Informed criticism from experienced and influencial American public servants is gaining a podium, thanks to Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040616-112837-8706r.htm).

The Bush administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and it is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership either in style or in substance," the statement said. "It is time for a change.

Diplomatic members of DMC4C include former ambassadors Jeffrey Davidow, William DePree, Charles Freeman Jr., William Harrop, Arthur Hartman, H. Allen Holmes, Samuel Lewis, Princeton Lyman, Jack Matlock Jr., Donald McHenry, Richard Murphy, David Newsom, Phyllis Oakley, John Reinhardt, Ronald Spiers, Nicholas Veliotes and Alexander Watson. Many of these are Republicans.

Military members include Adm. William Crowe, Gen. Joseph Hoar and Adm. Stansfield Turner.

There's a Press Conference forthcoming, that I trust C-Span (www.cspan.org) will cover.

We can only hope that the anti-Bush movement that seems so strong now will not be derailed by some trick just before the election. Like pulling Osama out of a holding cell where they've been keeping him for a year, or cutting the price of gasoline in half, or giving the Saudis the blueprints to another American skyscraper and asking them to do it again so we'll rally behind the administration.

It's imperative that any of you who live in states that are considering computerized voting do all you can to forestall it. You know the Busheviks have an army of hackers ready to change the results in a few key states. It would be so much less sloppy than the way they had to do it in 2000 with bulky paper ballots.

If Bush wins again, this could be the last election ever. Hell, it could be the end of America.

There are so many disaffected Republicans who can't stand the thought of voting for Kerry. And there are a lot of Democrats who don't like him either. Wouldn't it be funny if they all voted for Nader and Nader won?

The Busheviks are going to have difficulty pulling their chestnuts out of the fire now. Foreign affairs are in a nosedive along with the future of Iraq, and Osama died over 2 years ago.

Things are going so well for the USA's adversaries abroad, that they may continue to benefit by deferring complicatied Attacks on America, and pour their efforts into The Prize: Further interruption of oil supplies from the Gulf and the entirety of Arabia will send the Busheviks - and the Western economies - reeling. When Americans feel "exploited" at the gas pumps, we'll see through the ineptitude of Bushevism and fire the bastards.

Or, your End of America contingency is our next most likely future. I'm not ready to despair yet.

I wouldn't give up on America too early. I don't think the "end of America" will be anytime soon. We don't get all our oil from the mideast. Hell, we get a good bulk of it right here in the states. Not enough to support our economy, but enough for an extreme emergancy.

Wouldn't it be great if one day America decided to switch to an alternate fuel source and just left the Middle East to itself? What a great day that would be...

Yes indeed. This will require the strenuous removal of vested interests that are impeding the USA from moving forward into the technologies and markets of tomorrow, and that have us circling the drain with the last dregs of the past.

It's high time lobby groups like the Apollo Alliance (http://www.apolloalliance.org/) got some real leverage in Washington, which requires the active participation of informed Americans. Americans who understand our options have got tospeak out, (http://moveon.org/front/) write our representatives, (http://congress.org/congressorg/home/) and vote (http://www.rockthevote.com/) often, or our democracy and prosperity are going to slip away.

The DMCC website (http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/) is up. There you can watch their inaugural webcast to the National Press Club, and learn more about the backgrounds and messages of the members.

No doubt the DMCC is funded by the same group that funds Sore Losers For Change, Hug a Tree, and Communists for Social Change.

So a couple of former career Diplomats and a few Military guys dont like Bush. Big Deal.

You think that a FEW ex-generals represents the Military's oppinion of Bush? If so you are SADLY mistaken. The Military HATES Kerry.

crazy:

"You think that a FEW ex-generals represents the Military's oppinion of Bush?"

Yes, as it is now coalescing, and in as much as you can say there is one "military opinion". "The military" is comprised of Americans, and even though while in uniform they do not enjoy the same freedoms of speech as their countrymen, they see the world in much the same way.

