Word from the Exes

27 votes against Bush:

The Bush administration does not understand the world and remains unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, a group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged yesterday…

Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Update: Listing of signatories here.

Comments

[Evan McElravy]

"I much prefer the opinion of middle-aged, no-longer-funny, neocon over that of a general or admiral whose 25 or 30 years of service overlapped the Carter years . . ."

P.J. can still be pretty funny, but his essential argument in favour of the Iraq debacle last night -- Miller's as well -- to wit, that, hell, sometimes you just gotta pound on some shitty little country to show who's boss, isn't very funny at all.

[Matthew Cromer]

Sam,

The support given in Washington came from a massive jobs program by the Saudis to give ex-administration State Department officials from every administration cushy sinecures.

And anyone who thinks the Saudis and Bush 43 are still allies hasn't filled up the gas tank lately.

[Matthew Cromer]

clark,

How can any honest and moral person help but "tilt towards Israel" when looking at how the occupied territories came to be occupied, and how the second intifada has been conducted by the ghoulish leadership of the Palestinians?

[ABC]

You could hate the Joos...

[Saucey Jack]

The juwles are not to be blamed for nothing

[JDM]

Given the constant drumbeat about how horrible US foreign policy has been over the past 50 years, how can this be seen as anything other than good news? Do we really want to continue the realpolitik of the cold war for another 10 years after the Soviets have disappeared? How about starving the Iraqi people for another 20 years so the UN and European bureaucrats could continue to buy Benzes with Saddam's payoff money? Maybe that would have taken care of Saddam. Why not just start arming him again so he can keep the Islamists in Saudi Arabia in check? Criminy.

[Lowdog]

What does not agreeing with support for Israel or their policies have to do with hating Jews?

Yes, it's been years, the Israelis "won" and the Palestinians really need to chill out and stop suicide bombing crowded marketplaces. But it doesn't change the fact that their home was taken from them by us colonial powers in the mid-20th century. And it doesn't change the fact that Israel has no intention of trying to work anything out with them.

So I am not in favour of our governments overwhelming support for Israel, but that does not mean that I hate the Israeli people or even Jews, in general. Please.

[Ricky]

Bunch of unpatriotic fools.

[joe]

For most of my life, there were "Realist" conservatives and "Moralist" liberals, with very little deviation from that alignment. This is not a good situation - tends to get people stuck in ruts, dug in, and unable or unwilling to see the other side's virtues. It's good that that is changing, and there will be "realists" and "moralists" on both sides again.

[Ricky]

Israel should take over Palestine and be done with it. Make them all some sort of second class citizen for a generation or two. The US should stop paying countries not to attack Israel. If they decide to attack, let Israel mess them up. Sometimes you have to smack a bully down before he will respect you.

[clark]

"How can any honest and moral person help but "tilt towards Israel" when looking at how the occupied territories came to be occupied, and how the second intifada has been conducted by the ghoulish leadership of the Palestinians?"

As a branch of Western Civilization, I prefer Isreal to the Islamic world, but US policy attempts to be a broker in the dispute while sponsoring Isreal. This can't work
Also prefering Isreal makes no difference in the reality that this is a major grievance in the Islamic world.

[JDM]

"Can Bush change that? Will he even try? I doubt it."

Have you seen a newspaper in the last 3 years? I know you have an Internet connection. Search for the word PATRIOT.

[Dan]

Ok, a few points:

First, virtually everyone on this list devoted his career to something Bush has shown little respect for -- international diplomacy. Big surprise, they don't like him. The father of a friend of mine was an air traffic controller. Guess how he felt about the Reagan Administration's labor policy. 🙂

Secondly, this is a list of twenty-seven people out of the tens of thousands of generals, admirals, assistant secretaries, etc, the government has employed during the last 35 years. Is 27 a lot? If Bush can dust off, say, 28 ex-diplomats and generals who say he's the most awesome American leader since George Washington and that Kerry is a cowardly scum, will that make THAT statement true? You would have no problem finding a couple of dozen people of this caliber to support *any* position.

