April 09, 2006
General Zinni: Hero or Mountebank?
The genesis of this post was a comment in an earlier post from on Jorg Wolfe, a friend (though obviously from a different political slant) to another commenter:
From Gen Zinni: "If, like General Casey said a week or so ago, 99.9 percent of the people are opposed to the violence and the perpetrators of these violence. Well, all those people have to do is call up on the phone and tell you where the insurgents are ... And the security forces and the Iraqis would be able to handle it. We're not fighting the Waffen SS here. You know, we're fighting a bunch of ragtag people with AK-47s and IEDs and RPGs. They can be policed up if the people turn against them. We haven't won the hearts and minds yet."Now, I am a supporter of the effort in Iraq, as Jorg is not. He is however a staunch supporter of the war in Afghanistan and often mentions the 2000 German troops in the Afghan War. I commend him for this part of the war on terror.
But, I digress, the genesis of this post was Jorg's comment about General Zinni. I have listened to the General on the talking head shows a couple of times and have wondered "What about this guy?" Is he for real, an honest to goodness hero of Vietnam and other conflicts, a solid Marine or is he a mountebank? So, I asked a friend of mine who might have known Zinni and might be able to comment on him and his performance. My friends comment:
There are some comments re: Gen. Zinni and others' view on the war in Iraq.Well, is that fair? Maybe not. But it is one Marine Officers opinion, a Marine whom I'm personally acquainted with.
IRT to Zinni, he seems to be talking out of two sides of his mouth. On the one hand (and remember that he was Commander, Central Command before Gen. Tommy Franks), he says that we should never have gone into Iraq. On the other hand, he states that now that we are there, we must stay and prevail. In my view (and remember this is his second book...lots of money involved in his books...not to mention being fawned over by the liberal press and such on his speaking tours...for which he is also well paid), is if one's country is in a war, one aids and abets one's OWN forces, and doth not sow questioning during the strife. To do otherwise gets soldiers killed. During the run up to the assault against Iraq, he could have spoken out long and loud (for my dime), but once the troops crossed the LOD, he should have dummied up. It is interesting to note, that LOTS went wrong in our Civil War, World War I and World War II. LOTS. Having said that, we kept our eye on the big picture and pressed ahead. Wars, by their very nature are very awful and very messy. Lots of mistakes are made. One attempts, through training, careful planning and such to lessen the awfulness and sorrow. Few note that many of the those Americans killed or maimed are through accidents...often their own fault. Heck, George, during "peacetime" lots of folks get injured or killed during training. We pay lots of attention to safety in America's armed forces, but with lots of mostly young men...one is never going to completely make it perfect. As a commander, I lost way more troops to traffic accidents and such than I ever lost to training accidents. Note: I was pretty hard on safety violations both on and off duty...thus my safety record was among the best among all the units at Camp Pendleton, CA. I talked to the Marines quite a bit and told them that I really did not want to write a letter to their parents or spouses if they were killed due to stupidity or bad choices. I told them in advance that I would (metaphorically) fall on them liked a old brick house.
Well, I know Zinni from when he was a brand new Captain (and promoted very quickly due to the war [RVN]) and I a new Lieutenant. He was lecturing us on ambushes. The class was in the field. He was using an Army Field Manual published post WW II. Nearly all he said, in my view, was wrong. I had just come from RVN where ambushes was mostly what I was doing. I was mostly successful and never lost a Marine in my unit. The enemy lost many. Soooooo, politely and with proper deference to his "lofty" title vice my more "lowly" one, I challenged him. He did not take kindly to it. Maybe my opinions above are suspect due to personal grudge long held? Maybe, maybe not.
I have learned in long study of military history, added to personal observation, that wisdom does NOT necessarily accrue to those who are older. There were/are plenty of generals around that made/make very wrong decisions.
I have gone on too long. I don't like that Zinni is speaking out....further it is really suspect when he is making plenty of money doing it.[Emphasis Added]
General Zinni has said:
In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence, and corruption.
General Tony Zinni in Battle Ready. [Emphasis Added]
But my friend is not the only one to question General Zinni's "honesty" or reasons for saying what he is saying. Others including Jed Babbin have a question or two. Babbin:
Why in the world would anyone want to be the next Wesley Clark? In the 2004 election General Clark played Ashley Wilkes to Dan Rather's Scarlett O'Hara. Clark went wacky early, doing his best to endear himself to the Howard Dean lefties by making a habit of statements such as his call for a criminal investigation into the president's decision on the Iraq war. Clark's only achievement was to make of himself a useful tool of the Clinton machine.Babbin goes on to note:
ZINNI IS SO WRONG ON SO MANY levels, it's hard to know where to start dissecting him. He claims we threw away ten years of planning for Iraq. He, of all people, a former combatant commander, should know that old plans get thrown out when the assumptions on which they were made become invalid. That, precisely, was the reason much of the Clinton-era planning for Iraq was set aside in the 2002-2003 buildup to the Iraq campaign. War plans aren't static, they evolve with the forces -- political, military and economic -- that change in every nation every year. Zinni knows better. His points are political, not military or strategic."He, of all people, a former combatant commander, should know that old plans get thrown out when the assumptions on which they were made become invalid." Babbin MAY be wrong about that, after all as noted above he was teaching WWII ambush tactics for use in Vietnam when Marines who had actually been there and used new techniques knew better. And General Zinni (then as a Captain) didn't like being corrected any more than he does now as a General. In fact, the General has those who are wondering if he is right (and that is always a possibility) including this comment from that oh-so-very chic radical right wing chick Peggy Noonan (/sarcasm - Noonan is brilliant folks)
Tony Zinni was against the Iraq war before it occurred, opposes it now, has written about it. Fine. But the history recounted in "Cobra II," and the testimony of Gen. Zinni, suggests a lot of generals--a lot--were against the war in the run-up, for reasons that were many and serious. If this is correct it begs questions: Did they feel they could not speak? Why? What dynamics went into the decision? Or did they speak and we didn't hear, or didn't weigh what was said seriously enough? Did they speak inside? To what degree did the inside listen? Or were the generals and colonels, in fact, split? Were the generals more supportive than is now being suggested?Zinni again:
...I heard the case being built to go to war right away- I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof that I ever saw that Saddam had WMD...."
