500 scholars critical of Bush handeling

[guestforever]

This came out on the 13th and has not seen the light of day. I see that 6 of 7 previous american political science association presidents endorsed this general condemnation of Bush admin handeling of Iraq and al queda. Does this look grassroots at all to any of you? Have you seen it anywhere? Why hasn’t the main press picked it up? These are experts aren’t they?

Full text here: http://www.sensibleforeignpolicy.net/index.html

Here’s a small snippet of information on the article:

"Newark, Delaware - Over 725 foreign affairs specialists in the United States and allied countries have signed an open letter opposing the Bush administration’s foreign policy and calling urgently for a change of course.

The letter was released by “Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy,” a nonpartisan group of experts in the field of national security and international politics.

The letter asserts that current U.S. foreign policy harms the struggle against Islamist terrorists, pointing to a series of “blunders” by the Bush team in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. “We’re advising the administration, which is already in a deep hole, to stop digging,” said Professor Richard Samuels of M.I.T.

The scholars who signed the letter are from over 150 colleges and universities in 40 states, from California to Florida, Texas to Maine. They include many of the nation’s most prominent experts on world politics, including former staff members at the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council, as well as six of the last seven Presidents of the American Political Science Association, and twelve former Presidents of the International Studies Association. “I think it is telling that so many specialists on international relations, who rarely agree on anything, are unified in their position on the high costs that the U.S. is incurring from this war,” said Professor Robert Keohane of Duke University."

[rjung]

@guestforever

Why hasn’t the main press picked it up?

Remember this the next time a conservative whines about the so-called “liberal” media.

[Chicago_Faucet]

It probably hasn’t been picked up by the mainstream media because it was published online by some URL ending in .net, by a group of no name Professors. Also, it is no surprise that the current Administration isn’t getting any support from Professors from a University.

Many of the justifications offered by the Bush Administration for the war in Iraq have been proven untrue by credible studies, including by U.S. government agencies. There is no evidence that Iraq assisted al-Qaida, and its prewar involvement in international terrorism was negligible. [3] Iraq’s arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was negligible, and its nuclear weapons program virtually nonexistent.

Sure, I wish I had the benefit of hindsight, as well. I would have bought Cisco at 1.90.

Keep in mind that everyone, from the UN, to Israel, to John Kerry, complied with the Intelligence that we based the Iraq War on. And in case you still think that the main case was an “Imminent Threat” from Iraq, I must direct you here for correction. Scroll down to the Spinsanity link for a complete description.

The letter is surprisingly devoid of solutions.

[blowero]

@Chicago Faucet

Sure, I wish I had the benefit of hindsight, as well. I would have bought Cisco at 1.90.

Hindsight???!!! Bush’s own anti-terrorism advisor told him he was barking up the wrong tree. Bush just ignored him. No, Bush went far, far out of his way to go against world opinion and even the advice of people in his own administration. It was NOT an honest mistake; it was a case of deliberately going to war on trumped-up evidence.

The letter is surprisingly devoid of solutions.

I’ve got a great solution - Don’t vote for Bush.

[DanBlather]

If they don’t like Bush’s Handeling, mayby they can get the the Governator to say “I’ll be Bach”.

[AZCowboy]

@Chicago Faucet

Keep in mind that everyone, from the UN, to Israel, to John Kerry, complied with the Intelligence that we based the Iraq War on.

…based on information provided by this administration. Their mistake was trusting the competence of President Bush’s assessment of all the intelligence available to him. I’m guilty as well.

@Chicago Faucet

And in case you still think that the main case was an “Imminent Threat” from Iraq, I must direct you here for correction. Scroll down to the Spinsanity link for a complete description.

The letter linked in the OP, nor the OP, express any contention related to Iraq’s “imminent threat”. What relevence does your statement have to the issues discussed in this thread?

In any case, to remind you of what Bush did say on this topic:

George Bush said:
So therefore I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of other people in my government. And since I believe the threat is real and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people, that’s precisely what we will do.
March 7th WH Press Conference

George Bush said:
Secondly, the American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
March 7th WH Press Conference

George Bush said:
If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, it’s a true, real threat to America. And therefore, we will deal with it.
March 7th WH Press Conference

George Bush said:
Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.
Remarks to the UN General Assembly, 9/12/02

George Bush said:
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone – because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02

George Bush said:
The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02

George Bush said:
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02

George Bush said:
Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02

George Bush said:
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
Remarks by the POTUS on Iraq, 10/7/02

Ari Fliescher said:
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.
Cite

Dick Cheney said:
If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force."
Cite

But, hey, you are right. He never said “imminent”.

