Take your Lithium, Scott.

1-17-03 | latrans

[latrans]

Last night Scott Ritter appeared on the Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox. She hit him with a quote that he made a decade ago. It seems his opinions on Iraq have changed since then. Scott exploded with a diatribe that was almost unintelligible. Obviously Greta had hit a hot button. He then went on to spit venom at Greta's two other guests. Greta had to shut him up twice. As I watched this character, I formed an opinion about him that had not occurred to me before. This guy is bipolar. Of course I am not a shrink (but I play one on the internet), but I do have a bipolar family member, so I have observed some characteristic behavior. Ritter's explosive behavior, and his changing opinions remind me of a manic depressive.

[TLBSHOW]

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

---

United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.

---

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

[doug from upland]

When we declare war, he had better not interfere.

[ravingnutter]

Your point is?

You just made my point...you remain clueless because you choose to ignore the facts presented. Does Salman Pak ring a bell with you? Saddam has been connected to the 9-11 attack...isn't that reason enough to go after him?

More homework for you...

Al Qaeda linked to Saddam

Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's Al-Qaeda Connection

[Nephi]

You demonstrated an admirable proficiency in html, but you never made a point that had any relevence to our previous discussion.

If you and your girlfriends could try to temper your hysterical tendencies and discuss things in a rational manner, you might realize that I've never proclaimed Saddam's innocence. Never.

It was not my decision to ask permission from the UN for the US to defend itself - it was Bush's. Now, he has to play their game and their game includes the cat-and-mouse between the weapons inspectors and Saddam. If Bush wasn't trying to resuscitate the UN, he would be free to attack Iraq whenever he wants, so long as the congress has given the President the constitutional authority to do so.

Now, Bush has no choice but to find a clear instance of material breach. Finding empty missiles in a box that was sealed and dated to 1986 does not rise to that level no matter how rabidly you long for an attack on Iraq. Bush may also already be aware of an instance of material breach, but since he agreed to suck up to the UN for approval, he can't act on his information alone. He will have to share that info with them and the American people. If Bush had resisted liberal attempts to submit to the will of the UN, he would be able to act on his own (unilaterally). You are attempting to relate to a world in which America acts in her own self interests, but America doesn't so long as America submits to UN regulation by resolution.

Meanwhile, when so called smoking guns come forward in the media, I'm going to continue to look at the veracity of the evidence. While empty missiles don't exonerate Saddam, neither are they evidence of chemical weapons, which apparently is the level of violation that will be required under these rules that Bush agreed to with the UN.

Now, go take a Valium.

[ravingnutter]

If you and your girlfriends could try to temper your hysterical tendencies and discuss things in a rational manner, you might realize that I've never proclaimed Saddam's innocence. Never...Meanwhile, when so called smoking guns come forward in the media, I'm going to continue to look at the veracity of the evidence. While empty missiles don't exonerate Saddam, neither are they evidence of chemical weapons, which apparently is the level of violation that will be required under these rules that Bush agreed to with the UN.

No hysterics here, I am trying to point out to you the connection between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11, you keep wanting proof of a "material breach" while totally ignoring the evidence presented about his connection to 9/11. Attacking Saddam based on his connections to 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with the UN agreement, so your arguments that we must provide proof of a material breach are baseless. Your snide little remarks clearly position you as the irrational one. If I were so inclined to lower myself to that level...I would probably advise you to lay off the Valium as you apparently are in such a fog you cannot see the difference between these two arguments for use of force against Saddam. If you truly choose to be willfully ignorant of the evidence presented of his direct connection to the attack on America, then there is no need for further discussion with you about the matter.