Former US diplomats scold colleagues who attacked Bush policies

[southernleftylady]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A group of former US diplomats scolded some colleagues for violating the US foreign service's traditional political neutrality by condemning President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s foreign policy.
In June, a group of 27 former diplomats and military officials, called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, condemned Bush's policies in Iraq (news - web sites) and the Middle East.

The group said then in a statement that Bush had failed to meet the "responsibilities of world leadership. It is time for a change."

In response, Thomas Boyatt, a former US ambassador to Colombia, said at a news conference on Monday: "Their unprecedented political statement elicited considerable comment in both the American and foreign press.

"The impression that is created, that there is consensus among experienced diplomats and military officers about this administration's policies, is simply wrong," Boyatt said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=4&u=/afp/20040817/pl_afp/us_vote_diplomats

[Toots]

1. I believe there is a consensus that Bush* is screwing up badly

So one rich ex-ambassador to Columbia of all places thinks these smart people should just be quiet and not speak of what they know extremely well, and then disregards his own advice by speaking out against them.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Consensus? CONSENSUS? Then where does Wes Clark's voice fit?

Boyatt presumes to speak for EVERYONE? Hardly.

[KC21304]

3. This is hilarious.

The group called Diplomats for a Nonpartisan Foreign Service is scolding the Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change because they condemned Bush's actions in Iraq but they didn't scold the Diplomats and Military Professionals for National Security who are supporting Bush. I guess it is only wrong to be partisan if you are against Bush.

Funny how that works. If you hated President Clinton you hated President Clinton. If you hate President Bush YOU HATE AMERICA.