What is not disclosed is how much money Zinni has made since retirement from his Arab friends. We know Colin Powell became an overnight multi-millionaire because he had to disclose his net worth when he became SecState.
Zinni, on the other hand, is a Director of several US companies involved in Pentagon business and Security.
A full disclosure is most appropriate!
Where was he when Clinton bombed aspirin factories and Chinese embassies.
Zinni is a putz.
With the lead-in you provided the detractors deserve a full investigation prior to any scrutiny of Rummy.
"A full disclosure is most appropriate!" applies to them most appropriately and helps prove the value of the adage that "the guilty dog barks first".
"Zinni, who has close ties to Colin Powell and the Oil Shieks, has never been happy with the Iraq foreign policy."
However, I tend to agree with the General, at least to the point where I believe that the execution of the Iraq invasion was poorly handled.
Anyone who's studied Iraq, even for a quick seminar, should've seen lots of these problems coming. Quite frankly, we're finding out why it took a SOB like Saddam to stay in power, much less run the place. The tribal and ethnic rivalries were simmering, and once the lid was off those old scores were bound to be settled. Anyone in their right mind would've seen the Iranian interferance.
I got the feeling going into the war that the Administration was spending almost all of its time thinking about how to win the combat, a little time selling the idea to the American people, and absolutely no time thinking about what life would be like after the combat phase.
Zinni should have been s***canned over the Cole but he had already retired.
From my point of view, it has appeared that the Bush administration weighed it's actions heavily on what the commanders in the field said they needed.
I've seen some things I didn't quite feel comfortable with over the past few years, but I don't think any war campaign is waged perfectly. Situations morph and operations are adapted.
If Bush had taken some of the actions current detractors might have suggested, when they failed those same detractors would have been damning Bush for not taking the actions he actually did.
Of course the Bush administration hasn't met with 100% success. Will any campaign lasting more than six months? No. There will be great successes and painful losses.
If I thought Bush were guility of negligence, or Rumsfeld was an incompetent, I'd be the one to air my views. As of this date, I still cannot do so.
I think this administration has done it's level best to conduct the most appropriate campaign in Iraq that it could, and to this point I agree with it and support the team completely.
I tink our troops are for the most part well served by the Bush team. I wish I could say the same for the anti-Bush anti-war forces, who for a little face time are willing to sell our troops down the river without a second thought.
No I'm not buying it that they are doing this for the troops. Voicing differences in public is a poor way to increase support for this administration's policy, and the resultant support for troops. The terrorists see this carping, and realize that we are not unified.
That is the message that simply cannot be sent in time of war, providing you want to win.
This isn't 'news'.
Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'
May 21, 2004
he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty
http://tinyurl.com/r7mvt
In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."
Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
I don't remember anyone asking this jerk for 'his opinion'.
"I think he ran on a moderate ticket, and that's my leaning -- I'm kind of a Lugar-Hagel-Powell guy," he (Zinni) says, listing three Republicans associated with centrist foreign policy positions.
"In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He (Saddam) has WMD.' "
At 0745 ET:
Call-In
War in Iraq
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 191879 - 2 - 04/03/2006 - 0:45 - No Sale
Zinni, Anthony C. Commander in Chief (1997-2000), U.S. Central Command
General Anthony Zinni (Ret.) talks about his book "The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose," published by Palgrave Macmillan. He was formerly the commander of the U.S. Central Command, 1997-2000, and talks about the war in Iraq. Topics include his opinion of the current U.S. policy towards Iraq, military strategy, and any future withdrawal of U.S. troops.
He would be the general that failed to kill bin Laden, during Clinton's reign.
Also failed to retaliate for the ship Cole disaster.
General BIG NOTHING.
Maybe I'm destined for the short-bus here, but I really don't understand how effecting occupation of a country with a military the size of Iraq's and maintaining a 3+ year occupation with slightly more than 2,000 fatalities to date can be considered a 'failure'.
Can somebody please clue me in to where the supposed 'failure' is here?
Zinni gained my respect (and saved alot of our boys) by pouring water all over Gen. Downings (see Chalabi) plan of sending in a handful of SpecOps and dissidents. Zinni said it would be our "Bay of Goats."
It pains me to no end to see Marines in such a cowardly light. Zinni is a little bitch and hindsight is always 20/20.
I watched the interview. IMHO - The problem with his argument is that Zinni sees the "highest" strategic decisions being 1) That there were WMD 2) How to invade.
I think the real HIGHEST level strategic decision resulted from this type of basic discussion among 3 to 5 people (short version):
- Iraq with a nuke is unacceptable as it would become even more agressive and it's mere possession of a nuke threatens the world.
- Iraq will likely either develop or buy (North Korea) a nuke in the next 12 years.
- If a Democrat is elected President in 2004 or 2008, the problem will not be dealt with, and IRAQ WILL HAVE A NUKE. Then America, the West, and the world will be in jeopardy. This alone is enough reason to overthrow Saddam. And, there is Congressional support.
- 9/11 changes everything. We no longer have to worry about how the leaders and people of the ME feel about us eliminating the WMD threat from Iraq.
- We have a problem that must be dealt with and the terrorists have made a mistake and presented us with an opportunistic moment to deal with it.
Strategic Decision: Do we "seize the moment" and deal with the Iraq WMD problem (present or future) now, rather than pass it to the Dems, who will almost certainly fail to properly deal with it.
I think this is what some reporter's are getting at when they ask, "Why did you go to war with Iraq?"
Zinni was the one who was booted 'cause he was a Clinton lackey, wasn't he?