Keyword Hijacking: Pentagon and folk rocker RITTER.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Keyword Hijacking: Pentagon and folk rocker RITTER.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:02 pm

NPR and PBS are now trying to reach out and co-opt the young during the onset of Vietnam Syndrome II.

Here's a blatant keyword hijacking of "Ritter." As in, former UNSCOM weapons inspector and Bush administation critic Scott Ritter.
Scott is being displaced by a folkie named Josh now dialed in by Operation Mockingbird.

Ex-Marine Scott Ritter blasted the Bushies in the 1/24/07 edition of The Nation-
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012907B.shtml


The Washington Post's Pentagon correspondent is being teamed up with folk rocker Josh RITTER and the two are being showcased on NPR's Talk of the Nation radio show today. I just heard it. They also 'gigged' together on Bill Maher's show.

I listened to the WPost's Pentagon correspondent tell of bringing Josh RITTER down to the WPost to show him around. This is some high-level propaganda and social engineering. The two also appeared together on Bill Maher's HBO talk show.

Keyword hijacking is all over the place. Extremely common and probably found to be effective due to the brain's mutual exclusivity tendency to latch onto first impressions which has been confirmed by research during the 1990s. But the use of decoys and parallel narratives has been going on since atleast the 1950s when the Pentagon's code for a nuclear weapons accident, "Broken Arrow," became first a movie and then a TV series, a western of course.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5

COMING UP:
Jan. 29 · They are an unlikely pair, the tireless war reporter, and the young folk-rocker with the thoughtful, melancholy song about war. But, while writing his latest book, Thomas Ricks created a soundtrack to write by, including the music of Josh Ritter. Ricks joins us for a live performance by his friend, Josh Ritter.
--------------------------------

Arts & Culture: Author Thomas Ricks and Singer Josh Ritter
Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks discusses his book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, and he is joined by singer-songwriter Josh Ritter who performs "Girl in the War."

----------------------------------
("Author?" Yeah, right. Ricks is an Operation Mockingbird Pentagon rep just like Bob Woodward. Remember, the cover story is 'mistake,' not 'war crime.'
-HMW)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/07/06/LI2006070600612.html
Military Beat: Thomas E. Ricks
About Thomas E. Ricks
Thomas Ricks has covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post since 2000. Until the end of 1999 he had the same beat at the Wall Street Journal, where he was a reporter for 17 years.

He has reported on U.S. military activities in Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq. He was part of a Wall Street Journal team that won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2000 for a series of articles on how the U.S. military might change to meet the new demands of the 21st century. Ricks also was part of a Washington Post team that won the 2002 Pulitzer prize for reporting about the beginning of the U.S. counteroffensive against terrorism.

His book, FIASCO: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, was published by Penguin Press in July 2006.

Born in Massachusetts in 1955, he grew up in New York and Afghanistan and graduated from Yale in 1977.

* Fiasco Excerpts: In Iraq, Military Forgot the Lessons of Vietnam.

* One Unit's Aggressive Approach to Fighting the Insurgency.

A collection of his Washington Post reporting is below:

Thomas E. Ricks
Contact Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20071
pentagon@washpost.com


Discussion
FIASCO Washington Post staff writer Thomas E. Ricks was online on Monday, July 24 to discuss his new book and to answer reader questions.
General Affirms Anbar Analysis
The U.S. commander in western Iraq said he agrees with the findings of a pessimistic classified report recently filed by his top intelligence officer but also insisted that "tremendous progress" is being made in that part of the country.


(Now what does Scott Ritter have to say that makes Josh Ritter's folk rock so much more interesting to the WPost and NPR?)

from the 1/24/07 The Nation link above--
Stop the Iran War Before It Starts
By Scott Ritter
The Nation

Wednesday 24 January 2007

In April 2001 I was invited to Washington, DC, by a group of Republican Congressmen collectively known as the Theme Team. The subject was Iraq. It seems that the Theme Team, responsible for monitoring the ideological pulse of America, was somewhat perturbed that a self-described Republican and former Marine officer, not to mention a former UN weapons inspector, was trash-talking America's Iraq policy. While this sort of action might have been acceptable during the tenure of a Democratic President like Bill Clinton, it was not part of the grand design when it came to the presidency of George W. Bush.

