General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/1/04 4:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the
French for not supporting us" types a year ago?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


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


A lot of people, including me, supported the war but we were played for
fools.

I was watching "Meet the Press" @ six weeks ago and Tim Russert asked Bremer
to
whom were we turning over control on 30 June.

Bremer's answer:

"That's a good question, Tim."

Five thousand casualties, and that's the answer?

I don't need a general to tell me that the Busihes screwed up.

Art, you were damned lucky to go to war under a great president like FDR.

Walt


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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

This is a war nobody believes in any more.


This war is universally supported by informed, intelligent people.



And the liar has been exposed for what he is.


You're referring to Bush, of course. Nobody has identified any Bush
statement about the war to be a lie.



He sends men to fight and die which is something he was never
willing to do.


Bush served in the military voluntarily.

This is a war nobody believes in any more.


This war is universally supported by informed, intelligent people.



Consider this -- Anthony Cordesman writing in today's NY Times::

"It is all very well to talk about a global war on terrorism. To win it,
however, you have to fight it — on every front. We know that by the time of
the 9/11 attacks, some 70,000 to 100,000 young men had been through some form
of Islamist training camp, and that Al Qaeda had affiliates or some kind of tie
to movements in more than 60 countries. In the years that have followed, the
United States defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but failed to
capture many of the leaders or secure the country, and has not completed the
nation-building that could bring true victory. The dispersal of terrorists has
destabilized western Pakistan, and the resulting political struggle has
strengthened Islamists in the rest of the country and created a new regional
threat.

Yet instead of wrapping up that fight, Washington invaded Iraq. While getting
rid of Saddam Hussein was wonderful for the Iraqi people, there is still no
evidence that Iraq was ever a center of terrorism or had strong ties to
Islamist extremists. As in Afghanistan, we failed to secure the country after
our military success and have been far to slow to create a meaningful plan for
nation-building. There is daily, violent evidence that the American invasion
has bred a mix of Iraqi Islamists and foreign volunteers that is a growing
threat.

The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London has estimates that
Al Qaeda and its affiliates now have a strength of 18,000 men, many joining the
movement as a result of the Afghan and Iraq conflicts. Some American
intelligence experts on Iraq feel that the number of insurgents may still be
growing faster than Coalition Provision Authority's military operations can
reduce them."

We are -less- safe now, because of Bush.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

We are -less- safe now, because of Bush.


This issue is beyond your ability to understand.

On 01 Jun 2004 14:29:39 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


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

What lies? Sarin found last week. Al-Qaeda involved in the beheading
of Nick Berg. 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. 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.....



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

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. 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.....


Well, his Navy service was more than just those four months he spent on
river boats. But it was four months of a twelve month tour. Why didn't he
complete that tour? The Kerry campaign likes to point out that Kerry
volunteered for Vietnam duty, and that he was awarded three Purple Hearts
while performing that duty. He used those medals, which were awarded under
rather dubious circumstances, to cut short his tour. Why volunteer for
something you don't intend to complete?

Kerry states he was proud to serve in Vietnam every chance he gets. In his
1971 testimony before Congress he stated he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
He gave a short list of atrocities he and others committed. Just what is he
proud of?

If the media had examined Kerry's Vietnam era military service the same way
they examined Bush's, the Democrats would have dropped Vietnam as a campaign
issue months ago.

If the media had examined Kerry's Vietnam era military service the same way
they examined Bush's, the Democrats would have dropped Vietnam as a campaign
issue months ago.


Bush was AWOL for eight months.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Bush was AWOL for eight months.


Prove it.

Bush was AWOL for eight months.


Prove it.

"Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't
know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure
underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May
2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after
the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a
Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging
versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record. Why the disparity? We'll get
to that.

First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for an
extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered that serious
an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined
to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However, given the
none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that opponents of our
Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam
war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be
eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a
billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his
military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test--on the
pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible
passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from
Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a
long waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May of '68
he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm
cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to
work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for
the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air
National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate
superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed
for months. In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded.
(Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the
Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered
to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical
Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal
superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed
up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has
stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't
notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe
initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May,
June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a
piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the
case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never
disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard
drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when
Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he
requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months before his service was
scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was
a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious
way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get
Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If
history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up
as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

--CECIL ADAMS

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

"Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We
wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for
that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke
the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has
been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill
Clinton
adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641
stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George
W. Bush's military record.


Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as
being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about
Clinton's draft-dodging.



Why the disparity?


Probably because there had been eight more years to file stories on Clinton
at that time.



We'll get to that.

First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for
an extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered
that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different
now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However,
given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that
opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You
guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the
Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale.
Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force
officers'
test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which
would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do
particularly well on the test--on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in
the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's
father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and
strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long
waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May
of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm
cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was
asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who
was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a
transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and
minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but
higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months. In August
Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded.
(Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the
Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was
ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th
Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but
his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation
he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then
in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently
didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The
Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious
duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd
missed. But according to a piece in the New Republic, there's no
evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his
superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him.
(No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard
drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed,
when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of
1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months
before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense.
He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called
on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because
Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back
at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly--and it
probably
will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting
us
into this damn fool war.

--CECIL ADAMS


So where's the proof?