Another Bush Book on the Way

[Flasch186]

I just heard today that Gen. Zinni is coming out with a book that hammers the admin. on Iraq and Gen. Zinni has a lot of inside info. but I havn't heard specifics yet....stay tuned as the fog gets even thicker.

[CamEdwards]

hating Bush seems to be a full time job for you... or a really time-intensive hobby. Have you ever thought about taking up knitting?

[sachmo71]

I could use a sweater. Or a blankie.

[CamEdwards]

my wife says that sweaters are a pain in the ass to make. She could probably make a blankie fairly quickly, however. And her custom-made purses make great birthday and Christmas gifts. :)

[Flasch186]

I certainly dont hate bush. As a matter of fact Im HAPPY to see that he is finally going to turn to the UN for help. Thats the draft resolution they are trying to pass right now. I actually see it as a sign that perhaps Bush is growing up and finding the ability to "flip flop" as he likes to call it, have both sides of the coin. Regardless I feel that this is great news for the future of Iraq, the future of our troops, and the future of our country.

I simply like talking about this stuff and cant seem to find anyone else other than Bishop, Clint, russdawg, etc. that like to banter about it, not even in RL. Its actually a shame that more people dont take notice of what goes on in their gov't.

[stevew]

Thread title should be:
Another Right Baiting thread on the way.

[Arles]

Wonder when the Bill Sammon book (he did get nearly 3 years of total access in the white house) will get as much press as the Woodward one.

Oh, yeah, it paints Bush in a positive light. So, you won't be seeing it on Katie Cupcake or 60 minutes.

[Flasch186]

Why is it that any evidence or subject matter that doesnt fall right into the RIGHT way of thinking is automatically bad. I dont view those viewpoints as wrong, just other viewpoints. Im afraid that its that same closed mindedness that reeks in our gov't invades their supporters as well. If your guy does something wrong, you should be able to admit it. Dem's. didnt try to defend Bill's BJ, so why not be able to admit when something is bad. I think it shows strength.

[Arles]

Dem's. didnt try to defend Bill's BJ
You sure about that? Even after the DNA showed he did it (and they wouldn't admit he did until that DNA came back), the story changed to "it was just sex, let's move on".

[Senator]

Geeze. Maybe I should write a book about my pre-governor history with him.

Nope, not gonna do it.

[Dutch]

Why is it that any evidence or subject matter that doesnt fall right into the RIGHT way of thinking is automatically bad. I dont view those viewpoints as wrong, just other viewpoints. Im afraid that its that same closed mindedness that reeks in our gov't invades their supporters as well. If your guy does something wrong, you should be able to admit it. Dem's. didnt try to defend Bill's BJ, so why not be able to admit when something is bad. I think it shows strength.

It's a good thing you don't hate Bush, you might get mad.

[SunDancer]

What happen to the President Osborne-Bush thread?

[stevew]

What happen to the President Osborne-Bush thread?

I guess No Myths must have deleted it cause he knew it was trolling.

[sabotai]

You sure about that? Even after the DNA showed he did it (and they wouldn't admit he did until that DNA came back), the story changed to "it was just sex, let's move on".

You forgot to mention the "oral sex is not adultery" insanity that also followed. :)

[sabotai]

Why is it that any evidence or subject matter that doesnt fall right into the RIGHT way of thinking is automatically bad.

Because it's unamerican and helps the terrorists. DUH!

[BishopMVP]

Honestly, even though this thread was kind of baiting since we have no information on what will actually be in the book, the way that some people here jump on any anti-Bush post and feel the need to call it out 5 or 6 times is starting to annoy me. When a funny picture of Kerry is posted (like the football one) I expect the response from the pro-Kerry camp to be "Well, it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, but it is a pretty funny picture on its own." What would you think of them if they just jumped on whoever posted it? Probably some sort of "Wow, they're really uptight and have no sense of humor." So instead of attacking it, just ignore it. It's not that hard.

[Blackadar]

hating Bush seems to be a full time job for you... or a really time-intensive hobby. Have you ever thought about taking up knitting?

Licking his ass seems to be yours.

:eek:

[Antmeister]

Licking his ass seems to be yours.

:eek:

Oh great....here we go again. :rolleyes:

[Blackadar]

Oh great....here we go again. :rolleyes:

Cam knows I'm only kidding. Sort of. :)

[John Galt]

Honestly, even though this thread was kind of baiting since we have no information on what will actually be in the book, the way that some people here jump on any anti-Bush post and feel the need to call it out 5 or 6 times is starting to annoy me. When a funny picture of Kerry is posted (like the football one) I expect the response from the pro-Kerry camp to be "Well, it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, but it is a pretty funny picture on its own." What would you think of them if they just jumped on whoever posted it? Probably some sort of "Wow, they're really uptight and have no sense of humor." So instead of attacking it, just ignore it. It's not that hard.

