Polls show Americans are 'confused'

Did you say something, Max?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

my response came out of my inference that Acquiunk was claiming that reports were falsified, and I now see clearly that (he) did not write anything to justify that inference.

YES, there were reports of suspected WOMDs where those suspicions later turned out to be unfounded.

<nods>. At least it seems we have indeed been watching some of the same stories.

Like Acquiunk, my case is not - primarily - that the media massively invented stories. As you have noted, "all" that happened in the end was that they reported, ad infinitum, on suspected finds, which later turned out to be void.

Unlike you, however, I dont think thats where the story ends - there's questions of 'good journalism' on how they reported on it, which selections they made, how they picked up on/scrutinized the stories they were fed (or didnt), etc; examples of which built my case about politically-inspired hypes (as opposed to outright lies).

But I think Sozobe et al. already repeated that point convincingly enough in response to your post.

Thanks for replying, in any case, the civility of not ignoring someone's efforts at answering your posts is appreciated.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

CNN had an extensive report on the new Harry Potter book this morning. This was followed by a rather involved look at the trend of turning comic books into movies. Great coverage, good stuff. I'm glad I tuned in.

As I usually do when I'm working from home, I have CNN on the television while I go about my day's work, and I have to be honest and tell you that these guys have raised frivolity to a high art.

Americans are dying in Iraq, and they give us Martha Stewart's court appearance.

The country is being bled dry economically, and they give us Harry Potter.

Civil rights are being eroded, and they give us Ashton and Demi.

Wolf Blitzer is damn lucky he doesn't live around here. If he did, I swear I'd drive over to his house and slap him silly (however redundant that may be).

0 Replies

PDiddie

Tell us how you really feel. If you keep holding back, you're gonna get constipated.

0 Replies

http://home.mindspring.com/~fcalaja/_uimages/weaponsgate.jpg

0 Replies

Kuvasz, thanks for the interesting information about Sarin and Anthrax. Is that an accurate assessment? I don't understand how we could have gone so far, if other people knew this to be true. Why wouldn't Hans Blix have said something so straightforward?

PDiddle quoted this earlier:

Quote:

For the rest of the world, the broad American disconnect from reality must be unnerving.

So true... it's a different kind of "nerve" weapon.

0 Replies

you might ask blix just that question, but his mission was to determine where were the materials the UN knew iraq might have, not if they were degraded beyond use.

he is a bureacrat, not an on-the-ground weapons inspector like scott ritter was.

i found it interesting last year when ritter began to get notice that the right wing immediately began a smear campaign against him to discredit what he was saying. the right wing media and its internet minions began circulating stories of ritter being a drunk and wife beater, yet did not attack what he was claiming about the degradation of the items he mentioned..

that iraq inadequately delivered documentation to the UN as to what they destroyed is not disputed. missing were documentation on their destruction of the remaining sarin, anthrax and botulism bacillia which the inspectors believed was not uncovered and delivered to the UN inspectors by 1998. ritter's assessment was that the iraqs never kept good records when they destroyed these materials, so it would be hard to assess what they did or did not still hold. (it was for this reason he pushed for the inspection process process, not war) but his claim that what they might still hold was old, a decade old, and of little offensive use is not disputed, nor is the claim that it would be nearly impossible to produce this stuff without anyone knowing about it.

you ask why this information was not more widely known? figure it out.

in the 4 months UN inspectors were in iraq, they found nothing but a lab sample of thiodiglycol, a precursor to mustard gas, empty war heads, and the few missiles that had a range of 20 miles further than allowed by treaty.

yet for this we went to war and have yet to find anything else in the aftermath.

take the time to listen to his speech and Q& A i posted the link for. it is about as reasonable as anything i have heard on this topic.

0 Replies

Wow. Scott Ritter for President!

Finally a guy who can talk on his feet and his jokes were fabulous. That one about sound businessmen? snort. I'm sharing this with some friends. Thanks. Kuwait as a giant aircraft carrier? My son is gonna love this. Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

Wow. Scott Ritter for President!

It doesn't surprise me that someone who has the emotional development to prefer the sexual company of children rather than adults would be so well thought of by liberals as to suggest he should be leader of the free world.

It appears as if the progressives never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot.

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

Quote:
Wow. Scott Ritter for President!

