Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Scott Ritter is solid. The BushCo. smear machine has been in hyperdrive over him.
And the facts are staunchly on Ritter's side.
There is a fact I've been waiting for and so far I have not seen it. If I see it, my opinion will change.
Has anyone contested the fact that Scott Ritter was infact arrested in that police sting? Has a cop come forward to say it was a setup or that it
never happened? Has anything at all come out that indicates that Scott Ritter did absolutely nothing to land himself in that court room?
Because the facts which "stand staunchly on Ritter's side" at the moment are that after police posing as young girls arranged to meet with him for
sexual purposes, the case got thrown out and sealed.
Would such facts stand staunchly on another politically influential person's side? What if Scooter Libby was "cleared" in the same manner?
Edit to add, re Neocons: although I'm no huge fan of the way they set up our little misadventure in Iraq (not to mention my suspicion that it's all
just a little too stupid to be an accident) I have to disagree that we can't deal with Iran without ground troops. It doesn't take ground troops to
knock out a few facilities and set them back a couple of years.
I suspect that if anything comes of the present mess with Israel that it will be an Israeli strike rather than American one (unless of course the war
were to escalate to the point that Iran hits us first just for being there and unlikeable), however it would be an error to oppose dealing with
Iran's nukes simply because the administration favors it. The United States has a congress for just this reason. It is well within our ability as
citizens to reign our government in to performing the necessary act of self-preservation that is osstensibly Bush's motive without giving him a free
enough hand to pursue ulterior motives vis. a ground war, an oil grab, rebuilding contracts, etc etc etc.
I think one of the problems we face is that Republican voters and Democrat voters automatically polarize rather than moving to the middle. When Bush
says "we've gotta do X" and the Republicans are saying "well we do" and the Democrats are saying "no, cause he'll do more", doesn't it
behoove the Republicans and Democrats to say to eachother... well wait a minute, we own this party from the grass roots, we can whip our congressmen,
we can force them to restrict Bush to only that stated objective (which in this case can be done in a single day from the air), and everyone's happy.
As an added bonus, if Bush keeps whinning when we give him what he claims to wants then his true colors are shown to even the staunchest supporter and
There's more to politics than being for or against an administration. You've got to make time amidst the partisan wars to actually implement sound
policy, then you can go back to fighting the ideological battles.
[edit on 21-7-2006 by The Vagabond]