Scott Ritter: "If you want to be anti-war, that means you have to be in conflict with those who are pro-war"
By Nicole Belle Thursday Sep 06, 2007 2:21pm
On C-Span's BookTV this last weekend, Scott Ritter spoke about his new book, Waging Peace, and the misconceptions and mistakes of the anti-war movement.
Login or Register to post comments.
Yeah!
Good, no fristing this time.
Ritter needs to run for office. He's the kind of guy I could support.
Weaseldog @ 2:
Is that you Larry? Oh, "fristing"! Sorry about that.
This means WAR!11!!!
Ritter has more credibility then the whole GOP cabala. He is no doubt on one of Cheneys "enemies of the junta" lists somewhere.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/bradenton/26
I always look forward to when Scott Ritter goes on the Randi Rhodes show. He's a walking encyclopedia
Wow, that was fantastic.
What he says is right. Ghandi understood what he is saying. Ghandi waged peace like a war. i don't think we are prepared to do the same. We as a nation have to feel like we have nothing left to lose, before we can fight in the manner that the people of India did.
Even fighting liek the French during the revolution isn't going to happen.
For now, the interests that joyfully slaughter and butcher human beings for profit, have the upper hand. Already over one million people have died so that rich people can have more money. If that isn't enough to get the people to rise up and stop the Gov, then bombing Iran won't upset people enough either.
It is no accident that Congress is passing laws that make boycotts and strikes, acts of terrorism. They are getting ready for the confrontation to come. And they know it is coming.
When the American public, have nothing left to loose, they will rise up, and the Feds will be ready.
Not bad at all, I've been wondering when someone would clearly outline why anti-war protesters fail. I like the reality check on original war support too. Lets see if we can get this guy off C-Span and on a news network. Perspective can be a powerful thing.
He was definitely the guy that was saying NO WMD from the begininning. Why did you stop the video right when he was about to explain how the Congress is completely corrupt?
There are only 2 honest men running for President, Kucinich and Paul. It is like in the movies, you always know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. And we always cheer and cry when the good guy wins. Unfortunately in real life we still always know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, but for some reason the bad guys alway win and we are left with just crying.
Most of you guys are left leaning so Kucinich should be getting all of your support. I support Ron Paul because even though Kucinich is honest, the role of the federal government is supposed to be very limited. Government is only good when it is local, sending money to a huge central beauacracy and hoping they do the right thing is the biggest mistake liberals make.
Investigate 911, Impeach Bush, Cheney and others, take the country back. I think Kucinich and Paul would be assassinated before they were ever allowed to be President, but they need our support because their messages are TRUE. Don't vote straight Democrat or Republican, vote for whoever is NOT in office because almost none of them deserve to be re-elected. That would send the best message about who has the power.
Ritter has more credibility than Ghandi.
Never one with that rare ability to gamble the rest of my life on one step, political admiration walked out the door once power waswith the bush, held open and splayed by vain stupidity. I would sincerely like to embrace notions of deep meaning, leavened with the instant rice of informed social convention, yet find my self stranded, gape-mouthed, eyes akimbo, staring goose-like at that big rock candy mountain vanilla dollop of existential grab-assing with business partners, nankers, and profiteers of a conservative, nee, selfish demeanor, cut from a cloth both tattered and mollusk scented.
Some where out there run the gazelles of my idealistic humanism, stomachs swollen as they are with the earnest anticipation of even fouler digestive volition masquerading as "compasionate consevatism", as I admit to myself, as if anybody ever cared, of my complicity, yeah, my cowardice in the face of candy-assed home field advantage granted at the point of a ballot box by numbskulls subseviant to the lord and lardasses.
All this because I dream of eating sandwiches on the train, sax bellowing in intense, ad-hoc, race horse piss-off meanderings, intergalactic sausages wrapped around the vertical column of the same, as I defy the extra gravity of the situation, desperate to recycle, along with the fish, chickens, and vegetables I grew up with, admixtures and there waste products.
some "anonymous" in glenn greenwald's comments was going INSANE attacking scott ritter earlier this week....
Hannity, Limbaugh and others have been trashing Ritter for years. The Neocon base has been well conditioned to think him a traitor and a liar.
Ricky Bones @ 13:
I don't think you need to worry about Ghandi upstaging Ritter. He won't be speaking on this war.
