| Author |
Message |
    
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 416
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:35 pm: | 
|
Robert, you are exactly right. Dozens of Swift Boat Vets were verbally attacked during the campaign.
NO,
Seems like THEY were doing the VERBAL attacking.
Anyways, Swift Boat Vets were PAID by the Daddy BUSH connection. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 550
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Phenix, attacking the messenger , when you can't attack the message.
Still waiting for Kerry to sign that Form 180. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Please Paul... post one fact disputing anything I've said.
Please... point to the "dismissal" Give me a link, anything at all. Are you denying that Ritter was arrested for soliciting minors for sex?
Hey, maybe I'm wrong and the charges were dismissed. I guess we'll never know. Maybe the charges were dismissed on a technicality, not because of Ritters innocense.
What borders on pathological is your denial of Ritters past.
The guy played on the net, and got caught in a sting. Somehow, his lawyers got it sealed. Good for him. Maybe the DA's sting was unconstitutional (she was fired right after this). Does that justify Scotty boys wanting to diddle himself in front of a young girl? So that behavior is OK with you because the DA screwed up?
Hey, maybe it was entrapment, I know I could be entrapped by someone posing as a 14 year old who wants me to pleasure myself in front of her... who wouldn't? And then I know I'd get entrapped again, but by a 16 year old this time.
Maybe the arresting officer didn't read Ritter his rights and he got off on a technicality.
Maybe OJ didn't kill Nicole.
With the case sealed, I guess we'll never know.
I've said before that I don't think his perverted behavior has anything to do with the acts as he sees them on Iraq (unless there are pictures or tape of him with a very young Iraqi somewhere, like Damascus).
But I doubt that.
The left is making all kinds of hay about Jeff Gannon being a gay escort, and saying he softballed questions to the President, and that he was a plant. He probably was. Should his past be delved in to? Does his past as an escort have any bearing on his credibility?
|
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
MJ - I have to say your last post is rather odd. As I pointed out the article that you posted yesterday says that the charges were dismissed. If there is a legal way for a guilty plea to criminal charges to be sealed please tell me what it is. As to why they were dismissed, you are blindly speculating. Maybe they were dismissed because they were baseless. I don't know, nor do you. Indeed, you can't even confirm he was arrested as far as I can see. |
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4512
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:29 pm: |
|
right, that's why Ritter and his wife still have yet to comment on the situation. If this were you and you were innocent, would you not scream it for the world to hear? Especially, if like Ritter you're for better or worst a public figure.
Once again Libs refusing to think things out. That's why us Republicans laugh at them. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Michael,
I take your last post as an admission that you don't have a single fact behind what you're saying.
Strawberry,
Scott Ritter is a Republican. He is invited to speak at the War College. He is totally loyal and committed to the US armed forces.
In May of 2003, he spoke at NJ Peace Action's dinner. I made a statement that I didn't think it was possible that WMDs would not be planted and "found" if none were actually found, in order to salvage the Bush administration's credibility.
Ritter responded as follows (my paraphrase): "In order for that to happen, they would have to get the military to participate in a fraud. And the military has too much honor to do that."
Scott was right. Again.
It would be very instructive for you and the other detractors of Scott Ritter, to read his book "Endgame" in which he rakes the Clinton administration over the coals.
Recall that after Ritter quit the UN, he was feted in Washington by the Republicans, appearing before a joint session of the Senate armed services and foreign relations committees. The Republicans treated Scott Ritter like a national hero. They may have even used that term.
The Wall Street Journal gave him an entire op-ed page to express his criticism.
Ritter hasn't changed. He's fearlessly spoken the truth from day one and he continues to speak the truth. And it's the truth as understood by someone who's been on the inside, as close or closer to the reality of Iraq as anyone else.
Of course his impeccable credentials, his Republican, military background, and his incredible track record of getting it right are what make Scott Ritter so dangerous for the administration's policies. And that's why a "sting" was carried out against him. And that's why -- although nothing happened as a result and the entire matter was dismissed -- administration flaks and apologists are pathologically obsessed with events that didn't happen, with accusations that don't exist.
Because they're afraid to face Scott Ritter and the truth he tells about US policy in Iraq. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13194
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Indeed, some of his absolute harshest criticism was directed at Madeleine Albright.
But Paul, you can't seriously state that he hasn't "changed".
I've read enough about him over time to know that he absolutely did change his positions on the existence of WMD. It's pretty undeniable. So I'm curious as to how you came to a different conclusion. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5288
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
I think his experience in Iraq helped him change his mind. It didn't seem to be a change based on whim. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13195
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
There is no clear understanding of why he changed his mind Dave. When he quit Iraq he was convinced they had weapons capabilities, they were concealed as parts and that they could be assembled quickly. Two years later he's writing OP ED pieces, as an expert, in which he says that they aren't a threat.
