General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

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