It is always easier to tell the truth, and Ritter is telling ship loads. I wish this clip went on further, I was riveted!
jtmonty46 @ 3:
I heartily second that. Not only is the man is a terrific speaker, there's actual content in there. Bonus, he knows how to pronounce "nuclear". Kucinich/ Ritter '08.
UN Page with some Pre-IRaq war articles by Scott Ritter
http://unjobs.org/authors/scott-ritter
You can watch the entire program here.
Carl Gordon @ 14:
Okay. You can stop channeling Ginsberg now.
This will be on this weekend.
Sunday, September 9, at 4:15 AM (cspan3 i think???)
for more info or to stream it: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8572&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No
I'm anxious to read this book. But I'll be ordering mine from Powells.
Amazon is a non-union shop. Please consider going union with your links.
http://www.powellsunion.com/shop-smart/shop-smart/buy-books
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The founding fathers foresaw the destructiveness of greedy, ruthless men and the threat they would be to Democracy. And they gave us a very straight-forward solution. Perhaps it's time has come.
QuakerDave @ 24:
Powells is the most awesome bookstore on the planet... if you ever are in Portland Oregon you have to go check it out.
Ritter speaks the truth, what ever happened to rule of law? Why doesn't the media ask questions that would get answers like this? 1+1=2 for Ritter and everyone else with half a brain, the dumbass brain dead population hears 1+1= hey isn't that Paris Hilton?
An obvious traitor. Send him to Gitmo now!
or,
Listen to what he is saying and realize the man has a brain and is using it well. Wish GW could do that.
Early on, Ritter was the one that made me feel comfortable with my rejection of all that was "Iraqi Freedom", and that the WH was inhabited with a pack of hyenas.*
* apologies to any hyenas out there.
It isn't a war, it is an occupation. Nobody seems to understand that the war was over after three weeks! The Soviet Union never got it when they were in Afghanistan, the British never got it in Ireland, and the Romans never got it when they occupied the western world! War and occupation are not the same thing.
Bush: What's wrong son?
America: I don't know, just I don't know if you care about me or not!
Bush: Oh come on! What kind of father wouldn't care about... A PIG WEARING A HAT!
Father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today.....
What's Going On/Marvin Gaye
Talcott @ 30:
His father shot him to death.
Priceless.
Patthemokey @ 28:
I think you've just raised a point that's often overlooked. The French know all too well that occupation can't be sustained as they've seen in North Africa. Some parallels can probably be drawn between the French occupation and the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank, as well, but that's probably taboo to discuss.
I don't know much about the Tibetan occupation, but those guys have been taking a beating from the Chinese for decades now, but they keep silent. Anyway, I digress.
I am anti-THIS war and you know what? I have absolutely no problem being in conflict with pro-war people. Everybody seems to think that just because you're against the Iraq war means you're automatically a coward and too big a pussy to defend your position. That's not the case. Especially given that over 3/4ths of the country is against this war. Fuck the Pro-War crowd. If they're so happy about this fiasco let them fucking enlist and go to Iraq themselves.
Otherwise, screw Iraq. Bring our troops home NOW and begin impeachment hearings all around.
Patthemokey @ 31:
Patthemokey @ 31:
Yes we know...and your point is......?
Weaseldog @ 16:
Heh, these guys -- as well as the Republican political operatives at large -- would paint General Patton as an anti-American, pro-terrorist traitor if he were revived, and mentioned that Iraq probably had no WMD or that George W. was an inept leader. That's just their standard MO. It's partly why the search for a "candidate who can win," a realistic choice, is a wild goose chase. No matter who we have on our side, the opposition will Swift Boat them. It's just how they play.
sam @ 12:
I would argue that, when it comes to protecting rights and liberties, the federal government does a much better job -- not just historically, but in principle. Local governments are far more prone to enforcing local culture by law, whereas federations comprise different local cultures that, when fighting for their own self interests, stress the rhetoric of equal rights and liberties.
And lest you think I'm rashly striking out against libertarians, kindly click here. :)
Weaseldog @ 10:
Possibly. Though it's encouraging to hear Ritter's perspective. It seems he's trying to tap into the will to wage peace, but provide a feasible strategy to do so. I'll have to read his book. It sounds extremely interesting. I'm not so sure we can write off the will of the anti-war movement, and it would be great if there's a workable, winning strategy to harness that will.
