Gen. Zinni: Neocons Hijacked US Foreign Policy for Israel

Subj: Gen. Zinni: Neocons Hijacked US Foreign Policy for Israel
Date: 5/23/04 12:42:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To:
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Friends,

Gen. Zinni: Neocons Hijacked US Foreign Policy for Israel

On CBS 60 Minutes tonight (Sunday) at 7 EST/PST, Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who
once commanded US troops in the Middle East, mentions the neocons’ leading
role in getting the US to attack Iraq for the sake of Israel.



"Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the
administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to
stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary
of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.

"’They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating
their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the
responsibility.’"

General Zinni has included this information in his new book "Battle Ready,"
which is co-written by Tom Clancy.

General Zinni obviously has inside information as to how the war was set into
motion. However, he probably has not studied the neocon/Israeli war agenda, in
which they seek to bring about instability, not stability. See my: "The war on
Iraq: Conceived in Israel" http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm

While the neocons would have liked an Iraqi puppet state, the existing
instability is certainly in line with the necon/Israeli agenda to destabilize
the Middle East.

Zinni knows what happened from the inside. Try to listen to "60 Minutes"
tonight on CBS.

__________________________________________________ _________

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in618896.shtml

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

May 21, 2004

60 Minutes: Preview



Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni once commanded America's troops in the Middle East
(Photo: CBS)

"Regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to everybody
that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"

Gen. Anthony Zinni



President Bush named Zinni special envoy to the Middle East. But Zinni wound up
breaking ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq. (Photo: AP)

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Amazon: Buy "Battle Ready" by Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni,
and co-written by Tom Clancy.



(CBS) Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine
Gen. Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option.

"The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a
little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this
course," he tells CBS News Correspondent Steve Kroft in an interview to be
broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because
planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.

"There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and
execution on the ground," says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the
U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.

Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the
administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to
stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary
of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.

"They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating their
own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the
responsibility," Zinni tells Kroft.

In his upcoming book, "Battle Ready," written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of
the poor planning in harsh terms. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility;
at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes.

Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces
being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military
dimensions of the plan."

He still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can
communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better
image to them.

The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the mission is
also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "We are going to be
looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I wouldn't want
to see us fail here."

Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States and
especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he says.

Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved the way
for the security problems the U.S. faces there now, the violence Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated.

"He should not have been surprised," says Zinni. "There were a number of people
who before we even engaged in this conflict felt strongly that we
underestimated...the scope of the problems we would have in [Iraq]."

The fact that no one in the administration has paid for the blunder irks Zinni.
"But regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to
everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"

Is Congress Aiding A Massive Israeli Deception?:


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=15157

"...getting the US to attack Iraq for the sake of Israel...."

Would you believe there was actually more to invading Iraq than supporting
Israel?

In 1991 Iraq agreed to a cease fire, not an armistice. Then for eleven years
Iraq violated that cease fire, shooting at our airplanes and supporting
Middle East terrorist attacks. Iraq stole the food we provided for starving
Iraqi children. Iraq also was bought secret UN support from our deceitful
French, Germans and Russian "allies". Under the terms of the cease fire we
were justified in striking back at any time in accordance with international
law.

After exhausting fourteen ineffectual UN resolutions we finally decided to
take control of our fight against terrorism. And we did just that, first
vanquishing the Taliban in Afghanistan, then Saddam Hussein in Iraq!

The results have been:
1. Pakistan is now an ally in fighting terrorism,
2. Libya has stopped developing nuclear weapons,
3. Afghanistan is now free of the Taliban,
4. Every country in the Middle East now fears being next on our Axis of
Evil list,
5. Osama's effective authority over terrorism now extends only within the
cave he is currently hiding,
6. The butcher of Baghdad, now in prison, will soon be tried by the people
he tormented,
7. Iran, the major sponsor of current terrorism, is now squeezed by a free
Afghanistan on one side and a free Iraq on the other,
8. The world's terrorists, now clustered in Iraq and not in the USA, are
being continually decimated,
9. And, we have had no terrorist attacks whatsoever on American soil in the
last three years!

It's been a very successful campaign thus far! Only a liberal wimp would
believe otherwise.

WDA

end

"MORRIS434" wrote in message
...
Subj: Gen. Zinni: Neocons Hijacked US Foreign Policy for Israel
Date: 5/23/04 12:42:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To:
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Friends,

Gen. Zinni: Neocons Hijacked US Foreign Policy for Israel

On CBS 60 Minutes tonight (Sunday) at 7 EST/PST, Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni,
who
once commanded US troops in the Middle East, mentions the neocons' leading
role in getting the US to attack Iraq for the sake of Israel.



"Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the
administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way
to
stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who
include
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the
undersecretary
of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.

"'They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating
their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the
responsibility.'"

General Zinni has included this information in his new book "Battle
Ready,"
which is co-written by Tom Clancy.

General Zinni obviously has inside information as to how the war was set
into
motion. However, he probably has not studied the neocon/Israeli war
agenda, in
which they seek to bring about instability, not stability. See my: "The
war on
Iraq: Conceived in Israel" http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm

While the neocons would have liked an Iraqi puppet state, the existing
instability is certainly in line with the necon/Israeli agenda to
destabilize
the Middle East.

Zinni knows what happened from the inside. Try to listen to "60 Minutes"
tonight on CBS.

