Who woulda thunk it? There's actually someone in the military (or who used to be in the military) that Molly Ivins likes and agrees with. Of course it is Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret) who was a Clinton hack so that is understandable. Let's see what the old barking moonbat has to howl about this week.
Too bad for anyone who tuned in to President Bush's speech Monday night hoping to hear something that would cheer us up -- like a plan.
There was a plan. There were five steps. Weren't you listening or were you and your dried up old hag friend Ann Richards still crying about how Dubya kicked her ass? Here is the excerpt that states the plan:
You were probably up pouring yourself another drink. But Molly continues.
That was as depressing as divorce. There he was, still peddling the phony idea that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11 -- I guess that one will never get too old or too disproved.
Actually Molly, it turns out that there were connections, but the only thing you liberals will accept is a picture of Osama and Saddam French kissing.
In case you think no one in public life is capable of intelligent thought about Iraq, I recommend a speech made by Gen. Anthony Zinni (well, OK, so he's slightly retired) May 12 to the Center for Defense Information. In it, Zinni lists the 10 mistakes he believes were responsible for getting us into this fine mess.
And as I stated before, Zinni is a Clinton hack, plus he's peddling a book so it does behoove him to make a lot of noise and the more anti-Bush he can sound, the more the lamestream media will support his book.
My own modest contribution to this task began the day we announced we would be using Saddam's main palace as our headquarters in Iraq. "No, no, no," I moaned. "We're Americans. We don't do palaces." We should have announced that all Saddam's palaces would be converted into universities.
It seems to me the military would want to set up headquarters where the best command and control infrastructure was. That would be Saddam's palaces, but since Molly is anti-military she wouldn't realize that.
"Should have" is not normally a helpful construction, but I thought Zinni's list useful indeed. Since Zinni expanded brilliantly on several points, I do disservice by simplifying -- even so, you'll see what I mean.
I guess if a military man worked for a Dimocrat president that automatically makes him brilliant. Zinni's points follow.
Misjudging the success of containment. Containment actually worked, we just didn't know it.
Tell that to the Kurds and to all the people in the mass graves. Tell all the people who were raped in the rape rooms by Saddam's sadistic spawn. Yeah, containment was a rousing success. You liberals are all pissed off at what went on at Abu Ghraib by a few asshole American soldiers but obviously think nothing about what went on at Abu Ghraib when Saddam was in power. He didn't humiliate them. He crippled, tortured and killed them. Yeah, containment. A rousing success. I thought you guys believed in human rights.
The strategy was flawed. that the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad, when just the opposite is true -- the road to Baghdad leads through Jerusalem. In other words, an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is the key to peace and progress in the region.
This is the biggest piece of shit in his entire speech. I guess he's trying to justify hs failure in the Middle East. There will be no resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict while Yasser Arafat is alive! None! Arafat wants the obliteration of Israel. He will settle for nothing less. He walked out of the best deal the Palestinians will ever get. And, since we took out Saddam, there is no more money for suicide bombers' families from him. Since we took out Iraq, the booming in Israel has diminished. The Middle East needed an enema and Iraq was the best place to insert the tube.
We had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. Zinni testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just before the war and was asked if the threat from Saddam Hussein was imminent: "No, not at all," he said. "It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of these."
One man's opinion, but opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. What if Saddam did have WMD's, and I think he did, and he gave them to al Qaeda and they were used on us? Zinni would be singing a different tune, unless of course, there was a Dimocrat in the White House. Then Bush would have been blamed for not taking out Saddam.
We failed to internationalize the effort. That's a point on which we have now reached near-universal agreement, including George W. Bush.
By internationalize, liberals mean we didn't get the permission of Germany and France. Great Britiain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Spain (until they turned tail and ran) and many other countries don't count.
We underestimated the task.
True. We won the war so quickly we didn't realize what the occupation would entail. But, there are more good stories coming out of Iraq than bad. It's just that the lamestream media is more interested in bashing Bush than reporting the good stuff. The electrical infrastructure is better than before the war. There are new schools. There is a good water supply. The southern marshes are being restored. Iraq, overall, is in better shape than before the war, but our liberal media wants us to bug out so they can get back to their agenda of implementing the socialist utopia and putting our country under the control of the United Nations. Asstards!
Propping up and trusting the exiles. Zinni ranks this as possibly our biggest mistake, taking up Ahmad Chalabi's "Gucci guerrillas." Zinni has the additional authority of having testified against the Iraqi Liberation Act back in 1998, telling the Senate then that the Iraqi National Congress was not credible and would "lead us into something that we will regret."
So we're fixing it.
Lack of planning. When Zinni was head of CentCom in the Mideast, they actually did a reconstruction plan. "The size of the CPA was about the size we felt we needed for one province, let alone the entire country."