E in MD @ 34:
Your position on why you're against THIS war isn't clear to me. At first it seems you agree with Ritter about the illegality of the war, but then you add, "screw Iraq". Which to me sounds like you're ridding yourself of responsibility as a citizen of a country who has caused this quagmire in Iraq. Don't you care what the U.S. government does in your name? I'm confused.
Scott Ritter is a national hero. He was one of the few to speak out when it was unpopular to do so, and got raked over the coals for it by many in the MSM, but particularly Fox. I'm glad he's still out there fighting.
The server is slow today.
I'm against bullshit chimpy's wars.
This why the repugs are considered stupid as hell.
Jim @ 38:
If a bull wrecks a china shop, it isn't reasonable to think the bull can fix it.
We can only help fix Iraq, if the Iraqi people support us in the effort. We can't fight the Iraqis and fix Iraq, as the fighting continues to destroy our ability to fix Iraq.
I am afraid that this is a problem that we can't fix. How many years do we want to stay and slaughter people? Betrayus says this is the same as the occupation of Ireland by the British. that went on for 800 years, and still the Irish fought back. They never accepted as a slave nation, the slave status that the British tried very hard to impose on them.
Betrayus is right. Our occupation of Iraq is much like the British occupation of Ireland.
Betrayus would have us believe that the British crushed the Irish through force of arms, and that is how they won peace. But they didn't. They declared peace, gave them a strong degree of autonomy and pulled most of their troops out.
But Britain and Ireland have strong bonds. People from both nations intermarry and share similar cultures. They are even divided by a common language. We don't have any of that in Iraq.
Iraq won't be fixed until the bull leaves the china shop.
Damn he's good.
[...] Crooks and Liars has the video [...]
Being against those who are pro-war means, among other things, being against the Israel Lobby, and all of their war-mongering enablers in congress. The mainstream of the Democratic party (Pelosi, Reid, Hitlary, Obama, Edwards) is even more in the lobby's thrall than the Republican party. All it took for Pelosi to drop the amendment which would have required Bush to get the approval of congress before attacking Iran (you know, like the constitution calls for) was a peep out of "the lobby." If it were up to the lobby, we would never leave Iraq, and we would have long ago started bombing Iran and Syria, who pose as much of a "threat" to the U.S. as Iraq did. Whether the American people are bright enough not to fall for all of the same propaganda being spewed about Iran that was spewed about Iraq remains to be seen. See:
Syria and Iran: The Threats That Aren't
When congress isn't falling over itself to do the bidding of the corporations it is doing the same on behalf of foreign governments, at the expense of the people they are actually supposed to be representing.
I highly recommend the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Harvard).
Patthemokey @ 31:
Yes we know...and your point is......?
My point is-
I loved the song but never cared for the words. The idea that love can conquer hate is, to me, basically wrong. Hate can only be conquered by its opposite, which isn't love, the opposite of hate is tolerance. The opposite of love is indifference.
The subject of the anti-war issue troubles me because I have been against the war before it started or was even hinted at long before 9/11. My fundamental trouble is that the anti war actions have all been based on a Vietnam era construct believing that the peace movement was what brought an end to the Vietnam War. The truth was that the war ended only as an indirect reaction to the political failure of the administration that was in power. There was no power to keep the war going after the direction of the president was turned to self defense as apposed to power accumulation.
We only get out of this "war" when we stop focusing on the war and focus on the man in the office that created the myth of the need for the war.
I think that's what goin' on.
Weaseldog @ 41:
Those who think we are in Iraq to help the Iraqi people are incredibly naive. We are there to sow chaos for the purposes of dividing and conquering (providing a pretext for permanent military occupation), the establishment of permanent military bases in the heart of the Persian Gulf, and the "legalization" of the theft of Iraq's oil by the Anglo-American oil companies.
It turns out that the Iraqis are further ahead than the American people when it comes to understanding the U.S. government and what this invasion and occupation is really all about, which is why every nationwide poll of Iraqis that has been conducted, including those commissioned by the U.S. and Britain, show that the Iraqis are overwhelmingly against the occupation. How any self-described progressive can continue supporting the use of the blunt instrument known as the U.S military against the Iraqi people under these circumstances is beyond me.