This is a classic example of the "Texas Sharpshooter" phenomenon -- fire your shots, and draw the target around where the shots hit.

Look at this list. You've got a guy whose big claim to fame is that he was ambassador to the United Arab Emirates 30 years ago. Raise your hand if you think this guy would make anyone's list of international policy experts. Or Stansfield Turner, whose big claim to fame is that he ran the CIA under Jimmy Carter. Or -- heh! -- here's a good one: Robert Oakley, who was our Ambassador to Pakistan when the Pakistani government was helping to form the Taliban. There are funnier examples; check the list.

These guys are, the exception of two or three of the military folks, nobodies; they're "important" not because of what they did, but because they signed this list. The average international policy wonk would be hard pressed to even remember who the other guys are. 🙂

[Dan]

Yes, it's been years, the Israelis "won" and the Palestinians really need to chill out and stop suicide bombing crowded marketplaces. But it doesn't change the fact that their home was taken from them by us colonial powers in the mid-20th century.

You really need to actually read about the history of Israel sometime. "Taken from them" in the "mid-20th century"? The original state of Israel consisted of land bought, from the Arabs, by the Jews, over the course of the previous century or so. The land that was "taken" was "taken" because the people living on it invaded Israel.

And it doesn't change the fact that Israel has no intention of trying to work anything out with them.

Israel is "working something out" -- they're building a wall to keep the Palestinians away from them. Then they're going to sit back and let "Palestine" self-destruct. That's the only suggestion I've ever heard with a chance of working, because it's the only suggestion that doesn't rely on the Palestinians doing something sane.

[Nuge]

Dan-

if you really think the situation is that simple, it is you who needs to do some reading

[Dan]

if you really think the situation is that simple, it is you who needs to do some reading

Yeah, whatever. Nice counterexample.

You know what? Let's play "let's pretend". Let's pretend that the Evil Jews(tm) really did steal the Palestinians' land from them. You know -- like we did, to the Native Americans.

Well, boo fuckin' hoo.

If the Native Americans had tried the shit the Palestinians have, there wouldn't BE any Native Americans anymore. We'd have wiped them completely off the face of the Earth, and rightly so. Any honest person has to concede that Israel has shown nothing but restraint towards its neighbors.

[Sam Grove]

Matthew,
That may be, but does not address my complaint that Saudi Arabia is rarely mentioned in the 9/11 blame game.

[Mo]

The funny thing Dan, is that Israeli historian Benny Morris doesn't agree with your version of history. He thinks Israel was brutal, but necessarily so (I disagree with him that it was justified). Your free market, Israelis bought the land version of history works fine and dandy for fundraisers and fairy tales, but it ain't the truth.

[anon]

Dan:

"The original state of Israel consisted of land bought, from the Arabs, by the Jews, over the course of the previous century or so."

Bull shit. Jews contituted only 12% of the population of Palestine in 1914.

The Jewish immigration to Palestine accelarated during the
the British mandate which started in 1917. According to
statistics perpared by the British Mandate, the Jewish
immigrants constiuted 91.7% (out of 401,149) of the
total number of immigrants to Palestine between
1921-1945. (Scanned images of the documents that show
the breakdown by year can be found here:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html)

The Jewish population of Palestine in 1947 was 608,000
which amounted to 33% of the total population (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan)

[Dan]

"The original state of Israel consisted of land bought, from the Arabs, by the Jews, over the course of the previous century or so."

Bull shit. Jews contituted only 12% of the population of Palestine in 1914

What the heck that got to do with anything I said? I was talking about the original state of Israel, not about the whole of "Palestine". The original state of Israel consisted of a tiny portion of "Palestine" -- the part owned by, and inhabited by, Jews.

