So what?
Well, here on this planet -- as opposed to, say, Bizarro-Earth -- implicit endorsement of bigotry is not normally considered any more admirable or defensible than explicit endorsement of same; simply the more cowardly option, is all. I'm sure I don't know how it's done in more eastern (or far eastern) climes, of course.
This thread is all about how Zinni is an anti-semite because on 60 Minutes he targeted nobody but Jews
Wildly incorrect. This thread is "about" Zinni's stated selecting (as per the U-N-C-O-N-T-E-S-T-E-D 60 Minutes piece), solely and specifically, of J-E-W-I-S-H individuals as operating under the penumbra of some shadowy, nebulous "conspiracy" actively against America's best interests.
Really: all of this yowling and wriggling on the part of Zinni's increasingly wild-eyed defenders is simply ludicrous, in the final analysis. Their (your) entire "argument," charitably, seems to boil down to: "... they didn't actually sjow THAT part of the tape, so it never really happened!" Nyaahh, nyaahh!"
Again, and finally: unless and until Zinni publicly disavows the 60M re-stating of his views, during said interview -- all you're doing, ultimately, is arm-waving, frantically, and hoping that others will mistake frenzy of motion for cogency of rebuttal.
Sadly: it ain't working.
Nope. That's just your spin. You obviously prefer to label the guy rather than address the substance of his comments. Suit yourself. Maybe the leftists can help you perfect this tactic. They *are* the masters.