The conference room was packed with more than seventy Representatives and their staffs. I provided an opening in which I stressed that the case being made against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, centered as it was on the issue of WMD, did not hold water. I chastised the Republican lawmakers with a warning: If they continued to support the policy of confronting Saddam's Iraq over a trumped-up charge, they would not only get America involved in a war it could not win but would end up destroying the credibility of the Republican Party, and turn control of the Congress, and eventually the Presidency, to the Democrats. There were questions asked, and answers given, and in the end most thanked me for what they called an "illuminating" meeting.

Then they proceeded to do nothing.
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:05 pm

Or maybe Ritter is just a boytoy being brought in to be introduced to the ~ahem~ big boys. (Big cheesy grin here)
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby robert d reed » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:40 pm

Yeah, I remember that deep-cover plant, John Ritter, from the 1970s...cleverly seeded in to sideswipe Scott Ritter's act, 30+ years prior to Maj. Ritter's emergence as a dissident against the Iraq war.

In other words, HMW, get a grip...if the only key search term someone knows is "ritter", obviously they're going to summon all sorts of people with the name "ritter", besides Maj. Scott Ritter, USMC ret.

To mention only one factor undermining your "thesis."

Honestly, HMW, it's tiresome.

Take it from someone who shares not merely a surname, but a first and last name, with:

a "household name" Hollywood television star best known for his lead role as Michael Brady in the 1970s sitcom "The Brady Bunch", also well-known as a closeted gay man deceased of AIDS; a former Houston Rockets NBA basketball star; at least three musicians, including a saxophone player who has toured with Bruce Hornsby, and the bass player/lead groove-writer for the Washington D.C. go-go band Trouble Funk; and the founder of a large well-known book publishing house. Among other luminaries destined to compete with me for fame/notoriety now and forever more.

Despite all that, I manage.

Now, what kind of world would it be for me if I took your jabberwocky seriously?

Really- "keyboard hijacking", my ass.
Last edited by robert d reed on Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
formerly robertdreed...
robert d reed
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby anonymoose » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:05 pm

Ritter

Ritter

Ritter

Ritter

Ritter

Ritter

HMW I admire your persistence but your examples are not getting any less flimsy.
anonymoose
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:26 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

CONTEXT.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:18 am

robert d reed wrote:Yeah, I remember that deep-cover plant, John Ritter, from the 1970s...cleverly seeded in to sideswipe Scott Ritter's act, 30+ years prior to Maj. Ritter's emergence as a dissident against the Iraq war.


That stupid joke is in no way relevent to TODAY. I'm talking about TODAY.
What the hell are you talking about? Babbling detracts from my logic? Uh, no.

In other words, HMW, get a grip...if the only key search term someone knows is "ritter", obviously they're going to summon all sorts of people with the name "ritter", besides Maj. Scott Ritter, USMC ret.

To mention only one factor undermining your "thesis."


Oh, really?
PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT - IRAQ WAR - IRAN - RITTER.

Tell me another "Ritter" related to the biggest topic in America today and the keywords above. I don't believe it isn't obvious to you and many others. I really don't.

The Washington Post's Pentagon correspondent is hanging around with a folk rocker named 'Ritter' and linking music to his war reporting on Iraq.

This seems normal to you? Scott Ritter doesn't come to mind? The ex-Marine and UNSCOM inspector who was just making co-appearances with famous journalist Seymour Hersh to dump the Pentagon's and neocon's dirty laundry regarding Iraq and Iran?

This to you is RANDOM?

Honestly, HMW, it's tiresome.


What's tiresome is you sneering at me with no rational rebuttal.

