52 former diplomats bash Blair in public letter.

[Tripledoc]

I don't think that they 'bash' Blair. I think 'slam' is a more appropriate word. It's a 'slam-dunk' case they have made.

For historical reasons (terror) the foreign policy elite in Britain have never been very pro-Israel. Meanwhile in the US there is a pro-Arab faction in the state dept., but they have been sidelined by the neo-cons, most of them just short of card-carrying Likud members, and they have effectively infiltrated the defense dept., which in turn have sidelined Powell and the state dept. Of course any criticism against the neo-cons is immediately branded as anti-semitism, which just proves their lack of intellectual integrety.

[Alexander's Horse]

"tolerably well"? you damn with feint praise Dan

The difference between most of those and Bush and Blair is they took advice. These guys decide and then try and make the advice fit the decision. That never works.

Truman was a pragmatist, as was Kennedy, Carter no argument, Reagan was like Chairman of the board, George Bush One was like the ultimate insider. He took advice. Guess what? He didn't invade Iraq.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The Fatherland is at war. But those bastards can't find anything better to do than writing public letters.

This letter has been written by former diplomats. So, what do you expect 65+ years old to do? join the Marines and become 'heros' for the fatherland?

[Gibsie]

These guys aren't commies, they're Arab-lovers (an therefore traitors). Well, I'm sure that's how The Sun puts it at least, if they mention it at all.

[Tripledoc]

Powell has now admitted said that the 'handover' is a hoax.

"Some of its (Iraq's) sovereignty will have to be given back, if I can put it that way, or limited by them, (with an) understanding by them that it is important to let the multinational force be able to operate under its own command."

link

He would not say that if he agreed with Bush, which of course he never did in the first place.

[Buck Birdseed]

How can you distrust anything written by a gnarly dude with a totally tubular name like Sir Hooky Walker, man?

[Pax]

The letter makes excellent points. How can anyone argue with it?

[Az]

There is one thing that disgusts me about this letter. All the rest of it is understandable, some of it true, some of it half-true, etc.

This thing is that they pretend to care about the fait of the people in this region in any way besides it concerning the part of the British establishment that backs them.

[Agathon]

Azazel - they are the establishment.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
There is one thing that disgusts me about this letter. All the rest of it is understandable, some of it true, some of it half-true, etc.

This thing is that they pretend to care about the fait of the people in this region in any way besides it concerning the part of the British establishment that backs them.

Ok. Lets say that there are certain elites which vie for the loyalty of 'the people' to follow them in every adventure.

Now, here are some British folk who have sympathy for the Arabs. and that is then used against them. Supposedly these figures do not care about the fate of the individual Arab - even though they condemn that the US army refuse to name Iraqi casualties.

Meanwhile, we have seen that another team of adventureres have deliberately used 9-11 to vilify all Arabs, and strangely they can all in some way or another be tied back to a feeling of loyalty towards Israel. They have in blueprint, and as part of the public record, called for invasion of not only Iraq, but Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. They call that 'regime change'. It is a megalomanical idea!

So I say, what is more disgusting? A call to invade all Arab states, or a call to reason and negotiation (say it really slowly and you might get it)? Because if the neo-cons are not thouroughly defeated in this matter they will have the capability to creep into the decision- process again, and bring more death and destruction.

And this does not in any way mean that one should give in to whatever Al-Qauida says, because what Al-Qaeda does is a matter for the police and the intelligence services, not the army.

Again the socalled 'security-policy' of Israel, which is in violation of I don't know how many UN resolutions is not something that should be guaranteed by anyone, but those who actually thinks that Israel has a right to colonise Palestinian land. That means the United States of America under Bush, and he feels that way. So why should the dear British feel any obligation to follow this insane policy? How exactly are they behaving in a disgusting manner? I see that they are behaving according to all moral, ethical, and judicial laws which have ever been devised to prevent Mankind from going back into this religious despotism which Sharon so seems to favor.

[Az]

Azazel - they are the establishment.

A diplomatic one, yes. But I mean more powerful parts of the establishment.

Now, here are some British folk who have sympathy for the Arabs. and that is then used against them. Supposedly these figures do not care about the fate of the individual Arab - even though they condemn that the US army refuse to name Iraqi casualties.

Bzzzt. no. 1. They don't necessarily have sympathy for the Arabs
While some of their ideological ancestors have, even, in fact, expressed admiration to the whole culture , I am not aware of it being the case today, since Brits venture to the ME on a much more rarely, these days. I am therefore left with the more reasonable suggestion that they use sympathy as a tactical tool, to strengthen the emotional support to their arguments. This applies to their condemnation to whatever act the US refuses to make in the humanitarian field.

Meanwhile, we have seen that another team of adventureres have deliberately used 9-11 to vilify all Arabs, and strangely they can all in some way or another be tied back to a feeling of loyalty towards Israel.

to vilify all Arabs? You'll have to back this up, real good.

So I say, what is more disgusting? A call to invade all Arab states, or a call to reason and negotiation (say it really slowly and you might get it)? Because if the neo-cons are not thouroughly defeated in this matter they will have the capability to creep into the decision- process again, and bring more death and destruction.

Of course, you're being judgemental in the beginning of this, calling one of them "reasonable", while portraying the other side's solution as purely militaristic, so it all turns into a pile of a demagogue's remarks. How would one answer to the next question?
"So, I say, what's better? Surrendering to the terrorists, or defeating them, and creating comprehensive solutions to the problem of muslim terrorism?" See what I mean?

this is quite ironical, actually, because the next thing you say is this:

And this does not in any way mean that one should give in to whatever Al-Qauida says, because what Al-Qaeda does is a matter for the police and the intelligence services, not the army.

