Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Wackos can't wait

The deranged left on campus is staging an event tomorrow entitled "World Can't Wait: Drive out the Bush Regime." Michelle Malkin provides some details on this event.

The indispensable Discover the Networks site provides much more information on this group. "World Can't Wait" is actually a front group for none other than the Revolutionary Communist Party!

Founded in June 2005 by Charles Clark Kissinger, a longtime leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, World Can't Wait (WCW) is a direct action movement seeking to organize "people living in the United States to take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course led by the Bush administration." The organization asserts that removing President Bush from office "will be like removing a forty-pound tumor from your gut." WCW vows "to send Bush, Cheney and the rest of those fascists packing. ... After that, there are people in 'World Can't Wait' who are working for everything from reforming the Democratic party, to building a 3rd party, to revolution."

...

On September 20, 2006, WCW ran another ad in The New York Times, promoting its upcoming October 5 rally "to drive out the Bush regime." Billed as a set of concurrent "protests in cities all across the country," the ad exhorted people to skip work and school that day in order to participate in the demonstrations. The declared aim of the protests was to bring "to a halt" the U.S. government's alleged pursuit of "endless wars," its routine use of "torture," its indifference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina (in 2005), and its quest to transform the United States into a "theocracy."
Read it all. Once again, liberals are either supportive of or indifferent to communism. The eagerly ally with America's enemies.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is coming to speak on campus. Ritter took $400,000 from an agent of Saddam Hussein to finance a documentary. This money came from the Oil for Food Program, and hence from the oppression of the Iraqi people. Ritter has also had legal trouble for trying to meet with underage girls.

Ritter has been criticized for accepting $400,000 from Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji for the financing of his 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq[15]. According to a Washington Times article, Al-Khaffaji obtained the money from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program for goods imported into the country in violation of U.N. sanctions [16].

...

Ritter came under further criticism following a September 14, 2002, Time article where he refused to provide details regarding the conditions of the children's prison at the Iraqi General Security Services headquarters he inspected in January 1998. Ritter refused to provide details on the prison, containing "toddlers up to pre-adolescents," for fear that the information "...can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq." [18]
[edit]

Legal problems
In 2001, Ritter was arrested near Albany, NY. News reports say Ritter had brushes with police on two occasions (in April and June), both involving allegations of intent to meet underage girls after chatting on the Internet.[19] [20]

Prosecutors initially agreed to charge Ritter with a misdemeanor with a view to dropping the charges if no further allegations against him arose in the following six months, and asked for court records to be sealed. Ritter himself says all charges were dismissed. However, it was claimed by WTEN-TV citing unnamed sources, that Ritter underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.[21]

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

It appears obvious from the bogging posts regarding Scott Ritter that the WMU College Republicans are trying desperately to sling mud at someone who will no doubt offer a position on the Iraq war contrary to what they are willing to tolerate. The accusations levied against Mr. Ritter are of the most inconsequential nature. To address the idea that Mr. Ritter received money from an Iraqi-American sympathetic to the Hussein regime is a fair point. To suggest, however, that this somehow detracts from the substance of Mr. Ritter's film (about which the blog is noticeably silent) is an attempt to avoid a serious discussion of the points raised therein. Surly the Republican Party would be just as "guilty" of taking money from the likes of a Jack Abramoff. Furthermore, to suggest that the left is somehow monolithic and aligned with America's enemies is also emblematic of the right's equally ignorant stance and policies. It seems the WMU College Republicans cannot accept the fact that the days of the Regan administration are over and that we are no longer fighting a Cold War where communism is the enemy. Why are the College Republicans not up in arms about the amount of taxpayer money spent on the war in Iraq, about the expanse of government under George W. Bush, about the Republican congressional leadership keeping secret the activities of a GOP Congressman attempting to seduce young boys?! Where are the conservatives? Where is the party of morals? What sort of group can line up one by one and march blindly behind their leader? How is that party any different from the one that used to call Moscow home? We must never forget that Iraq was a war of choice. There were no WMD. There was no Iraq-Al Qaeda link. America is not any better off. This war has, in the words of the National Intelligence Estimate, become a "cause celebre" for Islamic Extremists. It can only be hoped that rational individuals will come and hear Scott Ritter and engage him in dialogue. Only by fostering such discussions can either side hope to improve the sorry state of American politics, for which both parties are equally at fault.

