# So Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism? Really? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661 "2004-05-17T21:32:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/41 "2004-05-19T16:11:24Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Please provide evidential support for your position, or retract it as the baseless assertion it truly is. Here’s something about the theory of [cognitive dissonance](http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html). Yes, in fact, finding out that positions in which you have an emotional involvement don’t square with reality does piss people off. Note that no one said that conservatism in general doesn’t square with reality. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/42 "2004-05-19T17:37:29Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > 😕 > > **UncleBeer** , you’re perhaps thinking of a political belief system that relies on hate, fear, and superstition to perpetuate itself whose followers and defenders _don’t_ experience corruption of the spirit? No, the **very distinct** point being made by RTA is that _conservatism_ “relies on hate, fear, and superstition to perpetuate itself.” It is for this, I would like evidential support posted. Since that cannot be done, the assertion is a baseless accusation; an opinion steeped in ignorance; an offense to persons who would call themselves conservatives. And not of any less importance, it has not a damned thing to do with the OP. RTA simply wishes to demonize conservatism and has created an opportunity to attempt to do so. And people wonder why the level of “debate” around here has sunk so low. It’s because of shit like this being interjected where it has no place. I know, you and the rest of the lefties here believe it is perpetrated to a far greater extent by the right wingers, so spare your breath, but that’s something else for which no one has any evidence. Which makes it, too, unfounded rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/43 "2004-05-19T18:09:13Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And attacking Iraq was about keeping us safe from terrorism? > > Then explain this, please:[snipped cite of opportunities to kill terrorists having been missed] Actually Seymour Hersh tackles this in his piece in [The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040524fa_fact). > [@](#): > > Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance before firing on them. On October 7th, the night the bombing [in Afghanistan] began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader. A lawyer on duty at the United States Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a strike. By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of reach. Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness. One officer described him to me that fall as “kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors.” In November, the Washington Post reported that, as many as ten times since early October, Air Force pilots believed they’d had senior Al Qaeda and Taliban members in their sights but had been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles. There were similar problems throughout the world, as American Special Forces units seeking to move quickly against suspected terrorist cells were compelled to get prior approval from local American ambassadors and brief their superiors in the chain of command. A helpful maxim to remember is “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.” > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > if the US knew the location of Zarqawi and his poison camp, why didn’t they simply bomb the smithereens out of it immediately, thus relieving the world of yet another terrorist threat? **Mr. Svinlesha** , good to see you again. I think the quote above answers your question as well. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/44 "2004-05-19T21:13:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Please provide evidential support for your position OK, sure. Bush-league conservatism uses hate, fear, and superstition as the core building blocks of its very foundation. These blocks are weapons, which are used to bludgeon and shame the American populace into hopefully (for them anyway) allowing them to squeak back into office come November. Examples, you say? Consider these familiar talking points: Hatred of the liberal media (whatever that means). Hatred towards Saddam. Hatred towards Iran and North Korea and Cuba. Hatred towards the French. Hatred towards Osama (his family’s cool). Hatred towards both Clintons (a big one). Hatred towards Ted Kennedy. Hatred towards Barbara Striesand and all the rich Hollywood liberals. Hatred towards Richard Clarke and all the would-be whistle-blowers. Hatred towards the Dixie Chicks, Al Franken, Michael Moore et al. Fear of terror. Fear of the UN. Fear of getting one’s guns taken away by the Man. Fear of crime. Fear of criminals released from jail. Fear that abortions will become as common as the common cold. Fear of “activist liberal judges”. Fear that only a strongman can protect us. Fear of President Hillary. Fear of President Kerry. Fear of young punk kids with MTV values. Fear of the consequences of permitting gay marriage. Fear of getting your head cut off. Fear of higher taxes. Superstition? Basically, that America was chosen by the gods and that Americans are the chosen people of the gods. (Not those lesser, idolatrous gods over there, mind you - ours). And that the end may be near, and we need to be ready for the end times. That when the gods come back - and that could be any day - they will inspect us to see if we pass muster, so we need to behave in a way that is pleasing to the gods. And we need to make sure that more people act this way, so that the gods will see that we’ve been good stewards. (I’m hip to the notion that some may be offended by this last bit but unless the cracks in the facade start to spread, the very religious will again be voting for Bush - is it not reasonable to say? That the Christian vote - without it, Bush is nothing? Because Democrats are secular? Why, I just saw a poll today that says among Catholics, (Protestant) Bush leads (Catholic) Kerry by 10%!) The above examples all help build a community of ideas and motivate people to vote Republican, because these days the Republican party markets itself as the party best equipped to deal with these threats. > [@](#): > > And not of any less importance, it has not a damned thing to do with the OP. RTA simply wishes to demonize conservatism and has created an opportunity to attempt to do so. I’m sorry **UncleBeer** , I was responding to a comment by another poster. I was not aware that every post in every thread had to relate specifically to the OP. A cursory look around any of the boards, even a prolonged one, would certainly not foster such a notion. As far as demonizing conservatism, I think it demonizes itself just fine without my help. Nevertheless, you invited me to support my assertion and I have done so here. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/45 "2004-05-19T21:25:48Z")
It seems that the current tactic by the Bush lovers is to try to keep rehashing what has gone before, over and over again, nit picking single sentences or even words. They repeatedly ask for cites for the same information that has been previously discussed and cited ad infinitum throughout SDMB. So, in the interests of expediency and your sanity, whenever a Bushie asks for a cite, consider sending them here: [1135 reasons (as of 5/17/2004) to boot Bush in 2004](http://irregulartimes.com/bootbush.html) ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/46 "2004-05-19T21:50:25Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > No, the **very distinct** point being made by RTA is that _conservatism_ “relies on hate, fear, and superstition to perpetuate itself.” It is for this, I would like evidential support posted. Since that cannot be done, the assertion is a baseless accusation; an opinion steeped in ignorance; an offense to persons who would call themselves conservatives. And not of any less importance, it has not a damned thing to do with the OP. RTA simply wishes to demonize conservatism and has created an opportunity to attempt to do so. Agreed. I’d rather people didn’t do that. FWIW, I don’t think conservatism as a philosophy relies on hate, fear and supersition to perpetuate itself. I think some conservatives do use those tactics, but so do some liberals. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > And people wonder why the level of “debate” around here has sunk so low. It’s because of shit like this being interjected where it has no place. I know, you and the rest of the lefties here believe it is perpetrated to a far greater extent by the right wingers, so spare your breath, but that’s something else for which no one has any evidence. Which makes it, too, unfounded rubbish. Hey, as one of the lefties, let me point out that I \*\*don’t \*\* “think the right-wingers perpetrate this to a far greater extent.” Which, entertainingly enough, makes your statement, too, unfounded rubbish. 😃 Doesn’t stop me from agreeing with your key point, though – shit like this has no place in reasonable discourse. Yes, \*\*RTA \*\* is being an ass. I’d rather he didn’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/47 "2004-05-20T15:00:59Z")
> [@RTA](#): > > OK, sure. Snort. Your list of “conservative” hatreds, fears and superstitions, is more accurately applied to the Republican Party as it is run today. As has been noted here many times, least of which by me, the guys currently controlling the Republican Party (most notably President Bush and his politcal machine), are **not** conservatives and do not espouse _conservatism_ as it is traditionally understood. But you seem to already know this: > [@RTA](#): > > The above examples all help build a community of ideas and motivate people to vote Republican, because these days the Republican party markets itself as the party best equipped to deal with these threats. so I don’t know why you conflate the Republican platform with conservatism. And as Brainiac4 rightly notes, tactics of fear are used by the Democratic Party with equal abandon. Not that that necessarily justifies the perpetuation of such tactics. It’s simply easier to attack an opponent than to promulgate a clear vision of one’s own principles. I find some of your “fears” rather outrageous. Conservatives have a “fear of getting their head cut off?” And use this to manipulate the voters? That’s just bizarre. Superstitions? Your list amounts to nothing more than religious beliefs. Last I heard, U.S. liberals believed in the Christian God, too. With approximately the same frequency as conservatives. And the belief that America was chosen by God isn’t something that’s arisen with the advent of the GOP, or conservatism. That very belief has been around since the Revolutionary era. > [@](#): > > Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" > –Thomas Jefferson, 1782 ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/48 "2004-05-20T15:07:59Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > As has been noted here many times, least of which by me, the guys currently controlling the Republican Party (most notably President Bush and his politcal machine), are **not** conservatives and do not espouse _conservatism_ as it is traditionally understood. Sorry to interrupt this fine discussion, but I must ask this: If GWB is not a conservative, then what is he? Is neo-con a more accurate term? If so, then is it accurate to say that neo-cons are NOT a subset of conservativism but another political species entirely? Another question: do you think traditional conservatives will regain control of the GOP and if so, when? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/49 "2004-05-20T15:47:57Z")
I dunno what label is most apt for Bush and his cronies. It might be neo-con, but I’ve never seen a good definition of this. My grounds for saying he’s not a traditional conservative tho’, lie mainly with his ridiculous government spending, his tarriffs on lumber and steel, his farm subsidies, and the anti-privacy stuff he supports, not the least of which is the so-called Patriot Act. > [@](#): > > Another question: do you think traditional conservatives will regain control of the GOP and if so, when? Doubtful - too much money is at stake. At least not until meaningful campaign finance reform is passed. And by “meaningful,” I mean **excluding** businesses and corporations from contributing to campaigns and parties, as well as strict and enforceable limits on individual contributions. The PAC’s gotta go, too. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/50 "2004-05-21T08:29:22Z")
Here’s a good story and video on bunker buster bombs, something the military wants to fight future terrorists. The fallout will be 80-90% contained and will ONLY spread 10 or 20 miles. 😃 > [@](#): > > Mini Nukes: > > A new generation of nuclear weapons – mini nukes is being planned by America. According to the US military, they need miniature nukes in the war against terrorism. > > [http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1112492.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1112492.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/51 "2004-05-21T11:39:39Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Sorry to interrupt this fine discussion, but I must ask this: If GWB is not a conservative, then what is he? Is neo-con a more accurate term? If so, then is it accurate to say that neo-cons are NOT a subset of conservativism but another political species entirely? Another question: do you think traditional conservatives will regain control of the GOP and if so, when? From what I’ve read, the neo-con leaders are basically a bunch of former Trotskyites, which is a form of … Communist! So they’re not easily placed on the political spectrum. And what with their leader’s prediliction for supporting torture of prisoners, who know WHAT other groups they should be associated with …? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/52 "2004-05-21T13:18:47Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > Here’s a good story and video on bunker buster bombs, something the military wants to fight future terrorists. The fallout will be 80-90% contained and will ONLY spread 10 or 20 miles. 😃 Another fun factoid about these, besides the fact that they won’t work as claimed, is if we were ever to use them against a non-nuclear country that was a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, we would apparently be violating a pledge we made in order to get non-nuclear nations on-board to this treaty, which is that we would never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation that is party to the NNT. ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/53 "2004-05-22T13:09:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Snort. ( … ) I don’t know why you conflate the Republican platform with conservatism. Not too many people anymore are discussing the policies of Eisenhower and Goldwater. I speak of contemporary America. Bush is very conservative, all his people are very conservative, his allies the leaders of Congress are very conservative, the media voices dedicated to propping him up are very conservative. Millions and millions of Bush voters would consider themselves conservative. And as President, Bush is also the living, breathing embodiment of the Republican party line and the RNC is focused solely on getting him re-elected. I certainly understand and even respect how many people who consider themselves “conservative” in some nostalgic sense would take pains to distinguish themselves from the prevailing norm. Yet I am also reminded of an old saying - that success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan. Meanwhile those who continue to defend the president’s decisions and actions, while they may not be specifically part of the problem, they are certainly not a part of any solution. (And it can’t be good for them.) This will become more pronounced if Iraq continues to go down the toilet, but especially if another terror attack were to occur in the US later this summer or into the fall. Then even the die hards will be left to wonder, so Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism, really? ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/54 "2004-05-23T03:29:27Z")
> [@RTA](#): > > Meanwhile those who continue to defend the president’s decisions and actions, while they may not be specifically part of the problem, they are certainly not a part of any solution. (And it can’t be good for them.) > > This will become more pronounced if Iraq continues to go down the toilet, but especially if another terror attack were to occur in the US later this summer or into the fall. Then even the die hards will be left to wonder, so Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism, really? Good sensible post RTA. You’re not alone. Here, a former offcial in the Nixon administration speaks out. > [@](#): > > **A call to conscience** > by Roger Morris • Friday May 21, 2004 at 10:38 AM > > _ **The diplomat who quit over Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia asks Americans on the front lines of foreign service to resign from the "worst regime by far in the history of the republic."** _ > > May 20, 2004 > Dear Trustees: > > I am respectfully addressing you by your proper if little-used title. The women and men of our diplomatic corps and intelligence community are genuine trustees. With intellect and sensibility, character and courage, you represent America to the world. Equally important, you show the world to America. You hold in trust our role and reputation among nations, and ultimately our fate. Yours is the gravest, noblest responsibility. Never has the conscience you personify been more important. > > A friend asked Secretary of State Dean Acheson how he felt when as a young official in the Treasury Department in the 1930s, he resigned rather than continue to work for a controversial fiscal policy he thought disastrous – an act that seemed at the time to end the public service he cherished. “Oh, I had no choice,” he answered. “It was a matter of national interest as well as personal honor. I might have gotten away with shirking one, but never both.” As the tragedy of American foreign policy unfolded so graphically over the past months, I thought often of Acheson’s words and of your challenge as public servants. No generation of foreign affairs professionals, including my own in the torment of the Vietnam War, has faced such anguishing realities or such a momentous choice. > > I need not dwell on the obvious about foreign policy under President Bush – and on what you on the inside, whatever your politics, know to be even worse than imagined by outsiders. The senior among you have seen the disgrace firsthand. In the corridor murmur by which a bureaucracy tells its secrets to itself, all of you have heard the stories. > > You know how recklessly a cabal of political appointees and ideological zealots, led by the exceptionally powerful and furtively doctrinaire Vice President Cheney, corrupted intelligence and usurped policy on Iraq and other issues. You know the bitter departmental disputes in which a deeply politicized, parochial Pentagon overpowered or simply ignored any opposition in the State Department or the CIA, rushing us to unilateral aggressive war in Iraq and chaotic, fateful occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. > > [Full article](http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/26105.php) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/55 "2004-05-23T08:24:03Z")
Those are some terrific links you guys have come up with, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/56 "2004-05-23T17:07:06Z")
**Mtgman** : > [@](#): > > _ **Mr. Svinlesha** , good to see you again._ Howdy! Nice to see you as well. > [@](#): > > _I think the quote above answers your question as well._ Yup. Question withdrawn. **Stoid** : The accusations in your cite aren’t exactly new; I read something similar 2 or 3 months ago. However, as noted by Sy Hersch (and **Mtgman** ), it is entirely possible that the administration was constrained from attacking Zarqawi by legal concerns. I’m afraid we’re going to have to consign these accusations to the status of unfounded rumor unless they can be more firmly substantiated. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/57 "2004-05-23T22:28:40Z")
Re: Bush is keeping us safe from terrorism? Here’s another case: [Iraq boosts Indonesia terror risk](http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9640892%255E1702,00.html) > [@](#): > > THE United States has warned that a “convergence” of events, including the situation in Iraq, has heightened the threat of terrorist attacks against US citizens and interests in Indonesia. > > (…) > > In addition, the warning notice spoke of "anti-American sentiment stirred up by **media portrayals of** US actions in Iraq… Bolding mine. Says it all. It’s not the actions themselves that are at fault… ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661/58 "2004-05-24T07:55:56Z")
Anyone see 60 minutes tonight? Quite the scathing rebuke of how the Iraq campaign has been conducted by retired General Anthony Zinni in yet another political book! > [@](#): > > Gen. Zinni: ‘They’ve Screwed Up’ > > (CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades. > > From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after. > > Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts – special envoy to the Middle East. > > ## But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty – and that the time has come for heads to roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. > > “There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it’s time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it’s been a failure.” > > Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor. > > Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called “Battle Ready,” Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq. > > In the book, Zinni writes: “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.” > > [Gen. Zinni: ‘They’ve Screwed Up’](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-is-keeping-us-safe-from-terrorism-really/245661.md?page=2)