Posted on 01/31/2003 7:06:48 PM PST by 76Tiger
Yes.
Does Ritter actually think Bush had something to do with 09/11?
He certainly implied that conclusion.
And the hippies cheered...
...but his open treachery just seems to be beyond the pale to me.
Good positioning. Treason seems a bit too strong, but treachery is perfect.
Political poker. Hold the cards and chips close until the right play materializes. Once Ritter started criticizing the administration and more importantly casting doubt on the Iraq danger, the play was at hand.
It will enlightening, several years in the future once more facts are available, to look back with better and more complete understanding.
The media gives the 60s and 70s anti-war protesters high markes. I happen to believe the execution of the war exceded the line for criminal prosecution, it was so bad. About every classic mistake a nation could make, we made in execution of that war. McNamara should have paid for it. Johnson too. Even Nixon bares responsibility for not blowing NV off the face of the planet if they had to, to end the war. We didn't instead we allowed our men to continue dying. Despite this, I believe the anti-war protests missed the mark by not demanding we use our full power on the North to end the war.
Instead Congress went after Nixon every time he'd open up the bombing of the North, which is exactly the tactic we should have pursued from the get-go. We should have leafletted Hanoi, then leveled the whole city. Then we should have moved to another city until the North demanded peace and left South Vietnam to it's own.
Some people look back on the war and say we should never have gotten involved. I look back on it and wonder why Hanoi still exists? If we wanted to defend the South, the best way was to take war to the north and simply destroy it if that's what it took.
Then you have Bill Clinton standing there under the statue of Ho Chi Minh. Good gawd...
When I college, I studied the concept of "limited warfare". I thought it was bogus then, and still think it's bogus. Which makes Clinton's lobbing of a few cruise missiles against some of these thugs all the more pathetic.
BTW, another argument Ritter made last night against a war with Iraq was the possibility of the war triggering terrorist attacks at home, such as blowing up school busses, for decades to come. And the hippies cheered...
Earth to Ritter: we've been under terrorist attack for decades already, and absorbed a wicked sucker punch on 9/11. It won't end by ignoring Iraq while they crank up WMDs and funnel them to the OBLs of the world so their fingerprints aren't obvious to the Ritters of the world. It will end when all of the vermin are exterminated. And yes, by the US alone if necessary.
SAY WHAT! The COPS kicked someone out because they exercised their 1st amendment rights? I'd be making a really HUGE stink about this. Under what legal grounds did they have to remove someone from a public building?
Raise holy hell about this. Call the chief of police. Write to the local paper. Complain to the Police Commission. Complain to the local government. I could see it if these were private security guards, but this is YOUR tax dollars at work.
I do not want to get the police officers in trouble. I just want to know who gave the order to kick someone out of the building for asking a question that Scott didn't want to answer.
Saddam Hussein is no threat to us, but if we dare do something to him, literally thousands of terorists in our nation will carry out terrorist acts on our soil.
If Hussein is no threat, what are thousands of his terroist sympathizers doing in the US? And further, does he think they would be less of a threat if armed with a nuke produced by Hussein?
Ritter and those of his ilk haven't the ability to process information and assess it properly.
The great majority of folks who attended this event have lost all touch with reality decades ago. They love Marxsm, hate Capitalism, think the US is the root of all evil, and basicly mourn the day this nation was created through the ultimate sacrifice of free men.
From my vantage point, I couldn't see the commotion, but could hear the shouting and asked a reporter I knew what was taking place. I understand that he was escorted out by the police because some of the Ritter group expressed a concern that he may be armed and pose a danger to Ritter. He was later allowed to reenter and was waiting for a turn at the microphone during the q&a while I was being interviewed. If you had the opportunity to watch the WRGB coverage on the 11PM news last night, there was a brief glimpse of the Village of Saugerties mayor admonishing this gentleman to cease and desist or be escorted out.
"Saddam Hussein is no threat to us, but if we dare do something to him, literally thousands of terorists in our nation will carry out terrorist acts on our soil.
You hear it all the time, from elected anti-war democrats, (who by the way, voted to support President Bush), the far left anti-war crowd, and the likes of Ellen Ratner and Eleanor Cliff. They say, if we start a war, the Moslems will hate us. That's such shallow thinking. Those extremists, those who would do us harm, hate us already. They want us dead, whether we start a war or not. The moderates will thank us, and don't pose a danger to us no matter what we do.
"If Hussein is no threat, what are thousands of his terroist sympathizers doing in the US? And further, does he think they would be less of a threat if armed with a nuke produced by Hussein? And they ignore the fact that if we allow Iraq to reach North Korea's level of nuke capability, they too will blackmail us.
"Ritter and those of his ilk haven't the ability to process information and assess it properly." I put Ritter in a different category from other administration critics. I think something caused Ritter to snap. It might have been personal conflicts within UNSCUM. FBI investigations into his marriage, and his personal Iraqi connections, which might have filled him with resentment. It might be he came to crave the spotlight, and the only way to maintain it was to make outrageous claims of self-importance. I personally think he's suffering from megalomania. He's always claiming he knows more than anyone about Iraqi weapons. These wild claims didn't come until long after he had any real hands on, incountry, information, as if he makes these public self-grandizing claims to bolster his importance.
Whatever's going on inside Ritter's head, it's twisted.
Most of the other criticism comes from President Bush loathing malcontents. If President Clinton or President Gore were doing the same things, you wouldn't hear a peep outta them.
In other words, Ritter's supporters lied to the cops (or at least misrepresented) to get the guy out of the place. Figures.
Thanks for the advice. I actually made the point re: sexual deviance history, but in reverse, to the reporter off-camera. If Ritter was snagged in 2001, it's possibly that he was pursuing his appetite while in Iraq during the 90s and the Iraq intellegence community caught Ritter and blackmailed him.
I hope Scott didn't hog the bathroom at the senior citizen center for too long.
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.