You did the same thing when I outed Robin Moore as a CIA shill author and you huffed "don't you bother to research?" When I gave HUGE examples of his CIA links on 12/8/06
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?p=94458&highlight=robin+moore#94458
you disappeared from the thread permanently and when I reminded you of the thread you snarled "feck off"
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?p=96935&highlight=robin+moore#96935
12/29/06
Feck off, man. I've been busy.

Looks like you've been busy too- busy confirming my diagnosis of your unhealthy paranoid tendencies.

I'll get around to the Moore material when I'm good and ready. Which will be some time in the next week, notwithstanding your baiting.



And then you started your own Robin Moore thread many weeks later insinuating what I had documented right in your face, that Moore is CIA.
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=10365&highlight=
What the hell was that? Covering your intellectual ass? Or did I spur you to take another look at Moore? Hey, this wouldn't be any big deal if you weren't so relentlessly insulting and dismissive. So when I'm right I expect the courtesy of saying so.

You are inconsistent and frankly, rude, RDR.
Take it from someone who shares not merely a surname, but a first and last name, with:

a "household name" Hollywood television star best known for his lead role as Michael Brady in the 1970s sitcom "The Brady Bunch", also well-known as a closeted gay man deceased of AIDS; a former Houston Rockets NBA basketball star; at least three musicians, including a saxophone player who has toured with Bruce Hornsby, and the bass player/lead groove-writer for the Washington D.C. go-go band Trouble Funk; and the founder of a large well-known book publishing house. Among other luminaries destined to compete with me for fame/notoriety now and forever more.

Despite all that, I manage.


Seems you are more concerned with the name game you're burdened with than the ORIGINAL POST'S DATA.

There's a bloody illegal war on. Have you noticed? SCOTT RITTER HAS. He's been working hard to out the murderous fascists in the White House and the Pentagon accomplices who don't have the guts to put the brakes on a runaway illegal war chewing up our troops in a meat grinder.

Or are you still thinking about the Brady Bunch?

Now, what kind of world would it be for me if I took your jabberwocky seriously?
Really- "keyboard hijacking", my ass.


"My ass." Oh, well then. Ya made your case. lol.
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

context.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:24 am

anonymoose wrote:HMW I admire your persistence but your examples are not getting any less flimsy.


No, yours are flimsy. Context matters.
Pentagon correspondent - Ritter.

Think. Words are not random and of equal weight. Context matters.

Hey, did you know there's a war on and Scott Ritter has been reaming this administration over bogus WMD claims for a few years now?

Really, anonymoose, I'm not kidding. You should look into it.
And, gosh, I'm not the only one who knows this. No kidding.

Try a search engine. Have you use one of those before? Oh, of course you have. You just did to bring up utterly irrelevent 'Ritters' with nothing to do with the Iraq War and the Washington Post's Pentagon correspondent.

So you can see that I'm right for yourself. But your going to have to....look.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby philipacentaur » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:47 am

I'm hesitant to draw your ire, Hugh, but I would sincerely love to see you do an analysis of the 1987 film "Real Mean" starring (gulp) -- John Ritter and James Belushi. I'm not trying to derail your discussion, but rather than make another thread, I thought it would be harmless to mention here.
Plot Outline: A womanizing CIA agent and an insecure insurance agent are paired together to make sure a deal goes through with aliens for the future of mankind.

Jim Belushi plays a super-competent secret agent on the trail of Russian thugs. John Ritter plays a milquetoast dad who gets mixed up in the caper. The story follows their adventures over the course of a week, in which Ritter develops some guts and Belushi gets in touch with his sensitive side.

It's relatively obscure, so I was wondering whether you were familiar with it or not.
philipacentaur
 
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Gone to Maser
Blog: View Blog (0)

Go North, young man.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:13 am

philipacentaur wrote:
Jim Belushi plays a super-competent secret agent on the trail of Russian thugs. John Ritter plays a milquetoast dad who gets mixed up in the caper. The story follows their adventures over the course of a week, in which Ritter develops some guts and Belushi gets in touch with his sensitive side.