These particular Generals are articulating the many bitter realizations our troops are struggling with along with the rest of America: Our troops were not trained for the role of unwelcome occupiers. The occupation of Iraq is sapping the readiness and morale of the entire US Armed Services. The occupation is meanwhile empowering opposition to US interests. The American public was duped into supporting the invasion of Iraq without any substantive justification. The US is now caught in an unwinnable situation where getting out is going to be humiliating, and staying is going to be endlessly bloody, costly, and counterproductive. As a Veteran, I know that American Servicemen (& women) are prone to these thoughts, because we are not the robotic hired killers of a despot, but are instead thinking citizens and volunteers.

Among the career diplomat "Communists" (as you have called them) you probably would not be interested to note that there are Republicans who supported both Bush Administrations, until this one commenced shredding the credibility that these professionals had painstakingly dedicated their careers to. I knew some American State Dept families fairly well in Lebanon, and I can assure you that these Americans, like soldiers, take the honor of their country very seriously.

So in response to your flip and insulting comments about these fellow Americans, that you have obviously made without hearing them out, I would like to reciprocate in questioning your own patriotism.

I am very uncomfortable when American Patriotism is perverted into resembling the patriotism of a German SS man in 1935, or the loyalty of Saddam's henchmen. American Patriotism does not attack fellow citizens for questioning our leadership. True American patriotism holds dissent and diversity dear, and despises every last tentacle of tyranny, right down to the lowliest thug feeding the disease.

I want corrupt blind nationalism out of my country, because it is corrosive to everything truly unique and worthwhile we have ever collectively accomplished or dreamed of. It is eating away at the highest ideals of America.

A group of 27? What about every other diplomats? I have no doubt that number 27 is not the majority.

Certainly the vocal majority, but not a statistical one: This is not a Congress. This is not a vote. This is not even diplomatic- It's a State Department and Senior Veterans' Intifadeh, and dismissing and spinning, while desperately avoiding the information being conveyed, won't make it go away.

27 senior diplomats and officers coming out in solidarity against the Executive Branch is absolutely unprecedented. Can you refute the statements they are making, or will you just continue to snap and scurry off like a barky little poodle: "RUN! DMCC! Whatizzit? IDUNNO, but it doesn't smell like Our Master! WOOF!"

It's funny "guesswho" that you should mention Nazi Germany in your post.How you can equate the patriotism of a country trying to free a people as opposed to killing them is sick.
I have a cousin that is retired Airforce and working civilian EOD in Iraq.He understands the need to fight the good fight.He is home now but will be going back in two weeks.He could have stayed home if he wanted to.He also says the military hates democrats and anybody that thinks you can support the troops but not the war aren't supporting the troops.
I would like to know whos army you are retired from.With your defeatest attitude I would guess France.

PS
My cousin is taking back a "John Kerry for president of france" to wear on his helmet.

"You think that a FEW ex-generals represents the Military's oppinion of Bush?"

Yes, as it is now coalescing, and in as much as you can say there is one "military opinion". "The military" is comprised of Americans, and even though while in uniform they do not enjoy the same freedoms of speech as their countrymen, they see the world in much the same way.
So you're using the invective of a few disenchanted, retired officers to form a view of the entire military? Talk about a hasty generalization.

Let me clarify that I am not necessarily disagreeing with anything else you posted. However, I have been hearing a lot of this "the military hates Bush" pap lately and it fails to strike me as anything but hollow political rhetoric.

If you want to hear some great criticism of the administration from a retired military officer (who is also very respectable) I suggest you check out some General Zinni (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml).

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by "see the world in much the same way": As their countrymen. We are a very divided nation over Iraq, but many of those who went along with it out of trust for this government are having second thoughts. I too have friends in the military. In the case of officers commanding troops, I would not mention such a person, nor would they want me to, primarily because of the confidence troops must have in them. However, I am personally in contact with officers dissatisfied with this occupation as a deadly mission for American soldiers with no end, nor national benefit, in sight. Our troops were not recruited nor trained as occupiers, and should have never again been posted like staked goats in a killzone.

what the heck does france have to do with this?