General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 5/24/04 3:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch
defeat
from
the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is
the
first
place is now quite academic.



Not until those sorry *******s are out of office. I do take your point
though.

Walt


The day these guys are out of office will be a great day in American
history.
It will mark the end of the worst government America has ever had. They
can't
fool all of the people all of the time.

So far, your predictions vis a vis Iraq have been none too accurate:

"It will immediately take over all Iraqui property including the oil fields
and
refineries. These will be put under the control of companies like Exxon who
will run the entire Iraqui oil operation under the Alien Property
Custodian." (13 JAN 03)

"We've got their country and we have their oil. The rest doesn't matter."
(25 APR 03)

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq" folks not
that long ago (and for widely differing reasons, according to your various
posts on the subject, everything from assuring the US a springboard in the
region to WMD's and "the oil"). The single constant thread was you animosity
towards the French regarding their behavior during the period leading up to
the war...

"The French will pay a price for their betrayal. And it won't be a pretty
sight." (28 MAR 03)

"At this moment the French veto makes them an ally of Iraq." (7 FEB 03)

"...they [the French] questioned the motives of the Bush
administration. Why should the French fight? They know the Americans and the

Brits will fight for them. As always. They are pobably drawing up surrender
documents just in case even as we speak.." (6 FEB 03)

And, to provide another Artian view of the war that seems to be a bit
(guffaw!) at odds with this latest blathering:

[when told 21 JAN 03 that OBL was not in Iraq] "Can't hurt to look."

And..."GO FORTH AND CONQUER !!!!!!" (11 FEB 03)

Either you are seriously delusional, to the point of exhibiting
multiple-personality disorder "Its the WMD's! No, it's not, it's the oil!
Trounce those danged Iraqis! Go! Go! Go! I mean, STOP! What the hell are you
doing, why are you GOING (into Iraq...)?" etc. etc., ad nauseum...

But now you are intent upon hanging Bush for Iraq, having been one of the
bigger cheerleaders behind our going in there in the first place? Must be
nice to have such a fluid sense of values which allows you to be "right" no
matter how things develop....

Brooks


Arthur Kramer

Brooks sticks his toe in the water:

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq" folks not
that long ago (and for widely differing reasons

So was I. But the Bush administration lied about the basis for the war and then
screwed it up, as General Zinni said.

Walt

In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

Brooks sticks his toe in the water:

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq"
folks not that long ago (and for widely differing reasons

So was I.

Were you?

I can't seem to find any comments from you on the subject more than
about a month old, and those from the last month are all anti-invasion.

It seems that if you were "one of the bigger" folks, you would have said
something.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

Brooks sticks his toe in the water:

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq"
folks not that long ago (and for widely differing reasons

So was I.

Were you?

I can't seem to find any comments from you on the subject more than
about a month old, and those from the last month are all anti-invasion.

It seems that if you were "one of the bigger" folks, you would have said
something.

He's another kook (witness his continual tapdancing attempts during his
engagement by BUFDRVR). He fits nicely into my killfile, too, along with the
Tarvernaut...

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq"
folks not that long ago (and for widely differing reasons

So was I.

Were you?

I can't seem to find any comments from you on the subject more than
about a month old, and those from the last month are all anti-invasion.

It seems that if you were "one of the bigger" folks, you would have said
something.



I wasn't posting on this NG in that time frame. I don't think you'll find any
posts from me at all on this NG from back then.

Yes, I was for the war, because I thought Powell and Cheney would be running
it, not the incompetents who are in fact running it.

Walt

On 25 May 2004 01:08:00 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:


So was I. But the Bush administration lied about the basis for the war and then
screwed it up, as General Zinni said.

Walt

Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???

Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan? Or, how big that is?
How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
found one so far.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???

Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.

Start here http://www.militaryweek.com/kk120103.shtml note that this
is reprinted from The American Conservative (not some Lefty Liberal
Everything America Does is Wrong periodical).

Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan? Or, how big that is?
How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
found one so far.

Fair enough, do we invade Iran and Syria next, then North Korea? I ask
that partially as a rhetorical question because I have cohorts that
honestly think Iran and Syria ARE next on the list...and these guys
believe everything GWB (Rove)/Cheney/Rumsfeld say, and yet they think
Colin Powell is something of a pussy. WTFO? Blind obedience is scary.
Neocon arrogance is dangerous.