It doesn't surprise me that someone who has the emotional development to prefer the sexual company of children rather than adults would be so well thought of by liberals as to suggest he should be leader of the free world.

It appears as if the progressives never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot.

Max, that comment was beneath you.

0 Replies

I don't know what innuendo you are referring to, I guess besides saying that Ritter was taking money from Iraq, you could also find perversions, real or imaginary.

But, Max, did you listen to any of it? I have only listened to the hour-long Q&A so far, but I'd think even a conservative would find something to consider.

His idea that some countries including Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have a hard time controlling their least temperate groups; the discussion about the U.S. being the only country exempt from international courts and the truly decent thing to do, which is to give some of Palestine back to the Palestinians... these ring true to me and it is a breath of fresh air.

0 Replies

Perhaps, frank, but how can one not be cynical and jaded when the progressives refuse to hold individuals accountable for their actions?

Scott Ritter was nailed in an FBI sting attempting to make contact with a teenage girl.

Why is such an obvious and revolting character flaw willing to be overlooked simply because he shares a contempt for the present administration?

Why would anyone, even in jest, hold an individual such as this in such high esteem?

I will continue to point out such obvious and flagrant acts, and I apologize if you find my words distasteful.

What can I say, frank?

The truth isn't always pretty.

Having read your last post, piffka, it is apparent that you were not aware of the charges.

Because of this, I apologize to you, but would caution you to familiarize yourself better with respect to those individuals which you would hold in such high regard.

0 Replies

Any FBI sting operation is cloudy in my books. But look at the message then, not the messenger.

PS Thanks for the apology. I didn't know of any charges, but I stand by what I said. A sting operation is a nasty way to try and harass someone.

0 Replies

Why didn't Saddam Hussein use his weapons of mass destruction when his country was invaded?

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

Scott Ritter was nailed in an FBI sting attempting to make contact with a teenage girl.

Why is such an obvious and revolting character flaw willing to be overlooked simply because he shares a contempt for the present administration?

Why would anyone, even in jest, hold an individual such as this in such high esteem?

I don't want to overdo this thing, Max, because I understand your point -- and I can appreciate where you are coming from.

Couple of things, though:

1) As was pointed out -- FBI stings suck -- and should not be given much credence.

2) This may come as a shock -- but men like young women. There are tens of thousands of sites on the Internet devoted to showing teenage women with no clothes on, simply because men like it so much.

3) A character flaw doesn't mean that the individual is not sharing decent information or making decent suggestions.

4) You are overdoing the "held in high esteem" thing. There was one comment made that goes to that area -- and it was made almost ironically.

The information Ritter was sharing with regard to Iraq was worthwhile -- and should receive lots of consideration.

0 Replies

Excellent question, Piffka, and one can only speculate as to his reasons, but looking at his previous actions we can come to some pretty solid contentions.

Like most megalomaniacs, he cares for no one other than himself.

I would not rule out such weapons or their use until he is captured or killed.

0 Replies

frank: You know me, I am happy to belabor the point with you.

Quote:

1) As was pointed out -- FBI stings suck -- and should not be given much credence.

Yeah, who says? The accused?

To the criminal, getting caught always sucks, whether it was in the context of a sting or not.

Quote:

This may come as a shock -- but men like young women

Yeah, frank, I and the law am willing and able to make a distinction between those young women that are illegal, and those that aren't.

I understand that it is a pretty overwhelming burden for some, and many fail the test, but I find it difficult to take a "guys will be guys" attitude where the subject of a childs safety and welfare are concerned.

Quote:

A character flaw doesn't mean that the individual is not sharing decent information or making decent suggestions.

Really?
I take it as a heads up to be highly skeptical of anything the individual says.

Quote:

You are overdoing the "held in high esteem" thing.

I understand, frank, why it may appear that way to YOU.

But I don't see it that way.

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

Scott Ritter was nailed in an FBI sting attempting to make contact with a teenage girl.

Why is such an obvious and revolting character flaw willing to be overlooked simply because he shares a contempt for the present administration?

Why would anyone, even in jest, hold an individual such as this in such high esteem?

I will continue to point out such obvious and flagrant acts.

A laudable mission, if the issue of the thread is the abuse of teenage girls. I don't think, however, that that's what we were talking about.