[John_Mace]

Meh. Anyone can find 500 “scholars” to support just about any position you’d want.

We had a thread a few weeks ago about some 100 or 100s of “scholars” who supported Bush. BFD.

[zut]

@DanBlather

If they don’t like Bush’s Handeling, mayby they can get the the Governator to say “I’ll be Bach”.

Thus spiralling the nation into A major fugue from which it might never recover.

[guestforever]

@Chicago Faucet

It probably hasn’t been picked up by the mainstream media because it was published online by some URL ending in .net,

OK, maybe we should pay attention to sites that ended in .org, like www.globalwarming.org, or www.globalclimate.org, two business fronts.

by a group of no name Professors. Also, it is no surprise that the current Administration isn’t getting any support from Professors from a University.

“noname professors”. That is blatantly false. Read the portion in bold and stop ignoring facts.

Your responses lead me to believe that you didn’t READ anything but the title. Please stop ignoring evidence like the right wing media has tought you to do.

Keep in mind that everyone, from the UN, to Israel, to John Kerry, complied with the Intelligence that we based the Iraq War on. And in case you still think that the main case was an “Imminent Threat” from Iraq, I must direct you here for correction. Scroll down to the Spinsanity link for a complete description."

OK, again, obvious you didn’t read the link. The petition actually looks most generally at how the war has been handled. On many accounts it is not up to snuff–even with the senate foreign relations committee.

And to address the irrelevant hindsight snipe, did you know that most people in America had made the connection between al queda and Iraq when their was NO evidence? Yet there were was information eminating from the Rep Media Machine. But that is the way the nation of Dittoheads is going. Ignore EVERYTHING on the ‘left’ and ‘center’ and propound crap from the right.

The letter is surprisingly devoid of solutions.

‘suprisingly’ devoid’. By innuendo you are trying to defend Bush’s policies by stating that criticism without solution is irrelevant? What kind of leap is that? Exactly what is that supposed to prove? Do you believe that is evidence for anything? Really, I do believe the solution is to NOT vote for Bush. That is the way that democracy is supposed to work.

BTW, did you ignore the UNPRECEDENTED move by 27 former foreign diplomats from BOTH parties previous (read bipartisan) administrations citing the insular Bush admin’s isolation of the U.S. in the world. That one seemed to have caught the mainstream press.

OK. One question for you and your main assertion. How do you respond to the fact that 6 of the last 7 American Political Science Association presidents signed. Random? Spurious? Irrelevant? Nobodys? Me thinks you like the facts, or even shape them, to fit your perceptions. An open minded individual, not a pundit, would ENTERTAIN the concept. You’ve rejected it out of hand. THAT is what’s wrong with politics today. I think it is within the realm of statistical probability that this is partisan, but not likely. You look at evidence of this sort and claim it is partisan. This is potential evidence. How do you respond?

One last thing. If Gore would have been elected, my humble guess is that we wouldn’t have to worry about hindsite. I.e., we never would have gotten into this incredible mess. And that is what it is. A bungled, mismanaged, anti-diplomatic disaster. There is the strong possibility that he would have stayed the course and focused on al queda, not oil.

[guestforever]

@John Mace

Meh. Anyone can find 500 “scholars” to support just about any position you’d want.

Actually to have 500 scholars in political science to have consensus on an article as strongly worded as that one does not sound like a simple achievement (it may be easier than I think, but at first blush, no). But I agree that it needs to be investigated, which is why I posted the information. This is why it should be entertained in larger media circles as well.

The 500 scholars is only one piece of evidence supporting the idea that they are not wholly bipartisan. MORE importantly, what about the previous american political science association presidents. Do you think you can find 6 of 7 of the past anything in any discipline to agree on such a strong statement as that?

Do you think it is a “BFD” to entertain the possibility that possibly there is something going on here.

Please look back to the original thread. I asked if it was a grassroots movement, if it were possibly partisan. I suppose I should have asked to present evidence to the contrary without knee-jerk reactions. It is entirely possible that you are right. The post was intended to allow thoughtful individuals to consider any evidence for or against what has the appearance of being an unprecedented move.

John, lastly, you must be aware that the Rep party has created its own media in think tanks, TV, radio (and it is not just the domination here, but the incredible integration, as if not an appendage at all. The Brookings Institute, for example, is very independent of the Dep party, yet liberal). With that reality, it is entirely possible that scientists and scholars of the social sciences are beginning to stir. Given this ugly state of affairs, it would be sad that this were the case, that the media were so beholden conservative power and values that it no longer could listen to views from acadamia.

