 sj |
||
|
||
BS: scott ritter speaks
|
|
|
Subject: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 06 - 12:09 AM Contrary to the polarization in America today, Iraq is not a black and white issue, it's a deeply complicated issue and one that is composed of many different shades of gray. Having said that, I'll state right off the bat that I am opposed to this war as much as one can possibly be opposed to this war. I am not a pacifist. I am a former Marine. I spent 12 years as a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps and I've gone to war for my country.
-Joe Offer- Apparent original source is here (click) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Amos Date: 10 Jan 06 - 10:12 AM Excellent prose, Guest; I would feel better served if you had attributed it to wherever you got it from. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 10 Jan 06 - 12:31 PM Looks like it came from here: http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: katlaughing Date: 10 Jan 06 - 02:12 PM A link would have sufficed, with a few words of explanation, in the initial post. Thanks, Carol, for putting one in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 06 - 11:52 PM I'm not sure where the article came from but omitting the link was merely an oversight. Carol C. found one source. I'm sure there are many more. Come to think about it - why attribute it to any specific media when it is Scott Ritter's words and he was definitely sited as the source? If in doubt, google. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:33 AM Well said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:49 AM Penalty, Penalty. 10 Yards. No cut and paste here. Especially from someone that works for Al Jazeera. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5FCF4A-FBF6-443A-93A9-5E37C43FDE0B.htm Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran By Scott Ritter Tuesday 05 April 2005, 11:44 Makka Time, 8:44 GMT Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 11 Jan 06 - 01:06 AM Nope. Just the one source. I know this because only one source showed up in the Google search (using the first sentance of Ritter's speech as the search parameters), and because you included one of Bob Geiger's editorial comments inside the body of the Ritter text. Here it is, bolded... "Our troops took an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution and yet they went to war in violation of that Constitution. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about as un-American a war as one can possibly imagine and we must register that fact when we talk about why we're there and where we're going. Thank you very much. The other part I want to make sure you see, is this excerpt from an impassioned Ritter at about the one-hour point in the debate, when he seemed backed into the corner of "defending" Saddam Hussein. Watch how he punches his way out of that corner: I'm not here to defend Saddam Hussein or his regime. I'm not. I'm here to defend the United States of America and our way of life and I'm here to tell you right now that if you support this war, if you support this occupation, you support a process that represents the erosion of what it means to be an American." However, Geiger does provide an mp3 of the audio for the debate from which Ritter's comments were taken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 06 - 01:12 AM If CNN or Fox are sometimes capable of speaking a truth, I'm sure Al-Jazeera is capable of it too... A scoundrel is always happy to quote a truth IF it causes discomfort to his opponent, who may also be a scoundrel. Even Hitler told the truth whenever the truth was of momentary assistance to his cause...he lied when it wasn't. (and he mostly did lie...or misrepresent or dramatize way out of context) What I'm saying is: you cannot automatically discredit a statement just because it emanates from someone you usually disagree with. That's a mistake people are constantly making on this forum and elsewhere. They grow to hate the messenger too much to give even a moment's honest thought to the message. They are incapable of even-handedness. That's just lazy thinking, if you could call it thinking at all. It's a knee-jerk response. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 06 - 01:19 AM You know, to tell you the truth, I don't care who uttered those words. Does it really matter anymore than which media presented them? I just want to know what you think of the prose, as Amos put it. Are the words true or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 11 Jan 06 - 01:24 AM Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar. Qatar is an ally of the West, the United States in particular. I can't imagine why you would consider it to be disreputable, Guest,Woody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 11 Jan 06 - 01:25 AM So little Hawk watches and believes Al Jazzera? Very interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 11 Jan 06 - 01:27 AM Remember, Al Jazeera had a contingent at the Republican National Convention (but not the Democratic Convention). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 11 Jan 06 - 03:56 PM Is this the best you've got? It is sorely lacking content. Go ahead and defend Scott Ritter the sex offender. You want to argue about something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:06 PM I'm not defending Ritter. I'm defending Al Jazeera. