Another retired General speaks up - Criticizes Rumsfeld

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: onelove
nice post and link conjur. the administration can only discredit these traiterous america-haters one at a time. good for zinni for calling it the way he sees it (anybody that uses the euphamism "pulling our chestnuts out of the fire" is somebody that's calling it like he sees it - hehe)

Wow! That's two more in one day, Woodward and General Zinni. Looks like Karl is going to have to hire more character assassins. I guess that will help their employment numbers though, so it's not all bad news for Bush.

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: onelove
nice post and link conjur. the administration can only discredit these traiterous america-haters one at a time. good for zinni for calling it the way he sees it (anybody that uses the euphamism "pulling our chestnuts out of the fire" is somebody that's calling it like he sees it - hehe)

..or plans to run for President.

How many ex-government bush-affiliated people will it take to convince you? So far Paul Oneil, Dick Clark, and now this General have all left the government saying the same things, and the Bush admin has attacked them all like the HIV virus attacks your immune system. How many or who will it take to convince you? As all the moderate and prudent people leave this government, the story doesn't change. If Powell quits and says the same things, will you believe him?

We were victims of propaganda in the lead-up to the Iraq war and instead of anger at the propagandists, you defend them, its truly perplexing.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: onelove nice post and link conjur. the administration can only discredit these traiterous america-haters one at a time. good for zinni for calling it the way he sees it (anybody that uses the euphamism "pulling our chestnuts out of the fire" is somebody that's calling it like he sees it - hehe)

..or plans to run for President.

Gen. Anthony Zinni? Riiiiiiiiight, part of his evil master plan: First, I'll spend 39 years in the Corps, but THEN . . .

I don't know what's more weirdo retarded with you, Galt, your paranoid dingbat leaps of illogic or your bizarre personal obsession with nude photoshopped pics of Sadaam and Jacques Chirac. :Q

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: onelove nice post and link conjur. the administration can only discredit these traiterous america-haters one at a time. good for zinni for calling it the way he sees it (anybody that uses the euphamism "pulling our chestnuts out of the fire" is somebody that's calling it like he sees it - hehe)

..<STRONG>or plans to run for President</strong>.

Gen. Anthony Zinni? Riiiiiiiiight, part of his evil master plan: First, I'll spend 39 years in the Corps, but THEN . . .

I don't know what's more weirdo retarded with you, Galt, your paranoid dingbat leaps of illogic or your bizarre personal obsession with nude photoshopped pics of Sadaam and Jacques Chirac. :Q

It's all right. Because Gen. Zinni is a proven anti-semite. Because he called some people "neocons", and that's a proven anti-semitical term.

Zephyr

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Dman877
and now this General have all left the government saying the same things.

Actually, this general retired in the year 2000 and had a very philisophical view of Sadam and Iraq
at that time.



Conversation with zinni

The question:

The other item that has been in your portfolio is a case where it looks more like the old mission, and that is dealing with rogue states like Iraq. What have we learned there? What have you learned in your experience? This is clearly a place where force, in the traditional sense, has to matter. But there is this frustration of being constrained in getting the job completely done, whatever that is. I mean, it's a moving target. Comment on what lesson you think we should have learned for this new problem set in the post - Cold War world?:

We're always going to be confronted with the problem of regional rogue states -- people like Saddam Hussein or Kim Il Song -- Kim Jong Il, now -- and others who have designs to either dominate the region or to do something that's destabilizing in the region. How do we deal with these? Obviously, one option is the application of force, and to resolve it through force. And, ultimately, take it the capitol and change the regime. Or, as we did in the case of the Gulf War, at least eliminate the threat and then deal with the problems of the regime remaining.

If we're going to adopt sanctions and containment, we have to understand that that's long-term. It's very messy. It's tough to get support. It has its ups and downs. Strangely enough, we've been successful with containment. We contained Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, for almost fifty years. But containment is messy. It's expensive. It presents political problems. There's always a series of crises that mount during that. It's tough to keep an international coalition together to maintain it, and we tend to end up being alone, almost, as we are now with the exception of, perhaps, the British and some of the Gulf states that support our mission in Iraq.

