Be the First to Trash Zinni

[Sundog]

OK, you righties, be the first to explain to us why General Zinni is just another in a long line of traitorous book writers with an anti-Bush agenda. We know you're already working on the talking points; share them with us, we really want to know.

Do it now, BEFORE Fox and Rush tell you why he's a treasonous Bush-hater.

RELEVANCE TO THE JREF MISSION:

To show flaws in the thinking processes of those who dismiss Bush critics with ad-hominem arguments.

(REASON FOR THE RELEVANCE STATEMENTS:

Because some people In Authority are so slow-witted that they don't recognize that the vast majority of forum activity promotes critical thinking in one way or another.)

 

[DavidJames]

why General Zinni is just another in a long line of traitorous book writers with an anti-Bush agenda

Not a righty, but I'll give it a shot.

Because he was a general during the Clinton years.
Because he is trying to sell his book.
Because he is simply wrong.

 

[Tony]

He wears women's panties.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think he's got beautiful legs .....

Charlie (channeling Monty Python) Monoxid

 

[shemp]

Also, he puts on women's clothing and hangs around in bars.

 

[corplinx]

Because he has that annoying "old man" smell.


Seriously though, I think a more interesting angle is seeing which pundits do "trash" Zinni.

Checklist?
Rush
O'Reilly (editorial show on Fox)
Brit Hume (on Fox Special Report)
John Gibson (Fox quasi-editorilal show Big Story anchor, a hawkish right leaning anchor)

Now, in Fox style they will probably present someone pro/against Zinni on a segment. That doesn't count. Neither does one of panelists on Special Report doing it. Neither does Hannity since there is also a balance there.

What counts is the host of the show doing the trashing.

Let's see if the prediction of this trash effort pans out.

 

[Sundog]

Because he has that annoying "old man" smell.


Seriously though, I think a more interesting angle is seeing which pundits do "trash" Zinni.

Checklist?
Rush
O'Reilly (editorial show on Fox)
Brit Hume (on Fox Special Report)
John Gibson (Fox quasi-editorilal show Big Story anchor, a hawkish right leaning anchor)

Now, in Fox style they will probably present someone pro/against Zinni on a segment. That doesn't count. Neither does one of panelists on Special Report doing it. Neither does Hannity since there is also a balance there.

What counts is the host of the show doing the trashing.

Let's see if the prediction of this trash effort pans out.

OK, that does it; you've been in danger of it for some time, and now you've crossed the line. You are on my Reasonable Person list.

I hope to be on my list myself someday...

 

[RandFan]

As I said last night on this forum I think Zinni is compelling.

Can I ask you a question Sundog, if someone with the same credibility as Zinni has a different take would you be willing to reconsider your stance?

 

[Sundog]

As I said last night on this forum I think Zinni is compelling.

Can I ask you a question Sundog, if someone with the same credibility as Zinni has a different take would you be willing to reconsider your stance?

If they could set my mind at rest concerning the many issues on the table, I would like to think I would be accepting of what they had to say.

 

[RandFan]

If they could set my mind at rest concerning the many issues on the table, I would like to think I would be accepting of what they had to say.

Good.

I think a picture is emerging that there was ample reason to wait to invade and that if we were going to invade that we should have been better prepared for the occupation.

 

[Silicon]

Hey, I've been all ears this whole time.

I was all ears when Powell was showing arial photographs of chemical weapons factories.

I was all ears when Bush announced that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

I had tears of joy streaming down my face when watching dancing Iraqis toppling a statue of Saddam.


But now?

I think we may have won the war only to lose the peace. I think we're on our way to a powder keg in iraq.

Now getting out quickly is unthinkable, and being there a long time is ALSO unthinkable.

Winning hearts and minds was CRUCIAL to everything positive that a post-saddam iraq would be.

As it is? We'll probably swap out one bloody dictator for another (or a bunch of warlords who will fight it out for 15 years).

