Another General takes on BushCo!

[Manix]

..Nightline had Gen.Anthony Zinni, who proceeded to shred the Bush Iraq policy...very good show.

[Julien Sorel]

1. Zinni, Clark, Shinseki, Schwarzkopf --

all of them critical of the war. Some 'military industrial complex.'

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. this should be a great clue to the Democrats

We now own national security if we are good at getting
these warriors on our side, and I am not kidding. Bush
has given this issue on a silver platter to democrats.

[Julien Sorel]

4. Nope.

Look at this message board, for example. Who in their right (heh heh) mind would want to let themselves in for this kind of garbage? One of the reasons Clark was undecided for so long was because he knew what kind of reception he'd get from some elements of this party, and he wasn't certain it was worth the trouble. The rest of them aren't running for office, so they gain nothing by openly joining or supporting Democrats. In fact, they avoid a whole lot of crap by staying away.

A big part of the reason the military is alienated from the Democratic Party is because of the Democratic Party. Sure, the majority of Democrats are smart enough to understand what's going on, but the vocal, 'baby killer' minority cancels common sense out -- so Democrats remain the 'soft on national security' party, and the military, even the rank-and-file military, vote Republican in droves. It's not smart politics, but it's been that way since Vietnam, and until that attitude dies down in this party, it's going to stay this way.


One of the reasons I like Clark is because he has a chance to make a dent in that attitude, and if he can get by that kind of attitude in the primaries, I think he will. But we'll have to see.

[Solon]

5. Perception of a Deception

While some elements of the Democratic Party (me for instance) are ambivalent towards the Military-Industrial Complex. That should not alienate us from the troops. We need to separate the MIC from the front-line soldiers. While the MIC line their pockets with gold, the foot soldiers line body bags. We need to hammer home the message that more money for military spending does not equate with a more secure nation. We need the best trained troops, and the best taken care of troops. Not the biggest guns on the block. Our technological advantage means shit when faced with a hearty opposition, like it did in Vietnam and now Iraq.

[MoonRiver]

14. Amen.

"We need to hammer home the message that more money for military spending does not equate with a more secure nation."

I think Bush* and his Repuke congrressional minions are doing a better job of that than we ever could! WIth every opportunity they sneak another bill through the House cutting veterans benefits etc. I sense a real groundswell of rage toward *, especially regarding this Iraqi fiasco, coming from the military, pretty much from the bottom up. And like many have pointed out that's yet another reason why Clark will whoop junior's arse in '04, if we, the Democratic Party, will give him the chance. He can get so many different groups who were previously alienated from us to enthusiastically embrace Clark's election, and who knows, they may just decide to go a straight party ticket and really give the Dems a chance to show what we're all about. After all, * and the Repukes have proven they're deceitful clowns, totally incapable of running a government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Well I know that now these elections are for us to

loose, and I also am willing to educate people as to the realities
the service members face every day... like not being able to speak
out. (UCMJ for those who need the reason for it)

And you are right... people have to get over their baby killer
attitude, beause those warriors have but one place to go now...
the warm arms of the VFW and the American Legion.

Let me explain.

The Conservatives see them purely as cannon fodder... no they
will not fight, that is what them working poor volunteers are for. to a smaller extent that is what them officers are also for, they are mostly midle class as well, so who cares if they die?

Oh and if any of them should get snippy and question George Bush the Lesser after they get out of the service, then question their patriotism... hence the attacks on McCain (I know he is GOP, but you know what I am saying) Cleeland, Kerry (both of them, confusion great tool) and now Clark. by the way the troops are figuring this out, insofar as the Conservs are concerned, they are mere machines.

Now to the Democrats, that minority that calls them baby killers and has these whacky ideas. I have a sugestion to them, go down to the VFW and try for once to connect with those people on a personal level. You may be surprsied to find out... them are people too.

Anyway, I am the wife of a Navy man, he served his country through four administrations... (reagan all the way to soon to retire), and he served his country, not a single President.

