General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?

You got torqued off, didn't you Ed?

The -reason- you got torqued off, I would suggest, is that you have no basis
whatsoever for your support of Bush administration policies.

Walt

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following as a follow-up to Walt:

Do you seem me assigning the term to Juvat, or am I pointing out the
rhetorical weaknesses of his argument?

Uhhh, well I actually thought you were calling me a "dedicated
liberal." But I am not offended by that at all. I confess I also
thought you meant it in a pejorative context. Which made me laugh, "If
Ed thinks that'll hurt my feeling, he's crazier than I thought!"

He failed to address the question and he couched
his comments in the terms I indicated.

Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you
didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that
ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American
Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are
indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen
Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan...

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

[title]Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in America’s interest.

"Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends.
Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by
these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to
forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations
in the Cold War."

Hmmm, Ed it would appear that you were not aware that some
"traditional conservatives," consider gwb's top advisors NEOCONS.

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand
very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of
national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being
out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and
"America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there,
experienced it first hand.

This is where I'll raise the BULL**** flag. It's BULL**** to say
opposition to flawed foreign policy should take the blame for that
flawed policy. Next you're gonna tell us that our negative thoughts
are gonna get troops killed (like we're holding an RPG aimed at US
troops). That is just so intellectually weak. Blame the French, blame
the Germans, blame the liberals and the folks at The American
Conservative.

That is so friggin lame to blame voters for this **** up...okay let me
rephrase that, you're right to blame the voters that voted gwb into
office for this ****ed up foreign policy. But don't blame folks like
me that oppose gwb (and his neocons as described by the American
Conservative).

Our military is undefeated on the battlefield since Korea. We'll kick
ass and take names (and strip'em, cuff 'em, pose them in sexual
positions etc) but we won't lose on the battlefield. Ten thousand
attaboys and one "aw-****" wipes the entire slate clean. This is a big
"aw-****!"

The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or
years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different
than mine.

I'm pretty sure he was addressing the events following those
fortuitous 10 days. Things like the looting in cities to which
Rumsfeld correctly observed, "Democracy is messy." Sure but Iraq is
not a democracy yet...not even close. The USA is a democracy, it's
messy, and it surely beats all of us singing the praises of gwb and
the neocon advisors.

The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three
distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They
don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also
don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced.

So Ed, did you assume that we would be greeted as liberators? I
didn't. Nor did I expect to see photos of US troops abusing prisoners
(another "aw-****")

Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would
specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those
are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of
several less than savory functionaries.

Well during the 2000 campaign gwb expressed the opinion that the USA
should not be in the business of "nation building." And yet here we
are. I think he was right...that we should not be in the business of
nation building.

Sincerely. I don't think any of us, (what were the terms you used for
us? oh yeah) nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters"
would have invaded Iraq. So to ask what we would do NOW...good
question. Kinda hard to blame us for opposing a course of action that
we wouldn't have taken (I personally wanted UN support before we
kicked SH's ass). gwb squandered all that international goodwill we
had earned becasue of 9/11...poor diplomatic skills.

Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
international relations as part of the job....
I am not particularly prone to emotionalism...

But like all of us, you are not without this personal failing from
time to time regardless of what you might wish.

and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
analysis...

Interestingly enough, you give the short shrift to mere mortals here
but gladly acknowledge that Generals (Zinni, Clark) can have a
difference of opinion (offering the same critiques).

I respect you, I respect you're opinion. I'll not change your opinion,
nor will you change mine.

Have a Great Weekend.

Robey

On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:16:14 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following as a follow-up to Walt:

Uhhh, well I actually thought you were calling me a "dedicated
liberal." But I am not offended by that at all. I confess I also
thought you meant it in a pejorative context. Which made me laugh, "If
Ed thinks that'll hurt my feeling, he's crazier than I thought!"

I suggested you were using the rhetorical techiques of the dedicated
liberal, not that you were one yourself. I'm not sure whether calling
you a liberal would be as great an affront as you're characterization
of me as crazy.

He failed to address the question and he couched
his comments in the terms I indicated.

Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you
didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that
ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American
Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are
indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen
Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan...

John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece
that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't
read "The American Conservative", nor do I regularly peruse The
American Spectator or the New Republic. Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her
fifteen minutes of Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to
the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military
who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy. As for Pat Buchanan,
the less we say, the better.

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

[title]Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in America’s interest.

See, I really have a difficulty with work that starts out with "A
neoconservative clique..." Doesn't that seem that the author's first
intent is to inflame rather than enlighten?

"Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends.
Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by
these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to
forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations
in the Cold War."

Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or
the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that
the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek?

Hmmm, Ed it would appear that you were not aware that some
"traditional conservatives," consider gwb's top advisors NEOCONS.

If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives,
you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the
work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman.

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand
very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of
national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being
out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and
"America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there,
experienced it first hand.