Rumsfeld and crew have probably turned America's stomach against foreign ventures, and so as a nation we'll probably shortly retreat into the same old dangerous isolationism that got us here.

We can definitely expect ZERO cooperation on containing terrorism from any other nation for the next ten years.

I think many more people will die because of these mistakes, than if our foreign policy were run by experts in the region, and the war was run by soldiers rather than defense contractors and their revolving-door presidents.

 

[Vorticity]

I, for one, have always found his personal hygiene suspect.

 

[shemp]

I just received word that he eats toadstools.

 

[hgc]

...

I think many more people will die because of these mistakes, than if our foreign policy were run by experts in the region, and the war was run by soldiers rather than defense contractors and their revolving-door presidents.

First, more will die than if our foreign policy were run by chimpanzees. Chimps have no philosophy, and hence are much less dangerous.

Second, war is too important to be left to the generals. It may seem quaint (like the Geneva Conventions, according to administration lawyers), but gosh darn if I don't just love a civilian government, and never more so than when it comes to war policy.

 

[Cleon]

First, more will die than if our foreign policy were run by chimpanzees. Chimps have no philosophy, and hence are much less dangerous.

BOBO FOR PRESIDENT!

 

[Sundog]

I think that in order to compare approaches, some quotes from some of our great leaders might be appropriate:


Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.


Sir Winston Churchill


Bring 'em on.

President George Bush

 

[Silicon]

Second, war is too important to be left to the generals. It may seem quaint (like the Geneva Conventions, according to administration lawyers), but gosh darn if I don't just love a civilian government, and never more so than when it comes to war policy.

I meant the war part of the war.

Not the political part. That, I agree, needs to be with civilians.


What I mean is, if you're the head of the DOD, and a general gives you advice, you don't ignore it, fire them and instead rely on position papers from the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[corplinx]

Just checking back in, did the backlash on Gen. Zinni that Sundog and Subgenius predicted ever happen?

 

[zenith-nadir]

The one thing that really doesn't add up for me with Zinni is this. Whether you are a Bush fan or not, how did Bush do so much "damage" in only seven months in office considering Zinni was Commander in Chief and Deputy Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, (1996-2000), under C-l-i-n-t-o-n?

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Silicon
I think we may have won the war only to lose the peace. I think we're on our way to a powder keg in iraq.

I keep hearing claims like that, and it keeps not happening. In April people were crying that the Shi'ites and Sunnis were going to join forces and kick us out. Didn't happen. Sadr was supposedly on his way to gaining widespread popular support. Didn't happen. We were supposed to be faced with the impossible task of either defeating Sadr's militia at the cost of leveling holy cities and enraging the muslim world or letting him gain control over city after city. Well, we defeated him AND we didn't enrage the Shi'ites.

The pessimists have a poor track record. The press is still relying on handlers and translators that they relied on under Saddam, and while their master is gone, the anti-american agenda of these contacts remains to poison the press reports coming out of Iraq. Things are not as bad as they would have you believe. Refugees are returning to Iraq, not leaving: why is that? The Iraqi dinar is for the first time in more than a decade a stable currency: why is that? Because things are actually going reasonably well over there, despite the problems.

Now getting out quickly is unthinkable, and being there a long time is ALSO unthinkable.

I'm not sure what mental impairements you have, but it's quite thinkable to me. What it requires, and what we're in the process of doing, is creating an Iraqi security force capable of standing up for itself. As that happens, US engagement in day-to-day operations will scale back. We can have a presence there for a very long time.

We can definitely expect ZERO cooperation on containing terrorism from any other nation for the next ten years.

Hardly. You think France, for example, is so petulent that they won't share information about terrorists? Nope. They will, because they know they're on the hitlist too. Just as pretty much every country is. We are getting cooperation, and will continue to do so. Except from the ones who supported terrorism to begin with - such as Iran and Syria. But now that they know just how damned serious we are, they might actually consider scaling back a bit.