Select Company Escorts

60 Mins with General Zinni

Cobra1

New member
May 7, 2004
162
0
0
interesting interview with the former CENTCOM chief -

A top US General has finally said it (regarding those US policy makers) who have undue ties to Israel. He actually used the word "hijacking" FINALLY!
Lets see how far it gets - anyone who has previously mentioned the conflict immediately gets branded an anti-semite - but Wolfowitz, Perle, Fieth, Abrahms, Bolton etc should reasonable be considered for treason to the US in hijacking its foreign policy.

Excerpt:

Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,” says Zinni. “Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.”

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.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”
 

tompeepin

Unbanned (for now) ;)
Mar 17, 2004
846
0
0
limbo
tv-celebs.com
Cobra1 said:
A top US General has finally said it (regarding those US policy makers) who have undue ties to Israel.
“ … you criticize a strategy and those who propose it.”

“I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic.”

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

Here are my points:

1) Zinni sticks to “policy”, he rightfully does not care about ethnicity or religious background. He is only interested in “policy”, in this case being that of the neo-conservatives. Something that I think you could learn from Cobra1.

2) This is no secret in Washington and I do not believe it is a secret in the entire world. At least it is not a “secret” for those who keep up to date in current “world” affairs or geo-politics.

So if it is not a “secret” then it is a “policy” consciously enacted by the current presidential administration who is not Jewish! And thus this “policy” is accepted by the American people. If the American people do not accept this policy, they will oust Bush in the fall election.

The “problem” is not “the Jews” or “Israel” but rather IMHO the “neo-conservatives” as well as “the political religious right” (for lack of a better label for their "policies"), both groups with great influence on GW Bush who is the actual person “responsible”; and thus by extension the American people who he “democratically” represents.
 
Sep 8, 2003
3,778
0
0
Away from here.
www.reddit.com
Re: Re: 60 Mins with General Zinni

tompeepin said:
“ … you criticize a strategy and those who propose it.”

“I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic.”

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.

Here are my points:

1) Zinni sticks to “policy”, he rightfully does not care about ethnicity or religious background. He is only interested in “policy”, in this case being that of the neo-conservatives. Something that I think you could learn from Cobra1.

2) This is no secret in Washington and I do not believe it is a secret in the entire world. At least it is not a “secret” for those who keep up to date in current “world” affairs or geo-politics.

So if it is not a “secret” then it is a “policy” consciously enacted by the current presidential administration who is not Jewish! And thus this “policy” is accepted by the American people. If the American people do not accept this policy, they will oust Bush in the fall election.

The “problem” is not “the Jews” or “Israel” but rather IMHO the “neo-conservatives” as well as “the political religious right” (for lack of a better label for their "policies"), both groups with great influence on GW Bush who is the actual person “responsible”; and thus by extension the American

people who he “democratically” represents.
I was just about to say the same thing.

Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

For lots of different kind of people, Israel is the "best hope" (note the quotations, folks) for democracy, so supporting it would make sense regardless of trivialities like ethnicity.

The neo cons unbridled power makes a mockery of this democracy. It's staggering, really...
 

The Shake

Winner (with a capital W)
Feb 3, 2004
1,858
0
0
Maryland
www.drivenbyboredom.com
Re: Re: Re: 60 Mins with General Zinni

Mao Tse Tongue said:
Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
To add to what Mao & Tom have already stated, neither does nationality. Many, perhaps even a majority of, Israelis abhor the extremist policies of the Sharon government and their Neo-con allies in Washington.
 
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Tony Zinni is right to the points and like a typical US Marines, he prefers straight talks and no BS on dealing with issues.

BUT, when he labelled those neo-conservatives who were "responsible" for all the mess the Americans had in Iraq, he just put himself into a very, very hot water.

Assuming he is not Anti-Semitic (who can prove?), why did he single out all the neo-conservatives who are all Jewish? Why no Karl Roove, Tom Delaney, or Dick Cheney?

It's bad to be labelled as racist nowadays, in PC world. It's much worse when you are labelled as anti-semite even when you have no intention to be one. Being labelled as anti-semite literally label you as Holocaust denier and at worse, promote genocide on Jews. That's a totally different level of playing field.

My take will be his point of view on the issue is right BUT what he expressed in words were wrong and counterproductive. By mentioning and linking the Iraq mess with Israel and highlighting the neo-conservatives who "conspired" are Jewish, he's doing the Islamists a big favor to promote "hate, intolerant" agendas.

BTW, I don't believe the majority of the Jews or Israelis for that matter believe those policies. Why didn't he accuse those Christians conservatives like Pat Robertson?

As an off topic, the state department is usually considered harbored anti-semitism more than any other department cause the department was the only federal agency which vehermently opposed the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. On the other hand, the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon are the government agencies that are considered pro-Israel.
 

Cobra1

New member
May 7, 2004
162
0
0
sweet guy said:

Assuming he is not Anti-Semitic (who can prove?), why did he single out all the neo-conservatives who are all Jewish? Why no Karl Roove, Tom Delaney, or Dick Cheney?

My take will be his point of view on the issue is right BUT what he expressed in words were wrong and counterproductive. By mentioning and linking the Iraq mess with Israel and highlighting the neo-conservatives who "conspired" are Jewish, he's doing the Islamists a big favor to promote "hate, intolerant" agendas.