This is where I'll raise the BULL**** flag. It's BULL**** to say
opposition to flawed foreign policy should take the blame for that
flawed policy. Next you're gonna tell us that our negative thoughts
are gonna get troops killed (like we're holding an RPG aimed at US
troops). That is just so intellectually weak. Blame the French, blame
the Germans, blame the liberals and the folks at The American
Conservative.

You stretch my argument a bit. I don't "blame the French,....et.al." I
don't think "negative thoughts" will get us killed. I don't even seek
unanimity in the national policy debate. I merely acknowledge that
there are some who will oppose war regardless of the circumstances.
We've become a nation of McNews and MTV. We want instant solutions to
complex problems and aren't willing to offer the blood, sweat and
treasure it takes to get there.

That is so friggin lame to blame voters for this **** up...okay let me
rephrase that, you're right to blame the voters that voted gwb into
office for this ****ed up foreign policy. But don't blame folks like
me that oppose gwb (and his neocons as described by the American
Conservative).

So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that
we heard this week?

Our military is undefeated on the battlefield since Korea. We'll kick
ass and take names (and strip'em, cuff 'em, pose them in sexual
positions etc) but we won't lose on the battlefield. Ten thousand
attaboys and one "aw-****" wipes the entire slate clean. This is a big
"aw-****!"

Does that herring stink? We were talking about the correctness of
response to terrorism and whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq
was a worthy foreign policy goal. The Abu Ghraib prison atrocities are
not in any way excusable. (But, extending responsibility above the
brigade commander level is going to take a stretch. It might happen,
but I doubt it.)

The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or
years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different
than mine.

I'm pretty sure he was addressing the events following those
fortuitous 10 days. Things like the looting in cities to which
Rumsfeld correctly observed, "Democracy is messy." Sure but Iraq is
not a democracy yet...not even close. The USA is a democracy, it's
messy, and it surely beats all of us singing the praises of gwb and
the neocon advisors.

Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster,
doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler
as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that
some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the
archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were
looted....oops, they were in the basement.

The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three
distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They
don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also
don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced.

So Ed, did you assume that we would be greeted as liberators? I
didn't. Nor did I expect to see photos of US troops abusing prisoners
(another "aw-****")

There's a disconnect between what I see on CNN and what I'm getting
from "boots on the ground" sources. In fact, I do see (hear, actually)
a lot of greeting as liberators. There is also a lot of competition
for political power.

Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands
for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the
simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30
deadline for just that?

Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would
specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those
are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of
several less than savory functionaries.

Well during the 2000 campaign gwb expressed the opinion that the USA
should not be in the business of "nation building." And yet here we
are. I think he was right...that we should not be in the business of
nation building.

Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
must get involved.

Sincerely. I don't think any of us, (what were the terms you used for
us? oh yeah) nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters"
would have invaded Iraq. So to ask what we would do NOW...good
question. Kinda hard to blame us for opposing a course of action that
we wouldn't have taken (I personally wanted UN support before we
kicked SH's ass). gwb squandered all that international goodwill we
had earned becasue of 9/11...poor diplomatic skills.

That's an opinion. Personally, I'll take Colin Powell over Madeline
Albright any day. Ditto Condi Rice in preference to Sandy Berger.
Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't
always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain.

Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
international relations as part of the job....
I am not particularly prone to emotionalism...

But like all of us, you are not without this personal failing from
time to time regardless of what you might wish.

I confess to the flaw of convictions.

and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
analysis...

Interestingly enough, you give the short shrift to mere mortals here
but gladly acknowledge that Generals (Zinni, Clark) can have a
difference of opinion (offering the same critiques).

Certainly Zinni and Clark have much to thank Bill Clinton for in their
successful careers. I respect their opinion, even if I find it in
Clark's case to continue to be politically driven rather than
objective. I also like to consider other Generals' opinion as
well--guys like Dick Myers, Hugh Shelton, Norm Shwartzkopf, Chuck
Horner, Tommy Franks, etc. They differ from Zinni and Clark in their
estimations.


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

On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:16:14 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:


Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you
didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that
ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American
Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are
indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen
Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan...

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

[title]Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in America’s interest.

For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
'70s.)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/000tzmlw.asp


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

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece
that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't
read "The American Conservative",

Interestingly enough it appears that at least one small passage in
Zelden's article is "lifted" without attribution from Buchanan's
article that appeared a month earlier. No biggee, just an observation.

Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her fifteen minutes of
Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to
the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military
who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy.

I gather from your cursory dismissal that you did not read her three
part description of events in the Pentagon. ad hominem anyone? Nah not
you Ed.

As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better.

Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around
here?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
making (or presenting).

But you would never dismiss an argument simply for something weak like
that.

Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or
the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that
the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek?

You did omit Timothy McVeigh.