If the Arabs hadn't decided to try to pick up where Hitler left off, Israel would *still* only be a tiny little portion of "Palestine". But, oh well, they fucked up -- and lost the "country" they'd never actually had.

The funny thing Dan, is that Israeli historian Benny Morris doesn't agree with your version of history.

Why is that funny? Because he's Israeli? Israel is a free country; you find all kinds of opinions there. What would be funny would be finding a Palestinian historian who is (a) living in Palestine, (b) advocating the theory that Israel has been justified in its actions, and (c) still alive.

[Mo]

The only relevance to Mr. Morris' nationality is that his Israeli citizenship would make him more likely to advocate the more benign history you advocate than the more brutal reality.

And no it's not because he's Jewish, this is true of all nationalities.

You're version of history is incorrect. Some of the land was legitimately purchased, but not the entire entirety of the original Jewish state.

Your Native American analogy is apt. If we were doing to the NAs today what we did then, I would oppose it. What was considered morally acceptable 150 years ago is no longer acceptable. If Iran sent Americans smallpox infected blankets, we'd be screaming about biological warfare and banging the war drums.

[Lowdog]

I love how when you're just trying to throw out some thoughts, right or wrong, people jump all over your shit. Hey, if I'm wrong, I don't have a problem with someone telling me where I'm wrong and how, but you don't need to be all agro about it. Not that I would expect anything less from Dan.

That being said, I'll stick by my original comments. Nobody else wanted all the displaced Jews after WWII, including the good ol' US, so the UN, in their infinite wisdom, decided to give the green light to the creation of Israel, from land that was, at the time, called Palestine.

I do agree with Dan about the "boo fuckin' hoo" part, which is why I said the Palestinians lost and need to chill out. But that doesn't mean that I don't think that a lot of Israel's actions are something that I don't think we should be condoning or supporting. And don't even get me started on how, even though we give them boatloads of money, Israel has no problem ignoring some of our requests in the past.

[Dan]

The only relevance to Mr. Morris' nationality is that his Israeli citizenship would make him more likely to advocate the more benign history you advocate than the more brutal reality.

Well, no, actually, it wouldn't. It's quite common for free societies to contain people who harshly criticize them, fairly or unfairly.

Take this sentence, for example: "According to American political analyst Noam Chomsky, the United States deliberately committed genocide in Afghanistan".

Is it shocking that an American would say that? No. Is it true? No.

[Ray]

Now here's the interesting part from a news gazer's view.

These guys will be taken seriously by Dan Rather and the mainstream and those who are already anti-establishment / anti-President Bush. I think it was Evan who immediately defended the group by touting Adm Crowe because of course of his association with Reagan.

There are of course, just as many ex-diplomats that could be brought on stage and said to be in favor of President Bush and his policies. Even retired generals who worked in DC.

But of course this would be seen as a transparent political ploy to counter the "serious" and unquestionably objective orginal group of diplomats.

This kind of thinking buys into the well manufactured and tended to mythology that journalists, diplomats, generals, CEOs even and so on, are refreshingly objective as long as they're saying what the Left wants them to say.

So Adm Crowe's reputation must be exemplary because of his association with Reagan even though those assuming this think Reagan was an idiot cowboy with a trembling finger on the button.

It's kind of like the Left trotting out some wealthy businessman (Soros?) and he's instantly credible because he's rich and on their side.

[Evan McElravy]

P.J. O'Rourke on Dennis Miller last night said this gang was just a bunch of Carter retreads who were upset because Bush wasn't messing up as badly as they would be. Oops.

"Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East."

[Matthew Cromer]

No, it's a bunch of Arabist / Realist retreads from both parties who brought us 9/11 because they refused to deal with terrorist sponsoring states for 25 years.

[Ray]

So much hem-hawing around about who brought on this murderous hatred really misses the point.

The kind of thing that motivates attacks like 911 is not caused by any outside power or entity.

