General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

The Bush administration is arrogant and incompetent. Bush is the -worst-
president we've -ever- had.

Worse than Reagan? Come now, let's not forget the godfather of the
mujahadin. Not so very long ago, most of these terrorists were proxies
for RR and his boy Bill Casey. When they video taped the throat
slittings of Russian draftees, they were freedom fighters.


I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a tough
decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while claiming
he would never negociate with terrorists.

Walt

On 30 May 2004 12:27:45 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a tough
decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while claiming
he would never negociate with terrorists.

Walt

Your opinion, is of course, your's. But, might you be willing to
consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment? Or, maybe
the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates
in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
interest as worthwhile? Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things? You might even
want to consider the economic theories of Laffer--the idea that a
reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.

And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable, you might consider
that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
support after they are in harm's way. While I freely agree that ends
should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
hostage situtation is the negotiator?


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

I wrote, knowing that it wouldn't go unchallenged:

I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a
tough
decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while
claiming
he would never negociate with terrorists.

Walt

Your opinion, is of course, your's. But, might you be willing to
consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?

It -sure- takes a lot of courage for a politician to call for tax cuts. C'mon,
Ed.

As I am sure you recall, Reagan called Carter to task during the 1980 campaign
on budget deficits. They he like quintupled them. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out. Always.

As an aside, do you recall Reagan saying that he understood what it was like to
be separated from loved ones during war? Shortly thereafter, someone pointed
out that Reagan lived in the same house for three years during WWII.


Or, maybe
the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates

Do you recall the 1979 oil embargo? Gee whiz, Ed. I'm not real impressed
here.

Reagan, I will give him credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden to us.
And we, I guess with some skill played them off against each other. But they
needed cash and the oil flowed in a way that Carter couldn't count on. With
the exception of some hostage taking, Islamic militancy largely feasted on
itself while Reagan was in office.

in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
interest as worthwhile? Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?

So........when you were flying missions over Viet Nam, that had nothing to do
with the containment of the USSR?

The containment of the USSR was a 40 year process pursued by every U.S.
president. Reagan just happened to be in office when the balloon went up, the
same way Nixon got to talk to the Apollo 11 astronauts. The groundwork was
already laid -- mostly by Democratic presidents.

You might even
want to consider the economic theories of Laffer--the idea that a
reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.

I think the consensus is that Laffer is a laugher. I don't claim to know much
about it. I do think that not paying your bills -- the course that Reagan
chose, does not denote any particular courage. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out.


And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable, you might consider
that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
support after they are in harm's way.

Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
scumbag Olliver North.

While I freely agree that ends
should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

So was beheading Nick Berg, I guess.


Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
hostage situtation is the negotiator?

Who, like Jesse Jackson?

Listen, Reagan said --I remember this distinctly -- "this government will
never negotiate with terrorists", when he knew full well that exact thing was
happening.

And -this- is REALLY important. A democracy can only function if the people
have information to make informed choices.

In the case of supporting the Contras, it was entirely within the purview of
the voters to be presented with the question:

"Should we fund the Contras or not?"

But the Reagan adminstration went behind the backs of the voters, sold off
government property they had no title to, and used the money on a cause that
the people had indicated (through their representatives in Congress) that they
didn't care for.

My God, Reagan was SUCH a bum. Okay, maybe it's a toss-up between Bush 43 and
Reagan for worst president ever.

You know, President Lincoln said that:

"By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have
wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with
equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very
short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no
Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure
the Government in the short space of four years."

As long as the people retain their virtue, charlatans like Bush 43 and Reagan
will be held up to the ridicule they so richly deserve.


Walt

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 30 May 2004 12:27:45 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:


I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a tough
decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while claiming
he would never negociate with terrorists.

Walt


Your opinion, is of course, your's.

Mine too.

But, might you be willing to
consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?

Economic conditions in the early 1960s were quite different. Low
inflation, low growth, small deficits, much excess capacity in the
economy. The early 1980s saw large deficits and high inflation.
Different problems require different solutions.

