YET ANOTHER INSIDER!!!! Gen. Zinni: "Lying, incompetence and corruption"
General Anthony Zinni:
once the only man trusted to be able to talk to both the Israelis and the Palastinians as the Bush administration's Middle East special envoy,
served as commander-in-chief of the US Central Command from 1997 to 2000, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East,
a 39-year MARINE veteran
and directed strikes against Iraq and al-Qaida,
and led U.S. troops in Vietnam,
has written a book called "Battle Ready"
and of course the administration is targetting him as best they can, but all that they can come up with so far is calling him a 'retired' General . . .
But I will remind you that they fired him when he first spoke out . . . added to the list of retributive acts against people who speak out: HISTORY OF WHITE HOUSE INTIMIDATION
I will let The General speak for himself:
"In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption. False rationales as a justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; the unnecessary distraction from real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched military, all of these caused me to speak out. I did it before the war as a caution, and as an attempt to voice concern over situations I knew would be dangers, where the outcomes would likely mean real harm to our nation's interests. I was called a traitor and turncoat by Pentagon officials. The personal attacks are painful ? but the photos of the casualties I see every day in the papers and on TV convince me not to shrink from the obligation to speak the truth."
Pretty darn scathing . . . let's hear the disavowals from the Blinded-by-the-Party-Light!
[EDITED to make it more 'eye appealing' and so that people might actually take it in]
once the only man trusted to be able to talk to both the Israelis and the Palastinians as the Bush administration's Middle East special envoy,
served as commander-in-chief of the US Central Command from 1997 to 2000, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East,
a 39-year MARINE veteran
and directed strikes against Iraq and al-Qaida,
and led U.S. troops in Vietnam,
has written a book called "Battle Ready"
and of course the administration is targetting him as best they can, but all that they can come up with so far is calling him a 'retired' General . . .
But I will remind you that they fired him when he first spoke out . . . added to the list of retributive acts against people who speak out: HISTORY OF WHITE HOUSE INTIMIDATION
I will let The General speak for himself:
"In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption. False rationales as a justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; the unnecessary distraction from real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched military, all of these caused me to speak out. I did it before the war as a caution, and as an attempt to voice concern over situations I knew would be dangers, where the outcomes would likely mean real harm to our nation's interests. I was called a traitor and turncoat by Pentagon officials. The personal attacks are painful ? but the photos of the casualties I see every day in the papers and on TV convince me not to shrink from the obligation to speak the truth."
Pretty darn scathing . . . let's hear the disavowals from the Blinded-by-the-Party-Light!
[EDITED to make it more 'eye appealing' and so that people might actually take it in]
Comments
thread more
eye appealing
you should
do something
crazy like
use color.
and now he is saying things that were consigned to nutters or partisans
why don't I hear SDW, or NaplesX or 7E7 saying anything to smear this guy?!?!
Something is winning out . . . maybe its the truth?
Originally posted by pfflam
The thing is is that I remember when Zinni was being trumpted up as the ONLY person worthy of such universal respect by all parties involved that he could act as envoy when things were beginning to really break down in the Israel/Palistine area
and now he is saying things that were consigned to nutters or partisans
why don't I hear SDW, or NaplesX or 7E7 saying anything to smear this guy?!?!
Something is winning out . . . maybe its the truth?
Don't forget Scott. Wouldn't want him to feel ostracized.
It all boils down to the truth is out. I think most Americans now realize they were lied to. Most Americans realize the Bush admin is nothing but a bunch of ideological goons. People will continue to step forward and say "These guys suckered you!" but after the first three or four lights into the Bush admin darkness, the rest are just jumping on the truth shall set you free bandwagon.
I give NaplesX a day though before he gives us the ol' "wait and see what pans out" line concerning the current situation followed soon thereafter by "How could we wait and see?" about the situation prior to the war.
The backers of the admin are loseing ground with every passing day. Republican representatives are stepping forward with harsher criticisms of the admin's (Lindsy Grahm, McCain...) policies in general, and the handeling of Iraq specifically. This Abu Graib incident didn't help Bush any either. More and more, bigger fish will tell the truth. Colin Powel for instance came forward and said the information used to initially justify the war was fabricated (another insider steps forward if you will)...
