General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered
by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".

Dulles was president? See, that's just -flat- dishonest on your part.

I am no fan of the Brothers Dulles, but it seemed fairly obvious that
the reference was to SecState John Foster and DCI Allen carrying out the
details of containment (i.e., the Kennan "X-article" of 1947, developed
in Acheson's State Department under Truman).

Although I don't agree with some of Ed's positions, I am finding
increasingly that you are leaping to any possible miswording to take
cheap shots.

I am no fan of the Brothers Dulles, but it seemed fairly obvious that
the reference was to SecState John Foster and DCI Allen carrying out the
details of containment (i.e., the Kennan "X-article" of 1947, developed
in Acheson's State Department under Truman).

Sure. But to suggest that they were part of the "Republicans" who brought down
the USSR to me seems dishonest. Can't I name dean Rusk, then? He was SecState
under Johnson.

In point of fact, in fairness, the Republicans held the White House for more
years from Kenan's call to arms in 1948 until 1990. On the other hand, the
Democrats held the Congress for most of those years. They had to provide the
Jing.

Although I don't agree with some of Ed's positions, I am finding
increasingly that you are leaping to any possible miswording to take
cheap shots.


Maybe. It's hard to resist.

But Jiminy Crickett. He said the Tonkin Gulf Resloution provided the
--funding-- for the war in Viet Nam. It's hard to pass by when he's serving
up these plums.

I mean, he is a college professor, after all.

Walt

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.

No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
provided funding throughout.

The TGR provided funding from 1965 -- 1975? That's flatly in contradiction of
the United States Constitution which prohibits any appropriations covering more
than two years.

Article One, Section 8, para 12 reads:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years"

So you are flatly wrong, and not for the first time. Precision -- it's
precision you want, lad. Great thing for an educator, don't you know.

You should read the Constitution, Ed. It's a fabulous document.

Sorta odd for a military man and patriot like yourself not to be more familiar
with the parts of that document that impinge so directly on the military. But
I digress.

So.

Are you saying that President Ford -didn't- try to get Congress to throw some
-more- money/assets at Viet Nam?

They refused right? It's the same thing that happened in Iran-Contra. The
principle is the same. Now, had Gerald Ford gotten first LT North to sell TOW
missiles to some third party and then sent that money to the S. Viets, then
you'd have the same -principle- in action as what Reagan did.

Reagan was a bum. Olliver North is a scumbag. He dragged the good name of
the Marine Corps through the mud just like these "re-cycled hillbillies" have
done to the Army at Abu Ghraib. Of course these natioanl guardsmen had the
blessing of the SecDef. If you recall, Ed, Weinburger and George Shultz
opposed trading arms for hostages, but it went ahead any way.
"Poppy" said he wasn't in the loop, but that was a lie.



Walt

On 30 May 2004 19:22:14 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

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.

No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
provided funding throughout.

The TGR provided funding from 1965 -- 1975? That's flatly in contradiction of
the United States Constitution which prohibits any appropriations covering more
than two years.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave the president the authority to conduct
military operations. It wasn't an appropriation act, it was an
authorization.

On aspect of the political process is that even though
Congress-critters may oppose a war, it is very difficult for them to
get re-elected if they are denying beans and bullets to the youth of
America placed in harm's way.

A causative factor in the choice of LBJ to not run in '68 was just
that. The loss of McGovern and then Mondale was a result of a similar
political conundrum--how to oppose a war and still support our troops.
Nixon solved the problem with the concept of Vietnamization, i.e.
turning the defense over to the Viets themselves. (It didn't work
well.)

Article One, Section 8, para 12 reads:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years"

So you are flatly wrong, and not for the first time. Precision -- it's
precision you want, lad. Great thing for an educator, don't you know.

I think that those who have been following this thread will make their
own judgements on sequence of events, chronology and rationale.

Are you saying that President Ford -didn't- try to get Congress to throw some
-more- money/assets at Viet Nam?

The limit of Ford's desire for funds to support Vietnam was strictly
foreign military sales. We suspended operations in Vietnam in '73,
well before Ford was President.

For an excellent review of what was between the lines of the Paris
Peace Accords, you might want to read Frank Snepp's "Decent Interval."

Reagan was a bum. Olliver North is a scumbag. He dragged the good name of
the Marine Corps through the mud just like these "re-cycled hillbillies" have
done to the Army at Abu Ghraib. Of course these natioanl guardsmen had the
blessing of the SecDef. If you recall, Ed, Weinburger and George Shultz
opposed trading arms for hostages, but it went ahead any way.
"Poppy" said he wasn't in the loop, but that was a lie.

North seems to be well respected by all of the Corps that I know. And,
he seems to fit in quite nicely in his "embedded" news role with the
current active duty troops.

The Brigade at Abu Ghraib is a disaster. No argument there, but
"blessing of the SecDef" remains to be proven.

By "Poppy" I assume you mean Bush 41, who was VP under Reagan. Shultz
and Weinburger were cabinet members, as such they can voice opposition
to a policy and the policy can still be enacted.





Walt

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

No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
provided funding throughout.

The TGR provided funding from 1965 -- 1975? That's flatly in contradiction
of
the United States Constitution which prohibits any appropriations covering
more
than two years.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave the president the authority to conduct
military operations. It wasn't an appropriation act, it was an
authorization.

Ah, but Ed. You used the word -funding-. That's why I said you lack precision
in your thinking.

You just don't seem to have a very good idea of what exactly is in the
Constitution.

Why did you swear an oath to defend it, then?

This is actually getting pretty boring. Can't you do better?

Walt

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to an electorate in which the
lowest 40% of wage earners pay NO taxes and the top 5% of wage earners
pay 40% of the total federal revenue and say that the economy will benefit
from cutting taxes and no, you folks who don't pay any taxes
won't be getting a cut.

Ed, please.

Those poor voters have exactly the same voting power individually as the rich
voters (except maybe in Florida when Jeb Bush is governor).

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

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:6Dxuc.22383$eY2.3247@attbi_s02...

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.


What policies were those?

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

Nixon made also a capital mistake and scrapped Bretton Woods.
That was a serious blow to the plans of Global Financial Power so Nixon had to
pay the price.

Denyav wrote:
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


Nixon made also a capital mistake and scrapped Bretton Woods.
That was a serious blow to the plans of Global Financial Power so Nixon had to
pay the price.

Interestng point. However, its significance is probably lost on the
yahoos. They probably think Bretton Woods is a real estate development
on Long Island.

Oddly, despite my disparaging comments about Nixon, his record on civil
rights and the environment was quite good. He appointed quite a few
minorities and women and had much to do with the EPA and OSHA. He
started out with a couple of Supreme Court nominations that were
clinkers (Haynesworth and Carswell!) but then gave us the core of the
Burger Court which turned out surprisingly well.

Some say he was the last liberal President. Too bad he had to be so
paranoid.

Cheers

--mike