General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to an electorate in which the
lowest 40% of wage earners pay NO taxes and the top 5% of wage earners
pay 40% of the total federal revenue and say that the economy will benefit
from cutting taxes and no, you folks who don't pay any taxes
won't be getting a cut.

Ed, please.

Those poor voters have exactly the same voting power individually as the rich
voters (except maybe in Florida when Jeb Bush is governor).

Walt

On 30 May 2004 19:03:37 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered
by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".

Dulles was president? See, that's just -flat- dishonest on your part.

You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem which may be the
cause of your poor view of history--Kennan wasn't a president either.
Kennan was an advisor to Truman. Dulles was the Sec/State for
Eisenhower.

Ummmm....Lessee. Truman, JFK and LBJ. That's three. Eisenhower and Nixon --
that seems to be two.

So now 3-to-2 equals "mostly Democratic presidents"? Let's add Ford
(R) (very short term, but no change in policy) then Carter (D), then
Reagan (R) and we get 4-to-4.

Throw in Carter and Reagan and it's still 4 to 3. I'd say -- I like
precision-- that 4 is bigger than 3.

Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
the other is definitely revisionist.

But, that approach to defense and policies on disarmament varied over
time. Reagan's policy of strong defense and "trust but verify" did
more to defeat the SU than Carter's unilateral disarmament efforts.

This is it, Ed? Your best shot? No wonder people wail about the state of
American edcuation.



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

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

On 30 May 2004 18:13:31 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?

I certainly don't know that -just- because you and that near moron George Bush
Jr. say it.

If we seek accuracy, you might begin by noting the George W. Bush is
not a "Jr." (But he does have a Bachelor's from Yale and an MBA from
Harvard.)

I know that the former SecNav James Webb have said that it is a strategic
blunder, and General Zinni says it was a strategic blunder, and many other
jefes of national policy experience say that.

Just because that moron Bush says it, doesn't make it so. That's the first
lesson you need to learn in order to shrug off your Orwellian reliance on
someone elses' unsupported opinion.

And, using your rationale, just becasue Webb and Zinni say it doesn't
make it so either.

Now, as I've said, I don't need a general to tell me that Iraq is a ****ing
mess. All I need do is note that the head of the Iraqi Governing Counsel was
blown up --right outside-- the US enclave to get a glimmer that things are not
going right. You can do that too.

And, JFK was killed in downtown Dallas in the middle of a police
motorcade. What's your point?

You can also -- "look ma, no hands!" make your own determination that when the
attourney general says we can expect a major terrorist act in this country
before the election, that invading Iraq and incurring 5,000 casualties didn't
-exactly- bring about the outcome we thought it would.

And, had we not invaded Iraq we would not have a major terrorist
threat today? Seems like 9/11 occured prior to the invasion of Iraq as
well as Khobar, Cole, Beirut, etc.

What would you do differently to relieve the terrorist threat??




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

In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered
by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".

Dulles was president? See, that's just -flat- dishonest on your part.

I am no fan of the Brothers Dulles, but it seemed fairly obvious that
the reference was to SecState John Foster and DCI Allen carrying out the
details of containment (i.e., the Kennan "X-article" of 1947, developed
in Acheson's State Department under Truman).

Although I don't agree with some of Ed's positions, I am finding
increasingly that you are leaping to any possible miswording to take
cheap shots.

Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
the other is definitely revisionist.


But to give credit to Reagan alone -- per you- is not.

Surely you can do better than this.

Walt

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

"WalterM140" wrote: Reagan, I will give him
credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden
to
us.

That would have been Iraq...

Do I read this right?

Since you only left a small section of his comment you obviously didn't.

I am no fan of the Brothers Dulles, but it seemed fairly obvious that
the reference was to SecState John Foster and DCI Allen carrying out the
details of containment (i.e., the Kennan "X-article" of 1947, developed
in Acheson's State Department under Truman).

Sure. But to suggest that they were part of the "Republicans" who brought down
the USSR to me seems dishonest. Can't I name dean Rusk, then? He was SecState
under Johnson.

In point of fact, in fairness, the Republicans held the White House for more
years from Kenan's call to arms in 1948 until 1990. On the other hand, the
Democrats held the Congress for most of those years. They had to provide the
Jing.

Although I don't agree with some of Ed's positions, I am finding
increasingly that you are leaping to any possible miswording to take
cheap shots.


Maybe. It's hard to resist.

But Jiminy Crickett. He said the Tonkin Gulf Resloution provided the
--funding-- for the war in Viet Nam. It's hard to pass by when he's serving
up these plums.

I mean, he is a college professor, after all.

Walt

In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

And, let's put the "mounting casualties" thing into perspective this
weekend as we recall 400,000 from WWII and 58,000 KIA from SEA.

Big difference--

The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.

Wait a sec... is this just the casualties from Iraq, or did you include
the first three thousand from a couple of years back?

A lot of people keep forgetting those, for some reason.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.