I've heard Anthony Zinni as possible Veep - does anybody have a link of a

[patricia92243]

bio about him

[maddezmom]

1. I heard the same thing here at DU

just do a search :) lots of stuff on him.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1&ei=UTF-8&p=Anthony+Zinni+

[bfusco]

2. Most recently he was a special Middle East envoy

The link provided has several good articles and interviews that I read. Back in the fall of 2002, his remarks helped shape my opinions of going to war with Iraq. That was before I knew a whole lot about the neo-cons and what the real agenda behind the war was. He painted some sobering scenarios of what such an action would lead to, which has turned out to be accurate, and put some of our priorities and needed actions in perspective. Unfortunately our media whores and public weren't listening to the real soldiers about what this action would lead to. This link provides his past experience.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1683427.stm

[SheilaT]

3. Personally I rather doubt

that any of our fine candidates would select someone hardly anyone has heard of for VP. Name recognition still matters.

[blm]

4. Dean camp floating ANY defense name to keep Dean propped up

and undecided voters comfortable.

That's why names like Clark, Nunn and Zinni are always floated. To PROP UP DEAN.

[tedoll78]

5. Well..

for someone who needs propping-up, he does seem to be doing better than the others.. hmm..

[TeacherCreature]

6. Dean camp doesn't have to prop up Dean

Kerry camp however, was overheard ordering several steel girders and a forklift for his next public appearance.

[dd123]

7. Zinni would eviscerate Cheney on foreign policy in a debate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22922-2003Dec22.html

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."

Zinni's concern deepened as Cheney pressed on that day at the Opryland Hotel. "Time is not on our side," the vice president said. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action."

Zinni's conclusion as he slowly walked off the stage that day was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into."

[calimary]

9. THAT would be a thing of beauty.

[TacticalPeek]

10. Great article, thanks for linking.

Don't know how I missed it back in Dec, but if it was never posted in some forum here, it should be.

I think Zinni exemplifies the high and unique value of the Corps to our country. We need to send in the Marines, into the policy makers' bunker, armed with a map of reality and the trademark USMC can do/improvisatory approach to mission success.

Zinni as VP may not make electoral sense, but as a true national asset, he certainly should be deployed to maximum effect by the next administration.

Oorah.

:toast:

[dd123]

8. More right on comments from Zinni about the middle east

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/zinni.html

Comments of Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret.) during a speech before the Florida Economic Club, Aug. 23, 2002:

Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.

It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)

But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it. You need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That's the first issue in my mind.

The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Central Asia need to be resolved, making sure Al Qaeda can't rise again from the ashes that are destroyed. Taliban cannot come back. That the warlords can't regain power over Kabul and Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far.

Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can't fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don't need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There's a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it's strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that -- that is a higher priority.