__________________________________________________ _________

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in618896.shtml

Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

May 21, 2004

60 Minutes: Preview



Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni once commanded America's troops in the Middle East
(Photo: CBS)

"Regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to
everybody
that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"

Gen. Anthony Zinni



President Bush named Zinni special envoy to the Middle East. But Zinni
wound up
breaking ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq. (Photo: AP)

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Amazon: Buy "Battle Ready" by Ret. Gen. Anthony
Zinni,
and co-written by Tom Clancy.



(CBS) Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired
Marine
Gen. Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable
option.

"The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change
course a
little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this
course," he tells CBS News Correspondent Steve Kroft in an interview to be
broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, May 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because
planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along.

"There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational
planning and
execution on the ground," says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of
the
U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.

Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the
administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way
to
stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who
include
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the
undersecretary
of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.

"They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating
their
own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the
responsibility," Zinni tells Kroft.

In his upcoming book, "Battle Ready," written with Tom Clancy, Zinni
writes of
the poor planning in harsh terms. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its
later
conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and
irresponsibility;
at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes.

Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient
forces
being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military
dimensions of the plan."

He still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can
communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a
better
image to them.

The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the
mission is
also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "We are going to
be
looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I wouldn't
want
to see us fail here."

Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States and
especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he
says.

Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved the
way
for the security problems the U.S. faces there now, the violence Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated.

"He should not have been surprised," says Zinni. "There were a number of
people
who before we even engaged in this conflict felt strongly that we
underestimated...the scope of the problems we would have in [Iraq]."

The fact that no one in the administration has paid for the blunder irks
Zinni.
"But regardless of whose responsibility [it is]...it should be evident to
everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?"

Is Congress Aiding A Massive Israeli Deception?:


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=15157

we finally decided to
take control of our fight against terrorism. And we did just that, first
vanquishing the Taliban in Afghanistan, then Saddam Hussein in Iraq!

Attacking Iraq was a mistake.

James Webb:

"Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory.
To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing
Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the
government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States
and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region
that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its
maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the
defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence."

Quoted in USA Today, 2/19/04

Webb of course is a Naval Academy graduate, Marine Officer and SecNav under
Reagan.

Walt

In article , "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote:

[snip comment about Israel and 1991.]

Let me preface this by saying that I dearly hope you are right and I am
wrong about how some of the events came about, but I have difficulty
justifying some of the points below on the basis of Iraq alone. Don't
get me wrong -- I think it was necessary to go into Afghanistan quickly,
and I object more to the timing, preparation and expectations of the
Iraqi invasion rather than doing it at all.


The results have been:
1. Pakistan is now an ally in fighting terrorism,

I would associate this much more with Afghanistan, which, of course, is
Pakistan's neighbor and the jihadist groups going back and forth across
the Afghan border from the essentially lawless Pakistani Federally
Administered Tribal Areas.

Assassination attempts on Pakistani leader Musharraf, possibly having
some support from out-of-control Inter-Service Intelligence, which may,
in turn, cooperate with jihadists. There are at least five major groups
in the FATA, only one of which is the Taliban.

2. Libya has stopped developing nuclear weapons,

This is the culmination of a long program. Remember that Gaddafi has had
direct attacks on his country. Again, the Afghan model probably fits the
geography and low population density of Libya better than does the Iraqi
model.

3. Afghanistan is now free of the Taliban,

Clear win.

4. Every country in the Middle East now fears being next on our Axis of
Evil list,

Here, I'm not that sure. Assuming some of those countries have mildly
competent intelligence officers, they can look at the level of
commitment (present and future undefined) and ask "with what troops will
they invade us?"

5. Osama's effective authority over terrorism now extends only within
the
cave he is currently hiding,

Unclear.

6. The butcher of Baghdad, now in prison, will soon be tried by the
people
he tormented,

True.

7. Iran, the major sponsor of current terrorism, is now squeezed by a
free
Afghanistan on one side and a free Iraq on the other,

I'm not sure I would say "the" major, but I do agree that Iran is being
pressured. I am less clear how much of that is from Iraq. In fact,
there's much more shared culture between Afghanistan and Iran, and the
Iranians have been doing some apparently legitimate assistance there.
It's possible that the opening to Iran may very well come from
Afghanistan, where one of the major languages (Dari) is a dialect of
Farsi. Neither side are Arabs.

8. The world's terrorists, now clustered in Iraq and not in the USA, are
being continually decimated

I would like to think this is the case, but I really don't know.

9. And, we have had no terrorist attacks whatsoever on American soil in
the
last three years!

I hope I am wrong when I say that luck and counterterrorism here, rather
than Iraq, is responsible. Clearing Afghanistan has a much more clear
cause and effect.


It's been a very successful campaign thus far! Only a liberal wimp would
believe otherwise.

I don't think the opposition breaks into useful distinctions of liberal
versus conservative. I thoroughly support the Afghan operations, but
have serious doubts of the readiness, planning and urgency with respect
to Iraq.


He still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can
communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a
better
image to them.

The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the
mission is
also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "We are going
to
be
looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I
wouldn't
want
to see us fail here."

The reality is that the Administration has not gotten US consensus of
essentially an open-ended nation-building process.


Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the United States
and
especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he
says.

Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved
the
way
for the security problems the U.S. faces there now, the violence
Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated.


I would agree.