Jorg Wolfe of Atlantic Review is at the minimum a supporter of General Zinni, and has noted this in comments on this blog as well as the post referred to. Jorg is a very smart fellow and a friend. But he is wrong on this one I think. General Zinni is being lauded on his apostasy by the very liberal MSM (oh, and don't even go there that there is no such thing as a LIBERAL MSM) as was/is Jack Murtha, congress-critter of Penn.(folks, each word is a seperate link - read them all)
Joel Mowbray writing in Townhall.com was considerably less than kind about General Zinni's choice of words. Words that to Mowbray sounded (as many other have noted about the seemingly anti-semetic and/or at the minimum anti-Israel left, and I know that they are not the same thing, but in some peoples minds in that sewer, they are. It's a hell-of-a-note to think that Democratic bigwigs align themselves with trash like David Duke isn't it?) But, I digress, as Mowbray notes:
Discussing the Iraq war with the Washington Post last week, former General Anthony Zinni took the path chosen by so many anti-Semites: he blamed it on the Jews.Mowbray goes on to say:Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney—nor for that matter Zinni's old friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell—was to blame. It was the Jews. They "captured" both Bush and Cheney, and Powell was merely being a "good soldier."
Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn't say "Jews." He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: "neoconservatives." As the name implies, "neoconservative" was originally meant to denote someone who is a newcomer to the right. In the 90's, many people self-identified themselves as "neocons," but today that term has become synonymous with "Jews."
Given that the "neocons" do not control the Departments of State or Defense nor the National Security Council—gentiles all head those agencies—and given that the White House is clearly run by non-Jews, how is it that Zinni claims that the "neocons" were responsible for the U.S. liberating Iraq? As he explains to the Post, "Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president."And the Post piece uses dramatic language when discussing Zinni's views on the "neocons":
The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist 'neoconservative' ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand."Zinni's comments are eerily similar to those made by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit this October. In a speech that drew a standing ovation from the leaders of Muslim nations in attendance, Mahathir remarked, "Today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
Since Jews make up roughly 2% of the American population and less than a fraction of one percent of the world's—yet attract disproportionately more of the world's bigoted venom—the only way to perpetuate the hatred of Jews that has existed for centuries is to blame them for controlling vital industries, "ruling the world by proxy," or by "capturing" the leader of the free world and his likewise freely elected vice-president.
Why, even Chesty Puller had some negative things to say about Jack Murtha My favorite Puller comment (and one I'm rather proud of) is said about Murtha, but maybe it applies to General Zinni as well:
GM: I understand General Puller. So, do you think Mr. Murtha is, how shall we say this, "un-patriotic?"General Puller: Don't go there boy! It is not a matter of being patriotic or not, it's a matter of judgment. Do you put the needs of your party ahead, or the needs of a bunch of fine young warriors! Look, Murtha, and his fellow travelers have made a decision, one that gets them headlines and is inimical to the best interests of the United States of America. When you get sworn in son, you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies. Foreign or Domestic. That author fellow, George Orwell noted that pacifism ultimately supports your enemies. That is exactly what Murtha is doing and in my opinion, is going against his sworn oath. That oath doesn't allow for any finger crossing, you can't say except when it goes against my opponent’s party, you can't say only if I like the current President. Naw, it doesn't work that way. You set your politics aside at the waters edge. There are bad people out there son, they want to kill you, your family, and they want to kill Murtha and his family. They already tried once; one of those four planes was headed for the Capital of the United States of America on September 11. Why that bloated, mealy mouthed, son-of-a-bitch can't see that is beyond me. I thought he got better training in the Corps. Hell, he did get better training and it showed, but I guess in his case, the spotlight was more important, he was a patriot son, and he really was. Now he is just a scoundrel."
So, Murtha, Zinni, and Clark are all mountebanks? In my opinion, absolutely. And for reasons that should be obvious to even the most dedicated lefty, if they will be honest enough to call a spade a spade.
You have to wonder at these former military professionals who badmouth or otherwise attack our motives for going to war. These are people who have to know what's really going on and who have themselves been in harm's way on behalf of their country, yet as soon as they read the wrong polls or whatever and see a U.S. military campaign as being unpopular, they capitalize on it by using the credentials of their military experience to sell books or advance their political careers.
These are the worst kind of sell-outs of all, and there is something majorly treasonous about it, given their backgrounds.
Posted by Seth at April 9, 2006 05:18 PM
As we approached a formal declaration of war on terror, it is my belief that the SecDef had to look at two distinct camps: flag officers who thought inside the box, and those who were capable of thinking outside the box. Those who were traditionalists, who maintained an emotional tie to the way wars used to be fought were replaced by those who were capable to thinking multi-dimensionally. In my view, Zinni was one of the traditionalists.
Flag officers, like General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, should upon retirement . . . just fade away. Becoming a politician after a long period of exceptional military service just smells bad. Americans want warriors leading their sons and daughters, not two faced politicians.
I don't begrudge General Zinni voicing an opinion, I only question his motivation for doing so.
Posted by Mustang at April 9, 2006 11:26 PM
I questioned Gen. Zinni's ideas and motives and discounted him once reg (radical leftist) started quoting him. Liberals hate military men until they cross over to the dark side.
Posted by Woody at April 9, 2006 11:49 PM
His royal highness has a grudge to pick -as do most liberal mouthpieces who write books like this. I have no problem with them speaking, writing....so long as it's known-they speak their opinion ONLY and they should stop trying to pass that along as fact.
General Ziti oops I meant Zinni, can't expect me to respect his opinion when he had another one before and now has joined the anti America crowd.
As Woody and Mustang say- I question his motivation.
Posted by Raven at April 10, 2006 04:39 PM
I've read a lot of crap here, but this is some of the lamest.
The "anti-semtisim" bit is truly a pathetic gesture.