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: TIA Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:35 PM The charges were dropped. And interestingly, predictions concerning the involvement of domestic espionage agents in the Ritter affair were made before the war, and long before the recent revelations that such espionage does, in fact, occur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: TIA Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:36 PM Charges dropped and all records sealed by the way. To protect who....? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:47 PM Probably his off-the-wall accusers, I expect... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 06 - 05:10 PM Do you understand plain English at all, Woody? Read what I said again. The last time I watched any regular TV was in the 80's. I'm not interested in TV or interested much in Al-Jazeera either. I was stating a principle that is required if one is to comprehend any information in a balanced way. That principle is to put your automatic hatred of someone aside for just a few moments, so you can figure out if what they're saying has some validity this time. You ought to try it. I can't even remember if I've ever seen anything from Al-Jazeera, but I hear their name now and then...usually from someone like you who hates them. You should get them to pay you for all the free publicity you're giving them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 06 - 05:27 PM Well, well, well... Scott is well known to the anti-war movement and, as a former weapons inspector in Iraq, probably has more knowledge about Iraq than all the Woody's in Mudville put together... Yeah, Scott was one of the sources that Judith Miller of the New York Times black-balled in the mad-dash to war... Then afterwards, the New York Time, just as the Wsahington Post had done, admitted that they hadn't been as dilligent as they could have been in providing more coverage of opionions other that the mad-dasher's... The Post stated that they had fallin' into a "culture" that prevented them from printing dissenting opinions... I wrote the Post after they had made their confession and asked them what changes were made to correct their "cultural" problem that might agin raise it's ugly head and allow them to just be a propaganda instument of an ideologue... I haven't recieved a response as yet... But Scott makesa very good point and it's one that I have just alluded to in the last paragraph and that is one on mind-set... He states that the folks who got us in Iraq-mire do not have the proper mindset to figure out how to get us out... Well, that's not word fior word but purdy danged close to what he is saying... Einstien said that "a problem can not be solved with the same consciousness that created it".... I think that is what Scott is saying here and it's a valid point... Now, the Woody's of Mudville will try to discredit Scott Ritter because, like I have said mover and over, they feel that if they admit one wrong decisssion by Bush the House of Cards will come crashing down... So they will call him names and make allegations... But that's what the Woody's of Mudvilkle do when they ***know*** they are on the wrong side of a debate... Call names... Real couagous of them... Hey, Scott Ritter, ain't like some GUEST who can hide in the bushes like the Woody'd in Mudville.... He is a 12 year Marine vet who has seen his share of war... He is a former weapons inspector and he has more balls than all the Woody's in Mudville put together... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 11 Jan 06 - 06:24 PM Woody - Scott Ritter spent 12 years in the Marines and is a former U.N. weapons inspector. Besides that, he states his opinions with clarity. You, on the other hand, are just plain annoying. Is it no wonder the Bush administration would seek to discredit him? As Tia stated, the charges against him were dropped. Is it no wonder that the records were sealed to protect...? Sound like another Karl Rove movie to me. ...and the media in the U.S.A. is still so tightly controlled that only Al Jazeera dares to print his words! He's right - The Bush administration is incapable of solving a problem that they themselves have created. Most of the world knew this and tried to warn them but their arrogance prevented them from hearing it and prevents them from hearing it today. I truly hope that someday these criminals will be brought to trial for treason. Since the death penalty is still alive and well in the U.S.A., can I look forward to multiple hangings? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Jan 06 - 07:41 PM
