Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Carolinamom
I can go you one better. Chas Freeman, a career diplomat and former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was a member of the Expert Working Groups and Military Senior Advisor Panel for the ISG in Group Four: Strategic Environment.

Expert Working Groups and Military Senior Advisor Panel

On June 16, 2004 Freeman was a signatory to a statement, Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change Official Statement that called for the defeat of George Bush in the 2004 election. Some excerpts:

"From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. Instead of building upon America's great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this argument."

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

Freeman also signed a Letter to President Bush from U.S. Diplomats--April 30, 2004

How could Freeman [and there are others] be part of a "bi-partisan" review of our policy towards Iraq? I fault Baker for including such people on the working groups that produced the actual report. It is one thing to have a different perspective and another to have a partisan, political agenda.

422 posted on 12/10/2006 9:17:10 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]


To: kabar

Good Lord. So Baker chose those who would testify to what he [Baker] had already decided would be the "consensu".


425 posted on 12/10/2006 9:19:24 AM PST by Carolinamom ("I don't have time to be fingerpointing." ---President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies ]

To: kabar
How could Freeman [and there are others] be part of a "bi-partisan" review of our policy towards Iraq? I fault Baker for including such people on the working groups that produced the actual report. It is one thing to have a different perspective and another to have a partisan, political agenda.

I'm assuming Baker is working for a power/entity other than this country's and the PUTUS? Who is Baker working for and what is their agenda?

595 posted on 12/10/2006 8:37:09 PM PST by Chgogal (If not Iraq, why then Darfur?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson