From www.talkingpointsmemo.com This from a CBS press release about Zinni's appearance this Sunday night on 60 Minutes ... Accusing top Pentagon officials of "dereliction of duty," retired Marine General Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option. "The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course," he tells Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, May 23 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. The current situation in Iraq was destined to happen, says Zinni, because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along. "There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and execution on the ground," says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000. He blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration known as neoconservatives who saw the invasion as a way to stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy. "They promoted it and pushed [the war]...even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the responsibility," Zinni tells Kroft. In his upcoming book, Battle Ready, written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption," he writes. Zinni explains to Kroft, "I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan." He still believes the situation is salvageable if the U.S. can communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better image to them. The enlistment of the U.N. and other countries to participate in the mission is also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, "We are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I wouldn't want to see us fail here," he tells Kroft. Also central to success in Iraq is more troops, from the U.S. and especially other countries, to control violence and patrol borders, he says. Zinni feels that undertaking the war with the minimum of troops paved the way for the security problems the U.S. faces there now - the violence Rumsfeld recently admitted he hadn't anticipated. "He should not have been surprised," says Zinni. "There were a number of people who before we even engaged in this conflict that felt strongly that we underestimated...the scope of the problems we would have in [Iraq]," he tells Kroft. The fact that no one in the administration has paid for the blunder irks Zinni. "But regardless of whose responsibility...it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up, and whose heads are rolling on this?" Incompetence + No Accountability = Bad Show for Nation. I was never good at math; but I think I've got this formula right. And what will they say about Zinni? Another disgruntled showboater like Clarke and Wilson?
wait, i thought that clark was the retired general the dems were going to trot out...or maybe mccain...aren't there any actual democrats that want the job?
So many generals and retired military men who realize that Bush is a danger to national security, so little time..... I think if they wanted they could go for an all ex-Military administration, as opposed to the all-chickenhawk one we've got going now... Let's see Pres Kerry, VP Clark, Sec Def McCain, State Zinni, Bob Kerrey could get a spot in HHS or HUD or something, Treasury would be tough, maybe Colin Powell? Give Barry McCaffrey DOT or Commerce or something, Maybe Shinseki could be National Security adviser.....etc.
That's not good when one-third of the names you're drumming up for your own cabinet support your opponent's re-election.
Really? You must not have been paying too much attention to the news lately. I suppose we'll get Colin's enthusiastic endorsement of Bush 2, volume II any day now, right? As well as McCain making nice with the administration that he vocally and enthusiastically supports each and every day, right? But you know, you can't really trust that McCain, as Bush's political hacks said in S. Carolina in 2000, he's mentally unstable due to his POW experience and fathered a dark skinned child....
Try watching "Meet the Press" sometime, Sam. McCain: “I've said categorically, categorically, I will not be Vice President of the United States. I will not be a candidate. And I mean that. I'm happy in the Senate. I'd like to maintain my role. I am a loyal Republican. I am supporting President Bush's re-election. I am campaigning for it." That was May 16th.
Basso, I'm still waiting for that source on the Zinni quote about Kerry being unfit to be President. I've been looking for it and can't find it.
My heavens BK, you're right...how could I have ever gathered a contrary impression about this longtime enthusiastic Bush ally? There's been virtually no talk about him assuming a post in the Kerry administration..none! http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/p...00&en=f78ed47b76c02cf1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE He's been nothing but vocal and supportive of the administration and the Republican party, as well as its attacks on Kerry throughout! http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-18-mccain-kerry_x.htm he practically abhors the man, they have no connection whatsoever! http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=77 Thank God John McCain has signed on to the GOP agenda, lock stock and barrel, and it shows! It looks like they have taken a particular liking to him too! http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/19/mccain.hastert/
Sam, I don't know why you're having a hard time with this. Here's what I said: I never said that McCain was a lockstep supporter of Bush, or that he agreed with him on every single issue. I don't know why you're pretending that's the issue. What I said was that the pipe dream of McCain serving as Kerry's VP candidate is "not good" given that McCain support's Bush's re-election. I think it's amusing that you're so enthusiastic about McCain serving as Kerry's VP when McCain himself isn't even going to vote for Kerry. That's why I posted the quote from the May 16th episode of "Meet the Press", because you made an exceptionally snide remark: "You must not have been paying too much attention to the news lately." Clearly, given that McCain has stated "I am supporting President Bush's re-election. I am campaigning for it", and given that he's also said the following: Matt Lauer: "Do you get the feeling, Senator, you're playing for the wrong team?" McCain: “No, I don’t Matt at all. I’m a loyal Republican." ...the idea that I'm not "paying too much attention" is foolish and even ironic since your post seems to indicate you're oblivious to the fact that even as he has disagreements with Bush and the Republican leadership, McCain still thinks that Bush is a better choice to lead the country than Kerry.
Brian, let me share a word of wisdom with you. Sam has trouble *grasping* many concepts. Do not be surprised if your powerful argument is not *grasped* by Sam. He doesn't *grasp* much. The only thing he is *grasping* at the present is his throat as he chokes on the platter of humiliation and side of disgrace which you have served him. AHOGO
isn't it ironic how bush supporters on the bbs love this image as a celebration of their elocutionary "victories"? the war on terror, as presently conducted, could very well end up looking like this.
Brian, I was musing aloud as to the possibility of an all-general/veteran administration (as Secretary of Defense, not as Vice President) rather than giving my odds-on predictions and thought that was fairly evident. Anyway, I imagine that Senator William Cohen (R- ME, 1979-1997) was a George Bush supporter in 1992, and probably a Dole man in 1996. That didn't stop him from serving as Secretary of Defense from 1997-2001, did it? But anyway, again, while McCain views himself as a "loyal Republican", it appears that his party leadership (subsequent to the quote you just posted) does not, does it? To act like even speculating the possibility of McCain having any role in Kerry's administration is lunacy, as you seem to be inclined to remind me, is without merit. I don't think it's blindly partisan to say so either. It seems like your own partisanship here seems to have gotten the better of you.
Where did I say it was lunacy? Look, I just find it amusing. You're sitting around stroking off about the possibility of McCain and Powell joining a potential Kerry cabinet and both of them are going to vote against him in November. And I definitely did not appreciate the implication that I am uniformed.
