point is that a group of military folks and diplomats, including those appointed by the past two republican Presidents, don't like the current President's policy and want him out of office.
Only two of them voted for Bush in 2000. Why can't you accept the facts? No - the facts that we know are that two of them voted for Bush. We don't know who the other 25 voted for - unless you have some other source than the article you provided. For all we know, the other 25 voted for Bush as well but haven't come out and said that. Why can't you interpret facts properly?
