| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2004/4/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:13240 Activity:nil |
4/16 Time To Give Ritter His Due:
http://csua.org/u/6xn
\_ send the twink to Syria and find the WMD
\_ I'm can't find any relevant mention of Ritter on the page but I
enjoyed the message board. Thanks.
\_ Hackworth gives the most honest assessment of the Iraq
situation from the "grunts" point of view that I have
been able to find.
\_ honest assessment? How would *you* know? Have you been there
to compare and evaluate or does "honest" really mean "the guy
who most agrees with my axe grinding opinion"? This clown
says we should put Ritter, a known liar and bribe taker, on
the WMD probe in Iraq because we can count on Ritter to tell
us the truth. Yes, this makes a lot of sense in some
universe.
\_ At LEAST you could have said Ritter was a known sex
pervert. But you just had to use labels ("liar",
\-prevert
"bribe taker") that are not well known at all, if true.
Sounds like a right-wing radical to me!
\_ Go do your own searching for how Ritter made $300k
direct from Saddam's pocket. Your ignorance is not my
problem, it's yours.
\_ Even supposing this is true (and I'm not convinced
by far) if misses one key bit. RITTER TOLD THE
TRUTH. See how that works?
\_ No. There's a subtle but important distinction
between the truth and what Ritter said. Ritter
said what he was told to say which changed
substantially between the last time he was on the
ground in Iraq and when he got $300k in bribes.
The truth is something that doesn't change based
on income. See how that works? The information
is easily available. I'm not going to spoon feed
you things that you can find in seconds that have
been discussed at length on the motd before.
Ritter has zero credibility. There are plenty of
others you could choose from that are actually
honest, not paid off, and consistent in their
words; Ritter is not one of them. He's a fool and
a Hussein pawn at best and a traitor and criminal
at worst. Find a new hero.
\_ whatever his motives, his statement that Iraq
was not a threat to the US has proven to be
true. Well, at least it would have been true
if we didn't go over there like we wanted to
remake "Blackhawk Down" and get ourselves
involved in local politics we don't understand.
\_ His statement? Which statement? The one
before or after he got bribed by Hussein?
It's almost sad how you completely miss and
seem to intentionally ignored this key
point. Ritter is on record with multiple
statements regarding Iraqi WMD. That's a
fact. He was paid ~$300k by Hussein after
he left Iraq: fact. His statements
regarding Iraqi WMD changed after he was
paid off: fact. You need to find a new
hero. There are many honorable men and
women, both foreign and domestic who agree
with your agenda who have impeccable
reputations and whom I and others hold in
the highest regard. Ritter is not nor ever
will be one of those. Your feeble attempt
to change the subject to anti-Bush rantings
about his cowboy approach to the world are
irrelevent and ignored. |
| 4/3 |
|
| csua.org/u/6xn -> www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=57&rnd=195.04275159186835 As per his reputation on training fields and battlefields, this granite-jawed former Marine stood his ground and never flinched. He reminds me of another two-fisted, tell-it-like-it-is Marine, Maj. Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor, who was almost drummed out of the Marine Corps twice: Once in the 1930s for calling Benito Mussolini a fascist, and once again a few years later when he rattled the military-industrial complex by daring to declare that War is a racket. Ritter, too, took serious punishment from his critics and instead of doing proper due diligence or asking hard questions, the media quickly piled on. It was not Foxs finest hour when that network gleefully painted him as a 21st-century Benedict Arnold not that he had many prime-time advocates anywhere else. Even CNNs usually evenhanded Paula Zahn said to Ritter six months before America unleashed its miscalculated military solution on Iraq , People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam Husseins Kool-Aid. Eighteen months later, Ritter has not only survived the relentless ridicule and all the scurrilous attempts at character assassination, hes clearly been vindicated. And by one David Kay, who dismissed Ritters prewar analysis with: Either he lied to you then or hes lying to you now. Ritter doesnt come close to buying Kays present-day convenient conclusion now spun into a pre 2004-election pass-the-buck revisionist chant that our $30 billion-a-year spook op goofed. Ritter says, Its the old story of people going-along-to-get-along who put their careers ahead of their country. Ritter doesnt let President Bush off the hook, either: He should rightly be held accountable for what increasingly appears to be deliberately misleading statements made by him and members of his administration regarding the threat posed by Iraq s WMD. I would feel a lot better if there were a way to reverse the hands of time, he told me, so that people would have paid more attention to what I said in the past, and we didnt find ourselves caught up in this ongoing tragedy. And now weve filled more than 530 body bags, medevaced thousands of soldiers, caused thousands more to be psychologically scarred, created tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties and stuck ourselves dead center in an ever-deepening tar pit. For sure, people in high places need truth-tellers like Ritter to keep them straight. Had Bush talked to Ritter before opting for pre-emptive war, Bush might have been convinced to rearrange his options, and we might not be in this mess. Evaluating intelligence calls for an open mind and sound judgment. Both were AWOL in our political leadership because of a preconceived agenda or an attack of yellow belly-itis that interfered with standing tall. We can count on him to tell us the straight skinny, just as he tried to during the fevered, frenzied days of the dance to war. |