General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Senator Kerry's narrative portion of his fitness report:

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned
in
river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one
occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units
were
taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation
and
ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision
resulted in
routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His
bearing
and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese
training
programs.

During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver
Star
medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

18 Dec 1969"


An opinion shared by few of his fellow officers.

"Madelin McKinnon" wrote in message
om...

According to Salon.com, it's one George down and one to go. I guess
that's reasonable, given the fact that they're in the same boat.


The economy is strong and growing, the war is going well, and gas prices are
dropping. Bush will be reelected.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:


Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other
liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom.

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.

Robey

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:38:45 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:


Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other
liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom.

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.

Robey

I've got to find myself on the same side of the fence (for this one
instance) as Juvat. Certainly characterizing a vote for a liberal as a
vote against freedom is ignoring the essentials of the two primary
ideologies in America.

Characteristically the liberal ideology is based on a belief that
government is the best solution to societal problems. Taken further
left we get to welfare statism, socialism and eventually at the
extreme communism. Examples of liberal approaches are things like
Social Security, Medicare, publicly funded education, etc. Often these
solutions are very effective.

Conversely the basic element of traditional convervatism is a
free-market solution, focussed on individual responsibility. Want
health care? Get insured. Want a retirement? Put something away. Don't
expect government to do it for you. These approaches can work as well.

Trends in liberal/conservative ideology is for liberals to support the
workers (unions) and conservatives to support entrepreneurs and
management. Liberals focus government spending on social programs
while conservatives tend toward strong defense ("guns vs butter").

Inevitably government programs cost money, so a liberal administration
will lead toward higher taxes, but this is usually balanced by
including some element of "redistribution of wealth"--the progressive
tax structure of the IRS, for example. This is acceptable to some
point as folks weigh the cost/benefit of dollars paid in tax against
service provided.

The conservative side of American politics, however, is split between
traditional (i.e. fiscal) conservatives and social conservatives.
Quite clearly the social conservative side of the ideology actually
can restrict freedom as much as the liberal in their desire to impose
a standard of morality no society as a whole. Good example is liberals
support gun control (loss of 2nd Amendment freedom) while social
conservatives support censorship, prayer in school, campaign finance
reform, and a high degree of homphobia--arguably losses of 1st
Amendment freedoms.

The reality of the situation is that both sides run to the extremes
for the primary season and then back to the moderate middle for
general elections. Both sides wind up compromising to build policies
that can pass the legislative process. Clinton was arguably a fairly
moderate Democrat and Bush 43 has espoused some clearly liberal
positions such as steel and plywood tariffs or federally funded
prescription drug programs.

Illuminated yet?


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

WalterM140 wrote:
Just for the sake of accuracy, it wasn't a term, it was a commitment. Unless
the definitions have changed, terms apply to enlistments and commitments
apply to lengths of service. In any event, whatever you choose to call it,
he didn't complete it.

Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family...

Yes. He can easily be blamed. One of FDR's closest advisers -- Harry
Hopkins, I believe -- had a 19 year old son killed on Iwo Jima.

I believe all of FDR's sons went on active duty, and James was a full colonel of
Marines and fought in Guadalcanal, where he made a Corps-wide name for himself
by being required to wear his helmet at all times he was not under cover because
his bald head would have created a target for the Japanese that would have
endangered all of the Marines in his vicinity.

George Z.

Walt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

GWB did not "earn" a commission in the USAF. He didn't go to Officer

Candidate

School, or whatever the AF has.

And his term was -six- years, not 4 1/2.

It's sad that such a person could be the CIC.



Did you find it sad that Clinton was CiC?

I'm sad that he's no longer CiC. Clinton was the best US military
leader since FDR. The Presidents before and after led and are leading
the country from one expensive blunder to another. Were it not for the
two term limitation, he'd still be President--with lots of Republican votes.

Cheers

--mike

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:Mwlwc.43930$pt3.19824@attbi_s03...

Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family with
important things to do. Paying Bush to sip around in a Deuce was a waste
of resources. There was no way that the Bush scion would ever find him
self in harm's way. Didn't it make more sense to use that fuel and the
airframe hours to train someone who might one day be willing to serve
his or her country?



Bush served his country then and is serving his country today.



What country is that? Saudi Arabia? Or OPEC in general?

Cheers

--mike

WalterM140 wrote:

Just for the sake of accuracy, it wasn't a term, it was a commitment.

Unless

the definitions have changed, terms apply to enlistments and commitments

apply

to lengths of service. In any event, whatever you choose to call it, he

didn't

complete it.


Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family...


Yes. He can easily be blamed. One of FDR's closest advisers -- Harry
Hopkins, I believe -- had a 19 year old son killed on Iwo Jima.

What a sad waste of good genes. Wouldn't it be better to conserve the
best and the brightest for building a better tomorrow, rather than
wasting them as cannon fodder? Are we not fortunate that the shrub
survived to breed?

Cheers

--mike

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:rsqwc.5822$HG.1359@attbi_s53...

I'm sad that he's no longer CiC. Clinton was the best US military
leader since FDR.


Clinton was not a leader of any kind. He was a follower, couldn't do a
thing without running a poll first.

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:8vqwc.7101$4S5.1351@attbi_s52...

What country is that? Saudi Arabia? Or OPEC in general?


The United States of America.