I'd go on at length, but there's no point. This place has opted out of reasoned discourse where "honesty and integrity are honored." Nobody here is capable of taking Zinni's arguments on - so it's just spew and bilge.
More in sorrow than anger, I have to say you've sunk beneath contempt.
Posted by reg at April 10, 2006 09:20 PM
Criticism from the left sounds like a recommendation to me.
Posted by Woody at April 10, 2006 10:13 PM
Different opinions don't bother me, but rather the way they are expressed.
Zinni, Murtha and Clarke have said despicaple, demoralizing things about our military.
They have made outrageous claims without evidence. Just as John Kerry did during the Vietnam war.
You didn't hear them speaking out against our involvement in Bosnia/Serbia, under Clinton, and we have been there how long now?
When the enemy uses their talking points, that says something about their character, and it isn't good.
You can bet that they are doing this for personal gain, and in so doing, no longer have any honor whatsoever!
They have become lying hyena's, and don't deserve to be in the prescence of true warriors, who know what honor and duty is.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at April 10, 2006 11:20 PM
Reg, if you think anti-semitism is non-existant in the military (or anywhere else for that matter) you have given up any claim to rational thinking. There are numerous examples, not least of which is the drivel in the Democratic Party.
Questioning Zinni's motives is part of the debate whether or not you like it. It is part of the issue whether or not you like it. Zinni is a decorated Marine, who just happens to be totally off base.
The claim that the Iraq war is based on Israeli demands/concerns/wishes/desires is not "Anti-Israel" in its nature, it is anti-semitic and all the ranting you and other dedicated lefties do to the contrary is meaningless. More in sorrow than anger indeed!
Get a life reg, get a life.
Posted by GM Roper at April 11, 2006 05:33 AM
Jesus, what a long post.
"During the run up to the assault against Iraq, he could have spoken out long and loud (for my dime),"
He did that. Even in a testimony on the Hill.
"Jorg is a very smart fellow and a friend. But he is wrong on this one I think."
Thanks for the compliment!
Why am I wrong?
You write sooo many posts and often they are very long like this one, but you are not specific.
When you say that I am wrong or that Zinni is wrong, you should have the integrity to provide evidence rather than mention anecdotal stories from your friends and attacking Zinni's character and motives and accusing him of Anti-Semitism.
Read my quotes of Zinni and tell me which statements you disagree with and why Zinni is wrong:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/291-Ret.-General-Zinni-on-Iraq-Ten-years-worth-of-planning-were-thrown-away.html
"General Zinni is being lauded on his apostasy"
Criticizing the US government is now apostasy? How do you call your new religion? Perhaps I should call you a Bush cultist.
I am disappointed and don't know what has happened to your blog.
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 06:20 AM
What's the punishment for apostasy? Three blog posts and two character assassinations, incl. anti-Semitism charge?
Reg wrote "The "anti-semtisim" bit is truly a pathetic gesture."
And you responded: "Reg, if you think anti-semitism is non-existant in the military (or anywhere else for that matter) you have given up any claim to rational thinking."
George, you are awful. Reg did not say that anti-semitism is non-existent in the military. So why do you wrote this attack against Reg???
Why didn't you address his point "Nobody here is capable of taking Zinni's arguments on - so it's just spew and bilge." ????
Why don't you address Zinni's points? Why don't you prove that Reg is wrong when he writes: "This place has opted out of reasoned discourse where "honesty and integrity are honored.""???
You response proves that Reg is right.
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 06:30 AM
Actually Jorg, reg is not right. I put the part in about anti-semitism as PART of the questions regarding Zinni's motives. That you don't want to see it is your problem. Too, Zinni's objections are dealt with. He says that 10 year old plans were tossed out... of course, they were dated. Just like he was teaching 1964/65 ambush techniques with 1944/45 ambush manuals. What part about that don't you get?
Zinni is being paid LOTS of money and is the NEW darling of the MSM just as Murtha was and Clark was. What part about questioning motives for commentary don't YOU understand?
Just because you don't like the answeres doesn't mean the answer is wrong. Besides, in your blog post I didn't notice any questioning at all regarding Zinni's motives, just what seems to be uncritical acceptance because it just happens to fit your world view.
Posted by GM Roper at April 11, 2006 06:44 AM
You don't get it.
Reg criticizes you for linking Zinni with Anti-Semitism. You respond by putting words into his mouth as you have done with me before:
"Reg, if you think anti-semitism is non-existant in the military (or anywhere else for that matter) you have given up any claim to rational thinking."
Reg did not say that anti-semitism is non-existent in the military. So why do you wrote this attack against Reg???
Here is a pattern. You to me recently:
"If you really believe that the UN is effective, why do you post so much about the onslaught in Darfur?"
I have never said that the UN is effective. Why do you put words in my mouth? Why do you go on a counter attack rather than answering my simple question?
George, this is pathetic!
Why can't you just respond to criticism?
Why do you have to mislead and put words in the mouth of your critics?
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 06:50 AM
"10 year old plans were tossed out... of course, they were dated."
Why are they dated?
Wouldn't the US have been better of with those "old" plans?
The plans were not "dated." They were tossed out by civilians in the Pentagon! Read the army study mentioned in the comments on my blog. Or at least read the excerpts provided in the comments on my blog:
Ret. General Zinni on Iraq: "Ten years worth of planning were thrown away"
Why should I question his motives?
Do you question the motives of Michell Malkin and Ann Coulter, who make even more money with stupid books and media appearances.
Zinni has spent decades serving his country. He was a the Commander of CENTCOM for Christ's sake. And you question his motives by pointing out that he makes money. Tons of people make money in the media, but you only question those you disagree with.
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 07:01 AM
Again, tell us where Zinni is wrong and why:
"Many of the people I know that were involved in the intelligence side of this, or, or in the military felt the same way. I saw the -- what this town is known for: spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses, or, or shading the, the context. We, we know the mushroom clouds and, and the other things that were all described that the media's covered well."
Is this wrong?
Cherry picking, evoking emotional responses etc.?
"You know, ever since the end of the first Gulf War, there have been -- there's been planning by serious officers and planners and others, and policies put in place."
Is he wrong?
Do you know more than Zinni, who was CENTCOM commander in the 90s?
"Ten years worth of planning, you know, were thrown away; troop levels dismissed out of hand; General Shinseki basically insulted for speaking the truth and giving a, an honest opinion;"
Are you telling me that Shinseki was fairly treated?
"the lack of cohesive approach to how we deal with the aftermath; the political, economic, social reconstruction of a nation, which is no small task; a belief in these exiles that anyone in the region, anyone that had any knowledge would tell you were not credible on the ground; and on and on and on. Decisions to disband the army that were not in the initial plans. I mean there’s a series of disastrous mistakes. "
Do you disagree?
Come on be specific! Stop your character assassinations! Instead deal with the arguments!
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 07:09 AM
Yeah, well now you don't respond anymore, I guess.
Just as you did not respond to my simple questions here:
http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/166290.php
By the way, your blogroll "New Blogs Added to The Blogroll" includes a link to NY Girl, which has not been updated since September 30, 2005. It's the forth link from the top.
It seems you do not read the blogs you link to. More than half a year has passed since the last post.
When did you include that blog in your "New Blogs" list and when did you last read it? A year ago?
It's not much of a recommendation to be in your blogroll, I guess. I only know about NY Girl because I used to read it and got concerned when she (or he?) stopped writing all of a sudden due to an accident. I guess the accident was more severe than the anonymous author first thought.
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 07:19 AM
Your response on the issue of anti-semitism was as muddied and unhinged from any serious evidence or argument as regards General Zinni as the piece of malicious crap you first quoted.
I've got a life, thank you very much. What's at issue here is who's got a clue. I think we both know that you printed an accusation against Zinni that is baseless. The use of the term "neo-con" is not anti-semitism, no matter how desperate folks such as yourself have gotten in their scramble to deflect reality-based arguments that show the neo-cons have gotten almost everything wrong about this war. Desperation makes people do foolish things. I'll chalk it up to that as opposed to anything more pernicious. Woody's taken to calling people "faggots" over at Cooper.com. Maybe someone needs to put a lid on it.
Also, why don't you take Zinni's arguments one by one and counter them instead of calling him names ? I think, again, we both know why, but it's the only relevant issue at hand.
Posted by reg at April 11, 2006 07:56 AM
Let me see if I can get in on this argument. Person A, because you said something I disagree with, you're wrong. Now defend yourself from my accusations of you being wrong, rather than dealing with the actual subject of the post, please. Oh, and you smell bad. And you have a broken link on your page, so you cannot argue effectively.
And even though you have a long, comprehensive post that outlines where you think Zinni is wrong, I'm not going to read it and instead I'm going to demand you tell me where you think Zinni is wrong.
Am I playing right? Do I fit right in?
Posted by Ogre at April 11, 2006 08:10 AM
I think you've figured it out, Ogre. Are you a liberal now? Say it isn't so . . .
Posted by Mustang at April 11, 2006 08:18 AM
Get real! Zinni is all about the money.
And GM is all about calling 'em as he sees 'em.
As to why GM is not here at the moment, he owes nobody any explanations on that score.
As to what is "pathetic" here, the ad hominem tangential attacks fill the bill.
Well, I've got better things to do than to argue with anyone who is on a rant. But I wanted to stop by and say, "GM, keep doing what you're doing."
Posted by Always On Watch at April 11, 2006 09:17 AM
Yeah, you guys are superpatriots as defined here:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/295-Senator-Fulbright-There-are-two-Americas....html
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 10:07 AM
Hey Jorg, look over there! Something shiny! It says, "Bush lied, people died!"
Posted by Ogre at April 11, 2006 11:50 AM
Jorg, when you rant, you rant. Right now I'm at work but on my lunch break. What you choose to do with your time is your choice. Not responding immediately doesn't mean I won't respond.
And get off of your damned high horse my friend, I am friends with lots of folks who do not see eye-to-eye with me, but we are still friends.
As too why someone is on my blogroll, damn, you really are in a snitty mood aren't you. Lots of times people leave for a while and then come back. You clean your own blogroll if you wish, I'll be in charge of cleaning mine if and when I choose to do so. By the way, I notice that on your blog roll you still have gmroper.com and I've been at gmroper.mu.nu for several weeks now and announced it on gmroper.com some month ago. Pot, meet kettle!
Posted by GM Roper at April 11, 2006 12:23 PM
Well, lets see now . . .
"To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."
This quotation is attributed to former U. S. Senator J. William Fulbright, (D-Ark). Of course, everyone my age remembers that Fulbright was a racist who supported segregation, and who opposed the House Un-American Activities Committee that investigated charges of communist infiltration within the government of the United States.
But let's ignore the fact that Fulbright was a racist and a socialist, and focus on the quotation. Isn't being critical exactly what GM Roper is doing? Ah, but of course whenever conservative minded people criticize a liberal icon, such as Zinni, Clarke, and Murtha, liberals respond by calling us "super-patriots" in the sense of T. R. Roosevelt, as if superpatriot is a dirty word.
Well, it isn't.
According to Jorg, only liberal criticizm does service to America. Isn't this a somewhat narrow view? America must be the only place on the planet where idiots are constitutionally protected.
Posted by Mustang at April 11, 2006 01:07 PM
BUT Mustang, YOU know the idiOts have rights to be so.
Yes, protected by the Constitution. Even when it kills troops and borders on treason.
IdiOts indeed.
Posted by Raven at April 11, 2006 01:21 PM
Raven,
Yes, the Constitution protects the rights of idiots. Amazing how fair that document is!
Posted by Always On Watch at April 11, 2006 01:24 PM
Mustang:
Isn't being critical exactly what GM Roper is doing? Ah, but of course whenever conservative minded people criticize a liberal icon, such as Zinni, Clarke, and Murtha, liberals respond by calling us "super-patriots" in the sense of T. R. Roosevelt, as if superpatriot is a dirty word.
Come, now, dear friend Mustang. Criticism is a one-way street for adherents to the leftists' ideology. **smirk**
I find it absurd that Jorg has the arrogance to think that he can question GM's schedule. Sheesh!