Did he become a greater expert by not being there?
|
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5291
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
By never being there, is Condi more of an expert? Is Powell, Wolfowitz? |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:31 am: |
|
Sbenois,
Scott Ritter's transformation from hero of the Republican right to personna non grata happened, in my opinion, not because Ritter changed, but because Ritter was consistent in his commitment to the UN inspections process.
In 1998, Ritter's accusations that the Clinton administration was undermining the inspections process led to Ritter's adulation by the Republican right.
In 2002, Ritter accused the Bush administration of opposing inspections because they might show Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions and thus undermine the administration's plans to launch war against Iraq.
To fully understand the difference between Ritter's position in 1998 and 2002 one needs to read Ritter's book, "Endgame." The book was written in 1999 but the latest edition has an Afterward written in 2002.
Reading the book in its entirety, one sees Scott Ritter's relentless efforts as a UN weapons inspector to overcome Iraqi concealment and evasion tactics, juxtaposed with his position in the 2002 that if the inspections regime were allowed to be completed, it would likely not find a WMD threat.
Scott always said before the invasion that Sadam's regime could not be trusted, but he also said that UNSCOM had been able to confirm that about 90% of the Iraqi WMD capability had been destroyed. And he argued that it was within UNMOVIC's capability to confirm whether the remaining 10% had also been destroyed.
In "Endgame" Scott is very clear about numerous possibilities of the existence of WMDs and the imperative to carry out aggressive inspections to confirm or deny these possibilites.
The following passage in the Afterward goes to the issue:
(p.219) "As the lead investigator for UNSCOM, I knew firsthand the lengths to which Iraq would go to keep the inspectors, and the international community, at bay. And yet, I also knew that, during the course of our difficult work, we inspectors had uncovered the lion's share of Iraq's illegal arsenal. What was left, if anything, represented nothing more than documents and scraps of material, seed-stock, perhaps, for any reconstitution effort that might take place in the future, but by and of themselves, not a viable weapons program.
"My analysis was shared by no less an authority than Rolf Ekeus, the distinguished Swedish diplomat and UNSCOM's first executive chairman, who had reminded me during a meeting after my 1998 return from Iraq that 'by February 1996, we had really managed to get our hands or arms around all the issues: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles'"
I would suggest that anyone who thinks that Scott Ritter "changed" read the 2002 edition of "Endgame." And if you're still convinced, I suggest you raise your points in the question-and-answer period on March 1st.
|
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4517
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Paul,
I Have not read the book. Does he mention food for oil, or was it written before the scandal became public? If not, might we conclude that his book is now simply outdated. I mean Saddam with billions of dollars is about as dangerous a situation as you can have for the future stability of the region.
Also, since he changed his tune right around the same time he wrote the book can we conclude he did so because anti-Bush books have done quite well thanks to a liberal crowd that wants to believe he's an awful man.
It's also why honorable men such as Colin Powell have already announced they won't write a book. For it to sell, it would have to be anti-Bush, and Powell just won't lie for a few bucks. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 273
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
So does that make Ritter a dishonorable man because he is not "loyal" to the Bush administration?
It's not as if liberals want to believe that Bush is an awful man; they know he's one.
The food for oil scandal, as Paul mentioned it a few threads ago, took place with the full knowledge of the UN Security Council. The Big 5 turned the other way when Saddam was busy bribing the UN officials. |
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4523
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
not really. Anyway thanks for answering the question posed to Paul, not you. |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1687
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Michael - as I said the article you posted says the charges were dismissed but this article clarifies what happened: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=100480&category=FRONTPG&n ewsdate=2/1/2003
Ritter got an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Under this resolution the charges are automatically dismissed and sealed after six months. It is thus clear that the charges were dismissed. An ACD is generally given either for a very minor first offense (jumping a turnstile, a single joint) or in a case where the case is crap. The DA's don't like to admit their cases are crap so they offer an ACD. People accept because it beats fighting the case. If he really was soliciting underage girls on the internet this would be an astonishing resolution. 16 is below the age of consent in NY, though I'm not sure that makes it pedophila. (The DSM definition of pedophila limits it to acts or urges regarding prepbubescent children.)
On the other hand Ritters refusal to discuss it, citing the fact that it was sealed, also makes no sense since the fact that the case was sealed in no way limits his ability to talk about it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2691013.stm I suppose he might have concluded, not unreasonably, that the right wing smear machine would not care what he said and that saying anything would just keep the story in the news. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Strawberry,
I don't have the book with me now, but in the Afterward of "Endgame" Ritter talks about regional oil smuggling by the Sadam regime which is countenanced by the US because the beneficiaries were allies -- Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. I believe his point is that the smuggling gave the Iraqi regime enough revenue to withstand the UN sanctions indefinitely.