So these terrorists events/attacks prove...what? That Buchanan's claim
about the peace won from the COLD WAR (that'd be the Big One you and I
fought in Europe) is in error? You mean we didn't win the COLD WAR?
I'm pretty sure that Treaty in 1991 that allowed Germany to re-unite
was part of that victory/peace. Buchanan was not presenting a Theory
of Everything...but that the cold war was a success.

But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our
troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries),
I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends
have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in
front of USAFE HQ? I do.

If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives,
you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the
work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman.

Straw man fallacy? I don't think so. You missed (or ignored) my 25 May
epistle with other citations. I've read Perle (note the date)
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/americawa...tstopiraq.html

I've also read

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic
and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward
2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a
discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle,
James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert
Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The
report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on
strategy. [snipped for SOME brevity]

etc...

So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that
we heard this week?

Ummm, here's a basic difference. If Al Bore (you read that right) were
in the Oval Office the war on terror would be different, SH would
probably still have his iron-fisted grip on Iraq. I've got no problem
with that.

Does that herring stink?

You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in
Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the
aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me
opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign
policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for
the peace).

We were talking about the correctness of response to terrorism and
whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq was a worthy
foreign policy goal.

Foregoing my snappy repartee for a moment. I don't recall democracy
building as a goal for taking down SH, it was the THREAT he presented
to the USA. The democracy notion was ancillary to the ANNOUNCED
reasons. [Yes I have the text of all gwb's State of the Unions]

When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't
found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the
sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are
not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism
rhetoric.

Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster,
doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler
as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that
some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the
archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were
looted....oops, they were in the basement.

Again you failed to grasp the message, not that everything should be
perfect; rather the clear demonstration that Rumsfeld and the
architects of this nation building experience did not have a plan for
post war. Oh yeah, I'm sure there was something they call "a plan" but
I suspect it was predicated on Cheney's claim we'd be greeted as
liberators.

Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands
for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the
simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30
deadline for just that?

Most definitely. I've considered the desire to give Iraq back to
Iraqis and not leave it as damaged goods now that we've "broken it" to
paraphrase Colin Powell's counsel (ala Woodward's book). Rock and a
Hard Place, Deep Kimchee, Up to our Ass in Alligators...

Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
must get involved.

Again I go back to the raison d'être promulgated in gwb's 2002 State
of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin
round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all
this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher
threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof.

Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't
always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain.

Ed, kicking al-Qaeda ass in Afghanistan is NOT appeasement. Containing
SH's ass in a small portion of his country is NOT appeasement.
Tracking down terrorist cells with the assistance of our allies is not
appeasement.

This notion that folks like me would do NOTHING is poor comprehension
on your part, and a frequent error by bush supporters that label my
ilk as "unpatriotic.". I would not have invaded Iraq. I would kill AQ
****s where I found them. Iraq was taking our eye off the ball so to
speak.

I confess to the flaw of convictions.

I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your
convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply
they way I see your debating style...not your message.

Robey

WalterM140 wrote:
Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?


Gee, Ed. It's a newsgroup.

You came on my thread and spouted a bunch of crap in no way supported by the
available evidence.

Don't forget to direct your class to this thread.

The Bush administration is arrogant and incompetent. Bush is the -worst-
president we've -ever- had.

Worse than Reagan? Come now, let's not forget the godfather of the
mujahadin. Not so very long ago, most of these terrorists were proxies
for RR and his boy Bill Casey. When they video taped the throat
slittings of Russian draftees, they were freedom fighters.

Cheers

--mike



Walt

WalterM140 wrote:

Ed allows:


I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues.


I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I, Ed?

I'm a veteran too. I was on Desert Storm.

But you don't have to be a veteran, or even an American, to see that we have
5,000 casualties because of the arrogant, maladroit actions of the Bush
administration.

Now I've cited General Zinni of course. He cites Former General and National
Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf,
former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric
Shinseki.

True, but Dr. Ed is a very prominent "professor" at a very exclusive
junior college. Let's show some respect for the professoriat.


I also cited James Webb. I'd say altogether I've made a pretty good case. Bush
and his minions are incompetent.

They'd probably ace Dr. Ed's "Intro to Political Science."


Cheers

--mike


We have guys dying in Iraq due --directly-- to their incompetence.

You're blowing that off.

Now you may have some emotional attachment to Bush, you probably voted for him.
But it's time to wake up. I was for the war. I've always thought Bush just a
puppet. He sounds like a retard to me. But I knew that Cheney and Powell were
savvy and experienced. But what we have is a -disaster-.

It's a catastrophe, just like former VP Gore said.

What's also plain as day is that the good name of the United States has been
dragged through the mud by the Bush administration.

As you probably know, the White Counsel wrote for Bush two years ago a paper in
which he said we could (secretly of course) dispense with the Geneva
Convention.