I like what Ritter is saying. I'm going to get his book. I remember reading his articles before the war in Iraq.
I didn't know about the IAEA inspectors in Iran. We already have inspectors there? So, what's the problem?
I also didn't know about the "military industrial congressional complex," that makes more sense.
What was the highest rank he achieved?
Old Billy @ 47:
Yes, inspectors have been coming and going all along. Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Russian engineers and technicians are helping them directly with their nuclear program.
Bush can sell the war to his base in the US, because the US has a relatively closed media network. Our MSM doesn't show much in the way of foreign news or opinions. This is why bloggers and the 'internets' are under attack. You know all those tubes...
If you watch television programs from other nations on the internet you'll see how different things are portrayed in the international community. Even if you watch stations in which you can't understand the language you'll see that even the visuals tell more of the story of what is going on in the world, than what we'll see on FOX or MSNBC.
I won't try to change your belief, yet I disagree concerning your philosophical assertions, Pat.
I do agree that people who are against The Occupation of Iraq need to find other means, because
obviously what's going on is not working.
However I do not believe the validity of Marvin's message is constrained by the era in which it originated,
nor the fact that his father murdered him.
Adam @ 48:
Ritter was born into a military family in 1961. He graduated from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with a Bachelor of Arts in the history of the Soviet Union and departmental honors. He was first in the U.S. Army serving as a Private in 1980. He was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the United States Marine Corps in May 1984. He served in this capacity for twelve years. He initially served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War. During Desert Storm, he served as a ballistic missile advisor to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Ritter later worked as a security and military consultant for the Fox News network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
Adam @ 48:
Major
Ritter is right; the vast majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq and only turned against when it became too bloody and costly. In order to save face, we now blame the Iraqis for not quelling the violence that the American invasion caused.
number9 @ 46:
Number9, I think Weaseldog is saying the same thing you are. He wasn't saying we're in Iraq to help the Iraqi people. He's saying we should leave.
Rhl @ 53:
I don't buy "the vast majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq." The Americans supporting the invasion got the vast amount of attention. I think that's more accurate.
Jim @ 54:
Wooops. I take back what I've just said. Yes. The end result of the "occupation" is to establish U.S. military bases. I think when people use the term "fix" loosely it's meaning gets lost. My definition of "fixing Iraq" would be to put an end to the violence and have the Iraqis run their own country the way they see fit. I don't know, however, how THAT can be achieved. Perhaps the best thing at this point is to simply withdraw the troops. But, I doubt Bush would do that as the ultimate goal is to profit as much as possible from the war AND at the same time establish permanent basis.
miss_kitty @ 55:
Agreed. "Vast majority" is also, rather vague depending upon what you think it means. Majority is over 50%. "Vast majority" should be much more than that (80%?). This war has been controversial from the beginning and if a "vast majority" had supported it, that would not have been the case.
miss_kitty @ 55:
I agree. I think the vast majority of Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan, not Iraq.
VIDEO: Scott Ritter on Being Anti-War
"If you want to be anti-war, that means you have to be in conflict with those who are pro-war"
Rhl @ 53:
The saying about success having many fathers but failure being an orphan comes to mind. A lot of people who have turned against the war are not doing so for moral reasons, that's for sure. They will be right there marching in line and cheerleading when the next one rolls around.
According to a Zogby poll of a couple of weeks ago, 54% believes the war is not lost. Isn't that incredible? Isn't that close to the percentage that still think Saddam attacked us on 9/11?
More from the Zogby poll:
Americans by 45% to 20% give the Democratic Congress lower grades on handling the war than the Republican Congress it replaced.
By nine to one, Bush's leadership on the war is preferred to that of the Democratic Congress.
Serves the Democrats right for putting politics and special interests above principle. I would like to see all incumbents thrown out on their asses next election. Just rinse and repeat this process over a number of election cycles and Congress just might get a clue one day.
Jim @ 54:
Yeah, I was agreeing with him. A "me too" post.
Also a very worthy read regarding background information and context for the Iran War rollout: Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change - Scott Ritter
"What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret." -Thoreau.
