Some of the other issues these supposedly "neutral" diplomats and generals addressed.
This puts the lie to their identity. They say "neutral." Bringing up these non-military and non-diplomatic issues shouts fairly loudly that they are liberals.
The article is terribly written. The last paragraph mentions that this group also is disillusioned by Bush's position on environmental conservation and AIDS, but it doesn't say what they would do differently or even what side they're on in those debates.
For example, are they against all the billions of dollars Bush is sending to Africa to fight AIDS, or do they believe it's not enough??? Exactly what part of Bush's AIDS policy do they disagree with? The article leaves us wondering, even as its tone attempts to damage Bush's re-election chances.
I think this group - for domestic ideology reasons - wanted to come out with an endorsement for John Kerry, but they couldn't think of anything positive to say about the pathetic Taxachusetts senator. So, they finally decided to just join the mainstream media in bashing Bush.