There have been innumerable bloody and vicious revolutions and wars of independence because one power so oppressed a people. But as brutal as the wars were, once the oppression stopped, so did the killing (at least against the oppressor).

So a closer examination as to what the Islamicists are fighting for reveals who brought on what.

They hate Israel and they hate us for supporting them. I think that is their main impetus but there is more. That the most powerful nation on earth is also so decadent, in their eyes, makes just about anything they do justifiable.

So we brought this on ourselves by having an ally? Oh please.

It is a naive and simple mind that thinks that we could live in some kind of bubble with a passive military and no alliances and still enjoy the freedoms that we do.

Remember when your mother told you to ignore the bully and maybe even smile at him and he would leave you alone? Didn't work did it? (My mother actually told me to duck and jab.)

So what brought on the 911 attacks? Prior to Clinton, the world was still to tangled up with the Cold War and everyone had to weigh every little action against a possible nuclear winter.

So the Left's propensity to treat everything as a legal matter won out as the standard method of anti-terrorist policy and here we are.

I don't blame Clinton for not acting more aggressively in the early 90s but the picture had become clear enough by 95 and 96 that more should have been done. He obviously didn't take them seriously and when you step back and think about it, most normal people would have a hard time believing that the WTC would be destroyed in such a manner. It just sounds so Hollywood-esque.

Now of course it's a different world.

[Jeff Clothier]

Matthew,

I think "brought us 9/11" is a little strong, and false to fact. Both the diplomatic corps. and the military are ultimately constrained by the policies of the administration to which they report. If you want to make a case that Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton - as well as Bush 43 - brought us 9/11 through not making Islamic terrorism, both state-sponsored and freelance, a priority, I think you'd have a stronger case.

The fact that these folks are piling on now, I think, has to do with the fact that they are no longer constrained by having to support administration policy, and therefore are free to state their objections publicly.

I'd like to hear each of these gentlemen comment more on the policies of the previous administrations for which they worked. That would give us more to go on as far as the credibility and authenticity of their opinions now.

[Matthew Cromer]

Jeff,

It was of course the *policies* of the Arabist/Realist State Dept. and DOD types WRT to middle eastern terror that allowed the progression to 9/11.

All the administrations of the past 25 years share in the blame to a greater or lesser extent.

However I'm not impressed when the advocates of Realpolitic that got us into this mess somehow try to point the finger at a president whose foreign policy goes against the way those folks (some of whom are on the Saudi gravy train) did business for decades.

And I also have strong reason to doubt that the diplomatic corps really does follow the foreign policy of the president -- not just Bush 43, but any president who challenges their world-view.

[Josh]

P.J. O'Rourke on Dennis Miller last night said this gang was just a bunch of Carter retreads who were upset because Bush wasn't messing up as badly as they would be. Oops.

"Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East."

Huh, I wonder why they gave the background of those 2 signers, and not the other 25.

[clark]

"No, it's a bunch of Arabist / Realist retreads from both parties who brought us 9/11 because they refused to deal with terrorist sponsoring states for 25 years."
What baloney. Our immigration and visa policies; combined with our continued tilt towards Isreal while pretending to be an honest broker; combined with our continuous attempts to run the world, especially the Islamic world; along with our repeated displays of weakness in the Islamic world in 1979, 1983 and 1993, and probably other times as well; brought us 9/11.

[clark]

"P.J. O'Rourke on Dennis Miller last night said this gang was just a bunch of Carter retreads who were upset because Bush wasn't messing up as badly as they would be."

I much prefer the opinion of middle-aged, no-longer-funny, neocon over that of a general or admiral whose 25 or 30 years of service overlapped the Carter years . . .

[Larry]

It's tiresome to read clark's nonsense about what caused these sick, vicious racists to attack us; but even more tiresome to hear 27 has-been non-experts give their worthless opinions; yet even more tiresome to see Hit and Run's predictable link to such a boring non-event.