Seriously.
The rise, and ultimately complete domination, of the Republican party appears to be falling apart. If Republicans lose either the White House and/or the senate, who will be to blame? Newt Gingrich fell on his sword. Who will fall come November?
Originally posted by pfflam
The thing is is that I remember when Zinni was being trumpted up as the ONLY person worthy of such universal respect by all parties involved that he could act as envoy when things were beginning to really break down in the Israel/Palistine area
and now he is saying things that were consigned to nutters or partisans
why don't I hear SDW, or NaplesX or 7E7 saying anything to smear this guy?!?!
Something is winning out . . . maybe its the truth?
I'm not going to smear the guy. He served his country with great distiniction for many years and I honor his service. Everybody has a right to their opinion although I respectfully disagree with his assertions. One must remember that a lot of retired generals have greatly inflated opinions of themselves and it is common for them to question the actions of others because their egos lead them to believe they would have made better decisions. I have seen a lot of retired high ranking officers on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News who support the mission as well so where does that leave us? Why should we be surprised that there should be high ranking officers who disagree? Is Gen. Zinni the ultimate person who decides what the relative merits of the operation really are?
Originally posted by 7E7
I have seen a lot of retired high ranking officers on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News who support the mission
Yeah, we are all well aware of how much attention you pay to comments by those in the military.
Originally posted by 7E7
I'm not going to smear the guy. He served his country with great distiniction for many years and I honor his service. Everybody has a right to their opinion although I respectfully disagree with his assertions. One must remember that a lot of retired generals have greatly inflated opinions of themselves and it is common for them to question the actions of others because their egos lead them to believe they would have made better decisions. I have seen a lot of retired high ranking officers on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News who support the mission as well so where does that leave us? Why should we be surprised that there should be high ranking officers who disagree? Is Gen. Zinni the ultimate person who decides what the relative merits of the operation really are?
So, apparently the 'retired' tag pulls some assination wieght.
I would point out that Zinni's position is not merely one of just another 'retired' Generals . . . he was THE special envoy in the ME; leading negotiator twixt Israel and Palistine before things were made inpossible for him to remain and before he was fired for voicing concerns. He was given that role because it was generally held that he knew most about the realities of the situation as well as held the most Universal (as in from both sides) respect.
He was DA MAN!, as one might say . . . not just another 'retired General'
You have not seen the like of this before. You just have not. If you think you have, it's wishful thinking.
What will it take, how many credible individuals will it take before you get worried that something is seriously wrong? Before you will entertain the possibility your government is a bad government?
Serious question.
That quote again:
"My country right or wrong.
If right to keep it right.
If wrong to make it right."
A patriot entertains the possibility.
Originally posted by faust9
Don't forget Scott. Wouldn't want him to feel ostracized.
It all boils down to the truth is out. I think most Americans now realize they were lied to. Most Americans realize the Bush admin is nothing but a bunch of ideological goons. People will continue to step forward and say "These guys suckered you!" but after the first three or four lights into the Bush admin darkness, the rest are just jumping on the truth shall set you free bandwagon.
I give NaplesX a day though before he gives us the ol' "wait and see what pans out" line concerning the current situation followed soon thereafter by "How could we wait and see?" about the situation prior to the war.
The backers of the admin are loseing ground with every passing day. Republican representatives are stepping forward with harsher criticisms of the admin's (Lindsy Grahm, McCain...) policies in general, and the handeling of Iraq specifically. This Abu Graib incident didn't help Bush any either. More and more, bigger fish will tell the truth. Colin Powel for instance came forward and said the information used to initially justify the war was fabricated (another insider steps forward if you will)...
