Riveting Ritter-Hitchens Debate Audio Now Posted

[understandinglife]

On December 22, I reported on the debate with Scott Ritter, former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and Iraq-war proponent Christopher Hitchens.

It's taken a while for the audio to become available but I'm delighted to tell you that sound of that excellent debate – in which I believe Ritter's superior knowledge and passion left Hitchens wholly out of his league – has been made available by the Tarrytown Music Hall, which hosted the event.

You can find that (large) MP3 file here. It's over one hour and 40 minutes and more suited for podcasting than a quick listen, but it's time well spent. (Though I should say that my notes from the event indicate that there's about a five to eight minute period lost in the audio -- where you hear a strange, five-second silence -- and they've omitted the question-answer session at the end, that also provided some fireworks. But the bulk of the contest is there.)

In the event you don't have time to listen to the entire thing, let me give you two highlights that I thought were important enough to transcribe. They provide incredibly compelling arguments from Ritter, who has both the professional background and encyclopedic knowledge necessary to speak with authority on what led to the Iraq invasion.

All links and more can be found here:
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/01/riveting-ritter-hitchens-debate-audio.html

Peace.

[0007]

1. I'll book mark it and come back to it tomorrow.

[understandinglife]

2. "I'm not here to defend Saddam Hussein or his regime. I'm not. I'm ...

... here to defend the United States of America and our way of life and I'm here to tell you right now that if you support this war, if you support this occupation, you support a process that represents the erosion of what it means to be an American.

You represent a process that legitimizes illegal wiretaps in the name of national security. You represent a process that allows the President of the United States and his administration to deliberately falsify information when presenting it to the Congress of the United States – and I need to remind you that when you lie to the Congress in the conduct of your official duty that, sir, is a felony that constitutes a "high crime." That is what we talk about when we speak of impeachment.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/01/riveting-ritter-hitchens-debate-audio.html

Indeed.


Peace.

[mike_c]

3. oh my, kicking and recommending-- here's another excerpt...

...from Ritter's opening remarks:

A war, again, that was about weapons of mass destruction. This is a fact that was put forward in the letter sent by John Negroponte, then the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to the Security Council saying that American troops have entered Iraq because Iraq has failed to comply with its obligation to disarm -- and that international law dictates that America takes the lead in responding to this crime.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, international law dictated no such thing.

International law dictated that the Security Council remained seized of the event, that the Security Council would once again have to pass a Chapter Seven resolution, which it did not. The United States invaded Iraq in violation of international law – but more importantly, in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, Article Six of which is quite clear: When the United States of America enters into a treaty or an international obligation, that's been ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate, that is the supreme law of the land.

Our troops took an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution and yet they went to war in violation of that Constitution. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about as un-American a war as one can possibly imagine and we must register that fact when we talk about why we're there and where we're going.

Wow.

[EFerrari]

4. Ooh, Mr. Entitled! He sounds like, well, like a citizen!

:)

K&R

:kick:

[FloridaPat]

5. Thanks.

[LSK]

6. nevermind