[joe]

Maybe, Josh, it's because those are the only two households names. They're a little more famous than, say, Reagan's Ambassador to the Soviet Union, who's also a signatory.

[clark]

Note, none of the reasons that I gave absolve al Qeda of mass-murder, but it is foolish to pretend that Islamic fundementalists suddenly became enraged over the Declaration of Independence one afternoon.
Also, I left out the Reagan administration's fomenting of Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan during the 80's

[NRO 4EVER]

I'm sick of this constant bashing of Reagan's Ambassador to the Soviet Union! I say good day to you sirs!

[Mark Borok]

You're all wrong; it was British policy towards territories of the defunct Ottoman Empire that brought us 9/11. No, wait, it was the policies of the Ottoman Empire itself.

Heck, if that first carbon-based life form hadn't emerged from the primordial mud all those eons ago none of this would have happened.

The question is whether this administration's policies are doing what needs to be done. Instead of questioning these ex-diplomats' motives, wouldn't it be better to respond to their arguments? Oh, I forgot, we don't do that any more.

[Andrew Lynch]

Dan, you make Hit & Run a very unpleasant, tainted place.

[joe]

...And a very good (hic!) day to you too, sir!

[Jeff Clothier]

I'm at least pleased that there haven't been widespread denunciations of these gentlemen as "unpatriotic" for expressing their dissent.

[Josh]

I'm at least pleased that there haven't been widespread denunciations of these gentlemen as "unpatriotic" for expressing their dissent.

Has this ever happened in any situation other than Howard Dean and Al Gore's fever dreams?

The list of signatories now posted, by the way, gives credence to PJ's crack.

[Jeff Clothier]

Josh,

"Has this ever happened in any situation other than Howard Dean and Al Gore's fever dreams?"

Yes, constantly, in letters to the editor and editorial pages of newspapers, for example. If the sentiment isn't explicitly stated, it is at least snidely implied. Liberal papers like the Des Moines Register here in Iowa constantly draw "unpatriotic" commentary whenever a column or op-ed piece gives less than lickspittle support for the war in Iraq and other Bush policies.

[Gary Gunnels]

When do we start piling on Congress for its actions over the past twenty-five years? 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Also, when do we start piling on ourselves? Ultimately, as the sovereigns of this country - as American citizens - we are to blame for any lapses in security or national defense.

[Sam Grove]

Curses to all.
Why does no one toss any blame at Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks or the support given to SA by all administrations in recent times, including the the high ass GBush.

[Skeptikos]

Since around 1984 (it's the first time I can remember hearing something like this from a military career guy) I have been hearing that we didn't NEED a star wars defense system (not that it wouldn't hurt), because the military folks I know expected a suitcase bomb, not a missle.

I still remember a one friend, a former Col in the Air force saying (I think around '88) that the FBI would be useless in the end, because unless John Lennon was going to attack us, they would never stop it, or frankly care at all. Well, until it was too late. Ho Hum.

Can Bush change that? Will he even try? I doubt it. Should we listen to these folks? I suggest listening to everyone, and seeing what makes the most sense.

Because in the end, lets be honest, we've known that something like this was going to happen since '72 (Munich), and NO ONE bothered to prepare. And I mean no one. I still supspect Georgie porgie and John "Joe Stalin" Ashcroft are still more afraid of defense lawyers than terrorists.

[apple]

Is cheney jewish ?

If so it explains a lot in my eyes.

[orange]

apple,

If you're serious, then I must quote joe: "Go fuck yourself, you racist pig." Well, anti-semitic pig, but you get the idea.

[anon]

Simon:

"Despite this attempt at separation the Arabs decided to attack the new state. Five armies attacked Israel including the Iraqi. They lsts. They tried it several other times. They lost."

Bull Shit again. The Arabs rejected the partition plan because it gave 55% of the land to 33% of the poplulation, many of whom were recent (illegal) immigrants. The Jews owned only 7% of the land at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan)

Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 (along side France and Britain). Israel preemptly attacked Egypt and Syria in 1967. Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1978 and the rest of Lebanon in 1982.