But we have to be clear as to what we're going to do over the long term. If we're going to accept containment, we need to accept it for the long term. If we're going to accept a military solution to the problem in the short term, then we've got to take it through to its conclusion. We need to avoid schemes. We need to avoid things like we tried to do at the Bay of Pigs, and things we're trying to do now with the Iraqi opposition and covert operations. We don't do those things very well. We aren't great co-meisters, and we tend to run into disasters. It's not in our nature. It's poor for a democracy to do that. It's tough to garner international support for that or regional acceptance of that. And so we ought to get off those kinds of things. In other words, decide on what will work, what level of political support and political will we have to do it. And if not, what can we fall back to? And then, the willingness to accept that, if it's something like containment and sanctions

His big dig with the admin is not the madness, but the method.

He could be right and he could be wrong. time will tell.

As for criticizing, well that is just what retired Generals do..

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: onelove nice post and link conjur. the administration can only discredit these traiterous america-haters one at a time. good for zinni for calling it the way he sees it (anybody that uses the euphamism "pulling our chestnuts out of the fire" is somebody that's calling it like he sees it - hehe)

..<STRONG>or plans to run for President</STRONG>.

Gen. Anthony Zinni? Riiiiiiiiight, part of his evil master plan: First, I'll spend 39 years in the Corps, but THEN . . .

I don't know what's more weirdo retarded with you, Galt, your paranoid dingbat leaps of illogic or your bizarre personal obsession with nude photoshopped pics of Sadaam and Jacques Chirac. :Q

My sarcasm is a bit too deep for your layman thinking, it appears; this was a facetious reference toward Clark and other ex-military clowns who have some sort of hidden political agenda...I called the Clark run for President 48-hours after ?Shock and Awe?...clearly he had an agenda in the 'War Room' on the Communist News Network, which is why I quit watching that channel...watched it until the Clark nonsense. To say "I would have done this; I would have done that; these troops should be here; these troops should be there" 48 hours into the mission should have given you a hint of his political motivations....but given that the NYT and LA Times didn't print this, I can understand why some people didn't see his run for President back then...

 

[clarkmo]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: onelove nice post and link conjur. the administration can only discredit these traiterous america-haters one at a time. good for zinni for calling it the way he sees it (anybody that uses the euphamism "pulling our chestnuts out of the fire" is somebody that's calling it like he sees it - hehe)

..<STRONG>or plans to run for President</STRONG>.

Gen. Anthony Zinni? Riiiiiiiiight, part of his evil master plan: First, I'll spend 39 years in the Corps, but THEN . . .

I don't know what's more weirdo retarded with you, Galt, your paranoid dingbat leaps of illogic or your bizarre personal obsession with nude photoshopped pics of Sadaam and Jacques Chirac. :Q

My sarcasm is a bit too deep for your layman thinking, it appears; this was a facetious reference toward Clark and other ex-military clowns who have some sort of hidden political agenda...I called the Clark run for President 48-hours after ?Shock and Awe?...clearly he had an agenda in the 'War Room' on the Communist News Network, which is why I quit watching that channel...watched it until the Clark nonsense. To say "I would have done this; I would have done that; these troops should be here; these troops should be there" 48 hours into the mission should have given you a hint of his political motivations....but given that the NYT and LA Times didn't print this, I can understand why some people didn't see his run for President back then...

I saw him as pesidential potential at the time but I think he was just earning his $$ with his comments. As time went by it could be seen that he didn't have much in the way of a plan for leading the country as president and his candidacy went by the wayside. His comments are akin to what Madden would say in a football game. His charisma came thru, though, and that's what gave folks pause r.e. a run for the White House or even a just to bring folks into camp. The Demos have a problem. Bush has taken the bulls by the horn and is going to continue to do so. They are doing everything in their power to say, "Hey, we can do miltary stuff too" It's too transparent and I don't think that many people are really buying it.

 

[maluckey]

When Zinni? When do you deal with him (Saddam)?

I do think eventually Saddam has to be dealt with. That could happen in many ways. It could happen that he just withers on the vine, he passes on to the afterlife, something happens within Iraq that changes things, he becomes less powerful, or the inspectors that go in actually accomplish something and eliminate potential weapons of mass destruction -- but I doubt this -- that might be there.

Ret. Gen Anthony Zinni.

Apparently you ignore Saddam until he dies of old age. It's that, or until the inspections which failed for 12 years, and enrichened the pocketbooks of certain U.N. personnel, either work, or Iraqis are all exterminated. The third is to wait until Saddam sponsored a disaster like Pam-Am Lockerbie. Then everyone will say "This could have been prevented had we removed him while we had the chance!!!".