BTW, I don't believe the majority of the Jews or Israelis for that matter believe those policies. Why didn't he accuse those Christians conservatives like Pat Robertson?
There are a number of vested interests among the policy makers - not just those with a pro Isreal agenda - Cheney and Rumsfeldt are strong Neo -cons who resented that Saddam survived and Bush sr didnt - however the policy of setting Iraq on the agenda did not come from State - it came from the PEntagon and specifically PDPB, and the drivers there were those with an Isrealis agenda in mind. HAd Saddam not been funding Palestinian suicide bombers - there is a chance they would have left him alone. Rove was happy to sign off to take the media focus away from Enron and the domestic economy. But be very clear if you take the time to research this - the massive representation of those policy makers favouring Israel relative to the general population is a problem. Forget name calling, look at the facts, listen to those in the know, and look at the actions. Note also, the fundamental Christians are on side with this - pat robertson et all - dont you remember Bushes MArch 2003 war speech on every network, followed by the hour long rally in Texas stadium with Bush Sr and Pat Robertson. The born agains favour ISrael - so that ultimately they all become Christian after the second coming.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,649
0
0
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
sweet guy said:


As an off topic, the state department is usually considered harbored anti-semitism more than any other department cause the department was the only federal agency which vehermently opposed the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. On the other hand, the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon are the government agencies that are considered pro-Israel.
Perhaps but you must also consider that they may have better understood the problems that the state of Israel would cause in the region (born out by history) and the cost the US would pay for it's one-sided support of Israel (also born out by history).

OTB
 

Cobra1

New member
May 7, 2004
162
0
0
Not true

sweet guy said:

As an off topic, the state department is usually considered harbored anti-semitism more than any other department cause the department was the only federal agency which vehermently opposed the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. On the other hand, the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon are the government agencies that are considered pro-Israel.
State has always been more balanced - Defence has always been biased because of the joint military operations and Isreal being the big client.

State did not oppose the creation of ISreal, like every other intelligent body (UN, UK, FRA etc), especially those with knowledge of the area, they wanted it to be done properly instead of seeding problems for generations to come. Dont you wish they had prevailed? The UK had written agreement after agreement on how Palestine should develope as a dual ethnic area, and then the US basically forced it down everyones throat - instead of adhering to previous committments and finding viable solutions.

State tends to see the world properly, when they try to sanction ISreal for its numberous illegal and criminal activities, like the invasion of Lebanon or the bombing of Beirut - or for starting the 6 day war in 1967- other vested interests have prevalied.

Note also - it was anti-Jewish sentiment in the US by Truman and the Executive branch that assisted the creation of Isreal. Post WW2 they didnt want them coming to the US - find a place for them. You shoudl read Trumans memoirs sometime.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,649
0
0
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I think you guys are throwing around the neo-con term too loosely here, some of the guys you've mentioned (Cheney) are just old fashion conservatives (no neo to them really).

There is a view (one held by many, include a close friend of mine in NY who is a wheel in the US Palestinian community) that the Jewish Neo-Cons got the US into this war to take the pressure off of Israel to make peace (and thus give up land). The scenario goes that if US troops are subjected to car bombing on a daily basis that the US will be less sympathetic to the Palestinians and more empathetic towards the Israelis. I don't know that I buy it, and in fact it may make Bush (if he gets a second term) determined to force peace in Israel to show the world he's not anti-Arab....

OTB
 

Cobra1

New member
May 7, 2004
162
0
0
onthebottom said:
I think you guys are throwing around the neo-con term too loosely here, some of the guys you've mentioned (Cheney) are just old fashion conservatives (no neo to them really).

There is a view (one held by many, include a close friend of mine in NY who is a wheel in the US Palestinian community) that the Jewish Neo-Cons got the US into this war to take the pressure off of Israel to make peace (and thus give up land). The scenario goes that if US troops are subjected to car bombing on a daily basis that the US will be less sympathetic to the Palestinians and more empathetic towards the Israelis. I don't know that I buy it, and in fact it may make Bush (if he gets a second term) determined to force peace in Israel to show the world he's not anti-Arab....

OTB
Good point on Cheney, he and Rusmfeldt are originals - no Neo label necessary.

After spending a decade on ME policy here and on the ground there - I find the above a stretch in the minds of the JEwish Neo-Cons - but I dont prefess to know their every thought. Their actions and policy say differently, having dealt with dictators in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq - its seems to me that the objective was to reduce anti -Isreal proponents, and democracy might focus them on making money and enjoying liberty. Saddam was funding Palestine terror acts, they also had oil reserves so that maybe the old Haifa pipleine could be resurrected, a neutralized Iraq would make Isreal so much safer - it would leave Syria exposed, and with Egypt and Jordan bought off by the US - that just leaves Iran (who as we saw with the Israel - Iran arms deals - can be a partner especially at a distance). While a high minded objective, it wasnt for US benefit, hence the term hi-jacking on US foreign policy.

The concentration of those policy makers favouring Isreal in the most influencial department right now is quite amazing. They got to the top through smarts, hard work and their networks, knowing that to rise through the military or through State was a long shot at best due to their ethnicity. The general US population may or may not figure out the largest drivers in this period of rmilitary policy was pro-Israel based - and I wonder if there will be a Jewish backlash as a result. This happens every 60 odd years, 1930s, 1870s, 1820s when Jewish people gather sifnificant resources or power - however the sizable concrentation of media influence may help stem it this time.
 
Toronto Escorts