Posted on 01/27/2006 12:42:52 PM PST by Dog Gone
Ritter needs to hook-up with Sheehan and live happily ever after in Ven. sucking on Chavez's toes.
The key to understanding Scott Ritter is to realize that everything is relative. If you are a partisan extremist on the take, then the other guys' "terrorist" is your "native... simply fighting to defend their homes."
Maybe Scott may want to search some 10 year old girls for weapons.
Scotty *will indeed* get his comeuppance someday. There may not always be justice in this world, but you can't escape it in hte next.
Scott Ritter is a turd...I'll believe the other guy who speaks from his heart-the Iraqi.
Who do I believe?
The Mayor.
I'm starting to see a consensus here.
There was a crazy woman on Rush today quoting scott ritter as her source. This pedophile, took sadman's blood money bribe and sold his soul to the devil. When I see him on tv my blood boils. This traitor should be tried, found guilty and shot. I volunteer for the final act. {I'll bring my own gun and ammo}.
Great clip!
If I have to choose between Col. McMaster and Scotty-boy, no contest.
McMaster is a fine, courageous officer and a pretty fair historian. Scotty Ritter is, shall we say, truth-challenged. I think Ritter criticising Col. McMaster's sense of history is ridiculous, to say the least.
I submit that Col. McMasters knows far more about "history or responsibility when it comes to waging war" than does Ritter.
For one thing, McMasters IS a historian...
Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, by H.R. McMasters.
This book, perhaps the most important book on the subject of Viet Nam and why it turned out as it did, was McMasters' graduate thesis at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Ritter is an utter fool.
That Scott Ritter has an agenda has been painfully obvious for at least five years. That this mayor would speak well, publicly, of foreign troops in his town is only rational. I'd wait and see, until after our troops leave his town, as far as how genuine this mayor's comments actually are. There's a spin on both sets of comments, in other words. I'd be willing to bet that the first is far more spun than the second, though.
Look at the clip in post 11 and judge for yourself who might be spinning.
You can read the reports of our soldiers, you can read and see (rarely) the reports of the Iraqis, or you can read the reports of the moonbat American left and the Islamic terrorist websites.
If you want to keep an open mind on it until we've left the country because we might be an oppressor occupying army, that's up to you. That's not how I see it.
"If you want to keep an open mind on it until we've left the country because we might be an oppressor occupying army, that's up to you."
You're reading something into my reply that isn't there.
I'd wait and see, until after our troops leave his town, as far as how genuine this mayor's comments actually are.
You don't know whether he's being honest because American troops are there. That's what you said.
"You don't know whether he's being honest because American troops are there."
The meaning of the sentence, as far as I am concerned, is that this mayor may be speaking about our presence there in more glowing terms while we're there than he will after we're gone. Foreign troops are often resented, no matter how well treated the native people might be. History bears this out. To try and turn this into saying that I think our troops are oppressors is wrong.
Okay, you have your doubts.
If you can find a similar statement from him made to Zarqawi while his folks were running the show, I'll be convinced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.