Arabs 'attacked' Israel as much as Iraq 'attacked' the US in this current war.

[anon]

Dan:
"The original state of Israel consisted of a tiny portion of "Palestine" -- the part owned by, and inhabited by, Jews."

If the partion plan of 1947 had given the Israelis the part that they owned and inhabited, I would suspect that there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that the partion plan gave 55% of the land to Israel, when the Jews owned only 7%.

"If the Arabs hadn't decided to try to pick up where Hitler left off, Israel would *still* only be a tiny little portion of "Palestine". But, oh well, they fucked up -- and lost the "country" they'd never actually had."

All the Arabs wanted is to get their fair share of the land. If you read Morris's account then you would learn of the ethnic cleansing that took place during and after the establishment of Israel.

I would suggest that you save your unsubstantiated ranting to the next AIPAC meeting. Here, bring some counter evidence or shut the hell up.

[anon]

and by the way, Israel rejected the partition plan as much as the Arab did.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan:

"
David Ben-Gurion declared in 1938, "after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine"

In 1948, Menachem Begin said, "The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever". "

[joe]

"I suppose it is time to face up to the fact that Arabs are incapable of living in integrated neighborhoods without violence."

Go fuck yourself, you racist pig. Arabs live in integrated neighborhoods all over American, and all over the world. Typical right wing fanatic, blaming structural problems on the racial/ethnic inferiority of the underdog.

[M. Simon]

Isreal is real.

However the proper spelling is Israel.

The problem with Israel is the one state solution the Arabs want. It will not be a Jewish state.

BTW if the Jewish State was a colonial artifact it was one expressely built in the 30s and 40s against British wishes.

Basically a bunch of Jews moved to the area and bought land. The UN partition was an attempt to end Arab attacks on the Jews which had been going on since the 20s. Despite this attempt at separation the Arabs decided to attack the new state. Five armies attacked Israel including the Iraqi. They lsts. They tried it several other times. They lost. Israel picked up the "territories" in one of the Arab losses. Israel tried to give the territories back. Many times. The Arab rule: no dice, we are still at war (as they are now in fact).

I suppose it is time to face up to the fact that Arabs are incapable of living in integrated neighborhoods without violence. Pali history is a case in point. Black September, Lebanon, Kuwait etc.

[M. Simon]

Ray,

Every time Clinton said we must take the terrorists seriously it was another "Wag the Dog" moment.

The Republicans had convinced a major portion of America that Clinton's dick was the most important thing in America. What I call the "Wag the Dick" method of politics. It worked. Al Queda and Osama were just some Clintonian ruse.

Personally I thought it was all great good fun. My hangover on 9/12 was a doozy.

If I was going to lay general blame it would be on the Republican Congress. A bunch of truly lame blowhards.

[anti-anti-semite]

Like most americans I accepted the pro-Israel party line until I read some history and found out about Irgun and the Stern Gang.

There's plenty of fault to be found on both sides but evidence shows plenty of terrorist acts by Israelis.

Of course the real reason many people support Israel is so we don't have to have any more jews coming here. It bothers me to live in the same country as these people.

[Kevin Carson]

The realists who got us into this mess?

When I think of "this mess," Iraq comes to mind for some reason. And if you're looking for someone to blame for that, the realpolitik proponents in State/CIA and among JCS retirees should be way down on the list compared to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith.

[Kevin Carson]

Although....

If you're talking about the "realists" in the CIA who thought it'd be cool to destabilize Afghanistan in the late '70s, and give Russia its own Vietnam; or the "realists" who encouraged Kuwait's slanted drilling and signalled Saddam that they didn't care about Kuwait one way or another, and then fought tooth and nail to prevent any diplomatic settlement short of war--

Then there might be something to it.