One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. I don't
dispute that SH used WMD against Iranians and Kurds over a decade ago.
I am curious why he didn't use them last year when we invaded, that
seems illogical NOT to use them in your last stand to keep control of
your country. Again you'll be hard pressed to present evidence that SH
was about to turn his WMD vast stockpiles (that even Clinton's folks
thought he had) or those remnants over to AQ.

I don't dispute that SH was a ruthless MF; I don't dispute Iraq will
eventually be better off with SH gone. I simply dispute the arguments
GWB chose to rationalize our invasion...I'm not alone. Are we going to
occupy all nations that are potential threats?

And just for the record, I voted against GWB in 2000 because he lacks
the gravitas IMO and the guy I wanted in the Oval Office, John McCain
wasn't in the running (Rove can take credit for the SC "push
polling.")...but I digress.

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

And just for the record, I voted against GWB in 2000 because he lacks
the gravitas IMO and the guy I wanted in the Oval Office, John McCain
wasn't in the running (Rove can take credit for the SC "push
polling.")...but I digress.

Juvat



And you thought Al Gore had said "gravitas'!!!!!!?

Jarg

On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:57:07 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???

Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.

That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
"Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
there and get my ass kicked...."?


Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan? Or, how big that is?
How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
found one so far.

Fair enough, do we invade Iran and Syria next, then North Korea? I ask
that partially as a rhetorical question because I have cohorts that
honestly think Iran and Syria ARE next on the list...and these guys
believe everything GWB (Rove)/Cheney/Rumsfeld say, and yet they think
Colin Powell is something of a pussy. WTFO? Blind obedience is scary.
Neocon arrogance is dangerous.

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal. The
implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the
administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con, the attribution
of "arrogance" and the insertion of a clutch of red herrings like
Iran, Syria and NK.

Why do your cohorts "honestly think" (I question the verb and would
substitute "believe" rather than "think",) that Iran and Syria are
next? Most observers see a solid shift in Iran away from theocracy and
a desire by the population at large to return to a moderately pro-West
secularism. Good progress. Syria is still hostile but not as hostile
as they were during Dad's regime. They know what they can and cannot
get away with. Their concern is much more with Lebanon and Israel.
And, NK is seeking "face" but also discussing rapprochement with the
South.

One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. I don't
dispute that SH used WMD against Iranians and Kurds over a decade ago.
I am curious why he didn't use them last year when we invaded, that
seems illogical NOT to use them in your last stand to keep control of
your country. Again you'll be hard pressed to present evidence that SH
was about to turn his WMD vast stockpiles (that even Clinton's folks
thought he had) or those remnants over to AQ.

"Vast stockpiles" of WMD don't require lots of space. As noted, 3
liters of Sarin in a package the size of a half-gallon of milk and a
loaf of bread. How far can you disperse 200 such packages in a country
the size of Iraq. Why didn't Saddam use them? Maybe he felt it wasn't
worth it? Maybe he didn't get the chance? Maybe he had a CCC/I
breakdown and subordinates refused? Who knows.

The point of the discussion is that with the introduction of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in small packages into the hands of
non-national, and arguably irrational actors, the paradigm of war has
changed. We can't continue to subsribe to the 18th century
international law concept of justification for war being an invasion
or violent attack. We can't pre-empt, willy-nilly around the world,
but the complexities and interdependence of 21st century international
relations effectively constrain any superpowers actions.

I don't dispute that SH was a ruthless MF; I don't dispute Iraq will
eventually be better off with SH gone. I simply dispute the arguments
GWB chose to rationalize our invasion...I'm not alone. Are we going to
occupy all nations that are potential threats?

We haven't been known through out the last century for maintaining
occupation of any nations beyond the need to stablilize the situation.

And just for the record, I voted against GWB in 2000 because he lacks
the gravitas IMO and the guy I wanted in the Oval Office, John McCain
wasn't in the running (Rove can take credit for the SC "push
polling.")...but I digress.

I confess to supporting McCain as well, although once he lost the
nomination I had no difficulty with supporting GWB as the alternative
was much too frightening to contemplate.

(Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas"
used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking
points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.)

As for gravitas, can we look at the administration of GWB and that of
his predecessor? Albright vs Powell? Cohen vs Rumsfeld? Carville and
26-year old "senior advisor" Stephanopolous? Gravitas in the closet of
the Oval Office with an intern? Reich? Elder? and lets not forget Ron
Brown.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.

Already reduced to name calling, Ed?

General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq, Al
Quaida or no.

Walt