Anthony Zinni rebuked Clinton while in uniform, but that's ok.

[bushmeister0]

I found this paragraph is a WaPO from sep. 14 2001

"During his tenure, Zinni publicly criticized the Clinton administration's support for Iraqi exile groups that said they could overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, an idea supported by many Republicans on Capital Hill and by the new Bush administration. Unseating Hussein, he argued at the time, would create a destabilizing power vacuum in Iraq, which borders Iran, and push the region into war."

[MadMaddie]

1. Every one of them are lying, hypocritical and cheeting bastards..

I am just guessing the Zinni has been promised some lucrative posh job after his retirement.....:sarcasm:

Welcome to DU:hi:

[spag68]

2. I don't understand your statement.

The fact that this guy criticized clinton, should give him credibility when he criticizes bush. He seems to me to be smart and straight forward. I wonder what Murtha thinks of him?

[Elwood P Dowd]

3. She forgot to select "sarcasm" in the smilies lookup table

:-)

[roguevalley]

9. actually, if he was criticizing Clinton's support for these groups,

which probably included Chalabi, Clinton deserved it. It also points out the consistency of Zinni's position.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Looks like Zinni was right then, and he's right now. Link to article?

[ShortnFiery]

5. Yes, and if you think Chalabi and his crones were smarmy ...

Just wait till they parade the so called "Iranian Resistance" (wealthy exiles) zealots.

Get you BS meter and barf-bag at the ready. :(

I wonder what General (Ret.) Zinni thinks of the Shah of Iran's son?

[spag68]

6. Shaw of Irans son

NOOOOOOOOOO please don't bring back memories of Nixon!!!!!!

[ShortnFiery]

7. But he's out there man, quoted in NewsMax ... at the ready!

However, for the time being, it's reported that The Shah's Son is against ANY military attack against Iran.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/28/134705.shtml

Let's hope he holds that view. :scared:

*as if NewsMax is telling us the TRUTH? :thumbsdown:

[gratuitous]

8. The difference, and there is a BIG one

Is that the Iraqi exile groups, should they have been successful in overthrowing Saddam, would have had far more credibility than the military coup staged by the Bush administration. The United States would have had about a zillion more options for dealing with the situation than it currently has in the situation that Bush forced onto Iraq back in 2003.

With the forced removal of the leader of Iraq, the United States has indeed had to deal with a power vacuum of immense proportions, one that for all our status as the world's last superpower we are not getting a handle on at all. In addition to having to deal with a suddenly leaderless country that has known only totalitarian oppression, nobody inside or outside Iraq was in a position to assert any kind of authority once Saddam was removed, and with the fracturing of the populace, re-assembling Iraqi society may be a Humpty Dumpty job -- never to be put back together again.

But if you saw any of this, or even suspected that overthrowing Saddam from outside was going to result in utter chaos, you aren't allowed on the public airwaves back when it could have made a difference, and you aren't allowed on the public airwaves now because the truth is far too inconvenient for the current administration, its sycophants and toadies.