General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

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


I think that most readers would say I did do better. You started by
saying that Reagan was the worst president (a near tie, according to
you with Bush 43.) You asserted that he always took the easy way out.

That's all true.

Reagan approved illegal activity. He should have been impeached and
convicted.

Aside from the reality with Clinton, I've now heard suggestions that
LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 43 be impeached. We've had the California
circus of recall.

Impeachment and recall are the large thermonuclear weapons, approaching
doomsday machines, of American politics. Polarized views and the
demonizing of dissent are, at least, cluster munitions.

There comes a point where real-time revenge, and real-time investigative
journalism and partisan witch-hunts become an inherent danger to the
viability of the political process. Most Presidents have approved some
form of illegal activity. For "thermonuclear release", there needs to
be a clear and present danger to the Constitution. While Nixon, for
whom I actively campaigned, was showing a fairly extensive pattern of
violations, I can find Reagan's Iran-Contra and Clinton's zipper worthy,
perhaps, of censure. I find it very difficult to see these events of an
importance that has a significant chance of inhibiting the rest of
government, as all eyes focus on the center ring.

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
snip
Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.


And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942. Since
we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was
a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
who actually formulate it.


Cheers

--mike

In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote:

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
snip
Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.


And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942.
Since
we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that
was
a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
who actually formulate it.

Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to
have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle
them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was
at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French
vessels might be taken by the Axis.

By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French
were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes
stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support
to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and
Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK
also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if
they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

They've told a number of lies.


Prove it.



They lied about the rationale for the war.


They didn't.



There were never any WMD.


A great many Kurds would disagree with you on that. Unfortunately, they
can't. They were killed by Iraqi WMD.



That's been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.


Nonsense. It hasn't been shown at all and Bush certainly didn't "admit"
anything.



They lied about, or were wrong about:

How the Iraqis would react to our invasion. We didn't get the flowers and
adulation they suggested.

That the Iraqi oil industry could pay for rebuilding the country.

They decided to suspend the Geneva Convention in Iraq. But they didn't
bother
to tell anyone.


So which of these are lies and which are errors?

They've told a number of lies.

They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD. That's
been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.


So did they know that beforehand?

And if it was a lie, was it a lie too when Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and Albright
said there were WMD?


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

...and since you quoted it, you commented on it.

That's two low-quality lies in a row.


com·ment Pronunciation Key (kmnt)
n.
1..
1.. A written note intended as an explanation, illustration, or
criticism of a passage in a book or other writing; an annotation.
2.. A series of annotations or explanations.
2..
1.. A statement of fact or opinion, especially a remark that expresses a
personal reaction or attitude.
2.. An implied conclusion or judgment: a novel that is a comment on
contemporary lawlessness.
3.. Talk; gossip: a divorce that caused much comment.
4.. Computer Science. A string of text in a program that does not function
in the program itself but is used by the programmer to explain instructions.
5.. Linguistics. The part of a sentence that provides new information
about the topic. Also called rheme.

v. com·ment·ed, com·ment·ing, com·ments
v. intr.
1.. To make a comment; remark.
2.. To serve as a judgmental commentary: "Her demise comments on [the
Upper East Side's] entire way of life" (Mark Muro).

In message . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.

Such as?

Porton Down.

And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.


Such as?

See above.

When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
umbrella.


Exactly.

But even liars can sometimes be correct.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

Porton Down.


I never heard of this person. Who is he?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

Porton Down.


I never heard of this person. Who is he?

It isn't a "he", it is the primary chemical and biological weapons research
establishment in the UK, and it has been since 1916.

"Brett" wrote in message
...

It isn't a "he", it is the primary chemical and biological weapons
research
establishment in the UK, and it has been since 1916.


Doh! And here I was thinking, for a guy who claimed there were "a lot of
people" that disputed prewar Iraq had significant WMD, how odd he could only
name one. Now it turns out he couldn't name any!