Well said Mr. Ritter... Damned shame it was relegated to Cspan on a weekend instead of being a lead story with the big three networks and the rest of the MSM.... But then we are all realizing the forth estate has equally been compromised and corrupted to a large degree over time.. Just like Mr. Ritter indicated has happened to congress over the years......
I applaud Scott Ritters speaking truth to power and hope he can keep it up.....JD
sam @ 12:
I am so surprise that anyone can say that after 6 years of Bush privatizing everything and see it run so badly, and his crony-ism in power took a well run govt agency into a Sham.
The original constitution didn't allow for lobbyist as it was consider taking a bribe. That is where the money could be save to the people. Because money to pay for lobbyist is money that could pay fair wages to the workers. If you want to cut back on spending in govt then make lobbying and kickback illegal. Such as Rudy getting a $100,000 kickback for getting the city to lease the twin towers for the city command center for 1.25 million per year. Thats where the pork is in the govt!
You have sheriff and law enforcement to police the people, then you would need govt official to police the corporations. It would be cheaper to do away with policing the people and the corporation, and just have people not break laws or industry standard. But it's not going to happen.
Scott Ritter was one of the first to discredit Bushco's phony attack on Iraq.
This man should be given a medal.
Truuuuth! Scott Ritter is the most articulate guy I can think of. It's really amazing that a guy with his credentials, is blacklisted from the MSM only because he is strongly against the war, and has always been right about it. He doesn't say anything distasteful, he just says the facts in an articulate manner. Let's elect Kucinich and put Ritter as Chairman of the Department of Peace.
jtmonty46 @ 57:
Although this war was controversial from the beginning, it was still supported by some 75%. Most of those 75% are not real pro-war hawks, just passive citizens that just went along with it because the media was 99.9999% pro war.
OMG, Carl Gordon's back. Some things never change.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
Check it, Bush's approval rating at the start of the war was 75%. That pretty much means at least 75% of Americans supported the war at the start.
proud liberal @ 66:
After seeing the people that bush gives medals to (and the reasons), do you think Ritter would really want one?
Karen@37
I would argue that, when it comes to protecting rights and liberties, the federal government does a much better job — not just historically, but in principle. Local governments are far more prone to enforcing local culture by law, whereas federations comprise different local cultures that, when fighting for their own self interests, stress the rhetoric of equal rights and
My point was that the social programs like education, police, health care, etc. SHOULD be run by local governments. But you are right, one of the ONLY functions of the federal government is to ensure civil liberties enumerated in the constitution are protected. We need to understand that Bill of Rights aren't privileges the central government can give or take but INNATE HUMAN RIGHTS that they are required to defend (especially from the government itself and especially during crises like wars).
Ron Paul realizes this and my point was that liberals and Kucinich think the federal government should provide the social programs. But both men realize that peace, honesty and freedom are essential for us to prosper. Thanks.
For the record, I signed one of the first anti-war petitions, sent to Washington, before the war ever began. I haven't changed my position since then. I was not sad to see Saddam gone, but that was the only "glimmer" of "rightness" I saw, and that was fleeting. I've been fighting the war-lovers for 7 years (lifelong really).
Zeta @ 68:
I don't necessarily believe the polls that yielded the large numbers. Most of them were part of 'The Coalition of the Shilling.' Don't bet the polls weren't slanted or manipulated to back up the drumbeat of the pollsters' corporate masters.
miss_kitty @ 74:
I don't know, in areas such as San Francisco, it seemed like everyone was against the war. But I would not be surprised that 75% of the public was anxious and excited for another "arab ass-kicking," especially after 9/11. Remember how much fun Americans had in 1991? I think most of the uninformed populous thought it would be another fun ass-kickin adventure this time around. I don't blame these folks as much as I blame the media, that gave these folks the comfort and confidence to get excited about dropping thousands of bombs on 30 million people. The media had done a fantastic job of dehumanizing Iraqis for decades.
To download the Scott Ritter appearance in linux write (in one line):
mplayer -dumpstream rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/arc_btv/btv090207_4.rmThen just play the stream.dump file like this:
mplayer stream.dumpMost Americans aren't against the war. They are against losing.