I agree strongly! I thought the Kerry photo was funnier than the Bush and the bike story, but that's just my opinion.

[BishopMVP]

I agree strongly! I thought the Kerry photo was funnier than the Bush and the bike story, but that's just my opinion.It's a lot funnier when there are pictures involved. I imagine someone posting a news story about Kerry looking funny while trying to catch a football wouldn't do too well either. Unless he called the QB a son of a bitch. ;)

[yabanci]

...we have no information on what will actually be in the book....

FYI - He discussed his views and the book on 60 minutes last night.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

[CamEdwards]

Licking his ass seems to be yours.

:eek:

The eek face is a pretty good representation of my actual face upon reading that. I don't ever picture you as the type to reference anallingus, much less call someone an asslicker for having a political opinion that differs from yours. I thought you were a little more open-minded than that.

I would say that my political preferences aside, I typically (and I say typically, not absolutely) don't start political threads. I might comment in them, but I think I've only started five or six in the two plus years I've been reading the board. Some people on here will start five or six of these threads in a week.

Is there a difference between starting a thread (or two, or three, or seven) and posting in a thread? I guess for me there is.

[sabotai]

Cam knows I'm only kidding. Sort of. :)

I don't ever picture you as the type to reference anallingus, much less call someone an asslicker for having a political opinion that differs from yours. I thought you were a little more open-minded than that.

Doesn't look like it, Blackie. :)

[sachmo71]

I wish someone would do that to me. It sound interesting. Do I have to run for office?

[BishopMVP]

FYI - He discussed his views and the book on 60 minutes last night.Maybe we should start a different thread about this. This one appears to already be off on a few different tangents.

Apart from it being targeted more at Rumsfeld/the neocons than Bush, I disagree with a number of points from the transcript. He'll probably have explanations and evidence in his book, so judging apriori its release is kind of cheap, but I think some of his points can be addressed.let's deal with this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.This is probably the one that would take the longest to argue, but I just don't think we can/could ever defeat terrorism as long as regimes like Saddam's, the Ayatollahs and the al-Saud's are in place. If you're looking at the root causes of what led to 9/11, it was the failed regimes who deflect their people's anger onto Israel and the US/West.“We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”It may very well have been better to use that many troops, but where would we get them from? If you accept that we were going to attack Iraq when we did, we really didn't have the ability to use a plan like that.“Disbanding the army,” says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain elements of that society.”Especially since we recently have begun allowing lower level ex-Baathists back into some positions, it appears this is correct. But I question how much he figured this ahead of time and how much is realizing in retrospect as Bremer has.at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up.This seems to imply that there was a simple, obvious solution that the Pentagon elected not to do. IMO, it was always going to be long and hard, and we'd be learning on the fly.Zinni said he believed (the neocons) strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”Um, we didn't exactly have a very favorable perception to begin with. The polls in other Middle Eastern countries (other than Turkey) indicate no dropoff in the already low-levels of pro-US sentiment. It's the Europeans by and large who believe this crusader nonsense.“Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes,” says Zinni.

“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden.”Gah! :mad: They didn't want us to go in. There was pretty much nothing we could have given them that would have convinced them otherwise. IMO, they were scared that not only would they lose their oil contracts with Saddam, but the evidence of their massive corruption would come to light. Even if you don't accept premise #2, it was pretty obvious they were not going to agree with us.Are there enough troops in Iraq now?

“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international participants? Yes,” says Zinni.

“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can provide services in there.”Again, where are these troops to come from? There is no significant, effective international force that will be coming in, so which other current US engagement do you propose we take the troops from, General?it is salvageable if you can convince the Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,” says Zinni.

“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the people on the street,Again, :mad:. I'm not going to repost the same polls and numbers I did in the Rumsfeld Lied thread, but I think Zinni here is wrong about the Iraqi street. It's a slow process, but we are slowly convincing the Iraqi people. In an interview with an Iraqi living in Australia I read the other day, he said from talking to people back home that the biggest concern with Abu Ghraib was that it might lead to the Americans leaving. The majority of on the ground and small level reporting doesn't fit at all with the impression given by the American media (to say nothing of the virulently anti-American Al-Jazeera/Al-Arabiya and the not quite as virulently anti-American European networks.)

Overall, while it is far too early to tell because he could very well have a bunch of other stuff in his book that wasn't mentioned in the transcript, it appears a lot of his criticism about how the actual war plans were carried out are second-guessing that the administration has realized as well. As for his comments on the timing of the war, I disagree with him. Also keep in mind the rift between Rumsfeld and the neo-cons and many of the ex-Generals when reading Zinni's criticism of said groups. While much of it may be valid, it is also a turf war that was being fought before Iraq.

[Kodos]

hating Bush seems to be a full time job for you... or a really time-intensive hobby. Have you ever thought about taking up knitting?

Can anyone who leans markedly to the right claim that they didn't attack Clinton whenever the chance came up back when he was President? It seems like if you were willing to attack Clinton for every little thing, then you can't really criticize people who do the same thing to Bush from the left side.

[BishopMVP]

Semi-dola for the book. It seems like the 60 Minutes Interview, if not the book, focuses on the wrong thing. I'd be very interested in reading General Zinni's criticism of the war plans and execution thereof. When it comes to the political arguments though, I don't see what he brings to the table that hasn't already been laid out in every other book critical of our actions.Can anyone who leans markedly to the right claim that they didn't attack Clinton whenever the chance came up back when he was President? It seems like if you were willing to attack Clinton for every little thing, then you can't really criticize people who do the same thing to Bush from the left side.IMO, the political discourse in this country would be markedly improved if both sides realized how much they are now mimicking the other side's actions during the Clinton Presidency.

[Flasch186]

Bishop, thanks for posting that. Obviously, like the Moore movie, I wont critique anything until I gather enough information about it to make a wiser judgement than ignorance. thanks for the start.

It is important for people to go into everything with an open mind. You can vote against some one/for someone and then vote them out/ in later. this is a "flip flop" but our god given right.

I start these threads because I enjoy the debate. I cant do this at home, when My GF's eyes glass over when I say Abu garaib and inevitably she says, wanna watch HGTV? um, no....the games on...speaking of which.

[WussGawd]

More interesting than Zinni's role in it is the book's co-author:

Tom Clancy (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5053682/)

This guy is Republican enough that I can't read his stuff anymore. I lost my liking for Clancy when he wrote a thinly disguised 1000 page paean to the flat tax in Executive Orders.

The fact that he is dissatisfied with the War in Iraq ought to scare the willies out of rank and file Republicans.

[Easy Mac]

I heard Sam Fisher was going to make an appearance.

[Leonidas]

I saw Zinni's interview last night and have great respect for the General. He did not slam the President in any way and actually feels the President is the victim of bad advice and bad leadership from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. There are a lot of generals who feel the same way. Zinni has always been popular with the troops and I think his views are a candid reflection of what a lot of people in the Pentagon would like to say, but can't.

His main points were Rumsfeld and the neo-cons had great intentions, but had very strange ideas about how to secure a country with too few troops and poor information. He also said if he had provided the same kind of service to the President as these folks he would feel honor bound to resign.

I have bought other of these collaborative efforts between generals and Clancy and have found them to probably be his best books. So yes, I plan on buying this book.

[WussGawd]

I saw Zinni's interview last night and have great respect for the General. He did not slam the President in any way and actually feels the President is the victim of bad advice and bad leadership from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. There are a lot of generals who feel the same way. Zinni has always been popular with the troops and I think his views are a candid reflection of what a lot of people in the Pentagon would like to say, but can't.

His main points were Rumsfeld and the neo-cons had great intentions, but had very strange ideas about how to secure a country with too few troops and poor information. He also said if he had provided the same kind of service to the President as these folks he would feel honor bound to resign.

I have bought other of these collaborative efforts between generals and Clancy and have found them to probably be his best books. So yes, I plan on buying this book.

Ironically, I've enjoyed Clancy's nonfiction a lot more than his fiction over the last few years. Yes, I'll probably buy it, if nothing else to see what Zinni has to say. His comments on 60 minutes were wonderful.

[BishopMVP]

His comments on 60 minutes were wonderful.(Assuming for the moment what he said was false, this statement reads) I love it when someone pushes a partisan agenda to make some cash off a book.

(Assuming for the moment everything he said was true, this statement reads) I love it when my country's foreign policy is wrong.

Whichever it is, I guess I just have a different standard of wonderful than you do.

[Dutch]

Okay, at least now we all agree that we should have gone into Iraq, just the way we did it is questionable.

We are making progress and working together after all!

[Arles]

I'll ask it again, when does Bill Sammon (Misunderestimated) get his turn on 60 minutes?

Here's the summary of his book:

"As senior White House correspondent for the Washington Times, Sammon has been granted extraordinary access to the president and his closest confidants, from political gurus Karl Rove and Andy Card to foreign policy advisers Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The result is a compelling chronicle of the second eighteen months of George W. Bush's term, as the administration's focus shifts from al Qaeda and Afghanistan to Iraq and the 2004 election."

I can see why a book like this wouldn't interest CBS and 60 minutes. I mean, who wants to hear about the entire Bush cabinet in the 18 months leading up to the Iraqi war?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Sorry Arles,

but it's because they try to stick to books penned by credible authors. If I wanted to read that stuff, I might as well just ask for the cliff notes from Karl Rove.