Colin Powell supports this mission still and time and gain he has rejected the liberal theory that the Bush Administration fabricated the evidence he presented at the UN. He said that it was the best information the CIA had at the time and he has been saddened that some of the intelligence appears to have been discredited. But he has NEVER at any time come out against the President and I know he has the integrity to do so if he really felt that way. So don't try to create a story where none exists just as liberals are doing now in regards to Kerry's VP search. These lefties are literally wetting their pants about the prospect of a conservative like John McCain joining Kerry on the Democratic ticket. McCain has already said flatly that he is not interested in being Kerry's VP and he has gone on the record saying he supports Bush's re-election bid. Actually, all this tells me is that liberals are well aware that there is no way a liberal can win the election without the help of conservatives and they need the appearance of a stand-up guy like McCain who has real national security credentials to help them get there. The nation as a whole is in no way as liberal as this forum is and the Democrats are at least intelligent enough to know that.
Originally posted by Harald
The amount of people with this message is UNPRECEDENTED.
You have not seen the like of this before. You just have not. If you think you have, it's wishful thinking.
What will it take, how many credible individuals will it take before you get worried that something is seriously wrong? Before you will entertain the possibility your government is a bad government?
Serious question.
That quote again:
"My country right or wrong.
If right to keep it right.
If wrong to make it right."
A patriot entertains the possibility.
I just choose to judge a mission on a long term basis - not a mission that is only in the formitive stages. A lot of people were saying the same thing about what we were doing in post-war Europe and Japan. Those two situations turned out just fine and I think that this mission deserves more time before it is declared to be a failure. We have seen enough progress there that we should not even be contemplating pulling out. This is hardly Vietnam and deep down most of you know that. Considering the fact that it was LBJ and the Democrats who escalated things in Vietnam I am surprised that people here actually have the audacity to bring it up...
Originally posted by tonton
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
The irony.... it's killing me.
First of all... as if you had more information on the facts than he has...
Secondly... oh, I'll let you figure it out.
As I said, there are other retired high ranking military officers who disagree with Zinni. So who is to say who is right? I always laugh how liberals will latch on to one guy who says something and shout "Ah ha! I got the proof that the Bush Administration is the Evil Empire!"
I thought Microsoft already had that job...
Originally posted by 7E7
Colin Powell supports this mission still and time and gain he has rejected the liberal theory that the Bush Administration fabricated the evidence he presented at the UN. He said that it was the best information the CIA had at the time and he has been saddened that some of the intelligence appears to have been discredited. But he has NEVER at any time come out against the President and I know he has the integrity to do so if he really felt that way. So don't try to create a story where none exists just as liberals are doing now in regards to Kerry's VP search. These lefties are literally wetting their pants about the prospect of a conservative like John McCain joining Kerry on the Democratic ticket. McCain has already said flatly that he is not interested in being Kerry's VP and he has gone on the record saying he supports Bush's re-election bid. Actually, all this tells me is that liberals are well aware that there is no way a liberal can win the election without the help of conservatives and they need the appearance of a stand-up guy like McCain who has real national security credentials to help them get there. The nation as a whole is in no way as liberal as this forum is and the Democrats are at least intelligent enough to know that.
Wow, way to read stuff into what I said... First off, McCain has been critical of the admin on many occassion especially about tax policy. Why, McCain is more of a conservative than most members of the Bush admin. Next, Powel just said on meet the press last week that he was given deliberetly false information. Powels staff has been leaking bits and pieces of Powels disagreement with the current admin (though he is a member) in order to save his name and reputation.
In summary, what the hell are you talk'n bout'? A lot of conservatives have and are jumping the Bush ship, myself included because I'm a true conservative in the same vein as Lincoln and Eisenhower, BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. He surrounded himself with Neo-Cons (neo meants to transcend or go beyond which meants they have stepped outside the bounds that many conservatives use to define themselves) not true conservatives. If you think Kerry NEEDS McCain then I'd say you are sorely mistaken, do not pay attention to the news, have never gone through a presidential election cycle before, and/or are blinded by the Neo-Cons. Fact of the matter is Bush is running a smear campaign already against Kerry. Smear campaigns usually wait until the last few weeks because they paint both participants in a negative light. Politicians who use smear tactics this early do so because they have to other basis for their own campaign. Can Bush run on the economy--No. Can Bush run on Iraq--Not really(soon to be a No). Can Bush run on education--No (NCLBA has been throughly discredited). Can Bush run on health care--No (mediacre reform was his only boon and that stinks to high heaven also how many people have lost medical insurance since he took office?). Can Bush run on terrorism--Just barely. Can Bush run on tax cuts--No (deficits, that old chestnut). What can Bush run on? Steady leadership to ruin!!!