Jeff @ 77:
I think most Americans are just tired of seeing Iraq as a news story every night. They don't care about all the legitimate reasons to be against the war, they're just bored with it. Also, gas prices are more expensive now than they were when the war started. If gas was $1/gallon, most Americans would still be for this war. To quote Greg Palast, "Most Americans think... blood for oil? What a bargain!"
paranoia @ 65:
Bush's controllers have given us a FASCIST dictatorship. The United States hasn't seen anything that could be considered free market capitalism for over 100 years. My point is that Socialism DOES NOT work, so wishing for universal health care, or other central government social programs, is the opposite of what we need.
We need a real FREE market system, which is the opposite of both fascism (marriage of corporations and government) and socialism (government stealing our money to pay for social programs). True capitalism will allow competition to weed out bad corporations and corruption. And will also provide us with everything we need.
Did you know that in 1890 Nikola Tesla came up with technology that would have provide unlimited eletrical power? Since then many inventors have been killed who built devices for this. Did you know that right now there are devices that you can put on your car to double your gas mileage? I do believe that everyone could have food, shelter and health care provided universally, however the GOVERNMENT will never bring it (in fact they are the main force hindering it).
Check out this device http://preignitioncc.com/sam/
He's right. Drum circles get us nowhere. We need a strategy to remove these criminal bastards from office BEFORE Jan. 2009.
Absolutely brilliant. No wonder cowardly neocons hate him; he shines a light on the fact that they are evil. And in honest truth, they are evil.
I hope, whichever Democrat makes it into the White House, that they will give Scott Ritter a post where he can be useful and empowered. I've liked Ritter from way back in the mid '90's and his knowledge and insight have always been outstanding.
Wow! Not new stuff ... but extremely well spoken!
#80 - Right on...
sam @ 72:
Heh, you're my kind of libertarian, Sam. :) Though my own philosophy recognizes the federal government's role in certain social programs -- provided that they are designed to ensure the equal protection of each individual's pursuit of happiness. Something like health care would come under that heading.
I would like to point out, however, that Ron Paul does not agree that the federal government should be protecting civil rights and liberties! Paul is a "conservative libertarian," who disclaims any jurisdiction of the federal government to protect citizens from their respective state and local governments. Under this style of libertarianism, each individual is at the mercy of her state (or, at best, a majority of the state's elected officials, over whose tenure she has a small say). Paul has explicitly argued that the "Incorporation Doctrine," under which the 14th Amendment is deemed to have made the Bill of Rights binding on the states, is a pernicious, anti-liberty doctrine, because it "dictates" to the states. To me, however, states do not have liberties. States have powers. Individuals have liberties.
Absolutely! And I would stress that it is no accident that you see a staunch libertarian and a staunch progressive taking many of the same stances! I have long argued -- not always to the greatest reception here at C&L -- that progressives and libertarians ought to work together against authoritarians, to whom all of "front runner" or "mainstream" politicians pander. That Paul and Kucinich have struck cords with their parties' respective contingents -- contingents that are much larger than conventional wisdom or the media seem to recognize -- on similar issue stances makes sense to me.
In my opinion, rather than for each contingent to point out why they prefer one or the other -- and certainly rather than bash the one they dislike as crazy -- those contingents ought to be working together on the stances they have in common. I'm happy to see that your thoughts reflect this. Moreover (to get off the tangent) Kucinich-style progressives and Paul-style (and other) libertarians are just the kind of people who would be receptive to Ritter's concepts of waging peace. Imagine the good we could do if we worked together on such a campaign!!
By the way, Sam, my friend and I are doing podcasts on these very concepts. Care to do an interview with us? As a Paul supporter? (Click my name for the podcast. Click on the link I gave before to find my e-mail (for the CLEaR Alliance). I'd have clicked yours to e-mail you about this, but yours isn't clickable. :) )
Preach it, brother!
now let's go get a latte...
Zeta @ 78:
You couldn't be more wrong. While television news has largely taken a vacation from its already dismal "reporting" on Iraq, in poll after poll, Americans consistently assert that the story they most want to follow is the Iraq war and occupation. Read here. Listen here.
I'm not anti-war.
I'm anti-anymore-stupid-Bush-Wars.
I served in the U.S. Air Force.
After Bush dropped our nation's guard and let the 9/11 attacks happen, I was all for going after Osama bin Laden and his gang of al Qaeda thugs in Afghanistan. Whatever it took to bring these religious hoodlums to justice was fine by me.