It's relatively obscure, so I was wondering whether you were familiar with it or not.[/quote]

What an odd couple. Thanks for the weird Reagan era psy-ops movie listing.
(No wrath to be incurred from me. RDR has been making superficial ad hominum jabs at me for months.)

Jim Belushi has been getting lots of work since his brother died. He was a comic sidekick figure in Oliver Stone's 1986 didactic but serious 'El Salvador.'
http://ia.ec.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/31/31/06m.jpg
And he's been playing shlubs ever since though somewhat rehabilitated into a blue-collar family guy.

I'm reminded of Chevy Chase and Gregory Hines being funny weapons merchants to Central America in the 1983 movie 'Deal of the Century.' Got to make spooks and war profiteers likeable to the kids.

Image

And that's why the Washington Post's Pentagon correspondent is suddenly gigging with a folk rocker named Ritter. Am I really the only one thinks this is psy-ops? Oh come on, people. There really is a lost war being gingerly managed on the homefront, y'know.

So if people get hip to the narcoterrorism of Col. Oliver North during IranContra, then we can see Thornton Wilder's 1973 book called 'Theophilus North' suddenly revived as a 1988 movie called 'Mr. North.'
Keyword hijacking rides again.

Image
Taglines for
Mr. North (1988)

Meet a hero with powerful connections.

Miracles. Magic. Mayhem.


"Mayhem." Perfect.

I remember 'Mr. North' coming out after following the IranContra hearings and thinking "What an odd coincidence." Robert Parry of ConsortiumNews.org was with Newsweek back then and watched the mainstream press not cover the trials. He had to send a secret messenger to get the documents released for the press to use since this was frowned upon by editors, one of whom told him that there were some things it was better for the American people not to know.

As Steely Dan once sang, "Everyone's gone to the movies, now we're alone atlast."
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby judasdisney » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:34 am

Hugh is right.

What's happening here is noteworthy because of the following information:

The Washington Post's Pentagon correspondent is being teamed up with folk rocker Josh RITTER and the two are being showcased on NPR's Talk of the Nation radio show today. I just heard it. They also 'gigged' together on Bill Maher's show.


The target in question, Scott Ritter, is this week embarking upon a media blitz to counter the upcoming Iran Bombing.

The target in question, Scott Ritter, is releasing a new book in April about strategy for the so-called "Anti-War Movement" on how to effectively challenge the Neocons.

Folkie-rocker "RITTER" is a hack musician with no particularly sterling hit-singles, unique charisma, or supermodel looks to account for his sudden round of mainstream media interest/promotion.

I can name a dozen "hotter" acts, from folkies to others, who are more honestly poised for media interest/promotion.

Although Hugh can defend himself ably, and I don't always agree with Hugh, particularly on the topic of the certainty of an Iran Bombing, I see that Hugh's point has been missed in this case.

John Ritter, et al, are not the recipient of a sudden round of media interest that coincides with the media exclusion of a prominent Bush Administration critic who has the credentials and intelligence to put a serious dent in the upcoming bombing of Iran.

The reality of Keyword Hijacking is by nature ambiguous and this fact serves its deniability. "Coincidence Theory" is easily employed by most citizens to explain such phenomena, by citizens without any awareness of the history of Operation Mockingbird.

I have already pointed out elsewhere on the board the classic example of Pinochet's Pan-American "Operation Condor" -- a CIA-supported extermination of "Leftists" -- with the release of the novel "Six Days of the Condor" and its subsequent film adaptation "Three Days Of The Condor" in which an arbitrary codename ("Condor") is the name of the protagonist, a CIA hero. There can be no other possible explanation for the simultaneous use of this unique keyword than (a) conspiracy or (b) coincidence.

To answer such a mystery, we need only ask: Who benefits?

"Cui Bono," the Latin phrase for this question, indicates that the question is age-old.

And we need to ask that question in the case of the "Two Ritters."