For another reson, a source citation allows people to go back and look up related information, or to investigate the reliability of the information. Our limit on non-music copy-paste posts is one screen of text - and I measure with my 30-inch widescreen monitor and this one still goes way over the limit. The thread originator appears to be a regular Mudcatter posting anonymously, or at least maybe it's somebody else posting on her computer. Whatever the case, one wonders what's the reason for the anonymity. Anyhow, the non-music copy-paste stuff is getting out of hand. Take a look at the FAQ and see what the policy is. It's really not all that draconian. If the text covers more than one screen, give us an excerpt or summary, plus a link. And whenever you post, at least part of the post should be in your own words. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:13 PM So Scott ritter was framed? These chat room stings go on every day everywhere. They have no idea who they have on line or who they have snared until they show up for a meeting. They can't direct a chat room sting ant any one person. they catch doctors, cops, clergy, teachers people you would never suspect and maybe a UN wepaons inpector on a rare occasion. But this innocent weapons inspector got caught twice and he confessed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/24/writ24.xml "...He was also cautioned by police after communicating with an undercover officer posing as a 14 year-old, reports said. Mr Ritter, the head of the UN monitoring team until 1998, confessed to the arrest but added: "I am bound not to discuss any aspect of this case..." Anybody that thinks he was targeted is paranoid. raq's intelligence services bought gold jewellery that they planned to give to the wife and daughter of Scott Ritter, a filmmaker and former weapons inspector, in a project to encourage him to work closely with Saddam Hussein's regime, according to documents The Sunday Telegraph has discovered. The documents, found in the bombed headquarters of Iraq's intelligence services in Baghdad, say the cost of the presents was approved at the highest level to try to develop "strong relations with them [Mr Ritter's family] that affect positively on our relations with him". The documents say the gifts should be offered via an intermediary, Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman and associate of Mr Ritter. The documents, which are signed by the then director-general of Iraqi intelligence, purport to reveal close links between Mr al-Khafaji and Iraqi intelligence, and suggest that the regime was making available substantial funds to offer him. Mr Ritter and Mr al-Khafaji said they received no gifts or money. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987658018.html "The papers referred to the "Scott Ritter Project" and were found in a file "Hosting in hotels 1997-2000", which held details of Iraqi intelligence guests. They were in the same folder as reports of a visit to Baghdad in 1998 by an envoy of Osama bin Laden disclosed in The Sunday Telegraph." Mr Ritter formed a partnership with Mr al-Khafaji to finance the documentary Shifting Sands, which, according to Mr Ritter, "proved" that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. "Shakir al-Khafaji's close ties to Iraqi Baathists and Michigan Democrats are a matter of public record. In late January the al Mada newspaper in Baghdad published his name on a list of 270 individuals, companies, churches and political parties that Iraqi Oil Ministry documents allege benefited from Saddam's largesse. "http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=218145&attrib_id=9059 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:31 PM The absence of anything, especially in an entire country, is not easy to prove. However the presence of something should be a little easier. So far, Woody, your results are pathetic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:37 PM Ron, Woody has presented FACTS. You may choose to argue with them, or with their meaning, but to declare it pathetic is a declaration that you have no such arguement. What I can see is an ABSENCE of any facts brought into the discussion by you- just attacks opn the people who mention anything you do not agree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:40 PM No, make that pathetic *plus*.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:43 PM Why is it that RD never answers any questions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:45 PM At the risk of prodding an extremely dead horse yet again, it is a reasonable conclusion that Woody seems to suspect the absence of WMD in Iraq has not been proven. He and others of the same persuasion, (including your good self, BB?) have done a pathetic job so far of locating these mythological threats. Oh no, now I've turned the old record player on again--I'm afraid nothing more intelligible will come out this time either. Why didn't I realize it was broken? When will they ever learn?..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:48 PM Sorry guys, I have to go practice the piano a bit and go to bed. Have fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Anonymous Outcast Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:49 PM Same reason you never do. He'd rather talk than listen. He's just like you, Woody. Opinionated. That's why you don't like him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:56 PM Dear Gawd; I didn't realize the Swift Boat dinosaurs were woodies... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 06 - 10:57 PM 'Cept Ron D has the story line correct.... Sleep tight, Ron... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 11 Jan 06 - 11:36 PM What is being questioned here, by me, is what creddibility does Scott Ritter have? After raising hell and saying nobody would listen to him about the dangers of the WMDs he knew were in Iraq, gets fired for raising hell, flip flops and calls those who believed they were there were liars, gets busted in a sex sting twice, admits it, get paid by Iraq to make a documentary aginst the US and ends up working for Al Jazeera. Yeah. Scott Ritter and Tweety Bird have an equal amount of credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:55 AM So what is the point about Al Jazeera being present at the Republican convention? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 06 - 12:44 PM Ummmm...it proves that they are masochists? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Jan 06 - 04:07 PM Ron and Bobert, In the ABSENCE of any facts being presented by you to support your viewpoint/opinions, I will have to assume that there are none. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 12 Jan 06 - 04:13 PM So what is the point about Al Jazeera being present at the Republican convention? They are friendly with the Republican party in the US. That's why they were allowed to be there. The Democrats didn't allow them to be at their convention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Bobert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:14 PM How does one prove a negative??? Like, if Bush's boys knock down my door and say "Prove you don't have this or that", exactly how is that done??? This ain't got one thing to do withj WMD's 'er pretzels... You all want something proved that philospically and logically cannot be proven... Provin you don't have something is ***impossible***... Where's BillD... Maybe ha can explain it better but it is impossible yet you expwect me to do it???? Come on, lets get half friggin' real here... Hey, I ain't Oral Roberts, gol danged it.... Geeze.... Okay, lets play it the other way around... Can any of you all prove that Iraq had WMDs at the time that Bush oreder the invasion??? No, didn't hink so... This is the stupidist line of arguing that I've seen in a while round here... Prove it... No, you prove it... Hey, given what the US has found (or not) since the invasion it's looking like Scott Ritter and those of use who have opposed the invasion, have to be way ahead on points in the "prove-it,no-you prove-it" arguemnt... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:55 PM Ahem: FrontPageMagazine.com | July 30, 2004 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14452 "Despite Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry's assertion that as President, he would "use every available resource to destroy terrorists and deny them sanctuary…and new recruits," one of the invited guests at the now-concluded Democratic National Convention was an organization that has served as a terrorist recruitment tool, a communications conduit for al-Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular. This network has repeatedly described Palestinian suicide-bombers as "martyrs." High above the platform and the sea of "Kerry-Edwards" placards, covering the convention from a skybox towering over the Fleet Center floor was Arabic network al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite news agency whose allegedly "factual and accurate" news coverage has been blatantly anti-American. The Democrats were at least savvy enough to remove the network's banner, which had been strategically placed near the speakers' podium. But how could any candidate or political party "serious" about terrorism make no fuss about allowing such a news group inside its convention?... ...It would appear al-Jazeera not only shares the airwaves with al-Qaeda; it shares personnel, as well. In 2003, Taysir Allouni, a popular reporter for al-Jazeera, was arrested in Spain for having links to the al-Qaeda terrorist group. Allouni, who interviewed Osama bin Laden after 9/11, was accused of giving assistance to two al-Qaeda officials: Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, alias Abu Dahdah, who was arrested in November of 2001, and is believed to have been Spain's al-Qaeda commander; and Mohamed Bahiah, alias Abu Kalhed, who is believed to be an al-Qaeda militant fighting in Afghanistan.... ....Al-Jazeera has also continually and purposely disregarded the Geneva Convention. By airing video footage of captured American soldiers being interrogated and killed, they are in direct violation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention, which holds the protection of prisoners of war from public curiosity. The agency has flouted this directive, displaying every instance of this occurring, and obligingly passing along the captor's demands. The network also recycled Ba'athist propaganda during Operation Iraqi Freedom.." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:12 PM "Front Page Magazine"--now there's a good objective source---pray tell, Woody, who puts it out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Bobert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:14 PM Dom you actually believe any of the right winged blogsh*t you post here, Wood-ster??? Next thig you'll have Mohammed Kerry as the 20th terrorist... You are qickly becoming a comic jerk 'rounf here with yer absolute junk... (But, Bobert... Maybe Woody is a closet progressive that is just trying to make the righties look like lunnies...) Ahhhh, nvermind, Wood... Keep on truckin'... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:21 PM Ah... I stand corrected. The Democrats had Al Jazeera in attendance but they took down the banner. The Republicans had Al Jazeera in attendance, but they left the banner up. Kind of makes the people in that article you posted pretty big hypocrites, and clearly, the Republicans don't mind anyone knowing that they had Al Jazeera at their convention. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-08-18-al-jazeera-usat_x.htm?csp=36 "Al-Jazeera will have a sign hanging outside its skybox and above the delegates at the Republican National Convention, the Arab news network and an RNC spokesman said Wednesday." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:38 PM Hey guys, was AJ at the Democratic convention or not? Google it up and let me know if they were not. It shouldn't be that hard to proove. CC says they were kept out by the Dems. Would this information be acceptable if it were forged and on artificially aged documents with forged signatures and incorrect dates and presented buy CBS. Does the Bobster get his jollies watching civilians getting their heads chopped off by terrorists and AJ relaying their demands? Were they in direct violation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention or not? It is much easier for you liberals to shuck off the truth than to see if something is true or not by saying the source is invalid. However when you need to prove you point of view, any source or just your own word is proof enough. Remember your mantra "The base truth is always in favor of the liberals and never in favor of the conservatives". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Bobert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:39 PM Nice tyhing about being a GUEST, woody is that when you have so completelyade an ass of yerself and the folks that you defend, you get to reinvent yerself as the next GUEST... Kinda like a cat having nine lives except in yer little world, it's unlimited lives to screw up... Any parting word before you come back as yet another GUEST??? Time has come and the GUEST 'Grim Reeper" is outside yer door so make it quick.... We're gonna miss you, Woodie... Please ghive us a hint that it is you when you come back in yer next GUEWT-life... Not too obvious, you know like GUEST, Sawdust... Byedy bye... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:46 PM "Any source" is OK for liberals--that shows how carefully you read posts, Woody. My usual source is, as I put it, that WKLR (well-known leftist rag), the Wall St. Journal--as is well known to anybody who's been here over a week. And somehow you've neglected to tell us who puts out "Front Page Magazine". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:49 PM GUEST,Woody, did you miss my 12 Jan 06 - 10:21 PM post? Here's a recap in case you did... Al Jazeera was at the Democratic convention, but the Democrats took the Al Jazeera banner down. Al Jazeera was also in attendance at the Republican convention, but the Republicans left the Al Jazeera banner up. Are you saying that the Republicans are fostering terrorism by having Al Jazeera at their convention (with the banner up where everyone could see it)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: Bobert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:19 PM Like I tried to say, "Woody is history"... He has to know he that it's time to move along to a new GUEST handle... Sniff, I'm gonna miss the ol' 2X4.... But he has crewed up way too many arguments to be of an help to his hero, Bush.... Now he's hurtin' Bush... Like I said, "Byedy bye, Wood...." Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Woody Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:25 PM CC: Who posted this on 12 Jan 06 - 04:13 PM? "The Democrats didn't allow them to be at their convention." and this: "I'm defending Al Jazeera" "They are friendly with the Republican party in the US." Sounds like an endorsement of the Republican party. Bobster: In the words of the great Sam Walton: Are you like whales or whooping cranes or something that has the right to be protected? I am sorry that liberals allways feel like they are hurt because they are always loosing and no one will protect them from the mean old bad people. Hey man, the world is a mean old place and you got to learn to handle it the way it is and quit dreaming about how you are qoing to change it. Now this is cool: Al-Jazeera journalist awarded Peace Prize Al-Jazeera journalist Taysir Aluni, best known for interviewing Osama Bin Laden just days after the September 11 attacks, was awarded a peace prize by a Spanish peace group on 1 December 2003.. Spain Jails al-Jazeera Reporter Submitted by editor4 on September 27, 2005 - 1:11pm. Source: BBC A court in Madrid has jailed former al-Jazeera journalist Taysir Aluni for collaborating with a terrorist organisation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: CarolC Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:32 PM Sounds like an endorsement of the Republican party. It's neither an endorsement nor a criticism. I have no interest in party politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks From: GUEST,Welmore Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:40 PM Nor would anyone else, if they had any sense of what's really going on... |