Or, maybe
the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates
in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
interest as worthwhile?

Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls in August of 1971 thereby
fostering shortages and inflationary expectations. He then bungled
relations with OPEC and IRAN causing a series of supply-side oil shocks.
It was Gerald Ford who gave us the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons
as the economy spiraled out of control. The notion that Carter created
stagflation is absurd. His policies provided the ultimate remedies.

Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Even as Reagan and the chicken hawks
prattled on about the red menace and squandered treasure on the B1B,
battleships, and Star Wars, the Russian economy declined to the point
that its GNP was less than Italy's. If Bill Casey's CIA had been
focused on gathering and analyzing intelligence rather than mining the
harbors, we could have saved a lot of money--however, since the
Reaganauts put the cost off on to future generations, why should you care?

You might even
want to consider the economic theories of Laffer

It was the high interest policy of Paul Volcker (a Carter appointment)
that brought down inflation. When the recovery finally happened, it was
demand driven, not supply-side. It's no coincidence that as Reagan
became more addled by Alzheimer's he became enamored with kookier ideas.
The Laffer Curve is about as realistic as the death rays that Reagan
imagined could zap incoming warheads.

--the idea that a
reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.


And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable,

A felony's a felony.

you might consider
that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
support after they are in harm's way. While I freely agree that ends
should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

It was a series of crimes.


Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
hostage situtation is the negotiator?

Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages after complaining about European
allies conducting conventional trade. George Shultz, hardly a liberal,
claims to have told Reagan to his face that he traded arms for hostages.
Why did Reagan deny it? Was he a fool or a knave?

Cheers

--mike


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

Ed allows:

I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues.

I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I, Ed?

I'm a veteran too. I was on Desert Storm.

But you don't have to be a veteran, or even an American, to see that we have
5,000 casualties because of the arrogant, maladroit actions of the Bush
administration.

Now I've cited General Zinni of course. He cites Former General and National
Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf,
former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric
Shinseki.

I also cited James Webb. I'd say altogether I've made a pretty good case. Bush
and his minions are incompetent.

We have guys dying in Iraq due --directly-- to their incompetence.

You're blowing that off.

Now you may have some emotional attachment to Bush, you probably voted for him.
But it's time to wake up. I was for the war. I've always thought Bush just a
puppet. He sounds like a retard to me. But I knew that Cheney and Powell were
savvy and experienced. But what we have is a -disaster-.

It's a catastrophe, just like former VP Gore said.

What's also plain as day is that the good name of the United States has been
dragged through the mud by the Bush administration.

As you probably know, the White Counsel wrote for Bush two years ago a paper in
which he said we could (secretly of course) dispense with the Geneva
Convention.

Bush is in charge, and oh yes, he is definitely responsible. He's practically
a criminal.

Don't forget to direct your poly sci class to this thread.

I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.

Oh, yes you do. You need to apologize for this fantasy rant that excuses the
Bush admnistration.

Robert E. Lee had a long career of service too. But he chucked it and went with
the traitors. Not to compare you to Lee. "Dick" Cheney has a long career of
service. He's practically a criminal too.

General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.

Your position is --so-- not based in fact, that I respectfully disagree.

As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands.

Whooo hoooo.

Too bad Iraq was the wrong target, huh?

It's as if in "The Untouchables" that Ness had set up his ambush to catch the
mob bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada --- somewhere near El Paso.

I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.

Iraq was the wrong target. Ask General Zinni. Ask James Webb.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible.

Which had nothing to do with Iraq. Atacking Iraq was the worst strategic
blunder in memory.

We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.

As General Zinni has indicated, containment worked. At least the Clinton
administration didn't generate 5,000 battle casualties -- and several thousand
civilian deaths --- unlike the disastrous and maladroit Bush administration.
They didn't trust Chalabi. They didn't manufacture from whole cloth an excuse
to go to war.

And don't forget:

LONDON - The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on
human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International said in
its annual report Wednesday.

Irene Khan, secretary general of the human rights group, condemned terrorist
assaults by groups such as al-Qaida, saying they posed a threat to security
around the world.