Eric Statler said...

First, only cowards post anonymously. Second, it's "Reagan" not Regan, and, yeah, we know he's not the president anymore. But you (whoever you are, we'll never know!) must admit that there are those on the left that want to DRASTICALLY change America. Most of them are communists, or at least hyper-socialists. The right might have its own element which wants to change America, but it's not taken seriously or legitimized by the media. Third, we have a lot of disagreements with G.W. Expanding Medicare like he did was quite unconservative and I at least didn't like his expansion of government in that regard. Fourth, it's good to hear you yearn for conservatives to have power - "Where are the conservatives?" Nice. Last, you say there were no WMD, no Al-Qauda link, and that America is not better off that Sadam Hussein is gone. I'm going to let Allan refute that; he's great at documenting and arguing that sort of thing. But let's just assume you're right about those things. SO WHAT?! Saying those things does not help our soldiers and marines ONE BIT. We're at war, whether you think it was the right thing to do or not. So now WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO WIN. WIN. WIN. Am I wrong about that?

Anonymous said...

Wacko's can't win? Does that include Tim Walberg?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Statler,

Please do forgive me for misspelling the name of the former President. I should care to point out, however, that this blog requires a Google Account to permit the posting of non-anonymous entries. Thus it was not out of cowardice that I did not list my name. Moreover, I assure you that once you are able to include your name without a Google Account, I will be most happy to do so. Until you address this issue and in order to give you the incentive to do so, I shall continue to refrain. You may have noticed that nowhere did I suggest the removal of Saddam Hussein (two d’s in Saddam by the way) was a bad thing. Why must everything be reduced, in your mind, to "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists"? What does it say about any government that they should even attempt the slightest move towards defining what is acceptable political discourse? I am interested in hearing from Allan regarding my other points and I am very much intrigued to know that he has information unknown to either our intelligence agencies or the 9-11 Commission. To address your last point sir, yes, you are correct that we now have a duty to salvage the situation in Iraq. We are morally responsible for the destruction of that country and have a duty to help rebuild it. Sadly this must be carried out with American tax dollars in some way or another. To help our service personnel sir, I would even go so far as to suggest that we do not have enough of them over there. Were we really serious about this war, we would have deployed the amounts necessary to secure victory. Therefore I ask you, how has this administration supported our brave countrymen and women save for telling them they are doing a good job? How can we consider this the defining ideological struggle of our time when clearly those in government are not devoting the necessary resources? Perhaps that not enough people are enlisting to serve should tell you that in our free society, where people are able to make that choice, not nearly enough think this war worth it as may be suggested elsewhere. If indeed this be the case, how say you we should be compelled to stay simply because our government started this fiasco? Why must we be compelled to carry on as we have without either adding or withdrawing our troops? Hiding behind those who wear the uniform is certainly as unacceptable as those who attempt to defame them. Therefore I must ask you, what are your suggestions beyond doing more of the same? With sincere respect,

Eric Statler said...

Well I'm going to have to disagree with you (you're suprised, I'm sure) on at least one point. Your statement, "Were we really serious about this war, we would have deployed the amounts necessary to secure victory" seems to imply that you think the Bush administration knowingly committed too few troops to Iraq. If I am mistaken, I apologize, but it is my view that Rumsfeld in particular from 2001 was trying to transform the military. The idea was that, with the use of technology, a smaller force would be actually more effective than a larger force. And why should we be compelled to stay in Iraq? Because so much is on the line. Both the terrorists and our government agree on this: if we win in Iraq, it is a strategic crushing defeat for the terrorists; if we lose in Iraq it is a strategic crushing blow for America. I stand with America. I want us to win. Now I am not a general, so I will not pretend like I know the best way to win. But what I think will end up happening, however, is that as more and more Iraqi provinces are handed over to the Iraqi police and military, our troop levels will decrease. Yet we will probably have 10,000 to 20,000 troops in Iraq for decades. And it's not that hard to get a Google Account.