• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ritter Redux

Darth Rotor

Salted Sith Cynic
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
38,527
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/ritter

An interesting perspective, about a year later, and on the cusp of the election. Hersch interviews Scott Ritter, former Marine, Weapons Inspector
excerpt said:
October 26, 2005
MR. HERSH: But let me ask you this, as somebody who knows the military pretty well, what about the failure of the military to speak out?

MR. RITTER: Well, I'm not saying that they shouldn't speak out. I mean, it would be wonderful if soldiers came back from Iraq and said this is a war that's not only unwinnable, but this is a war that's morally unacceptable, and I can no longer participate in this conflict. But it's a very difficult thing to ask a soldier to do what the average American citizen won't.

I mean, why do we put the burden on the soldier to speak out instead of putting the burden on the American public to become more empowered, to become enraged about what's happening? We've got an election coming up in 2006. Rather than waiting for soldiers to resign, why don't we vote out of Congress everybody who voted in favor of this war?
================================
I mean, the sad fact is, one of the reasons why I was arguing against this war was not just that it was based on a lie, but it's a reflection of the reality that was recognized in 1991: If you remove Saddam and you don't have a clue what's going to replace Saddam, you're going to get chaos and anarchy. People continue to say they want the elegant solution in Iraq. I mean, that's the problem, everybody's like, well, we can't withdraw because we got to solve all the problems.

Ladies and gentlemen, there's not going to be an elegant solution in Iraq. There's no magic wand that can be waved to solve this problem. If we get out and we have a plan, you know, it's still going to cost 30,000 Iraqi lives. Let's understand that, there's going to be blood shed in Iraq. They're going to kill each other, and we're not going to stop it.

If we continue to stay the course, however, that 30,000 number may become 60,000 or 90,000. At the end of the day, we've created a nightmare scenario in Iraq, and the best we can do is mitigate failure. And that's what I'm talking, and, unfortunately, that's a politically unacceptable answer. People say, no, we have to win, we have to persevere, there has to be victory. There's not going to be victory.

MR. HERSH: What about the chances of expanding the war? What about the chances of expanding the war into Syria or even into Iran?

MR. RITTER: Well, the sad thing right now is that we have a Bush Administration that's populated by people who don't understand war. They've never been in the military, they've never served in combat, and they don't know what it means to have a son die or to have a friend die or have a brother die or have a comrade die.

And so that's why you have a Secretary of State like Condoleezza Rice who has the gall to stand before the American people and say that war is the only guarantor of peace and security. And now she testified before the US Congress today, and she said that not only is Iraq probably going to be another ten-year investment of time, blood, and national treasure for the American public, but that Syria and Iran may very well be the next targets of the Bush Administration. So this Administration has learned nothing, but what's worse is that Congress has learned nothing.

Food for thought.

DR
 
This is depressing. But what are the Dems going to do? I heard Howard Dean on the news yesterday. When asked what his party will do differently, he said, "We are going to act smarter and tougher." What the hell does that mean, from a military perspective?
 
This is depressing. But what are the Dems going to do? I heard Howard Dean on the news yesterday. When asked what his party will do differently, he said, "We are going to act smarter and tougher." What the hell does that mean, from a military perspective?

Translation: "We ain't got a clue."
 
Big shocker there. The Democrats' biggest--er, only--selling point for the past 30+ years has been "we're not Republicans."
And half the time it has been enough to win. ;)
 
Big shocker there. The Democrats' biggest--er, only--selling point for the past 30+ years has been "we're not Republicans."
I was going to dispute the 30 years statement. But the more I think about it, the more I think you're right. (What has been the Democratic Party's message in the last 30 years?)

I just think the "we're not Republicans" message has become even more pronounced in recent years. Hell, it was the basis of Kerry's whole campaign.
 
It just kills the republicans that Ritter has been 100% right all along, doesn't it?
 
It just kills the republicans that Ritter has been 100% right all along, doesn't it?
It may, but what good has him "being right" done? That his strident objections to the war -- all over TV and the press where I lived -- were ignored as "crying wolf" was not a problem he alone faced.

DR
 
The only thing America dislikes more than Democrats who hold no positions are Democrats who actually express what their positions are.
 
The only thing America dislikes more than Democrats who hold no positions are Democrats who actually express what their positions are.
How is that? Bill Clinton was pretty popular as a president, over all. Joe Lieberman seems to garner some popularity beyond CT (oh, wait, is he a Democrat anymore?) Ike Skelton is well respected, and from Missouri, D.

Not sure where you are going with this, though I note a touch of sarcasm. :)

DR
 
I think the most important message Dems can deliver now about their plans is that as long as Bush will be president for the next 2 years, they're going to get the Congress back up and running, providing oversight on policy and government operations. What's the point of saying here's our plan, when they have no opportunity to implement anything until they take over the White House. Here's my plan is going to be what the Dem candidate for president in '08 will definitely need to articulate.


Many voters such as myself would happily take a Democratic plan sight unseen considering how it's unimaginable how anyone could do any worse. Remember, Rummy threatened to fire anyone who worked on post-war planning in lead-up to Iraq. Kate O'Biere's husband had the job in the Pentagon of vetting anyone who would work in reconstructing Iraq for Republican true-blue credentials. These guys don't seem to want to do anything right. And you can't get fired for it.
 
This is depressing. But what are the Dems going to do? I heard Howard Dean on the news yesterday. When asked what his party will do differently, he said, "We are going to act smarter and tougher." What the hell does that mean, from a military perspective?


It means, "We are going to nuke those bastards and let God sort them out."

And if you believe that...
 
How is that? Bill Clinton was pretty popular as a president, over all.
Thanks to triangulation, which requires him not to hold Democratic positions, but rather to adopt Republican positions that won't unduly alienate his base.

Joe Lieberman seems to garner some popularity beyond CT (oh, wait, is he a Democrat anymore?)
If Joe Lieberman, who failed to win his own party's nomination is your idea of a "popular" Democrat, you've set the bar mighty low!

Ike Skelton is well respected, and from Missouri, D.
Does anybody outside the 4th district of Missouri even know Ike Skelton?

Not sure where you are going with this, though I note a touch of sarcasm. :)
My point is that people complaint that Democrats don't stand for anything. But those who expressly tow the "classic" party line of social progressivism, wealth redistribution and tax increases (which would not include any of the three Democrats you just mentioned), are even more reviled. So is it any wonder the Democrats have been so reluctant to put forward concrete proposals?
 
Re: Democrat positions.

Bill Clinton was pretty popular as a president, over all.

Good quip. Yet, what position that didn't involve sex do think Bill held dear?

Hmm. Let's ignore the "how does that help me, most, soonest" positions as well.
 
Does anybody outside the 4th district of Missouri even know Ike Skelton?
Most field grade officers in the Army (and in the other services I am guessing) know of him, thanks to his work on the Armed Services Committee. He has been very active. That might explain why B-2's ended up at Whiteman. (Air Force Base)

DR
 
Re: Democrat positions.
Good quip. Yet, what position that didn't involve sex do think Bill held dear?

Hmm. Let's ignore the "how does that help me, most, soonest" positions as well.
His opening position of "it's the economy, stupid" seemed to garner a lot of support, even thuogh that sound byte was a poor excuse for policy. Defense of marriage act was signed on his watch, circa 1996.

DR
 
Right. Democrats are most popular when acting (from a policy standpoint) like Republicans. (I.e., Clinton's support of welfare reform and DoMA, Skelton calling for military spending increases and Lieberman condemning Clinton scandals.)
 
Right. Democrats are most popular when acting (from a policy standpoint) like Republicans. (I.e., Clinton's support of welfare reform and DoMA, Skelton calling for military spending increases and Lieberman condemning Clinton scandals.)
Good politics, I guess, coopting the other guys good ideas and selling them as your own. No one said they play fair.

DR
 

Back
Top Bottom