Doesn't this fall under "underestimating the task"? I already covered this. So it looks like Zinni had nine points instead of ten.
The generals in Iraq, who are actually in Iraq, have stated that they have sufficient forces. Zinni is in Washinton DC. Whom are ya gonna believe? Someone who is in Iraq, or someone who is hawking an anti-Iraq War book?
Ad hoc organization. The extent to which the CPA never had a game plan is incredible and, as The Washington Post rather acidly reports, the place is staffed with busy little right-wingers whose only claim to competence is their political connections.
Yeah, like I'm gonna believe the Washington Post. Compared to other military operations, Iraq was a resounding success. Liberals would like to see a war where no one (including the enemy) gets killed, except when it's a Republican president. Then they want to see lots of deaths so they can cry about how bad we're losing and we need to give up and come home. Then we can vote in an asshole like John Fonda Kerry who thinks that the war on terrorism should be turned over to the United Nations. Like the Unitied Nations is gonna win the War on Terror.
A series of bad decisions on the ground. Disbanding the army, etc.
Hindsight is 20/20. So what would Zinni, in his divine wisdom, have us do?
First, Zinni recommends we stop digging the hole we're in. We need a U.N. resolution,
We had 14 UN resolutions over 14 years that were not enforced. Dammit! Ain't that just like a fucking liberal? We need more laws. Then they refuse to enforce the laws we already have on the books!
then we need a lot of Arab officers in as advisers, then he has a whole series of specific military steps. He also emphasizes jobs, jobs, jobs.
Has he not noticed that we are giving jobs, jobs, jobs to the Iraqis? We turned Fallujah over to an Iraqi officer. Does that not count?
"I would go to the contractors in there and say: 'I don't want to see truck drivers that are coming from Peoria, Ill. I want to pay truck drivers that are Iraqis.' It doesn't take a hell of a lot of talent to drive a truck. Why aren't Iraqis driving trucks for their own reconstruction and redevelopment?"
But Iraqis are driving trucks. We hear about that when an Iraqi is killed for working for the Americans.
He also notes there is no system of education for the electorate -- no political parties, nothing.
Iraq has been under one party rule for 40 years. Does he expect a political system with political parties to spring up overnight? People are taking this guy seriously? Poof! I now declare a full blown democracy! I, Anthony Zinni, the miracle worker. Put me in charge and I will have it accomplished in two weeks. How long did it take us after the Revolutionary War?
Another citizen with some valuable suggestions is New York lawyer Neal Johnston,
New York lawyer. Expect bullshit.
who was moved to write Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld concerning "proper controls upon the interrogation techniques of detainees held by our military forces abroad." Since we are extremely interested in getting the truth out of reluctant witnesses who may be covering up something, and since the Pentagon apparently feels it knows how to do this, Johnston wonders what would happen if the methods were more broadly applied. For example, he writes Rumsfeld, "When next you testify before a congressional committee, would your testimony be any more credible were you required to deliver it stripped naked? I think not.
Just gotta get Abu Ghraib in there dontcha Molly?
Even, Johnston suggests, shoving a rolled copy of the Bill of Rights up a delicate place on the secretary's person would not necessarily improve Rumsfeld's truthfulness at his next press conference. "My solution is really quite simple: The Iraqi scum should be handled with much the same restraint we would all want to be applied to you, should the present criminal investigations wind up reaching even deeper into your office than is already the case."
GMAFB! First off, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the "Iraqi scum". Neither does the Geneva Convention, since it is reciprocal and they do not abide by it. Even so, we treat our POW's better than the ragheads treat theirs. And, if there is another 9/11 and it turns out that any of the "Iraqi scum" had information we could have used to prevent it, you would be one of the ones screaming the loudest that the military did not use any means possible to extract that information.
It's Memorial Day and you America hating liberals make me sick to my stomach.
Time for another glass of wine.
I've seen some of this evidence linking al-Qaeda to Saddam, but so far I'm not too sure on how conclusive its been. I know this has been repeated endlessly by liberals (which I am not) but it seems true: Osama bin Laden did refer to Hussein as an infidel and a socialist. If you compare Saddam's government to Afghanistan's former one, for example, while they were both brutal, Saddam's was secular, while the Taliban's was whacko fundamentalist (I think I remember reading that even Iran thought they were extremists.) The goal of al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and other terrorist groups, as many conservatives have repeatedly pointed out, seems to be to impose Islamic, anti-Western rule in that entire region. That would explain why bin Laden referred to Saddam as an infidel.
Now I know Saddam did finance those Palestinian terrorists, and I guess it is conceivable that al-Qaeda and Saddam could've made an agreement due to their common enemy, the US. After all, we did a somewhat similar thing with Stalin during World War II. But like I said, I'm not so sure of how far this supposed Saddam - al-Qaeda connection goes. If I got some links maybe I could look at it more.
