POLITICS: 186 Former US Ambassadors Endorse John Kerry, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 6-10-2004 @ 02:02 PM by Bout Time

Much has been said during this campaign season about John Kerry being the salve needed to rebuild our global reputation. It has also been countered, however, that the USA needs no global stamp of approval in selecting the defacto Leader of the Free World.
A group of former ambassadors, those people charged with taking the pulse of the world on how their country is being received, are making a statement: the United States is best served with John Kerry as President.

smh.com.au
A group of 186 former ambassadors, including the son of President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican icon, have thrown their weight behind the Democrat John Kerry in the race for the White House.

John Eisenhower, 82, joined the group in strongly criticising the foreign policy of President George Bush's Administration. Mr Eisenhower said he ended 50 years of support for the Republicans after the US-led invasion of Iraq in March last year. He condemned "the arrogance and go-it-alone that we've seen" during Mr Bush's term in office.

However, Mr Eisenhower was a rare Republican in the latest group of diplomats and top officials to publicly oppose the Bush Administration. Most are Democrats who were career diplomats or political appointees to ambassadorial posts. But the group highlighted that all had served loyally under Democratic and Republican administrations.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Nobel Laureate Economists support Kerry for President, Ambassadors support Kerry for President and Generals and Admirals support John Kerry for President.
Global partnering, domestic prosperity and global/domestic security for Americans - this comprises what all elections are about, especially this one. Kerry now has the endorsement of those who are Subject Matter Experts in each of those areas. There are mostly Republicans in the military ranks, as are the Economists; the Ambassadors all served Democrat & Republican administrations alike.
So while Freepers scream the loudest in our web life, steady voices of reason are lending their expert opinion as to how America can right the course she is on.

Related News Links:
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.johnkerry.com

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Bout Time]

reply posted on 6-10-2004 @ 04:43 PM by LazarusTheLong

Well said fred...
This is a good look at the way the view of america has been tainted over the globe... This may not mean much to some...
but that is just one of the reasons I used to be so proud of my country...
we were a RESPECTED example to follow,
now we are a power to be FEARED
which is better?...

I THINK I WOULD RATHER BE RESPECTED THAN FEARED...
just my 2 cents...

reply posted on 7-10-2004 @ 12:34 AM by veritas93

I didn't bother visiting John Kerry's site. I wouldn't trust the info there any more than I'd trust the info found on ol' Bush's site. I also didn't take the time to register for an Austalian online newspaper. I did however read the msnbc article as well as many others easily found on yahoo. Once again it quotes Kerry as saying that he wanted to create...
"jobs that don't just let you survive but let you get ahead. Jobs that let you pay your bills, send your kids to college, buy a house, save a little for retirement and go out to dinner or a movie every once in a while."

And how are you going to do this Mr. Kerry? This is the same garbage that every politician throws out around election time. Otherwise, the majority of the article carries on with the tired subject of Kerry's service in Vietnam. From everything I've read, the majority of Kerry supporters still seem to be less pro-Kerry and more anti-Bush. A truly weak reason to support a candidate.
I'm not a Bush supporter to say the least, but Kerry has shown me nothing to believe in. When I hear him lay out a real guideline on his plan to actually achieve such a thing, AND the plan is actually attainable, then I MIGHT consider not throwing my vote away on a third part candidate.

reply posted on 7-10-2004 @ 07:31 AM by Bout Time

You don't go to the Kerry website, where a full slew of PDF files are downloadable detailing exactly the information you're looking for, yet you complain that you haven't heard the details?
Guess what: you won't hear them in selective corporate news snippets. You won't hear too much detail in 2 minute answers or 90 second retorts. Go to the campaign 2004 forum, it's already been broken down for easy digestion.

I ask again: Economists, Generals and Ambassadors, subject matter experts all.....they read the information you won't and have made their choice.
A thought to consider before the 3rd party selection.

reply posted on 7-10-2004 @ 08:02 AM by FredT

BT,

I have to agree with veritas, Im not going to bother to register with an AUS news service. That being said. Really now who cares. I did not even know that Eisenhower had a son. ZZZZZZZZZ. Bush has a list of people that are endorsing or supporting him too. Former ambassadors? Who cares really. Most are simply political stooges that know not to fart at an official function. Thats about it. Maybe 200 years ago an Ambassador had to do something because communication took days to weeks, but now they are really glorified figureheads. How many of the Ambasadors were Clinton or Carter appointes. Quite a few I'd wager.

reply posted on 8-10-2004 @ 03:43 PM by Bout Time

.....to your reason shakara

Ambassadors: Some of the biggest critics, Republican & Democrats alike, of the rush to war.
THEY are figureheads, it's true, but that can be said of most government jobs. Yet, they are the ones who represent our country abroad, and collect opinion of us as well. They are uniquely qualified in that no other job has those function or are designated as the conduit of them.

Generals/Admirals - self explanatory

Nobel prize Winning Economists - ditto

Aussie paper - We suffer under media blackout in the US, that goes from passive to active. I would think that ANYONE running for PRESIDENT would get SOME mention of picking up an ENDORSEMENT in the American media!?!? Don't you?
If you read Aussie, English, French, Israeli & Russian newsportals like I do, you'll find MUCH THAT IS NOT COVERED in our local media.

reply posted on 8-10-2004 @ 04:07 PM by Seekerof

BT,
Question buddy:
Which matters more: the voice of those 175+ ambassadors or the troops who back Bush over Kerry 4-to-1?

Your posting of such means exactly what, BT?
Let me see....a bunch of pin-stripped suited government retiree's (garnering well over 50% in retirement) versus troops ducking bullets? Which would have more "voice"?

Answer this will ya?
How many of those 175+ ambassadors saw the same intelligence as the Democrats and Republicans, and how many of them claimed and agreed that Saddam had WMD, and then from those, how many voiced their agreement on going to war to remove Saddam? Got those numbers? Perhaps they will pass the "global test"?