Thank you, come again.
Originally posted by 7E7
Considering the fact that it was LBJ and the Democrats who escalated things in Vietnam I am surprised that people here actually have the audacity to bring it up...
You realise you just proved my point?
I voted for Tony Blair. I've vote Labour as long as I've been able to vote in the UK.
Never again. And I would have wanted LBJ impeached had I voted Democrat back then.
Baa.
Originally posted by pfflam
So, apparently the 'retired' tag pulls some assination wieght.
I would point out that Zinni's position is not merely one of just another 'retired' Generals . . . he was THE special envoy in the ME; leading negotiator twixt Israel and Palistine before things were made inpossible for him to remain and before he was fired for voicing concerns. He was given that role because it was generally held that he knew most about the realities of the situation as well as held the most Universal (as in from both sides) respect.
He was DA MAN!, as one might say . . . not just another 'retired General'
Apparently the definition of character assassination has narrowed quite a bit. I am not questioning the man's character okay? I simply disagree with his opinion and that is NOT character assassination.
You liberals slay me with the way you throw concepts like this around. Bush's supporters question Kerry's votes in the Senate and suddenly there are charges that they are questioning Kerry's patriotism. It is just unreal how paranoid you people really are. You really ought to consider increasing the dosage of your meds...
Originally posted by 7E7
Apparently the definition of character assassination has narrowed quite a bit. I am not questioning the man's character okay? I simply disagree with his opinion and that is NOT character assassination.
You liberals slay me with the way you throw concepts like this around. Bush's supporters question Kerry's votes in the Senate and suddenly there are charges that they are questioning Kerry's patriotism. It is just unreal how paranoid you people really are. You really ought to consider increasing the dosage of your meds...
Do you not pay attention? There are two of us posting to this thread who are(were) Repubs and at least one(me) who is conservative. I know others on this board who are conservative, and repub who will not vote for Bush this go'round because of the course this country is currently on. So, you blind followers slay me because no matter who steps forward (I bet god himself would be slandered if he said Bush needed to go) you simply push the Rush/Hannity/Coultier/Repub talking points "I believe" button and move on without critical analysis of what is being said.
Originally posted by faust9
Do you not pay attention? There are two of us posting to this thread who are(were) Repubs and at least one(me) who is conservative. I know others on this board who are conservative, and repub who will not vote for Bush this go'round because of the course this country is currently on. So, you blind followers slay me because no matter who steps forward (I bet god himself would be slandered if he said Bush needed to go) you simply push the Rush/Hannity/Coultier/Repub talking points "I believe" button and move on without critical analysis of what is being said.
So go vote for Kerry. Don't say you were never warned...
Kerry voted to give the President the authoriztion to go to war. He then voted against funding the needs of our soldiers over there. He has given no plan for how he would handle the situation in Iraq other than making some vague mumblings about how he will seek to replace our guys on the ground with a new international coalition headed by the UN. He has no plan people! His idea will never work because there aren't enough countries that have the spine to take on a task that needs to be done. His is not a workable solution and I am tired how he always criticizes the President for not giving specifics yet he offers absolutely NOTHING of any consequence. He will pull our guys out when he fails to get new international forces to replace our troops there. If that is what you want to see then vote for Kerry. If you want the chance that we will succeed in Iraq and the war or terrorism than vote for Bush. The choice is very clear. The terrorists want Bush out of office and that speaks volumes about the choice we face.
Originally posted by Harald
You realise you just proved my point?
I voted for Tony Blair. I've vote Labour as long as I've been able to vote in the UK.
Never again. And I would have wanted LBJ impeached had I voted Democrat back then.
Baa.
Who will you vote for? Not tories I assume. Are liberals any better in the UK?