Regarding a possible financial motive for Ritter's criticism of the Bush administration -- the opposite is true. If Ritter was motivated by money he'd be a wealthy man, featured as a talking head regularly by the major media, pushing the war and occupation to wealthy right-wing audiences.
Scott Ritter is an individual motivated entirely by truth, principle and love of country. It doesn't take a lot of brain cells to figure that out.
Scott Ritter is a true American hero. |
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4526
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Paul,
Scott Ritter does not have the dynamic appeal of let's say an Ollie North where he could be an effective TV talking head. So, I'm not sure we can conclude his book wasn't in his opinion the smartest way to set his family up for life. Make no mistake, his book was and should be about making money because this is what America is all about.
I won't disagree with you that his service to America must be respected, if not applauded. However, I'm not sure his motivation is purely because he's an American hero. More likely, a capitalist. |
Joe
Citizen
Username: Gonets
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Ollie's definitely a charmer. How else could you explain people like Straw thinking of him as a hero after he supplied Iranians with plastic explosives? To top it off the deal was justified as a means of appealing to moderates. Moderates who want plastic explosives?! 
You've got to be a special kind of stupid to find that guy appealing. |
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4527
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
no one said hero, Learn how to read sonny boy. All I said was he's done quite well as a talking head.
libs, can't read, can't learn, can't get it right. |
Joe
Citizen
Username: Gonets
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
You didn't have to say hero. It's obvious you have a crush on him. After all you think he's "dynamically appealing".
Down boy. |
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4528
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
libs are morons.. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 276
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
I hear the alarm bells are going off in Strawberry's therapist's head... |
Strawberry Alarm Clock
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4529
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Paul,
I'm sorry this thread which I believe has made for interesting debate is being hijacked by these morons.
As I said, Ritter is someone you should be proud of obtaining to address your association. While I don't agree with his angle and motives, he certainly is someone worth listening to.
Again sorry these morons have attempted to hijack your thread with idiotic, pointless attacks against me.
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 556
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
I know Mike Janay posted this link awhile ago, but I just got a chance to read it.
"History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilise and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government.
And history will condemn the immorality of the American occupation, which has debased the values and ideals of the American people by legitimising torture, rape and murder as a means of furthering an illegal war of aggression. "
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ADCA48CC-9307-466B-BA18-82724CAA7484.htm
Paul my question is will Ritter just spew ideology or will he offer some facts to back up his statements and offer some insight into Iraq in the 1990's
|
Chronic Pain
Citizen
Username: Chronic_pain
Post Number: 17
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
When the histories are written Scott Ritter will be an oddball footnote, like Tokyo Rose in WW II. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Guy,
I suggest you ask Scott at the March 1st meeting for facts if you find any of his statements to be ideological.
Regarding the quotes you provide, I believe that Iraq can be restored to sovereignty and the US can end its occupation through political rather than military means.
What is required is political will, which means a commitment by the Bush administration to withdraw -- under a timetable -- and turn over the transition to the United Nations.
This is essentially what Ted Kennedy proposed in a speech at Johns Hopkins on January 27th. It's also the essence of the petition circulated by South Mountain Peace Action which was delivered to Senator Corzine's office on Thursday night (1,228 signatures).
This approach is now supported by 60% of the US population, as reported in Friday's Wall Street Journal:
quote:Rising Optimism About Iraq
Fuels Interest in Withdrawal
By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 18, 2005; Page A4
RISING OPTIMISM about Iraq fuels interest in troop withdrawal.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll shows 53% of Americans see Iraqi elections as evidence Bush's policy is working. Yet 60% say the administration should set a public or private timetable for reducing U.S. troops.
The recent Iraqi elections could potentially pave the way for a US withdrawal, transfer to the United Nations and a political settlement, assuming the Kurds and Shiites are willing to include the Sunnis in a substantive way. And assuming the Sunnis are able to come to grips with the reality that their domination of Iraq is history.
However, in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to this scenario is the Bush administration, which has shown no interest in committing to a withdrawal. To the contrary, everything the administration has done since it took office has been to carry out a strategy to conquer and dominate Iraq and its oil resources. That's why the administration is constructing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.
However, the administration may have set in motion forces that will turn the conflict into a political process, resulting in a unified demand by all Iraqi factions for the US to get out of their country.
If that were to happen, the American people would not tolerate another day of occupation.
I suspect Scott Ritter would say the above scenario is wishful thinking. But as far as I'm concerned it's the only way out.
It will be interesting to hear his perspective.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page