Posted by Always On Watch at April 11, 2006 01:28 PM
"According to Jorg, only liberal criticizm does service to America."
I never said that. You are nuts. You put words in my mouth just as George has done with me and with Reg. You are boring.
You are proud of McCarthy's committee. That tells a lot.
George, regarding the old url in my blogroll. The reason is I am not sure, if I should still recommend your blog to my readers. I am not sure if you still honor integrity, truth and honest. Your blog is complaining against the usual suspects. Preaching to the choir rather than makins constructive suggestions. Picking at others, but not your readers. You don't challenge your readers, but repeat what they like to believe. (A great exception that proves the rule is your open letter to Trent Lott) You don't provide much evidence. You speculate on someone's motives rathter than debunking their arguments.
"Not responding immediately doesn't mean I won't respond."
A week has passed since my comment here:
http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/166290.php
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 01:30 PM
Jorg . . . McCarthy was in the Senate, not the house. Get some knowledge will you?
I am not putting words in your mouth, Jorg. Do you not understand "inference?" No? Then go back to middle school and pay attention to your English teacher.
Posted by Mustang at April 11, 2006 01:39 PM
"Jorg . . . McCarthy was in the Senate, not the house."
I know. So was Fulbright. That's why Fulbright opposed McCarthy's committee.
Since Fulbright was not a member of the House, he couldn't really oppose the House's committee.
It's a totally wrong inference you made. It is not based on anything I said.
Now I understand why many Bush supporters believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. You guys are talented in making wrong inferences.
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 01:54 PM
Okay, Fulbright was early in his career a member of the House.
His opposition to McCarthy is more well known, that's why I thought you meant that.
I guess he opposed the House Un-American Activities Committee because they violated their mandate, exaggerated and blacklisted Charlie Chaplin and other harmless actors.
How do you define "Un-American activities"?
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 02:06 PM
Jorg: "Your blog is complaining against the usual suspects. Preaching to the choir rather than makins constructive suggestions. Picking at others, but not your readers. You don't challenge your readers, but repeat what they like to believe."
Jorg, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I write my blog for me. It is my journal. If others, including you want to come here and comment, fine, it is indeed a free country. But my friend, I am totally indifferent to whether you have me on your blogroll or not. I will keep you on mine, but that is my choice, just as leaving me or taking me off is yours.
Now, let's get to the substance of your statement. My title of this post is regarding Zinni's status as a hero or as a mountebank. A mountebank is defined as (in part) "To ensnare or prevail over with trickery." Then I lay out my evidence. I note that people who have dealt with him specifically have found him to be boorish in regards to accepting criticism for using 20 year old publications that are obviously outdated. You state
"General Zinni is being lauded on his apostasy.".... and ... "Criticizing the US government is now apostasy? How do you call your new religion? Perhaps I should call you a Bush cultist."No Jorg, criticizing the US government is not apostasy; obviously you have not well understood my point. Zinni was (and is now retired) Military. The military HAD a plan for the invasion and overthrow of Iraq's SH when Zinni was in the 5 sided puzzle palace (AKA the Pentegon) he now derides NEW decisions, decisions not based on what he knew (or thought he knew) but based on what others knew (or think they know). He has left the fold so to speak (and in a snit in my opinion) that describes apostasy... leaving the faithful. Sheesh Jorg, trying to call that phraseology a new religion is a low point in our difference of opinion. Then you have the huevos to say I'm a Bush Cultist... actually, wait till you see my next post and go take a look at my open letter to Trent Lott. "Bush Cultist" indeed. Talk about ad hominims.
Jorg, you (and reg) question my motto "this is the place..." but you know what, I notice people only do that when they are losing an argument. I can be honest, truthful and have integrity and not once agree with anything you say.
And liberals say we conservatives see things only in black and white!
Lets pick another statement you made in a comment.
""Many of the people I know that were involved ... "a direct quote from Zinni and then ask if he was wrong. The answer is yes, because that is exactly what Zinni is doing, hitting all the right buttons to get an emotional anti-Iraq war response. Shading his answeres, cherry picking by giving incomplete and or overly complete answers (which allows one to say several things and be "right" on the ones he want's to point to) etc. So, yes, he is wrong and wrong headed. You ask
Do you know more than Zinni, who was CENTCOM commander in the 90s?The answer is of course I do, depending on the subject matter at hand I'd bet that he can't give an IQ test, write a psychological type profile based on analysis and testing of an invididual and doesn't know the difference between psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. If you are talking about knowledge of military planning, he didn't do so good with my friends training for ambushes did he? If you are talking about when he knew in the 90's then of course not. If, however, you want to take that route, the current occupents of the 5 sided puzzle palace then must know more than YOU do. How DARE YOU critizize them; do YOU know more than they do?. And yet, Jorg, it is your right to do so to criticize all you want. I'll support that right all day long.
What this boils down to my friend is that you don't like my positions on many issues. You say "Why don't you answer my simple question?" Because Jorg, they are not questions, they are statements posed as a question, and the only answer you will accept is one that reinforces your POV.
Zinni is/was a political appointee. As Mustang said, he does not exhibit the ability (in my way of thinking) of being able to "think outside of the box" and he chose to retire. His thinking, like that of Clark and Murtha is based not on what they know, but what they think is politically acceptable (in my opinion) and that will sell. Zinni wants to be (I surmise but don't know) the next SecDef in a Democratic Administration. Clark want's to be President and Murtha just want's to be hailed as a hero. When he is not in the limelight, he does what he can to get back in it. Sheehan is much the same way.
These are opinions Jorg, well thought out, well crafted and personal opinions. That you don't share them is only an issue for you. I'm monumentally disinterested that you don't like my opinions. If you wish, don't come by and read them and you will save some energy. I am interested in YOUR opinions so I will continue to come by from time to time, even if it isn't a daily visit.
By the way, NY Girl had an accident and in an email indicated that she would be back sooner or later. Who gives you the right to question what I put on my sidebar anyway?
Sincerely.