But she criticized the response of the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing,"
saying its powerful governments were ignoring international laws by sacrificing
human rights in the "blind pursuit" of security.

"The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of
vision and bereft of principle," Khan said in a statement. "Violating rights at
home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military
force where and when it chooses have damaged justice and freedom, and made the
world a more dangerous place."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p_on_re_eu/bri
tain_amnesty_report_1

Be sure and direct your class to this thread, Ed.

That's "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," in case you missed it.

Bush is the -worst- president we've ever had, and the blood of those service
people killed in Iraq is -red- on his hands.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:

Ed allows:


I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues.


I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I, Ed?

I'm a veteran too. I was on Desert Storm.

But you don't have to be a veteran, or even an American, to see that we have
5,000 casualties because of the arrogant, maladroit actions of the Bush
administration.

Now I've cited General Zinni of course. He cites Former General and National
Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf,
former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric
Shinseki.

True, but Dr. Ed is a very prominent "professor" at a very exclusive
junior college. Let's show some respect for the professoriat.


I also cited James Webb. I'd say altogether I've made a pretty good case. Bush
and his minions are incompetent.

They'd probably ace Dr. Ed's "Intro to Political Science."


Cheers

--mike


We have guys dying in Iraq due --directly-- to their incompetence.

You're blowing that off.

Now you may have some emotional attachment to Bush, you probably voted for him.
But it's time to wake up. I was for the war. I've always thought Bush just a
puppet. He sounds like a retard to me. But I knew that Cheney and Powell were
savvy and experienced. But what we have is a -disaster-.

It's a catastrophe, just like former VP Gore said.

What's also plain as day is that the good name of the United States has been
dragged through the mud by the Bush administration.

As you probably know, the White Counsel wrote for Bush two years ago a paper in
which he said we could (secretly of course) dispense with the Geneva
Convention.

Bush is in charge, and oh yes, he is definitely responsible. He's practically
a criminal.

Don't forget to direct your poly sci class to this thread.


I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.


Oh, yes you do. You need to apologize for this fantasy rant that excuses the
Bush admnistration.

Robert E. Lee had a long career of service too. But he chucked it and went with
the traitors. Not to compare you to Lee. "Dick" Cheney has a long career of
service. He's practically a criminal too.


General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.


Your position is --so-- not based in fact, that I respectfully disagree.


As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands.


Whooo hoooo.

Too bad Iraq was the wrong target, huh?

It's as if in "The Untouchables" that Ness had set up his ambush to catch the
mob bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada --- somewhere near El Paso.


I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.


Iraq was the wrong target. Ask General Zinni. Ask James Webb.


America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible.


Which had nothing to do with Iraq. Atacking Iraq was the worst strategic
blunder in memory.


We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.


As General Zinni has indicated, containment worked. At least the Clinton
administration didn't generate 5,000 battle casualties -- and several thousand
civilian deaths --- unlike the disastrous and maladroit Bush administration.
They didn't trust Chalabi. They didn't manufacture from whole cloth an excuse
to go to war.

And don't forget:

LONDON - The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on
human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International said in
its annual report Wednesday.

Irene Khan, secretary general of the human rights group, condemned terrorist
assaults by groups such as al-Qaida, saying they posed a threat to security
around the world.

But she criticized the response of the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing,"
saying its powerful governments were ignoring international laws by sacrificing
human rights in the "blind pursuit" of security.

"The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of
vision and bereft of principle," Khan said in a statement. "Violating rights at
home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military
force where and when it chooses have damaged justice and freedom, and made the
world a more dangerous place."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p_on_re_eu/bri
tain_amnesty_report_1

Be sure and direct your class to this thread, Ed.

That's "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," in case you missed it.

Bush is the -worst- president we've ever had, and the blood of those service
people killed in Iraq is -red- on his hands.

Walt

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?

You got torqued off, didn't you Ed?

The -reason- you got torqued off, I would suggest, is that you have no basis
whatsoever for your support of Bush administration policies.

Walt