Posted by: Eric on June 1, 2004 01:48 AMI almost got sucked in. After reading Tom Clancy's previous books about the generals in the first Iraq war I was really looking forward to his book on a Marine (I am a former Marine). I want to thank you and all the other bloggers who have shown me what a truly stupid, arrogant prick Zinni really is.
I had hoped for better - someone, somewhere PLEASE tell me that Gen Zinni (Ret) is an aberration and that today's Marines have adult leadership?
Grouchy Old Cripple in Winston Salem
Posted by: Fleck on June 1, 2004 05:38 AMWhen did Australia turn and run?
Posted by: DaveJ on June 1, 2004 10:38 AMOh wait, that's spain, I have been awake too long.
Posted by: Dave The Australian on June 1, 2004 10:40 AMEric,
There is some information available on the connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Interestingly enough, most of the information is from the 1990's:
Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:
Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.
NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:
Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.
Molly. Ivins. is. a. fool. I do not enjoy being mean to people but she is. When someone writes:
In other words, an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is the key to peace and progress in the region.
If anyone believes Zinni is an objective dissenter, they have not read the Mission Statement of the Center for Defense Information. It reads like a parody of Leftist 'thought':
The Center for Defense Information is dedicated to strengthening security through: international cooperation; reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict; reduced reliance on nuclear weapons; a transformed and reformed military establishment; and, prudent oversight of, and spending on, defense programs. (link)
Eric,
The human rights case alone justifies action, in my humble opinion. And yes, there are numerous human rights cases out there, but the Iraqi human rights case is different because of oil and terrorism. Funny though, I didn't read or hear this "careful" language of yours during the Milosovic fiasco. Could it be because the bombs were dropped by a Democrat Administration and so action was justified by default? You liberals are always looking for proof when a Conservative is in the house. Answer this, would you have preferred the US and the UK to continue operating the No-Fly Zone for another 12 years? How 'bout the Oil-for-Food program? The Oil-for-Food program was a corrupt Oil-for-Weapons program between Iraq, France, Germany, and Russia; complete with oil smuggling through Syria. And the UN knew of the corruption the whole time! Wanna know why France exercised its veto power? Yup, we have a winner!!! Does the proof really matter, dude?
WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT ALLOW A MADMAN TO REIGN OVER THE WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST OIL SUPPLY. DON'T LIKE THE IRAQ WAR? YOU SHOULD'VE LET US DRILL IN ANWR, PUNK.
Posted by: Paul on June 1, 2004 06:22 PMEric, you are by no means a punk. I apologize for insulting you. I get a little carried away. This topic is one of my hot buttons. Seriously though, Saddam was a serious problem, and I agree with Denny's post 100%.
Posted by: Paul on June 1, 2004 06:26 PMThose six Iraqis who got new prosthetic hands because Saddam CUT THEIRS OFF got them in Texas. While they were in such close proximity to Molly it's a shame they weren't given the opportunity to slap that bitch silly.
I'm glad Molly moaned about the palaces, because that's the ONLY moaning she's going to do unless Ann Richards' tongue is no longer as sharp as I recall.
Posted by: Velociman on June 1, 2004 08:28 PMAddison - You beat me to it. I was gonna post the Weekly Standard link when I got home from work. Thanks for being on the ball and also for all the other info. Like I said, the only thing that will satisfy the liberals is Saddam and Osama French kissing and then they would say it wasn't a blowjob.
Kim - That is not a pretty picture you paint with Molly and Ann Richards' tongue. Ewwwww!
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 1, 2004 09:11 PMI may be wrong about this but didn't Osama-bin-Laden say that the main reason he turned terrorist was to get US troops off of Saudi soil?
If that's the case then the connection between Saddam and 9/11 is obvious. The only way to contain him was to keep troops in Saudi Arabia and that pissed off a whole lot of terrorists, so they attacked. It may not be a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 but it blows the theory that containment was working completely out of the water.
Posted by: Valdis on June 2, 2004 10:38 AMWell yeah, and I ain't a Dem either. Apology accepted. I was just askin' cuz of the known ideological differences between bin Laden and Saddam.
Posted by: Eric on June 2, 2004 08:13 PMAnd, I agree with you that Saddam's human rights record is deplorable (obviously)... but there are so many other countries (other Arab nations, African nations, China, North Korea, etc etc.) that have also have human rights problems that IMO you need more than "human rights abuses" as rationale to invade a nation. That's why Bush's main point before the war was the alleged WMDs, but the removal of Saddam and the formation of a democracy (hopefully) is a nice benefit.
I agree with you on other stuff like the UN... I don't think the fact that some country like France objects should dictate our foreign policy.
Posted by: Eric on June 2, 2004 08:22 PMEric - True enough. There are countries with worse human rights records than Iraq. Aris Katsaris, a commenter over on Rantburg suggested Syria or Iran would have been a better option. Maybe so, but we didn't have an excuse (14 UN resolutions that Iraq had violated). What the liberals refuse to accept is that this is a cultural war: radical Islam against liberal western democracies. I use liberal in the classic sense as opposed to the liberals of the Dimocrat Party.
What Bush is trying to accomplish is sumpin' so ambitious that it has very little chance of success since we have a party that is willing to destroy this country to return to power. He is trying to drag the Arabs into the 21st Century. He, and his advisors think that this is the only way to win the WOT.
I wish I had the writing skills to explain this better. The person who does is Steven Den Beste at USS Clueless. Link in my blogroll. He has written extensively on this topic.
Remember, Bush said this was gonna be a long war. Unfortunately, the American public has a short attention span.
I also suggest, if you haven't already, to read some of the essays of Bill Whittle.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 2, 2004 09:01 PMFleck - Have you seen Clancy on any of the talk shows with Zinni? He does not really look all that confortable.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 2, 2004 09:51 PM"Propping up and trusting the exiles. Zinni ranks this as possibly our biggest mistake, taking up Ahmad Chalabi's "Gucci guerrillas." Zinni has the additional authority of having testified against the Iraqi Liberation Act back in 1998, telling the Senate then that the Iraqi National Congress was not credible and would "lead us into something that we will regret."
Who was left besides exiles? Saddam and his bloodthirsty Ba'athists killed and tortured anyone (and their family) who was even suspected of disagreeing with his regime. So, who is there on the ground in the country who can take over after "de-Ba'ath-ification?" The only ones left are the "local leaders" also known as "tribal/clan" leaders. Aren't those the same people who are called "warlords" in other Muslim countries such as Somalia or Afghanistan? Perhaps Gen. Zinni and Molly would be happier if we had waited until the UN envoy finally picked a name out of hat, instead of being forced into accepting the "Interim Gov't" that is the choice of the Iraqi leaders?
Posted by: cas on June 4, 2004 05:01 PMsir,, why do you defend a war of invasion? While I admit that saddam was an abbohrant man ndeed, there are many more such leaders who deserve such action taken against them. thus bush's argument that this is a war to liberate iraq doesn't stand up.
moreover, bush's arguments concerning wmd are equally flawed: he admitted this week that the CIA 'got it wrong'. and the links made between bin laden and hussain are quite simply laughable, and do not stand up to one iota of serious academic scrutiny.
I would be flattered if you checked out my own site, or perhaps emailed me: like you, i'm disabled, and don't get out much, but thrive on political debate.
Posted by: matthew goodsell on June 5, 2004 07:48 AMMatthew - Please read previous comments, especially those of Addison. Also, may I suggest you read the writings of Steven Den Beste. Also read more of my stuff on this topic.
1. As more info is coming out there is more and more linking Saddam to al Qaeda and 9/11.
2. There were terrorist raining camps in Iraq.
3. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. He gave money to Palestinian families of suicide bombers.
4. WMD's have been found. Also he was unable to account for the WMD's that the entire world new he had. These were WMD's that even the United Nations knew he had. He had four years from the time that the inspectors were thrown out to hide them. Could you find sumpin' in California that had been hidden for four years?
5. Iraq was in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions.
6. Most of the terrorism comes from the Middle East. It is a cesspool that needs to be cleaned up. Iraq was a logical place to start. Plus it has oil. If we can secure a safe supply of oil, we can go after the Saudis and the Iranians if we have to. We're hoping that by setting up a viable democray in Iraq, it will be a model for the other countries. This is the most ambitious project since the Marshall Plan. If it succeeds, Bush will go down in history as a great president. If it fails, we at least tried to do something about the root cause (Liberals should be happy that we are going after the root cause of sumpin'.) ot terrorism.
1. I have seen no evidennce of suchh
2. again, no evidence
3. possibly, but with israel behaving as it is, can u blaim him. not that i support hammass
4. simply wrong
5. true, but so is ameerica in terms of the kyoto accords etc
5. wishful thinking. the middle east will be aflame for decades. And do not pretend this war was to establish democracy - this is grossly naive.
also, do not take the piss out of libralism: conservatism itself is baseless. see my blog.
Posted by: matthew goodsell on June 6, 2004 01:16 PMMatthew - Why would I want to see your blog? You will not believe facts in evidence and you cannot spell. You are spouting the same liberal bullshit over and over and that is what it is: bullshit. From what I have seen in my comments, you have no writing skills. Please leave. I only allow grownups on this site and those capable of rational thought processes. That leaves you out. If this pisses you off, tough shit. Read the rules for this site.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on June 6, 2004 04:52 PM