General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

I was damn lucky to go to war in a war we all believed in with all our
hearts.
This is a war nobody believes in any more. And the liar has been exposed for
what he is. He sends men to fight and die which is something he was never
willing to do.

Arthur Kramer

There are some veterans, educated, and knowledgeable folks who clearly
understand the necessity for this war and the goals that need to be
achieved to develop a sustainable peace in the Middle East and
security in the homeland.

Here's another case of your not being able to express yourself with precision,
Ed.

No one is denying that we need to fight a war on terror. Many much more
credible persons than yourself have said attacking Iraq was a mistake. And it
was. We are no safer for it.

You can't generalize your opinion and apply
it wholesale to the world.

What lies? Sarin found last week.

That's pitiful. One round.

Al-Qaeda involved in the beheading
of Nick Berg.

Alleged, as someone else said.

Turn-over to the Iraqi provisional goverment by the end
of this month....

As for the willingness to die for the nation, I've got to support a
guy who chose to spend four and a half years becoming an AF pilot and
qualifying operationally in a single-seat, single-engine jet.

One who was AWOL for eight months.

GWB didn't even go to OCS. He skipped it. And one who mysteriously didn't
take a flight physical and lost his flying status after the tax payers had
shelled out a lot of money to get him where he -could- fly.

You may
recall, Art, that tactical aircraft can kill you quite easily on any
given day. Lemme see, four years in jets or four months in
rowboats.....

That's pathetic. John Kerry was wounded three times. He volunteered to go to
war. GWB avoided going to war. Even Al Gore got as far as Saigon.

Walt

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should
have believed that bum and his neocon liars..


To date, nobody has shown any statement made by the Bush administration in
support of the war to be a lie.

Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should
have believed that bum and his neocon liars..


To date, nobody has shown any statement made by the Bush administration in
support of the war to be a lie.


They've told a number of lies.

They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD. That's
been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.

They lied about, or were wrong about:

How the Iraqis would react to our invasion. We didn't get the flowers and
adulation they suggested.

That the Iraqi oil industry could pay for rebuilding the country.

They decided to suspend the Geneva Convention in Iraq. But they didn't bother
to tell anyone.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

They've told a number of lies.


Prove it.



They lied about the rationale for the war.


They didn't.



There were never any WMD.


A great many Kurds would disagree with you on that. Unfortunately, they
can't. They were killed by Iraqi WMD.



That's been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.


Nonsense. It hasn't been shown at all and Bush certainly didn't "admit"
anything.



They lied about, or were wrong about:

How the Iraqis would react to our invasion. We didn't get the flowers and
adulation they suggested.

That the Iraqi oil industry could pay for rebuilding the country.

They decided to suspend the Geneva Convention in Iraq. But they didn't
bother
to tell anyone.


So which of these are lies and which are errors?

They've told a number of lies.

They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD. That's
been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.


So did they know that beforehand?

And if it was a lie, was it a lie too when Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and Albright
said there were WMD?


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

"WalterM140" wrote


They've told a number of lies.

They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD.

At what point between 1991 and today did that statement become true? What
day was it that?

Pete

On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:



Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed that
bum and his neocon liars..

Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.

We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
Judeo/Christian societies. It isn't Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or
Sudan or Yemen or Saudi that is the core threat, it's the
fundamentalist Islamic movement.

A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
be in order.


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

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/1/04 7:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:



Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed
that
bum and his neocon liars..

Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.

We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
Judeo/Christian societies. It isn't Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or
Sudan or Yemen or Saudi that is the core threat, it's the
fundamentalist Islamic movement.

A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
be in order.

I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" might be more in order. And as far as
the Sarin goes that is just clutching at straws.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 01 Jun 2004 14:33:11 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus

A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
be in order.

I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" might be more in order. And as far as
the Sarin goes that is just clutching at straws.

Art, we are talking about political facts not classical fiction here.

And, regarding the Sarin, you are proving exactly what I said. If it
doesn't fit your preconception, you'll simply ignore or deny it. No
elephants here, snap, snap, snap.....
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/1/04 7:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:



Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed
that
bum and his neocon liars..

Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.

We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
Judeo/Christian societies. It isn't Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or
Sudan or Yemen or Saudi that is the core threat, it's the
fundamentalist Islamic movement.

A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
be in order.

I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" might be more in order. And as
far as
the Sarin goes that is just clutching at straws.

Oh, boy, another, "It is not WMD unless it meets my (ever changing)
definition of the *amount* required!" advocate, eh? I guess you will also
disregard the reported find of another chemical round (yet to be finally
verified, AFAIK) a week earlier (a mustard round that time), not to mention
Kay's final testimony that the Iraqis were in violation of Res 687 in
numerous ways, to include continuing to work on development of ricin (a
biotoxin) right up until we hit them? Ed's dead-on-target--you are going to
disregard anything that does not fit into your preconceived framework of
"Bush is evil".

Brooks



Arthur Kramer