We had a thread a few weeks ago about some 100 or 100s of “scholars” who supported Bush. BFD.

And if that is all that they offered it would be virtually worthless. However, that is an analogy which totally misrepresents the present article by omission.

I believe the 6 of 7 presidents adds enough force to take the article seriously. How do you respond? How can this be made to look so bad as to dismiss it as a BFD? Why is this not worthy of investigation to you? Because it is unflattering to your candidate?

Even more importantly, don’t you believe we should put truth above politics? Wouldn’t that unify people in a common discourse rather than divided them?

[guestforever]

I emailed ‘scholars for sensible foreign policy’ a week ago and they finally got back to me. Here’s what happened by getting it into the mainstream domestic press. IT GOT TALKED ABOUT. IT GOT INVESTIGATED and it GOT SOME POSITIVE SUPPORT FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION! (the well integrated Rep think tank, that is AS much PR as research for the Rep cause–they are THE think tank for Reps). Now multiply that response by many other investigations and responses if our media were fair to liberal viewpoints, and we MAY have a very important piece of evidence that would go into Kerry’s camp. I don’t say we would, just may. And, knowing our media, if it were to get out, it would shape opinion. Again, why, even though someone at the Heritage foundation says the scholars credentials AND DIVERSITY cannot be ignored, is that exactly what is happening?

Here’s an important piece of evidence from the email I received toward sustaining the integrity of the scholars who signed the complaint:

“One of the few domestic papers that picked up the story
interviewed an analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Although the
analyst disagreed with our letter, the analyst did say, and was quoted
as saying, that the diversity and intellectual gravitas of the signers
could not be ignored”

[John_Mace]

@guestforever

Actually to have 500 scholars in political science to have consensus on an article as strongly worded as that one does not sound like a simple achievement (it may be easier than I think, but at first blush, no). But I agree that it needs to be investigated, which is why I posted the information. This is why it should be entertained in larger media circles as well.

Perhaps. Is that the debate: that this article should get more media attention? I assumed we were debated the value of the article, but maybe I was mistaken.

The 500 scholars is only one piece of evidence supporting the idea that they are not wholly bipartisan. MORE importantly, what about the previous american political science association presidents. Do you think you can find 6 of 7 of the past anything in any discipline to agree on such a strong statement as that?

Do you think it is a “BFD” to entertain the possibility that possibly there is something going on here.

I think that in the context of a debate “500 scholars…” is simply a use of the logical fallacy called appeal to authority. I think it might make sense to debate the actual contents of the article, but whether it’s 5 scholars or 5,000 scholars is irrelevant.

Please look back to the original thread. I asked if it was a grassroots movement, if it were possibly partisan. I suppose I should have asked to present evidence to the contrary without knee-jerk reactions. It is entirely possible that you are right. The post was intended to allow thoughtful individuals to consider any evidence for or against what has the appearance of being an unprecedented move.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was partisan in the sense of pandering to or run by a political party. Most of academia is liberal when it comes to their political leaning, so why would ***anyone ***expect any academic consesus to validate Bush’s (conservative) policies?

John, lastly, you must be aware that the Rep party has created its own media in think tanks, TV, radio (and it is not just the domination here, but the incredible integration, as if not an appendage at all. The Brookings Institute, for example, is very independent of the Dep party, yet liberal). With that reality, it is entirely possible that scientists and scholars of the social sciences are beginning to stir. Given this ugly state of affairs, it would be sad that this were the case, that the media were so beholden conservative power and values that it no longer could listen to views from acadamia.

I think it’s incumbent on you to demostrate that the Republican party has the control you allege over 'the media". You seem to take it as a given. And if the Pubs have started a bunch of think tanks, well good for them. Why shouldn’t a political party be intersted in disseminating the basis of it’s political philsophy?

I believe the 6 of 7 presidents adds enough force to take the article seriously. How do you respond? How can this be made to look so bad as to dismiss it as a BFD? Why is this not worthy of investigation to you? Because it is unflattering to your candidate?

Why are you assuming that Bush is my candidate?

Even more importantly, don’t you believe we should put truth above politics? Wouldn’t that unify people in a common discourse rather than divided them?

Political truth depends on the assumptions you make about your political system. Those assumptions cannot be considered “truth” in the same sense that scientific findings are considered true. The Dems and the Pubs (and other political parties) start with different assumptions. You can only choose whether or not you agree with those assumptions and whether or not the party puts forth politcies consistent with those assumptions.