| Author | Message | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:24 am Post subject: |
| CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Latest: Sept. 2-4, 2002. MoE ± 3.
"In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?" *
Israelis 47%
Palestinians 14%
Both 6%
Neither 19%
No Opinion 14% | |  | | Guest | | Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:40 am Post subject: |
| | *Mutt American wrote: | CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Latest: Sept. 2-4, 2002. MoE ± 3.
"In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?" *
Israelis 47%
Palestinians 14%
Both 6%
Neither 19%
No Opinion 14% |
In the privacy of their living room, not harried by tendentious, willy-nilly fool Jew questions -
"Do you support transfer of America's Jews back to Israel, or transfer of the Palestinians to Jordan?"
Transfer of Jews 89%
No Opinion 11% | | | | Guest | | Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:54 am Post subject: |
| "Are pogroms bad things?"
Yes 2.5%
No 0%
Depends 90%
"What time is it on?" 7.5% | | | | Guest | | Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 12:46 pm Post subject: |
| | I see you are quite good at making up figures. Mutt shows you real poll results, and in rebuttal you make up your own. Sure does shoot down any bit of credibility you had....not that you had any. | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2002 4:44 am Post subject: |
| FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Latest: Dec. 3-4, 2002. MoE ± 3.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Dick Cheney is doing as vice president?"
Approve 53%
Disapprove 23%
Don't Know 24%
%
%
%
12/3-4/02 53 23 24 | | | | Guest | | Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:58 am Post subject: Ritter's "In Shifting Sands" Film Debuts in New Yo |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 27, 2002
Arms Inspectors in Iraq, the Last Time Around
By DAVE KEHR
In Shifting Sands" is a surprisingly dry and dispassionate account of the United Nations weapons inspection team, often known as Unscom and its frustrated efforts to ferret out Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction."
The policy-wonk drabness is a surprise because the film was written and directed by Scott Ritter, a former Unscom inspector who publicly resigned in 1998, claiming that the United Nations Security Council was caving in to Iraq's demands that certain "sensitive sites" not be inspected.
Mr. Ritter is a larger-than-life figure (6 feet 4 inches) with an imperial manner and a rousing speaking persona. At the time of his resignation, he contended that Iraq remained a danger, insufficiently disarmed and ready to restart its nuclear and biological weapons programs as soon as the United Nations turned its back.
He has since reversed his position, as this film relentlessly demonstrates. Interviewing himself on camera, Mr. Ritter now says: "Iraq is a defanged tiger. There's much better things we could be doing with our money and our time besides pursuing a brutal dictator to the point of debasing our own moral and intellectual battles."
"In Shifting Sands," which opens today in Manhattan, exclusively reflects that point of view. Using what seems to be home video of the inspection team at work — and there is some very dramatic material here in the tense confrontations between inspectors and Iraqi guards — Mr. Ritter builds his case that every nook and cranny of the country has been checked.
In a twist reminiscent of Whittaker Chambers's pumpkin patch, the archive of Mr. Hussein's nuclear and biological weapons program is found stashed in a shed at a pig farm. Mr. Ritter says he believes that these documents prove his contention that Unscom found most everything worth finding: every project referred to in the archive has been accounted for by the inspectors and neutralized, he says.
A wealthy Iraqi-American businessman, Shakir al-Khafaji, contributed $400,000 toward the making of "In Shifting Sands." According to a recent article in The New York Times Magazine, Mr. Ritter has said that he thoroughly checked out Mr. al-Khafaji — "I called a reporter who has sources in the C.I.A." — and was confident he was not getting any quid pro quo from the Iraqi government. "Shakir said he didn't," the article quotes Mr. Ritter as saying.
Such trustfulness would be an admirable quality in many walks of life. But in a United Nations weapons inspector, it seems out of place.
IN SHIFTING SANDS
The Truth About Unscom and the Disarming of Iraq
Directed by Scott Ritter; written by Mr. Ritter, Scott Rosann and Alex Cohn; directors of photography, Dan Lehrecke, John Millieghta and Mark Niuewenhof; edited by Jed Factor; music by Eban Levy; produced by Mr. Cohn; released by M & L Banks. At the Quad Cinema, 34 West 13th Street, Greenwich Village. Running time: 91 minutes. This film is not rated.
WITH: Scott Rosann (Narrator), Mr. Ritter, Rolf Ekeus and Tariq Aziz. | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:27 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | A wealthy Iraqi-American businessman, Shakir al-Khafaji, contributed $400,000 toward the making of "In Shifting Sands." |
What was that garbage about AIPAC money...? | | | | Guest | | | | *Mutt American | | Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:08 pm Post subject: |
| Do you actually ever read what you link to? Do you think that by stringing together enough unproven accusations with weasel-wording somebody has actually supporting something? The following came from your linked article.
"...he affirmed that Bush did nothing..." Affirmed. NOT Confirmed.
"He was in a position to have direct knowledge..." NOT proved he had direct knowledge.
"His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere." NOT evidence. Just political disagreement.
"His military assignment brought him into contact with..." NOT his contact proved anything.
"...Newsweek reported: "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests..." NOT first-hand information proving anything.
"...citing "a high-ranking Pentagon official"...." NOT a quote from any named person.
"...have the same names as..." NOT have been proven to be the same people.
"...cited Air Force sources ..." NOT any named people.
"...indicating that..." NOT any clear proof of anything.
"...The Lieutenant Colonel may well know ..."
Nowhere in the article does the author actually prove anything. Nor does he actually disprove anything said by Pentagon or administration officials. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
