Actually, I thought Generals were supposed to execute policy, and civilians were supposed to set it. His area of expertise should be how to accomplish the mission, getting into and get out of the battle area with the minimum amount of casualties.
Regarding 9/11 and Iraq: I don't need to repeat the arguments for going into Iraq, or do your homework for you by gathering internet links. You have your mind pretty well made up. Facts wouldn't deter you.
Let's look at this another way: What level of evidence would you have to see to support President Bush's position? It's easy to say "need more evidence .. need more verification..need more inspections". If we lost a city tomorrow to one of Iraq's WMD's, you'd be in the crowd saying "what did the President know, and when did he know it..", or "that cowBOY president went and got a bunch of Americans killed again... we deserved it". There is sufficient evidence to me that Hussein would fund, support, and promote radical Islamic groups hostile to the U.S.. While I hold the Saudi's and Iran to be a greater risk, no sane CIC would take them on leaving Iraq at your rear to open another front or even strike the USA, possibly using WMD's. Hitting Iraq is the first step. The alterative is .. doing that Clinton thing. Taking tough, doing nothing, at the cost of the occasional 50 or 200 soldiers (the Democrat's version of "useful idiots", i.e. anyone in uniform).
No, I don't know if that's your position, but your question about 9/11 and Iraq was typical if the left-Clinton-Zinni crowd. I had my fill of the new-Clinton-Democrat military officers when I was on duty in DC. Eight years of Clinton appointees really made a dent in the integrity of the Officer Corps. Zinni may be a well meaning patriot, but I IMMEDIATELY suspect any General officer or Admiral who was promoted to senior rank by the Clinton Administration. They weren't promoted for their war-fighting ability, I can positively GUARANTEE that!
So was your mindless insult.