• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Topic: Bush Foreign Policy a Disaster

  1. #1

    Bush Foreign Policy a Disaster

    sponsored links

    Retired general: Bush foreign policy a 'national disaster'

    (CNN) -- A former Air Force chief of staff and one-time "Veteran for Bush" said Saturday that America's foreign relations for the first three years of President Bush's term have been "a national disaster" but that the president's Democratic rival was "up to the task" of rebuilding.

    Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the first Gulf War, delivered the Democratic radio address supporting implementation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations for national security.

    "As president, John Kerry will not waste a minute in bringing action on the reforms urged by the 9/11 commission," McPeak said of the Massachusetts senator nominated by the Democrats this week. "And he will not rest until America's defenses are strong."

    The president, on the other hand, "fought against the very formation of the commission and continues to the present moment to give it only grudging cooperation, no matter what he says," the general said. "Why should we believe he will do anything to institute the needed change?"

    For the rest: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...dio/index.html

  2. #2

    Re: Bush Foreign Policy a Disaster

    While not defending the Bush foreign policy, I have to ask:
    Who cares what some retired general's opinion is? If he were commenting on Bush's military strategy or something within his realm of expertise, then OK, it MIGHT be newsworthy...but as is, it's just one more partisan soundbyte.

  3. #3

    Re: Bush Foreign Policy a Disaster

    I totally agree with XanaX. A former Air Force chief of staff is supporting a recommendation that will drastically change federal powers, ridiculing the president not 3 weeks after the report was released, in an election season. It seems a bit contrived, but that's irrelevant. What's important is that people are using this heated and volitile political climate to advance agendas and there should be concerns that those agendas might not be for the greatest good of this country.

    From what I've heard of these recommendations, they will cause extreme changes in federal powers, and that isn't something to take lightly. Perhaps there are ways that we can accomplish the sharing of intelligence without creating an entire new level of bureaucracy and power. It sounds more like a band-aid to protect the status quo so no one loses their jobs rather than a courageous look at the real problems that probably lie at the core of the agencies. And now we may have our candidates politicizing this serious issue and subjecting it's fate to the latest poll numbers and focus groups.

    So sad.

    Edit: What really bothers me is that Kerry is probably getting 4 hours of sleep a night. His life is dedicated to the election. I doubt he's read much of the 900 plus pages of the 9/11 report. I think it's safe to say he's had MINIMAL personal oversight of this report. He has his staff and cronies to the "leg work". So between the release of the report and Kerry bringing this former chief of staff up to urge the complete implementation of the recommendations I have doubts that this process has included any lengthy deliberations about the potential effects of these recommendations.
    Michael Peter

    If music be the food of love...
    play on

    William Shakespeare


  4. #4
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Out of my Mind

    Re: Bush Foreign Policy a Disaster

    Military strategy and foreign policy are one in the same in this current war. Military might and isolation from our allies will not defeat the Osama crew. National security involves alliances, economics, intelligence, and even good will, among other things. The General is not out of his league here. Maybe those that do not serve in such capacity are out of THEIR league to suggest that he is out of his.

    Unfortunately, security IS a political issue in the election. That means it is to be debated, but not used as a tool to prop up an ideology.

    If it were just one General, one could make a convincing argument that it is partisan politics. But SO MANY have now come out and said the same things (most of whom are very Republican).

    Unwisely, the Republicans are now dropping these types as "Liberal Crusaders" when they speak out. If they keep this up, they may find that many of the best Republicans have been tossed, and forced to the other side. (In a time when we must
    realize that despite dissenting opinions, we are all on the same side.)

    Did any of this make sense? I'm really tired. I've been up all night writing crazy music.
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

Go Back to forum


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts