He was head of Mid-East military operations from 1997 to 2000. He’s a no-nonsense, sincere, and bright-sounding man. He opposed military intervention in Iraq and continues to voice his opposition. To me he’s an anti-Bushies’ wet dream. Am I missing something?
PS Considered posting in GD but since I’m only looking for factual information and not a debate over Gen Zinni’s views, I thought GQ was appropriate.
Is it because he’s labeled an anti-semite? Any truth to this?
Categorically, absolutely, 100 percent a slander. Zinni served as Bush’s personal envoy to the Middle East in 2001 and 2002. One can argue whether Zinni is pro-Israeli enough for the Administration’s tastes, but the baseless charges of Zinni being an anti-semite is as outrageous as arguing that the State Department is a threat to national security, and that it ought to be nuked.
Oh, wait, the author of that column DID write such a book! “Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.”
Anyway, in reference to the OP, Zinni’s comments did get quite a bit of play. He was interviewed by 60 Minutes and several other respected news programs. BUt the media doesn’t tend to dwell on a particular bit of news for too long. Otherwise, there’d probably still be front-page stories about Bill Clinton’s book during the slow August news season.
This isn’t factual information and I doubt there is any in answer to your question which might be placed in IMHO.
Partly, I think, because some of the media functions lap dogs to Bush and Rummy and Wolfie and the rest go chasing after the latest story that comes along. Most media aren’t interested in staying with a story and following up, possibly because the public’s attention is easily diverted to the latest about Michael, or Kobe, or Scott.