GM
Posted by GM Roper at April 11, 2006 02:39 PM
How do you define "Un-American activities"?
See what I mean about a statement posed as a question? We don't have to define it, it was a title given a committee by the United States House.
Simple, really!
Posted by GM Roper at April 11, 2006 02:41 PM
Yes GM, but they've learned the fine art of the debate by their linguistic teachers...guys like Noam Chomsky.
Posted by Cao at April 11, 2006 03:32 PM
...and Cao, you forgot- these folks probably LOVE Ward Feather Fondler Churchill.
Speaking of these folks- these Generals who are writing their disclosure books and making other sorts of noise:
It amazes me that they are so backward thinking, STILL, 5 years after 9-11. One would think Donald Rumsfeld would be stuck in his Cold War days, with that military mindset. He's not and look how old he is (God bless Rummy).
Zinni and Wesley Clark and company are STUCK in their world - a world that most liberals are also still living in...1990's and earlier.
I don't call this progressive at all. To always think within your own box and not be willing to go outside those four corners. To hold a grudge over those who CAN think differently. I really wonder who the progressives are?
Posted by Raven at April 11, 2006 04:09 PM
"My title of this post is regarding Zinni's status as a hero or as a mountebank."
You did not really consider whether he is a hero.
"A mountebank is defined as (in part) "To ensnare or prevail over with trickery." Then I lay out my evidence."
I have not seen any evidence of trickery in your post.
You do not debunk his arguements, but you quote people who attack his character (anti-semitism charge) and criticize him based on personal encounters in the past. Both has nothing to do with his arguments about "true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility" and throwing away ten years of planning.
You approvingly quote someone as saying:
"Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn't say "Jews." He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: "neoconservatives."
I have used the word "neoconservatives." Am I now an Anti-Semit?
This is nuts.
a) Many (most?) Jews were against the Iraq war.
b) Many neoconservatives are not Jews.
c) Zinni did not say that the Iraq war was only started due to the Neocons.
=> Accusing Zinni of Anti-Semitism is therefore a character assassinatoin and a violation of the principles of your blog: integrity, truth and honesty.
I notice people prefer character assinations when they lack factual arguements against what others have said or done.
Reg criticizes you for linking Zinni with Anti-Semitism. You respond by putting words into his mouth as you have done with me before:
If someone criticizes one of your arguments, you do not (limit yourself to) present counter-arguments, but you hit back with unsubstantiated accusations:
"Reg, if you think anti-semitism is non-existant in the military (or anywhere else for that matter) you have given up any claim to rational thinking."
Reg did not say that anti-semitism is non-existent in the military. So why do you wrote this attack against Reg???
Here is a pattern. You to me recently:
"If you really believe that the UN is effective, why do you post so much about the onslaught in Darfur?"
I have never said that the UN is effective. Why do you put words in my mouth? Why do you go on a counter attack rather than answering my simple question?
George, this is pathetic!
"I note that people who have dealt with him specifically have found him to be boorish"
That's anecdotes. I don't know those people. You will always find someone complaining about anyone.
I do know that in the last few decades many high-ranking officers and politicans considered him a great, honest, success leader of integrity and therefore promoted him.
I am stunned that you mistrust them.
"No Jorg, criticizing the US government is not apostasy"
So why did you accuse him of apostasy?
"when Zinni was in the 5 sided puzzle palace (AKA the Pentegon)"
The last time I checked U.S. Central Command Headquarters was located at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. Wasn't Zinni based at CENTCOM headquarters rather than the Pentagon?
"he now derides NEW decisions, decisions not based on what he knew (or thought he knew) but based on what others knew (or think they know). He has left the fold so to speak (and in a snit in my opinion) that describes apostasy... leaving the faithful."
1. I think he knew stuff first hand due to consulting for DoD. He was asked to testify at Congress before the war.
2. Why is leaving the fold "apostasy"?
3. What fold are you talking about?
4. We are talking about military affairs rather than faith, therefore I don't know why you speak about "apostasy" and "faithful." There has been too much wishful thinking on part of the Bush administration. You need a sense or reality rather than just faith to win a war and win the peace.
"You ask "Do you know more than Zinni, who was CENTCOM commander in the 90s?"
The answer is of course I do, depending on the subject matter at hand I'd bet that he can't give an IQ test"
Haha, very funny. You know damn well that I did not mean IQ test or baking cookies
"If you are talking about when he knew in the 90's then of course not."
Of course that is my topic.
"If, however, you want to take that route, the current occupents of the 5 sided puzzle palace then must know more than YOU do. How DARE YOU critizize them; do YOU know more than they do?."
I am not coming up with my own theories, but quote those who got experience and expertise.
There are civilians and there are military officers in the Pentagon.
The military does great work. They are professional, experienced, cautious, careful, smart etc. Civilians don't have this experience and knowledge.
The CEO of a hospital should not tell a neuro surgeon how to operate. Don't you agree?
On my blog a commentator mentioned an army study, which concluded:
"Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was, in basic respects, a test of the theory that civilians must intervene in the military planning process and force their perspectives down the chain of command.59 Secretary Rumsfeld did this in the first instance by starting the bidding for the forces committed to the invasion at 75,000 troops and intimating that a smaller number would be entirely adequate. Events have shown that the number was ludicrously small in relation to the tasks given to U.S. forces, and that Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was right in seeing the need for much larger numbers. On this crucial
question, certainly, the record of Iraq war planning does nothing to advance the case for civilian activism."
Why do you support the civilians? Why do you mistrust the military?
"What this boils down to my friend is that you don't like my positions on many issues."
You don't present much evidence, for example when you wrote that I am wrong. It's one thing having different positions on many issues. It is much stronger to say that I am wrong.
" Zinni again:
...I heard the case being built to go to war right away- I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof that I ever saw that Saddam had WMD...."
Jorg Wolfe of Atlantic Review is at the minimum a supporter of General Zinni, and has noted this in comments on this blog as well as the post referred to. Jorg is a very smart fellow and a friend. But he is wrong on this one I think. General Zinni is being lauded on his apostasy by the very liberal MSM "
You did not say that you disagree with me. You did not say that Zinni, myself, and you have different opinions.
