| Author | Message | ||
     Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1358 Registered: 9-2001  |
Great turnout, Paul, congratulations to you and the other volunteers for bringing Scott Ritter to Maplewood/South Orange. Whether you agree or disagree with him, Scott certainly brings new information and strong viewpoints to the table, and I am sure he got people in attendance to do a lot of questioning and dialoguing after the event. See you on March 19th and the next SMPA event at the Library. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 2254 Registered: 5-2001  |
I too, appreciated the opportunity to listen to Scott. The only problem was it was, of course, preaching to the choir. No one in the audience would admit to being an Administration Supporter. Hey Straw , where were you? Maybe you could of learned something. Ritter is, after all, by his own admission, a Reagan Republican. | ||
| Hank Zona Citizen Username: Hankzona Post Number: 2076 Registered: 3-2002 |
I found his talk to be credible and eloquent and unfortunately, depressing. Also unfortunate that none of his detractors were there or were there and didnt have the spine to speak up. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4383 Registered: 10-1999  |
Was a tape made of the talk, to broadcast later on cable? I couldn't attend because of a prior commitment, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. | ||
| jem Citizen Username: Jem Post Number: 1189 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yes, it was taped. Definitely worth watching. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 251 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks to everyone on MOL who came to the meeting, which was literally standing-room-only. If the tape is of sufficient quality, we'll schedule a public showing. Scott felt very positive about the meeting and he said he'd be willing to make a return visit in the future. Maybe we'll work toward a larger venue in the summer or fall. If any administration supporters want to co-sponsor the meeting in a debate format, I'd be interested in discussing that. It was unfortunate that no administration supporters showed up, an exchange would have been interesting. They would have appreciated much of what Scott had to say, especially his analysis of how the Republicans have trapped the Democrats into a "slave-like" position of supporting the war to prove their "national security" credentials. Similar to Robert Byrd's image of the Democrats acting like "whipped dogs in fear of their master." Scott described himself as a Reagan Republican, and he contrasted the current domination by the neocons with the Reagan years, when the cons were tolerated but "mostly kept in the White House basement, where they were thrown a supply of raw meat every so often to keep them happy" (my paraphrase). Scott predicted that -- assuming the war and occupation continue -- there will be a draft. But he predicted that the political dynamics controlled by the Republicans will result in Congress -- not the President -- proposing and approving the draft, with the Democrats in full support. He predicted that as long as the Democrats failed to challenge the neocon war policies, the war and occupation in Iraq will continue for two more presidential election cycles that will be dominated by the Republicans. He said very bluntly that the Europeans and most of the world "hate us" because of the neocon policy of international dictat, and he sees a serious danger that countries like Russia, Iran, China and others could switch from dollars to Euros with devastating consequences for the US economy. His analysis of the election in Iraq was essentially that it exacerbated the inherent divisions among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, rather than providing a vehicle for governance. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 2255 Registered: 5-2001 |
Excellent synopsis, Paul. It was a very reasoned talk, one that the "OTHER SIDE" would have benefitted emensly from hearing, if only to present another viewpoint. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1359 Registered: 9-2001 |
The talk was great, his take on things very interesting. Like Dan Ellsberg and others who have come out of the military-industrial complex and into the anti-war movement, he has a more hard-edged analysis than many peace thinkers, a Realpolitik of peace (or at least war avoidance). Most of what he said was dead-on. But he was too pessimistic about the ability for situations to change. Yes, the Dems are disoriented and ineffective as a party of opposition. And, yes, things look very bad for US interests internationally--he pointed to European hatred for the US, the weak dollar, and ballooning deficit as setting us up for a rush to the Euro as the international standard, precipitating "a depression worse than the one of the 1930's". But the world is far more fluid than what he painted. Instability and internal regime change in Lebanon, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia would quickly alter the calculus. Abbas turning full bore on Hamas and Hezbollah, and getting backing from the "Palestinian street" would change the Middle East overnight. A death or scandal or even natural disaster would reshuffle the deck--look at how fast things moved after Arafat died. Imagine a major earthquake decimating Teheran. Europe will choke far faster than the US if the Middle East cuts off oil supplies--for example, if Iran takes out the Straits of Hormuz and bombs the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields in response to a Bush or Israeli preemptive strike on their nuke facilities. The situation is tough and bleak, but time has a way of changing everything and people opposed to the war and the neo-cons need to keep up the pressure through arguments, protests, and political activity. The peace movement has to insist that the Democrats and moderate Republicans be ready with real plans to step in when the neo-cons stumble. Bush has tossed all the cards up in the air, and there is no guarantee how this will all play out, so there is opportunity and risk for all. It is very unstable in the Middle East post-Iraq, but it could go many ways. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 928 Registered: 7-2004 |
Couldn't make it last due to work schedule. Is there any chance a transcript could be made available? Seems the neo-cons on this board are only shameless administration sympathizers when sitting behind a keyboard. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2114 Registered: 5-2001  |
I was on a plane home from San Diego last night. Very sorry to have missed the event... but also disappointed that none of our right-wingers showed up. Such strong opinions about Iraq get thrown around on this board, but when a true authority comes to speak on the subject, nobody with a dissenting view even bothers to go hear him? Makes me wonder how much MOL's righties really care. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1633 Registered: 1-2003  |
CRAPPPPPPPPP! I thought it was TONIGHT! Crap crap crap crap crap!!!!! | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 2257 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, Michael, that might not be your fault. The Star Ledger listing was incorrect. Would of loved to have you there. | ||
| D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5435 Registered: 4-1998  |
Sorry I missed it, as well. Heck, maybe I'll sue someone for making me miss it. Nice job on this, Paul! | ||
| Strawman Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4607 Registered: 10-2001 |
Did anyone ask him about the internet sex issue? | ||
| hariseldon Citizen Username: Hariseldon Post Number: 284 Registered: 5-2001  |
No. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 578 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anyone who asks any future questions about internet sex regarding Scott Ritter is a moron and a dumb neocon!  Oh and boring too. | ||
| Strawman Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4609 Registered: 10-2001 |
Very funny Wendy. Why was this topic not addressed? The guy should at least be placed in a situation where he's forced to at least say no comment. Bad job by those in attendance. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 579 Registered: 5-2001 |
And that's relevant to his talk because???????? Oh it must be as relevant as asking Bush about his National Guard record or his smoking dope or Laura's driving record. I wasn't there; neither were you. You have no idea what REAL challenging questions were asked as opposed to the fair and balanced question you thought the bad performance attendees should have. Give me a break. Do a little research. Signing off now and forever in engaging the likes of you. "Although he admitted that he was arrested, he said the fact that the case against him was dismissed and the files sealed obliged him not to discuss the details." | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3209 Registered: 8-2003 |
 | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 252 Registered: 2-2003 |
To those of you continuing to fling politically-motivated scurrilous rumors without a shred of factual evidence in order to distract attention from Scott Ritter's compelling critique of US policy in Iraq -- Your failure to appear to confront Scott face-to-face speaks volumes about the nature of your allegations. Scott was perfectly happy to confront ANY question posed from the audience. About a week ago, I emailed him that as chair of the meeting I would rule out of order any questions that were personal attacks, rather than political attacks. Scott replied: "On the Q&A period, please don't make any statements about questions. I have no problem looking people in the face if they want to make fools of themselves. I do have a problem with the courage people gain when able to post on message boards." Tuesday confirms that the "courage" of Scott's detractors does not extend beyond these message boards. Case closed. |
