General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

When all is said and done, your arguments are sophomoric and thoroughly
unconvincing. They're not worthy of individual responses.

That -is- pretty much the deal with Ed Rasimus, I agree.

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

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

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.

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/2/04 4:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

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


If you or I were AWOL for 8 months it would have been 20 years at Levenworth.


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

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/2/04 3:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"General Zinni said that he generally avoids generalizations about the
general belief of all generals, but, in this case, he believes the
general consensus of generals is that the general policy of containment
was, in general, effective."


That's generally true. His lieutenants have called the invasion a major
mistake. The Bush administration needs corporal punishment.

Walt


They will get it in November.



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

Pete wrote:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
discovered by UNSCOM?

If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

If you were an Iraqi pilot, would you want to fly a plane that had been buried
in the desert sand for two or more years with all of its electrical systems
cooked and dried out by the searing heat?
Any pilot stupid enough to do that might be a bold pilot, but he'd never make it
long enough to become an old one.

Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming that
Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those Migs
are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one hundred
of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
right? A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
of, maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687, an
alleged mustard round, along with other "undiscovered" things like the ricin
program, the hidden cultures, equipment, documents, and even *people*, don't
equal his violation of the requirements of 687 and evidence his continued
efforts to develop WMD's in spite of the restrictions, now do they? :-)

Everybody knows that Sadaam had chemical weapons back in the 80s....he used them
against the Iranis and against his own rebellious Kurds, and we are the ones who
sent people over there to teach his troops how to do it without killing
themselves. So, we found ONE left-over, after a year of searching, out of all
of the thousands he may have had at one time. So what? It was no threat to our
nation or to our troops as our leaders well knew when they started the war.


Exactly. We hear the oft repeated chant "There were no WMD's! Bush lied!"

Ok...*when* were there none? Evidently, in between 1988 (documented use) and
Dec 2002, we're supposed to believe that all WMD's ceased to exist in Iraq.

Why was this not found out, and why didn't whoever was in power at the time
sing it from the rooftops? Seems that would have been a slam dunk for the
then current ruling party.

You want the Iraqis to prove that they didn't have what they said they didn't
have. If you think proving a negative is so easy, why don't you try proving
that our sadistic jailers didn't know how to provide humane treatment to their
prisoners? You'd not only have to prove that they signed off on getting such
training, but you'd also have to prove that they didn't just sign off on
it.....that they actually received the training and that they were paying
attention and understood what they were being taught. How do you do that? I
dunno....you tell me! A lot easier said than done, isn't it?

George Z.

WalterM140 wrote:
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, I have to wonder why that slack media doesn't get credit for reporting
that one of Kerry's supervisors in Viet Nam who had written a glowing fitness
report on him at the time and who now, thirty plus years later, came out from
under his rock whining that he didn't really mean it and that Kerry really did a
lousy job. Doesn't that kind of examination and reporting of minutia count? I
think Vietnam IS an issue and it'll remain one.

George Z.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

They will get it in November.


Bush will be reelected.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
discovered by UNSCOM?

If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

If you were an Iraqi pilot, would you want to fly a plane that had been
buried
in the desert sand for two or more years with all of its electrical
systems
cooked and dried out by the searing heat?
Any pilot stupid enough to do that might be a bold pilot, but he'd never
make it
long enough to become an old one.

Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming
that
Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those
Migs
are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one
hundred
of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
right? A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having
*any*
of, maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687,
an
alleged mustard round, along with other "undiscovered" things like the
ricin
program, the hidden cultures, equipment, documents, and even *people*,
don't
equal his violation of the requirements of 687 and evidence his
continued
efforts to develop WMD's in spite of the restrictions, now do they? :-)

Everybody knows that Sadaam had chemical weapons back in the 80s....he
used them
against the Iranis and against his own rebellious Kurds, and we are the
ones who
sent people over there to teach his troops how to do it without killing
themselves. So, we found ONE left-over, after a year of searching, out
of all
of the thousands he may have had at one time. So what? It was no threat
to our
nation or to our troops as our leaders well knew when they started the
war.

ONE? Sorry, Georgie/Hal, but that little fabrication is getting a bit weak,
even for you. One binary sarin round, apparently one mustard round, a ricin
development program, hiding of bio cultures and equipment...are you
beginning to see the error isn the "one" bit?



Exactly. We hear the oft repeated chant "There were no WMD's! Bush
lied!"

Ok...*when* were there none? Evidently, in between 1988 (documented use)
and
Dec 2002, we're supposed to believe that all WMD's ceased to exist in
Iraq.

Why was this not found out, and why didn't whoever was in power at the
time
sing it from the rooftops? Seems that would have been a slam dunk for
the
then current ruling party.

You want the Iraqis to prove that they didn't have what they said they
didn't
have.

No, even YOU have to now admit they DID have some remaining, as that sarin
round indicates (they only acknowledged performing some R&D towards such
rounds, no production whatsoever), not to mention the mustard round. The
issue of their other prohibited activities (ricin, hiding of
ultures/equipment/documents) just reinforces the fact that they were in
violation. I guess you find it completely excusable that EACH of Saddam's
various "full, final, and complete" disclosures to the UN over the
intervening years proved to be neither full, final, or complete--in each
case he grudgingly added any items dug up by the inspectors after his
previous "full, final, and complete" disclosure. But now you want to defend
them as being forthright and honest about their WMD programs? God, it must
really stink that the facts are not falling into line with your own
sentiments and preconceived notions in this case, which is perhaps why you
just choose to ignore them?

Brooks


If you think proving a negative is so easy, why don't you try proving
that our sadistic jailers didn't know how to provide humane treatment to
their
prisoners? You'd not only have to prove that they signed off on getting
such
training, but you'd also have to prove that they didn't just sign off on
it.....that they actually received the training and that they were paying
attention and understood what they were being taught. How do you do that?
I
dunno....you tell me! A lot easier said than done, isn't it?

George Z.