Of course, this is nothing more than a BAM, really. If I'd say that the Al Qaeda problem is a matter for the circus, and the medical community, and just left it there, at that point, we'd be equally 'right'. In other words, if you have an argument, explain it.

Again the socalled 'security-policy' of Israel, which is in violation of I don't know how many UN resolutions is not something that should be guaranteed by anyone, but those who actually thinks that Israel has a right to colonise Palestinian land.

Oh no. I think that the real thought prevailing is that any such 'right', that is included in the Intl. is a virtual concept. International Law is very rarely enforced, and is enforced selectively. Which leaves it where it really is, another tool of a cold, RealPolitik diplomacy. And I am completely sure that the Gentlemen that wrote the article in the OP will agree! They've been doing the same thing for years, if not decades.

That means the United States of America under Bush, and he feels that way. So why should the dear British feel any obligation to follow this insane policy? How exactly are they behaving in a disgusting manner? I see that they are behaving according to all moral, ethical, and judicial laws

Sez you.
Hipocrisy ain't very moral.

which have ever been devised to prevent Mankind from going back into this religious despotism which Sharon so seems to favor.

maybe devised, but their validity and role in that way has died a cradle death.

anyway, calling Sharon a person who prefers "religious despotism" is, well, silly. Sharon ain't religious, for example.

[Agathon]

A diplomatic one, yes. But I mean more powerful parts of the establishment.

There isn't a different part of the establishment. Diplomats are solidly in the mainstream of the establishment. That's why this is so shocking.

[Tripledoc]

to vilify all Arabs? You'll have to back this up, real good.

Excerpt from Bob Woodwards new book "Plan of Attack".

When Adelman walked into the vice president's residence that Sunday night, he was so happy he broke into tears. He hugged Cheney for the first time in the 30 years he had known him. There had been reports in recent days of mass graves and abundant, graphic evidence of torture by Saddam Hussein's government, so there was a feeling that they had been part of a greater good, liberating 25 million people.

"We're all together. There should be no protocol; let's just talk," Cheney said when they sat down to dinner.

Wolfowitz embarked on a long review of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and what a mistake it had been to allow the Iraqis to fly helicopters after the armistice. Hussein had used them to put down uprisings.

Cheney said he had not realized then what a trauma that time had been for the Iraqis, particularly the Shiites, who felt the United States had abandoned them. He said that experience had made the Iraqis worry that war this time would not end Hussein's rule.

"Hold it! Hold it!" Adelman interjected. "Let's talk about this Gulf war. It's so wonderful to celebrate." He said he was just an outside adviser, someone who turned up the pressure in the public forum. "It's so easy for me to write an article saying, 'Do this.' It's much tougher for Paul to advocate it. Paul [Wolfowitz] and Scooter [Libby], you give advice inside and the president listens. Dick, your advice is the most important, the Cadillac. It's much more serious for you to advocate it. But in the end, all of what we said was still only advice. The president is the one who had to decide. I have been blown away by how determined he is." The war has been awesome, Adelman said. "So I just want to make a toast, without getting too cheesy. To the president of the United States."

They all raised their glasses. Hear! Hear!

Adelman said he had worried to death that there would be no war as time went on and support seemed to wane.

see here

In 2002 Ken Adelman published an article named "Cakewalk in Iraq" in which he concluded that, "Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism."

see here

Ken Adelman, also known as Kenneth L. Adelman, served as Assistant to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977. Adelman was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Ronald Reagan administration as well as serving as Reagan's director of arms control. Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News.

Adelman, who by own admission is Jewish, has also engaged in anti-Egyptian slander.

see here

And more than insinuated that Iraq was involved in terror. While playing down Israeli warcrimes in Jenin.

see here

A PNAC letter to Bush urging war against Iraq concludes.

"Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism."

see here

Is Mr. Adelman working for the interests of the American people, or is he working for the interests of a greater Israel? Too harsh on mr Adelman? Well he has not been shy in attacking Muslims.

Ken Adelman, a member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, has joined several other hawks in direct attacks on Islam. Calling Islam a peaceful religion "is an increasingly hard argument to make," announced Adelman. "The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus."

see here

Recall what he said according to Woodward? "It's so easy for me to write an article saying, 'Do this.'" Its so easy to start a war on false premises. Too easy. He should be tried as a war crimininal in my oppinion. After all he did say in his "Cakewalk" article the following:

And by announcing loudly that any Iraqi, of any rank, who handles Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, in any form, will be severely punished after the war.

And if Mr. Adelman perpetuated the lie about Saddams weapons of Mass destruction, is anything else he has said true at all.

of course it might be unfair to point to mr. Adelmans joy at the prospect of dead iraqis and Americans, since that was said at a private dinner party. But when the French Ambassador Daniel Bernhard called Israel "a ****ty little country" at a private dinner party it was used against him.

[Az]

There isn't a different part of the establishment. Diplomats are solidly in the mainstream of the establishment. That's why this is so shocking.

I am actually quite surprised that someone is suprised. I always thought this was the way, many Brit diplomats not liking the way things are done.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: 52 former diplomats bash Blair in public letter.

Originally posted by Agathon
When so many prominent former diplomats do something like this you have to wonder.

52 former diplomats can't be wrong!

Looks just like some of the titles of my spam mail