And there is an answer.
judasdisney
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

tiresome

Postby robert d reed » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:39 am

have already pointed out elsewhere on the board the classic example of Pinochet's Pan-American "Operation Condor" -- a CIA-supported extermination of "Leftists" -- with the release of the novel "Six Days of the Condor" and its subsequent film adaptation "Three Days Of The Condor" in which an arbitrary codename ("Condor") is the name of the protagonist, a CIA hero. There can be no other possible explanation for the simultaneous use of this unique keyword than (a) conspiracy or (b) coincidence.


Boy, were you ever not out of diapers in 1975. If that.

There was no public knowledge of an "Operation Condor" to confuse with the title of the movie, in the first place. (!!!)

It isn't as if Banzer, Viola, Contreras, Pinochet, Atlee Phillips, Walters, etc. put out a press release saying "announcing Operation Condor, a program of targeted assassination so odious that we've contracted with James Grady and Sydney Pollack to entitle a book and novel with the word "Condor" so that if you overhear some reference to the Operation and look up the search term "Condor" without also using the word "Operation" on the non-existent Internet, you'll have your intentions frustrated by our diabolical plot...wait, it gets worse...not only that, we've invented this bird..."

I could go on- Condor wasn't Pinochet's brainchild, there have been previous military and/or intelligence operations named "Condor" going back to at least the Second World War, and probably the previous century, etc.

But (turning to the lurkers)-

what's the use?

I'll leave this thread to the tail-chasers, once again.
Last edited by robert d reed on Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
formerly robertdreed...
robert d reed
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:19 am

I can't even be bothered this time. I mean, the reasons Hugh's idea of "Keyword Hijacking" is extremely flawed (to put it politely) don't change one iota just because he gets a new 'example.' I've said it all before and been misunderstood/ignored so I'll leave it for now.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:20 am

Well, if this really is keyword hijacking, it ain't very effective. It strikes me as rather pathetically desperate in fact. Ritter's word will get around just like it has in the past - and maybe more so now as everyone is on edge looking for clues to an Iran attack. Ritter's is just one voice of many on this front. Not sure we should be sitting back looking for clues anyway. We should be out bombarding our representatives with handwritten letters and phone calls and taking to the streets. I imagine the military corporate complex would be more interested in deflecting attention from voices calling for direct action. Is Ritter doing that, or is he simply on the dire warning bandwagon with many others, actually helping with the propaganda meant for the attention of Iran? Aiding this game of high stakes double bluff.

Never heard of Josh Ritter before. Thanks Hugh. Using Scott Ritter to direct attention to Josh. He better be good.

(Though I agree that the old Mockingbird trick is a continuing affront to civil society and detrimental to an informed public) perhaps worse than a semi-effective and/or dubious keyword hijacking - and more effective in spreading ignorance & disarming public action while militarizing the public psyche - is the media conglomerate's Cult of Bad, Incurious, Hackneyed, Deluded, Lemminglike, Myopic, Obsequious, Careerist Reporting. And commercial advertising.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Heavy sigh

Postby professorpan » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:20 am

Hugh, my man, this is one of the goofiest examples ever. I'm sure you'll excoriate me for saying "goofy" but I cannot think of a more appropriate word. I'm not even going to point out the absurdity of this one, or the gigantic logical holes -- if they're not self-evident to anyone reading this thread, I give up.

And John Ritter was in Three's Company, not the Brady Bunch.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:54 am

OK, just read the Ritter piece at Truthout. He does call for some pragmatic action at the congressional level, but his prescriptions place too much reliance on the electoral system as-it-is; partisan politics as we know it, as a stick; and he even advocates some vague democrat-led "iraq plan" rather than immediate troop withdrawal, base-dismantling, war crime and corruption investigations, reparations to Iraq, and cutting off the money to the Pentagon.

Then he proposes congressional hearings to thrash out the truth behind any threat Iran may pose, which is fine for what it's worth:

I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.