As he likes to remind me, they take an oath to serve the constitution not the President or the Military Industrial Complex, and this is the part that the conservs take advantage and the baby killer crowd does not understand, these people serve because they want to serve their country, not a specific President, but increasingly they realize that NOBODY in the body politic truly cares for them... cannon fodder for the conservs and monsters for the left.

This is a golden oportunity for the left to get rid of them stereotypes and get the Armed Forces on their side... just don't expect them to do this jumping in glee, after all the UCMJ prevents them from saying such... but if you do it well and aproach them at a human level, they will give their middle finger to BushCo in the only place the active forces can... the voting booth.

[Julien Sorel]

8. All I can say is...

great post.

Personally, I'm anti-war, and I honestly can't point to too many interventions we've been involved with that I agree with. But I'm the only male in my family for several generations who hasn't served, and one thing I noticed in my family members is that they all came back from their service considerably more right-wing than when they went in. It's partially indoctrination, but I think the distaste that elements of the left have for the military has something to do with it as well -- and there is no reason for it. My family members joined for economic reasons, not because they wanted to go to foreign countries, meet interesting people, and kill them, as the line from Full Metal Jacket goes. I think the same is true for most rank-and-file military people. We, not the Repubs, should own those folks' allegience.

Maybe with time, and more people like yourself, we'll get there.

[CWebster]

10. Why are you a Democrat anyway since you are so prone

to Republican spin? Democrats are not "soft on national security" because to Democrats security entails more than toting the biggest gun around the world like the biggest bullying dick on the block. That is sure to make us friends around the world, huh? The Bush administration has made an absolute disaster of national security, defense and international relations, and any military leader worth his salt can see that- and may want to distance himself from the mess. So why do you argue that we should be more like them? The problem with the Democrats is they have been so incapacitated by compromising with Bush and allowing his thugs to define the debate- they weren't able to rally against him when it was essential they do so. THAT is where they were weak--they were weak on defense because they didn't launch an attack against the Bush cabal in defence of our country and all it stands for. And the general didn't jump in until the water was safe.

I don't see much light between your post and the charges hurled at 'liberals' on right-wing boards - No wonder so many progressives at this progressive site find so many Clark supporters bullying and ignorant.

Oh yeah, so where is the love?

[jayfish]

18. Gimme A Break.

When Billy says "Democrats remain the 'soft on national security' party" he is saying that this how the part is perceived by rank and file military members. Even though he used apostrophes where he should have use quotation marks, the sentiment of the statement is quite clear. Part of the problem with the Clark Bashers around here seems to be that when it comes to any and all information about Clark they lose their ability to comprehend the written word.

Jay

[CWebster]

20. speaking of comprehesion

that wasn't the post I was resonding to.

I will refrain from an insult.

[jayfish]

21. According To The Thread Tree...

that is the post you were responding to. But if that is not the case, then I apologize and deserve any insult you care to throw my way.

Jay

[Julien Sorel]

22. LOL

Why are you a Democrat anyway since you are so prone
to Republican spin? Democrats are not "soft on national security" because to Democrats security entails more than toting the biggest gun around the world like the biggest bullying dick on the block.

I tell you what. Go back through my post and find where I said I agree with the label, as you allege here. The quotation marks around the phrase 'soft on national security' should have been enough to tip you off on my own attitude.

When you are unable to find where I said it, the honest thing to do would be to come back and apologize, but I won't hold my breath.

That is sure to make us friends around the world, huh? The Bush administration has made an absolute disaster of national security, defense and international relations, and any military leader worth his salt can see that- and may want to distance himself from the mess. So why do you argue that we should be more like them?

Where do I argue we should be more like them? In fact, I argue that the problem is the knee-jerk, anti-military reaction of the extreme left is the problem, not any real policy issues.

Again, when you are unable to find evidence to support your claim in my post, the honest thing to do...

The problem with the Democrats is they have been so incapacitated by compromising with Bush and allowing his thugs to define the debate- they weren't able to rally against him when it was essential they do so.

Starting down the wrong road...

THAT is where they were weak--they were weak on defense because they didn't launch an attack against the Bush cabal in defence of our country and all it stands for. And the general didn't jump in until the water was safe.

And you reach the wrong destination as a result. There's a difference between 'anti-military' and 'anti- militarism.' That's the core problem. You, however, remain stubbornly oblivious to that difference, as this entire line of reasoning reveals. How do we win the 'hearts and minds,' in the vernacular, of the military people over? You simply don't address this issue, instead choosing to talk about your concept of national security -- in the process you leave the military entirely out of the equation, except as cardboard targets for your own feelings of anti-militarism. I'm tempted to go through your own posts to get examples, but I hardly think it necessary. So Shinseki, Schwarzkopf, et al, and the millions of people whom they and their peers lead and have lead, remain largely alientated from the party. The public, then, takes their lead, and the Democrats become 'weak on national security,' as well as missing out on a large bloc of votes. It's a double-whammy that you simply ignore, by trying to force your concept of national security on an unbuying public. (By the way, please notice the quotation marks this time). And that's why we lose those votes, and that's why the Democrats are perceived as 'soft on national security.'

I don't see much light between your post and the charges hurled at 'liberals' on right-wing boards - No wonder so many progressives at this progressive site find so many Clark supporters bullying and ignorant.

And the nasty bitterness shows through. Worded just carefully enough to get by the personal attack rules, but you get your message across. Were I to reply in kind, you and/or some of your compatriots would, of course, ride the net nanny button and squeal about being 'respectful' to the administrators of this 'progressive site.' Your argument itself was typically weak and dishonest, but I have to tip my nazi helmet to you for the quality of your insult.

[0rganism]

7. Now we just need Powell to jump on board, and it's settled

I figure he's already outlined his position in those tapes of him explaining that Iraq wasn't a threat at all, or the one where he says of a Bushco war script for the UN, "I won't read this, it's bullshit!" Now he just needs to make it official by quitting his cabinet post and publicly endorsing Clark's candidacy.

[roguevalley]

3. Zinni hates bush. Bush shoved him out. He kept diaries and plans to

write a book. People have said he loathes bush and
I am sure this could be tons of fun to read.

[Padraig18]

9. The most damning thing Zinni said, IMO

He said the the Clinton administration had a minutely detailed plan for post-war Iraq (they war game this stuff, of course) that he himself had assisted in preparing when he was head of Centcom, and that as far as he could tell, the Bush administration had never even looked at it, much less implemented it. :grr:

[kaitykaity]

11. Anybody get an mp3/transcript of this?

I missed it. :grr:

[LizW]

12. Zinni's been taking on BushCo for a long time

Read the transcript of his speech from October, 2002. So much common sense and expertise so totally ignored by the misadministration. It will make you weep.

http://www.mideasti.org/html/zinnispeech.htm

[The Lone Liberal]

13. I agree ---- The military is very pissed at BushCo.

and rightly so.

[Sinistrous]

15. Wait a minute. I am confused here:

Gen Zinni is a good guy, EVEN THOUGH he is a member of the apparently nefarious Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), but Gen Clark is and evil no-goodnik BECAUSE he is a member of the apparently nefarious Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Can someone explain that to me?

[Padraig18]

16. Umm, no.

That a General would belong to CSIS is about as newsworthy as the fact that your local Ford dealer is a member of the Lion's club, IMO.

[Sinistrous]

19. Ummm, yes.

At least one other DU'er finds it damning.

See Here.>

[JohnOneillsMemory]

23. Zinni has condemned Iraq as 'lies and carnage.' Clark plays both ends.

Thanks for linking these discussions. This is a whole lot more complicated than some of these posts are describing-"angel or devil, which is it?" I agree that polarizing characterizations are hard to respond to but there are life and death issues to weigh and lots of answers needed from the current Dem front-runner who has secretive and contradictory statements and actions on the Iraq invasion and occupation. Right?

[VolcanoJen]

17. I'm diggin' Zinni more and more these days.

Wonder if he'll run for Prez in '08...

;-)