But Bush and Cheney betrayed us all, as well as the victims of 9/11 and their families, by insanely shifting resources from Afghanistan to prepare for their war with Iraq in 2002. Three-quarters of a billion dollars was shifted to Iraq war preparations after being allocated for capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. Men and materials were taken out of Afghanistan and moved to staging areas close to Iraq.
To put it simply, just because I was and am still against Bush's war in Iraq doesn't mean that I am anti-war. Just as because I am against Bush and Cheney expanding their little Middle East "oil war" by attacking Iran doesn't mean I'm anti-war. Stupid wars, yes. Going after al Qaeda, no problem.
This is the dirty little secret (not!!!) of the right-wingers. Conflating being against anymore stupid, stupid wars started by Bush and Cheney with being anti-war.
Having served in our military, I am not amused. Nor am I fooled, especially by BushCo's attempts to conflate going after bin Laden and his crazed religious followers, and BushCo starting a totally unnecessary and unrelated war in Iraq.
I've been saying that for years. It always was amazing that not only did right wingers who I would be debating feel threatened by this but that left wingers felt insulted by this as well. As if to be pro peace means being Mr. Van Driesen from Beavis & Butthead. And I know there are LOTS of those in our side of the fence. Embarrassingly so actually....
The right wingers would always counter along the lines of "well I thought being anti-war means being weak and timid and non aggressive." when I told them that I thought that peace marches were a waste of time since they're only mocked by the media anyways as some throwback to the 1960's. The way to get attention I told them is to openly and aggressively challenge these wingers in the same manner they challenge and try to silence us. This is a war for the hearts and minds of Americans. We have a great opportunity at our doorstep and I fear that timidity is going to squander our sides chances. "kumbaya" doesn't achieve much but to make older lefties feel young again as if they're reliving their youth and make those young birkenstock wearing dreadlocked retro-ers feel as if they're living the dream of the mythic 60's.
Mug @ 85:
Did anyone else get the impression that the audience was not endirely thrilled with Ritter's diatribe? The guy sitting to (Scott's) left looks as if he's going to dissolve.
This is incredible. People are saying Ritter should run for President, he has more credibility than Ghandi, etc.
Who are you all kidding?
Scott Ritter 1) Changed his mind on Saddam, 2) Changed his mind on WMDs, 3) and was arrested twice for soliciting underage girls on the internet.
I can't believe that anyone still listens to this clown.
God bless Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter for Prez. '08.
xoites defends Constitution @ 51:
I saw that one too. Notice how it doesn't say what rank he achieved? (Thanks to Weaseldog for answering my question)
Unless, I missed it, is it anywhere stated above that Ritter is a known child molester? Don't forget to add this little tidbit to his resume.
Folks here bitch about near queer Lavvy Craig yet, give Ritter air time. A guy who hasn't been on the front line in 10 years.
Go figure.
Dirty Hippie Blogger @ 93:
Sorry, I can't let this go unchallenged. Your facts are absolutely incorrect.
The charges--coincidentally brought RIGHT ABOUT THE TIME RITTER STARTED CALLING BUSH A LIAR IN THE RUN UP TO THE IRAQ WAR--were dropped and District Attorney who brought the charges was summarily fired for her handling of the case.
Nice attempt at swiftboating, but we (as usual) have reality and truth on our side.
Reality and truth on your side? You are wrong or misleading about almost everything you said here. This has nothing to do with "swift-boating". Before you embarass yourself any further, take a deep breath and read an actual reference on the subject: http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20030122-091722-8355r
First of all, Ritter's two incidents luring teenage girls were in April 2001 and June 2001. This was early in the Bush presidency and before 9/11. No one was discussing war with Iraq at that time, so it wasn't during the "RUN UP TO THE IRAQ WAR".
It's true the charges were dropped, but only after they were first suspended for six months on the condition that Ritter attend court ordered sex-offender counseling.
According to the district attorney, the assistant district attorney who brought the charges was fired, because she was supposed to report all high-profile cases to her boss, not because Ritter was innocent.
While the records are sealed, it's a safe bet that he admitted to the charges, since he didn't fight this in court.
You can also see a little more of Ritter's background here.
If you really want the anti-war movement to succeed, I recommend you find a better spokesman for it.
Login or Register to post comments.