Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Wednesday, February 08, 2006

An impossible thought

Let's hope and pray that former UN weapon's inspector Scott Ritter is wrong about these comments about war with Iran:

"First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran."

His prediction about the US intentionally torpedoing diplomacy has disturbing echoes with Iraq.

7 Comments:

Blogger James Waterton said...

Heh. Fitting, Addamo. I place Ritter and Zhirinovsky in the same idiotarian category.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:08:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

TB's "sandbagging" of Ritter hit home pretty soundly. You all 'cos he's pretty much all you got. The guy's making a fortune. From an entrepreneurial angle, I like his POV. Not bad for a washed up diplomat.
I'm not surprised you think Ritter won that debate you mention. Can I see a transcript of it?

Re debating Hitchens, I seem to remember most left leaning pundits thought Galloway bested Hitchens when they went head to head. Galloway certainly defeated the factual Hitchens if ascerbic put downs are the measure of debating success, but as far as getting a sound case across, Hitchens wiped the floor with Galloway IMO.

And - unrelated, but delicious nonetheless - Ritter would seem to have a predilection for cruising the internet for underage arse.

Friday, February 10, 2006 1:25:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Hehehehehehhehe wow...Ritter truly is your treasured boy, eh, Addamo?

"TB's quoted selected passages from Ritter’s first book but omitted the conclusions"

Right. Book's on order from Amazon. Cost me 75c! Hope to read it shortly and confirm/refute your assertions. I hope you're not spinning me some story about the contents of his book cos you're gambling I won't read it. That would be...disappointing.

Regarding your analysis of the Ritter-Hitchens debate; pardon me if I don't take your word concerning the outcome. I don't have time to read the transcript tonight seeing as I'm heading out in a few minutes. Although I did read an apt quote on a lefty blog that neatly sums up your position IMO:

"As you can tell, I’m too certain that one of these debaters is right and the other is wrong to be much of a judge."

Anyway, I did a brief search for opinions - seems the verdict is polarised. You guessed it; all the left-leaning blogs reckon Ritter won and all the right-leaning blogs think Hitch carried the day.

"Since when has making money offended you, of all people? "

It hasn't - as I think I made perfectly clear. I just think it's funny 'cos Ritter jars so with the leftist image of its ideal crusader.

On the subject of TB's misleading quotes - I'll reserve my judgement until I've read the book. However, it's indisputable that Ritter's being terribly clever after the fact - in 1999 he was harping on about Iraq's WMDs and post invasion with no WMDs uncovered, suddenly he's all "We all knew in 1995 there were no WMDs!" The guy's done some flipping amazing flipping, and no amount of your outraged bluster can obscure that fact. Still, as mentioned before, I reserve ultimate judgement until such time as I finish reading Endgame.

On the lighter side of things - it may well have been entrapment (or maybe not - who knows? Unsurprisingly enough, you detect a conspiracy), but that still begs the question why Ritter was going to meet underage girls he met on the internet - is this not a fact? Oh, and that link you provided which no doubt offers up some unimpeachable and damning evidence of Bush and Reagan's underage sex trysts doesn't seem to work.

Re Progressive Atheist - heh. The left's wet dream; Bush a closet homo. Hilarious what you guys will come out with.

Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:45:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

OOooooh!!!! Maybe shagging George Bush???? Wouldn't the very thought make us drool with lust at the scandal?

From the Wikipedia piece "Progressive Atheist" provided :

"Missing details in the Secret Service logs lead some to speculate that Gannon stayed overnight in the White House on several occasions. Most suggested poor record-keeping was more likely to blame, as Guckert wasn't shown checking in one day and leaving another; he was often shown checking in repeatedly while never having checked out (or the converse)."

Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:49:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Woah, "Progressive Atheist", we are a delicate snowflake, aren't we. However, I'm having trouble seeing how using the term "homo" is sexist. Anyway, I have a couple of gay friends who I have been known to call "fag", "poof", "queer" and even "homo" to their faces. And these are popular "insults" thrown about within the gay community. It's done in jest, not malice. Get over yourself, you dull PC drone.

"What is clear from the Gannon affair is that, given their condemnation of homosexuality, the Bush admin is hypocritical for allowing a known male prostitute to freely roam the corridors of the White House."

Bullshit! Where did Bush or a White House spokesperson suggest that gays should not be allowed to maintain a career as a journalist or enter the Whitehouse? I believe that GWB has stated that he's against same sex marriage and no doubt homosexuality isn't a lifestyle he approves of. Nowhere has he said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to exist or shouldn't be allowed to work or shouldn't be allowed in his presence or home. I'm sure there are several gay people working in the Bush administration. Where's the hypocrisy?

"Furthermore, you don't seem the least bit concerned about the lapse in security displayed by the Secret Service."

You're right - I don't give a shit. And that wasn't the point you or anyone else was making. It's laughable that you would try to get indignant about White House security! Pretty lame attempt at a dodge there.

Addamo - this is such a non-event, I don't know why you're bothering with it. How does one become a member of the Whitehouse press corps? Talon News wasn't a blog, by the way. And according to that wikipedia piece, there were also occasions when he signed out but did not sign in. How do you know that other visitors to the White House are not subject to the same inconsistencies?

Sunday, February 12, 2006 4:13:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

So what?

Essentially, your big scandal boils down to the existence of a hack journo in the press corps. Wow! Heads must roll over this!

Monday, February 13, 2006 2:50:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

"Because this is the job of the Secret Service, and they take that job very seriously."

Hang on a minute, can't you see how you're contradicting yourself there? So seriously as to make an exception? Also, like all organisations, I'm sure the Secret Service has weak points. They're probably not super on the ball about recording the comings and goings of journalists they regularly come into contact with. Why is it that Gannon sometimes signed out but was not registered as signing in? Surely this would point to sloppy bookkeeping rather than some deeper conspiracy.

Thus, the question remains - how do you know that other visitors to the WH aren't subject to the same inconsistencies? And therein lies the point - you don't know. You're just guessing.

You're right not to invest much in this Gannon issue. It's going absolutely nowhere. It's just a salacious-sounding issue that the rabid anti-Bush crowd likes to drop, partially explained, in the hope that fallacious conclusions will be drawn. Which is precisely what happened above.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:53:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home