Bush is in charge, and oh yes, he is definitely responsible. He's practically
a criminal.

Don't forget to direct your poly sci class to this thread.


I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.


Oh, yes you do. You need to apologize for this fantasy rant that excuses the
Bush admnistration.

Robert E. Lee had a long career of service too. But he chucked it and went with
the traitors. Not to compare you to Lee. "Dick" Cheney has a long career of
service. He's practically a criminal too.


General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.


Your position is --so-- not based in fact, that I respectfully disagree.


As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands.


Whooo hoooo.

Too bad Iraq was the wrong target, huh?

It's as if in "The Untouchables" that Ness had set up his ambush to catch the
mob bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada --- somewhere near El Paso.


I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.


Iraq was the wrong target. Ask General Zinni. Ask James Webb.


America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible.


Which had nothing to do with Iraq. Atacking Iraq was the worst strategic
blunder in memory.


We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.


As General Zinni has indicated, containment worked. At least the Clinton
administration didn't generate 5,000 battle casualties -- and several thousand
civilian deaths --- unlike the disastrous and maladroit Bush administration.
They didn't trust Chalabi. They didn't manufacture from whole cloth an excuse
to go to war.

And don't forget:

LONDON - The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on
human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International said in
its annual report Wednesday.

Irene Khan, secretary general of the human rights group, condemned terrorist
assaults by groups such as al-Qaida, saying they posed a threat to security
around the world.

But she criticized the response of the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing,"
saying its powerful governments were ignoring international laws by sacrificing
human rights in the "blind pursuit" of security.

"The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of
vision and bereft of principle," Khan said in a statement. "Violating rights at
home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military
force where and when it chooses have damaged justice and freedom, and made the
world a more dangerous place."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p_on_re_eu/bri
tain_amnesty_report_1

Be sure and direct your class to this thread, Ed.

That's "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," in case you missed it.

Bush is the -worst- president we've ever had, and the blood of those service
people killed in Iraq is -red- on his hands.

Walt

Ed Rasimus wrote:

For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
'70s.)
Keep sucking on that Jewish cock, Ed, you fruity old traitor. Maybe
one day you'll wet your leathery, treasonous old tonsils. ****ing
quisling. Cocksucker.

Grantland

treasonous
http://www.weeklystandard. old com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp


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

On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:06:51 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus

As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better.

Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around
here?

I didn't say that Buchanan was old or balding or even "crazy"--I
merely mentioned that his radical right, America-first, ultra
conservatism has made his pronouncements less than reliable. If I
don't find Buchanan particularly credible (his abandonment of the
Republican Party when he couldn't get a start on his quest for the
presidential nomination is an example of his self-serving attitude,)
it doesn't mean I am attacking ad hominem. I similarly might disregard
the pronouncements of Minister Farrakhan.

Here's a link you might find interesting--it's a balanced (rare that!)
discussion of the possibility of an AQ-Iraq connection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1

But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our
troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries),
I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends
have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in
front of USAFE HQ? I do.

Your first sentence says "YES" and your last sentence says "no". I
remember the explosion quite well. It occurred three weeks after I
PCS'd from Ramstein and the injured LtC was out of my shop.


You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in
Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the
aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me
opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign
policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for
the peace).

I won't disagree on the "bad decisions" at Abu Ghraib. Lots of
failures of leadership at all levels up to brigade commander.

But the continued assertion that there was no plan for transition is
tougher to accept. Of course there was a plan--an essential element of
the Powell Doctrine is "exit strategy". The problem is that events
don't always flow exactly the way the plan predicts. If that is a
failure of leadership, then every plan ever devised exhibits the same
problem.

When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't
found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the
sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are
not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism
rhetoric.

Again, take a look at this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1

Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
must get involved.

Again I go back to the raison d'être promulgated in gwb's 2002 State
of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin
round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all
this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher
threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1

I confess to the flaw of convictions.

I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your
convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply
they way I see your debating style...not your message.

I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions. For you to extend
my debate with you on this topic to some sort of student intimidation
or doctrinaire requirements for successful grades is ridiculous.

Students are taught to think, reason, consider the various aspects of
complex political situations. They should recognize that knee-jerk
acceptance of sound-bite solutions and slogans from either the right
or the left are not accurate. As political science students they
should be learning to find the middle ground, evaluate the compromises
and build the concensus to create effective policy. They are
discouraged from exercising emotional screeds.

Probably not the way it is taught in the Ivy League, but it's what
happens where I work.


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

On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:45:17 GMT, (Grantland)
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
'70s.)
Keep sucking on that Jewish cock, Ed, you fruity old traitor. Maybe
one day you'll wet your leathery, treasonous old tonsils. ****ing
quisling. Cocksucker.

Grantland

Thank you for sharing that. You've added immeasurably to the
discussion.


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