Posted on 08/17/2004 11:32:52 AM PDT by The_Victor
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.
Boyatt is a member of Diplomats for a Nonpartisan Foreign Service, which has many Republican members, including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and Lawrence Eagleburger, and former defense secretary Frank Carlucci.
"A core principle and deeply held tradition of our foreign and military services is now at risk," Boyatt said. "A president must be able to count on the career services to remain above the political fray, provide disinterested advice, and faithfully execute decisions taken."
Bush, a Republican, will face Democratic Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts in the November 2 election.
Another group of foreign service officials, calling itself Diplomatic and Military Professionals for National Security, took part in the news conference denouncing the group of 27 Bush critics.
"We differ fundamentally with their conclusions," said Dennis Hays, whose group openly supports Bush.
The group believes that Bush "has demonstrated that he is a capable, effective, and determined leader," said Hays, a former ambassador to Surinam. "In fact, in our professional judgment the president is pursuing exactly the right approach."
Just another thread unraveling from society, not even a pretense of honor means anything to these "diplomats".
I can't decide if I'm more glad these guys are finally responding to this or more ticked that they've waited 60 days to do so.
Prairie
The good Republicans are far too often too standup to fight dirty with the bad Democrats.
Democrats have NO principles on any topic at all.
This article requires several readings to figure out what it says. Actually, there are TWO groups of diplomats attacking the 27 Bush critics -- one group calls itself non-partisan, an done group contains many Republicans.
However, a quick & sloppy read would have you believe that the two groups are attacking each other. Not so, they are both attacking a third group of quislings!
I agree, what took them so long to respond.Our Foreign service needs some housecleaning.Bush needs to go to his statement--you are with us or against us--get rid of the ones against us.
Why are those first 27 even still diplomats for the U.S.?
You're right .. and then they scream and hollar that everything Bush does is political .. when the diplomats are themselves involved in politics. Amazing!
* Diplomats for a Nonpartisan Foreign Service (DNFS) : Nonpartisan, but includes Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, and former defense secretary Frank Carlucci.
* Diplomatic and Military Professionals for National Security (DMPNS) : Unabashedly pro-Bush group includes Dennis Hays, former Ambassador to Surinam
The last two groups joined in their denounciation the first group, DMCC- which I might add has counterparts in the UK attacking Tony Blair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.