Though,

If a real case, based on facts as they pertain to the genuine national security interests of the United States, can be made for a confrontation with Iran that leads to military conflict, so be it. America should never shy away from defending that which legitimately needs defending. The sacrifice expected of our military forces, while tragic, will be defensible.


Doh. If only it was that simple. And there are those "genuine national security interests" which I am still left to wonder if there is any consensus on. What legitimately needs defending? Scott, don't leave us hanging there. Cases can be made, man, interests can be found, or constructed. Cases can be made if there is the will or lack of will to block another's will.

Ritter then proposes an amendment "to prohibit offensive military operations, covert or overt, being commenced by the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran, without the expressed consent of the Congress of the United States," which is also fine for what it's worth:

However it is worded, the impact of such an amendment would be immediate and could forestall any military moves planned by the Bush Administration against Iran until Congress can fully familiarize itself with the true nature of any threat posed to the United States. President Bush seems to be hellbent on making war with Iran. The passage of time is, in effect, the enemy of his Administration's goals and objectives. By buying the time required to fully study the issues pertaining to Iran, and by forestalling the possibility of immediate pre-emptive action through budgetary restrictions, Congress may very well spare America, and the world, another tragedy like Iraq. If a Democrat-controlled Congress fails to take action, and America finds itself embroiled in yet another Middle East military misadventure, there will be a reckoning at the polls in 2008. It will not bode well for the Democrats currently in power, or those seeking power in the future.


Nope, there will be no reckoning. Reckoning with what?! The two dipshit parties we've got? One party (Dems) Ritter acknowledges was responsible for the misery in Iraq in the 1990s and the votes for war in 2003, but he brushes this off with an "It doesn't matter." The other party, the GOP, well, they're the GOP.

Reliance on and waiting for national elections is not, in my opinion, very much of a threat to the entrenched political system. You've got to like actually camp outside their offices and get in their face and simultaneously build alternative parties which threaten the nightmare status quo of a Hillary/Rudi or Obama/McCain 2008.

Methinks Ritter is not much worth hijacking to begin with. I mean, if you can convince him Iran is a threat, he'll be for it.

As Stan Goff recently wrote: "There is something about being polite when the blood is running down the gutters that should strike us all as obscene… sinful even."
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby robert d reed » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:48 pm

if you can convince him Iran is a threat, he'll be for it


If someone can convince me that Iran is a threat, I'll be for it, too.

That's what national defense is supposed to be all about- defense from actual, iminent threats. Clear and present dangers.

At this point, the US military has a budget comprising roughly 1/2 of all of the world's total military expenditures. In a ranking of national military budgets, the USA outspends the next six or seven nations combined.

It's going to take some doing to convince me that Iran is a threat to the USA.

Then there's North Korea.

Pardon me if I digress into what some might terms a Rigorous Intuition-esque Burroughsean parapolitical paranoia fantasy, but really- what's up with North Korea? I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong-Il was getting aid under the table from the Great Western Civ Permanent War Party to prop him up and abet his 1-man Rouge State arms race. Kim Jong-Il's regime may be a paltry replacement for the Soviet Union, but it's the closest thing to a pretext that the US Military-Industrial Complex has these days, in order to justify things like high-tech anti-ballistic missile projects and pre-emptive wars against states like Iran, whose only realistic hope of getting a nuclear bomb in the near term is to purchase one from North Korea. And they're said to be into everything from meth manufacturing to counterfeiting...

Kim Jong-Il as Doctor Evil. At a theatre near you.

Why not just buy the guy out- give him a billion or so and send him into a comfortable retirement in Dubai? If my station in life was playing King Of The Hill of that half-frozen rock pile, I'd settle for a good deal less than that.

I don't care how big Kim's mansion is in Pyongyang, it's gotta be drafty.

Who knows, maybe that's part of the long-term plan- after the smoke clears from the elite-engineered Apocalypse....
formerly robertdreed...
robert d reed
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Psyops and Meme Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests