Mudbone ...

[xpanda]

Have you received your copy of Hijacking Catastrophe yet?

If/when you do, have a look at the extended interviews especially the ones with Karen Kwiatkowski and Scott Ritter (especially that one.) Ritter is an American and former UN weapons inspector ... VERY informative interview.

 

[mudbone]

Hey X,

I sure did get it this weekend but haven't had a chance to view it yet, although am eagerly looking forward to it.

Thanks for the heads up on the interviews I'll be sure to take note.

 

[xpanda]

Chime in here after you watch it and let me know what you think.

 

[mudbone]

Xpanda,

Finally got a chance to view it this weekend (you gotta understand I'm a big Red Sox fan so there wasn't a lotta free time this week).

Great documentary, I've lent it out to a friend of mine with 2 or 3 others on the waiting list.

I know you didn't care for Fahrenheit 911 that much (from your previous posts). To me there were only two major differences:

1. Michael Moore made his movie to be funny and more acceptable to the public.

2. (and more importantly), Hijacking Catastrophe got the origins of the war against Iraq nailed down correctly as far as it being the agenda of the neocon chickenhawks since mid to late 1990s via Project for a New American Century,i.e., to project American Empire.

As far as similarities they actually shared some of the same video clips. They also made the same point on the manipulation of the fear factor although I thought Moore did that more effectively and humorously.

Btw, as a Marine who was on active duty in the Persian Gulf myself, I definitely listened with great attention to Scott Ritter, the WMD inspector and pretty much agreed with everything he said.

Hijacking Catastrophe did a better job (and quite humorously) of piercing the boy cheerleader, war evader than Moore's film did. The part showing him with the axe on his shoulder on Earth Day was funny as hell.

Thanks again for recommending that and here's to a better America and a better world come November 2nd. I plan on holding a Kerry victory party here in Atlanta and wanted you to know that even though our current Administration wanted to bar your country from any reconstruction contracts in Iraq despite your steadfast support in Afghanistan, you are invited. And just to be magnanimous in victory, I'm gonna invite Gameface & Patriot too.

 

[Shotgun]

Mud, if you invite Scott Ritter to your election-eve party, make sure you hide the children. It is never a good idea to put kids around pedophiles.

Here's my favorite Ritter comment:
''The prison in question was inspected by my team in January 1998,'' he told Time magazine, a propos one grisly institution. ''It appeared to be a prison for children -- toddlers up to pre-adolescents -- whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually, I'm not going to describe what I saw there, because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.''


Now did Scott get his pick of the litter at that prison or was it the $400,000 from Saddam that made this pedophile 'wage peace'?

 

[mudbone]

Shot,

I'm genuinely puzzled - how does his inspection of a children's prison make him a pedophile? and what $400,000 from Saddam?

 

[xpanda]

Thanks again for recommending that and here's to a better America and a better world come November 2nd. I plan on holding a Kerry victory party here in Atlanta and wanted you to know that even though our current Administration wanted to bar your country from any reconstruction contracts in Iraq despite your steadfast support in Afghanistan, you are invited. And just to be magnanimous in victory, I'm gonna invite Gameface & Patriot too.

Awwww ... thanks. :>emb<

 

[Shotgun]

Shot,

I'm genuinely puzzled - how does his inspection of a children's prison make him a pedophile? and what $400,000 from Saddam?

Mud, Ritter has been busted a few times for trying to pick up minors on the "internets"; he was also paid $400,000 from a Hussein middleman to make a movie regarding how much the sanctions are hurting Iraqis. Iraqi intelligence (according to documents found in Baghdad) gave this same middleman gold jewelry that was supposed to go to Ritter and his wife.

Something made Ritter change his tune...blackmail or bribery is my guess.

 

[xpanda]

Mud, Ritter has been busted a few times for trying to pick up minors on the "internets"; he was also paid $400,000 from a Hussein middleman to make a movie regarding how much the sanctions are hurting Iraqis. Iraqi intelligence (according to documents found in Baghdad) gave this same middleman gold jewelry that was supposed to go to Ritter and his wife.

Something made Ritter change his tune...blackmail or bribery is my guess.

Interesting. You have any links on this?

 

[Shotgun]

Here's the Telegraph story on it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixnewstop.html

That story was written before the Oil for Food scams came out so it doesn't mention where Shakir al-Khafaji got his money; this Seattle story has it however

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001905911_mcdermott17m.html

The story on his pedophilia habits is here:

http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=1090744&nav=6uyMDSWx

 

[xpanda]

Thanks.

Any dirt on Karen Kwiatkowski? She worked at the Pentagon with Feith and was another interviewee that contributed alot to the argument.

 

[Shotgun]

Thanks.

Any dirt on Karen Kwiatkowski? She worked at the Pentagon with Feith and was another interviewee that contributed alot to the argument.

Xpanda, I had never heard of her before your post. National Review wrote this about her:

http://nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200405180836.asp

I don't think she has any felony convictions though.

 

[mudbone]

shot,

Thanks for the reply back on Ritter. Obviously, his credibility is very damaged by the pedophile thing and I definitely won't be quoting him anymore.

 

[xpanda]

Shotgun: thanks for the link, but I'm afraid the National Review and Michael Rubin have about the least amount of credibility I could muster. They are part of the problem, not legitimate critics. Neocon apologists don't make good critics.

[sarcasm]I wonder if the Weekly Standard has anything to add to the discussion???[/sarcasm]

 

[Shotgun]

Shotgun: thanks for the link, but I'm afraid the National Review and Michael Rubin have about the least amount of credibility I could muster. They are part of the problem, not legitimate critics. Neocon apologists don't make good critics.

[sarcasm]I wonder if the Weekly Standard has anything to add to the discussion???[/sarcasm]

X, she attacks the Neocons...it is always good to see how the other side fires back. I don't know anything about her, and don't have much interest either...these neocon arguments to me are about as interesting as the Skull and Bones. Scott Ritter to me is the key scumbag; I'll take the opposite side of him every time and likely be right 75% of the time.

 

[xpanda]

X, she attacks the Neocons...it is always good to see how the other side fires back. I don't know anything about her, and don't have much interest either...these neocon arguments to me are about as interesting as the Skull and Bones. Scott Ritter to me is the key scumbag; I'll take the opposite side of him every time and likely be right 75% of the time.

Ritter is one of hundreds of outspoken critics of the Bush doctrine. He's not so much a neocon critic, though. Indirectly, yes, but not directly.

You should enlighten yourself a little on the neocons. If you're voting in Bush, you're voting in a rather large handful of these guys, almost all of whom dramatically influence foreign policy. They're kinda the reason you're in Iraq right now, if you hadn't noticed. It isn't wise to vote without doing some homework, even if you do come out agreeing with them.

Or, you could just wait until the historians write books about the Fourth Reich and review it then ...

 

[Shotgun]

Ritter is one of hundreds of outspoken critics of the Bush doctrine. He's not so much a neocon critic, though. Indirectly, yes, but not directly.

You should enlighten yourself a little on the neocons. If you're voting in Bush, you're voting in a rather large handful of these guys, almost all of whom dramatically influence foreign policy. They're kinda the reason you're in Iraq right now, if you hadn't noticed. It isn't wise to vote without doing some homework, even if you do come out agreeing with them.

Or, you could just wait until the historians write books about the Fourth Reich and review it then ...

Sorry X, I just don't buy into your paranoia about the Neo-cons...the more influence they have the better in my opinion (using my own definition of neo-conservative).