You did not say that you don't like Zinni's and my opinion.
Instead you said that you think I was wrong.
Therefore I would like to know why I am wrong.
"You say "Why don't you answer my simple question?" Because Jorg, they are not questions, they are statements posed as a question, and the only answer you will accept is one that reinforces your POV."
I refered mainly to your post about This Beautiful Battered Child. I was asking what you propose to help these women and children you write so often about.
It is easy to complain, but the Islmafascists don't read your blog. you are preaching to the choir. You want the UN to do something, but what exactly? Usually conservative Americans complain about the UN. It is soooooooo easy to complain. Tens of thousands of bloggers do this all day.
Please, be constructive and say what you want. What do you propose to help these women?
All you have been saying is "I expect them to speak up, to act, to make the effort."
This is superficial blabla.
"As Mustang said, he does not exhibit the ability (in my way of thinking) of being able to "think outside of the box" and he chose to retire."
Thinking outside of the box is responsible for many of the problems in Iraq.
"His thinking, like that of Clark and Murtha is based not on what they know, but what they think is politically acceptable"
They are patriots. They have served their country very well and with great personal risk for many decades.
I am stunned that you question their integrity and patriotism.
Please let me know of one retired general or any other independent expert who disagrees with Zinni criticism of the Iraq war. One general or independent expert who thinks that there have not been big and avoidable mistakes. I can only think of Gen. Franks, but he is not independent because he was responsible.
What do you make of it that Franks resigned after phase III?
He planned stage IV, but did not want to execute stage IV. Isn't that unusual?
Eisenhower did not resign after D-Day...
Or did Franks put Abizaid in charge of stage IV since Abizaid was likely to take over afterwards?
"By the way, NY Girl had an accident and in an email indicated that she would be back sooner or later. Who gives you the right to question what I put on my sidebar anyway?"
I was just stunned that you list her in your blogroll "*New* Blogs Added to The Blogroll."
When did you include that blog in your "New Blogs" list and when did you last read it? A year ago?
I have addressed each point in your comment. If you had responded in such a manner to my first comment, I would have kept quiet. But since you did not and instead chose to be evasive or start counter attacks. I wrote more comments.
And I commented becasue you started this post by refering to me.
You said I was wrong, but did not say why. That's not integrity, truth and honesty.
If you just have a different opinion and don't want to explain yourself, you should just say that you disagree with me and have different opinion because it is raining or you had too much sugar in your coffee or because you saw a black cat crossing the street or whatever.
If you, however, say that I am wrong, you should explain why.
Anyway, I should not waste my time with your blog.
Well, I am curious about the new post on Pres Bush you promised. I fear, however, that you disagree with him on immigration... I guess he is too soft for you...?
Posted by Jorg at April 11, 2006 05:40 PM
Ogre is another example of how low this blog descends into unadulterated crap.
Please, "Ogre", show me a single sentence in that post which deals in any substantive way with the actual criticisms of the decision to go to war and the way it was carried out.
You can't. There are none. You're an idiot.
What else is new ?
This post and supporting comments on the thread is one of the worst I've read anywhere.
Nuff time wasted on this nonsense.
Posted by reg at April 11, 2006 06:11 PM
Jorg - thanks for the attempt at balance and a rational response. I'm afraid it's wasted...
Posted by reg at April 11, 2006 08:09 PM
Reading all of the above, I am struck by just how little some know about what they are talking about.
I certainly, and most strongly, support the notion that all citizens ought be able to speak to all issues confronting our country and the world at large.
However, when speaking about things military - AND it is evident than their knowledge of it is less than minimal - what credence are we to place in what they say?
What is a TPFDL? (Time Phased Force Deployment List) What purpose does it serve? What are the serious "choke points" on the planet? Manuver warfare vice attrition warfare? How ought the military be involved, if at all, in peacekeeping and/or nation-building? What, indeed, is the role of the American military in the greater world? Why?
The folks on the left, and sometimes on the right also, are too often "country hicks" in all this. I should add, however, that if one can speak "militarese" and throw out all sorts of the latest concepts, that is no real assurance of real knowledge.
Mastering the use of force at the sharp (at dirty and heart-breaking) end AND all the way up through the strategic end is vital to truly understanding.
General Zinni, knows much, but I think General Pace knows far more.
Note: If you do not know who General Pace is, you really ought not be in the discussion.
Posted by tad at April 13, 2006 07:13 AM
"General Zinni, knows much, but I think General Pace knows far more."
Who is more independent? Who could get fired for speaking truth to power?
Who knows the plans of the 90s more?
Anyway, you seem to appreciate Zinni. All I am asking is that we take seriously what he has to say rather than doing a smear campaign and character assassination like George did.
Posted by Jorg at April 13, 2006 10:36 AM
George doesn't do smear campaigns. You may disagree with him, but he lays out facts as he knows them to be. Counter with facts and not brickbats.
Pace does know more than Zinni, in my view. Considering you're comparing the two, Pace could get fired now. He is the CJCS....there is NO uniformed postion higher. He isn't bucking for promotion. Further, Zinni was ComCentCom and didn't do anything (take more vigorous action) under the Clinton administration. Was he under pressure to dummy up?
I hope that neither would act in a self-serving way.
I, like others, have real problems with military officers writing books and going on the lecture circuit (all for mega bucks). General Zinni is now, desired or not, the darling of the Left and the MSM.
Posted by tad at April 13, 2006 11:23 AM
Jorg, as a point of order, you chastise me for having NYGirl on my blog roll and question me apparantly for not reading my blogroll every day. Yet, on your site you have By Dawn's Early Light on your blogroll and it hasn't posted since December of last year.. months ago. Don't you read your blog roll choices daily? I also note that many of the bloggers have articles that are as long or as longer than this one. Yet, I cannot find any current (let alone frequent and challenging) "questions" you have in their comments sections. Too, some of those blogs are as conservative as mine. What gives?
Can you say hypocracy?