I don't even think the thrust of our discussion here was primarily whether Scott Ritter should be elected president (I took that exclamation-with-smiley to be mostly tongue-in-cheek, a spontaneous reaction of agreement quite like, "Go Ritter!"). Because, sure, if he is indeed guilty of something morally despicable, he probably shouldn't be - if that was your only point, it's granted, and with that, please do join us in moving back to what we were discussing, 'k?

Because what posters were praising him for up here was not for who he was, but for what he said. The audio link is there. And the credence we may attach to what he says about Iraq is not a question of whether we hold the individual Scott Ritter in high esteem - it's whether we hold his views and judgements on the matter in high esteem.

Now before I go off on some predictable 'you people just trying to change the subject cause you dont have an answer to what the man says' rant, your message comes through loud and clear: you were actually arguing a little bit more than "Dont vote Ritter for President". For if the man is beset by character flaws, how can we believe place stock in any of his judgements?

Problem with that - apart from whatever the background of the case is, cause I dont know anything about it - is, that the two things (character flaws and being right) sadly have been shown to have little to do with each other whatsoever. How many great scientists had despicable habits? Committed several of the seven deadly sins in possibly illegal practices, even? Would it make you not want to have them as friends? Probably. But did it make them any less correct on their scientific theories? No. Same on great writers whose works you wouldnt want to have missed, great thinkers whose theories ... well, et cetera.

Not saying Scott Ritter is necessarily a great scientist ... just that whether his character is flawed is really neither here nor there in any context concerning his views and judgements about Iraqi WMDs. As long as his observation and analysis skills aren't ...

And you're still wholly free to take up that question, of course.

... and thats where someone can pick up with the 'you people just trying to change the subject cause you dont have an answer to what the man says' rant again ;-).

0 Replies

So Max, you won't consider listening to Ritter because he was caught in a sting operation in which the charges were dropped and all the records sealed? If it were such a heinous crime, why isn't Ritter in jail? We live in strange times.

A much better answer, Nimh, I admit I got side-tracked.

Yes, I was being light-hearted. There was once a stand-up comedian in the States who received several write-in votes and, as I said, listening to the Q&A is entertaining though the subject matter is so horribly serious.

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

frank: You know me, I am happy to belabor the point with you.

Quote:
1) As was pointed out -- FBI stings suck -- and should not be given much credence.

Yeah, who says? The accused?

To the criminal, getting caught always sucks, whether it was in the context of a sting or not.

Well I've never been caught in an FBI sting -- and I am not a criminal -- and I THINK FBI STINGS SUCK.

I suspect there are others in A2K who have never been caught in an FBI sting -- and who are not criminals -- who think STINGS SUCK.

Quote:

Quote:
This may come as a shock -- but men like young women

Yeah, frank, I and the law am willing and able to make a distinction between those young women that are illegal, and those that aren't.

I understand that it is a pretty overwhelming burden for some, and many fail the test, but I find it difficult to take a "guys will be guys" attitude where the subject of a childs safety and welfare are concerned.

I am willing to make that same distinction -- and I don't consider it an overwhelming burden at all.

I don't know all the facts about this case -- and I am surprised that you do! Perhaps if you share them with us -- and if I am persuaded that you do know all the facts and that they show what your purport they show -- I will change my mind.

Please do so.

Quote:

Quote:
A character flaw doesn't mean that the individual is not sharing decent information or making decent suggestions.

Really?
I take it as a heads up to be highly skeptical of anything the individual says.

I think you are making more of this than necessary in order not to acknowledge you are on shaky ground here.

Ben Franklin had major character flaws. My guess is that almost every one of the founding fathers had major character flaws.

I hate to disallusion you, Max, but even I have major character flaws.

Since apparently you don't, I understand you can come to the erroneous conclusion that because of our character flaws -- anything Ben Franklin, the founding fathers, or I say should be looked at as a "heads up to be skeptical of anything" we say.

But I suspect that unless you happen to disagree with what the person says, that character flaw thing would not be especially important to you.

Quote:

Quote:
You are overdoing the "held in high esteem" thing.

I understand, frank, why it may appear that way to YOU.

But I don't see it that way.

Well, Max, I've only seen one example of anyone "holding Ritter in high esteem" and you have now characterized it as "...progressives holding Ritter in high esteem."

Perhaps the reason you don't see it "that way" is that you are being selectively myopic!!!

0 Replies

Polls show Americans are 'confused'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know