Posted by GM Roper at April 13, 2006 04:36 PM
tad: "I should add, however, that if one can speak 'militarese' and throw out all sorts of the latest concepts, that is no real assurance of real knowledge."
Thanks for stating the obvious about...well I guess that would have to be about you. Based on that caveat, I had trouble discerning an actual point to your post in the context of what's being argued.
And yeah, I guess if you don't know who General Pace is, you haven't been keeping up enough to add much to a discussion of the rationale and conduct of the war. But more to the point, if the best one can do is make unhinged, baseless charges of "anti-semitism" in order to denigrate a veteran top officer, maybe you shouldn't have begun this discussion in the first place. Personally, I consider that ignorance and bad faith of the "highest" order. Mastery of military terminology or theory isn't at issue so much as the basics of reasoned discourse versus scurrilous, unhinged ad hominem. If you can find a serious argument referencing facts on the ground or strategy related to Iraq in the above post, you have a much larger magnifying glass than I do. All I read was unmediated conjecture and bullshit in order to dismiss and smear a man who's experience and knowledge of the the serious issues that matter vastly outweighs that of anyone wasting their time on this website. That this was offensive and idiotic doesn't require the detail or knowledge one might gain by graduating from war college, doing a stretch in the Marines or indulging an obsession with Tom Clancy novels.
Posted by reg at April 15, 2006 06:39 AM
As usual, reg is full of his left wing pseudoprogressive intellectualism. Let me note the following (click on the blockquote for the full article) The simmering debate over the role of Jewish neoconservatives in drawing America into war in Iraq erupted with new fury this week. One of America's most respected ex-generals took to the airwaves to charge on CBS News' "60 Minutes" that the war had been fought for Israel's benefit, just days after a similar charge was leveled on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
This seems to fly in the face of reg's assertion that Zinni was not being antisemetic. Any reasonable, rational individual doing a google search on neocons and antisemitism will find multiple sources of how the neocons were all linked to Jewish advisors in the early days of the Bush administration. Reg, unable to discuss anything rationally, descends to making allegations of ad hominim. However, anytime a conservative at Marc Coopers blog makes any kind of comment (rational or otherwise) reg is out with terms I usually don't use on this blog.
Reg, I'm glad you come here to vent your spleen, but at least try to back up what you say with more than just invective.
The vast number of pseudonymous, name-calling lefty bloggers, on the other hand, doesn't make the left seem more attractive. As the saying goes, the left looks for heretics and the right looks for converts, and both get what they're looking for."I won't pretend to be "polite" as I tend to call a spade a spade. Too bad that some on the left take that as an invite to hurl invective and ad hominim (not that some on the right do as well).
Posted by GM Roper at April 15, 2006 10:40 AM
Reg, I'll go one step further, I laid out several charges against taking anything Zinni said with other than a grain of salt. All you have responded to is one part of one person's opinion that I quoted and based your entire argument on that and imply that that is my argument. You totally neglect my other points. You need to know that I grew up in the military, I was in the military and I'm a student of military history. The General Staff of the United States has had a long history of heros and scaliwags, of loudmouths and Gary Cooperish speakers, of self promoters and genuine leaders. Just because someone reaches the height of leadership in the military doesn't mean that they are leaders any more than elected politicians have the best interest of the country in mind.
Then you have the gall to tell another commenter
But more to the point, if the best one can do is make unhinged, baseless charges of "anti-semitism" in order to denigrate a veteran top officer, maybe you shouldn't have begun this discussion in the first place. Personally, I consider that ignorance and bad faith of the "highest" order. Mastery of military terminology or theory isn't at issue so much as the basics of reasoned discourse versus scurrilous, unhinged ad hominem.
Just who is making their argument based on a single issue reg? Hmmm, thought so.
Posted by GM Roper at April 15, 2006 10:50 AM
reg,
I would respond, but I am too busy reading Tom Clancy novels, from whence most of my knowledge of the American military derives.
Meanwhile, do press on in providing us with reasons why some generals are right and some are wrong.
We few, we cold and huddled few, certainly need instruction on the more weighty issues of the day. Why we can barely put rounds down range whilst tugging our forelocks to our betters.
Posted by tad at April 15, 2006 12:10 PM
We don't pay generals for their politcial views or thoughts ... we pay them for leading troops into battle ... these generals who want to play politics can enter the politcal game ... With that logic would we have entered WWII or just sat ... Give me a break ... I am tired of policy talk by STUPID GENERALS!
With that said, I must say that these generals who second guessing Rumi are full of crap! We have been very successful in the battle ... I take issue with the former secretary wanting an exit strategy ... life is not that simple ... no major conflict with political links EVER had one ... This view stinks of a conceptual ideal rather than the reality we humans are asked to manage ... the former general gave us the opportunity to fight in Iraq after messing up the first time ...
Second guessing whether one should have kicked-off or received in the second quarter is plain stupid. These generals do NOT understand the larger dynamic at play. The assertions that we did not appreciate the dynamics is true ... but hiding from combat is cowardly ... These men are cowards ... they are not really in HARMS way yet they quiver ... The DAMAGE they do to moral and the support they provide the enemy is SIGNIFICANT.
In summary these GENERALS are COWARDS and STUPID.
Posted by lulu at April 15, 2006 04:01 PM
Reg, since you and Jorg think so highly of outside sources and question our questioning of Zinni, perhaps you would like to read what a military historian has to say and Zinni's Congressional Testimony regarding the threat that he now says wasn't there included here as the transcript of his testimony then Here are some of his assertions:
• Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …
• Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.
• The Iraqi regime’s high regard for WMD and long-range missiles is our best indicator that a peaceful regime under Saddam Hussein is unlikely.
• … extremists may turn to WMD in an effort to …overcome improved U.S. defenses against conventional attack. Detecting plans for a specific WMD attack is extremely difficult, making it likely such an event would occur without warning.
• Extremists like Usama bin Laden …benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide. Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks.
• Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden.Then, of course, there is this
Posted by GM Roper at April 15, 2006 05:45 PM
comment deleted by host
Posted by joe at May 29, 2006 01:09 PM
