It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scott Ritter: US to Attack Iran's Reactors in June

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Scott Ritter is a whore and a disgrace to the Marine Corps. Give Ritter a few bucks and he'll perform whatever song and dance you give him till the money runs out.




posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Maybe so, who knows, but that w____re had it right, didnt he?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Scott also likes to use his internet to hook up with underage girls; you do the Google on it: he's been charged.
His being on the take from Saddam is well documented, too, the least credible source comes from the right wing FR site:
www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Here's more info on Ritter, regarding him taking money from Hussein:



But by 1998, Iraqi obstruction of inspectors reached absurd levels. Mr. Ritter ripped the Clinton administration for its fear of confronting Saddam, whom he described as a "real and meaningful threat." He resigned his post in very public protest.

In congressional testimony that September, Mr. Ritter declared that Iraq was "winning its bid to retain its prohibited weapons," and cautioned about the future. "Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated," he testified, "Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months." The inspections ended in December. That month, Mr. Ritter amplified his earlier warnings in an article in The New Republic:

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed," he declared. "Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. These agents are stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."

Then, at precisely the time Saddam was to have reconstituted his arsenal according to Mr. Ritter's projection, the former inspector flipped. "Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability," Mr. Ritter declared. "Iraq represents a threat to no one."

What explains Scott Ritter's change of heart? Only he knows, of course. But as his views have changed, he's taken money from a source who has led many to question his objectivity.
Over the past two years, Mr. Ritter has taken $400,000 from Shakir Al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam, to produce a documentary called, "In Shifting Sands." Mr. Ritter concedes that Mr. Al-Khafaji is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." And that may be an understatement. Mr. Al-Khafaji runs propaganda sessions for Saddam. Euphemistically known as "expatriate conferences," the biannual gatherings decry the "terrorism and genocide" the U.S. commits against the Iraqi people through U.N. sanctions.

www.opinionjournal.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
27jd: Thanks for the link. So the writer contests that Ritter took 400,000 dollars to make a movie which has an anti-war theme to it and which the Iraqi donator did not contribute to ideologically. What's the problem? It could be seen in a negative light, but so could Bush's grandpa's activities with all that 'trading with the Nazis' hassle. If Ritter is on the take, then why aren't the neo-con spooks taking him down in the public eye? Why the innuendo and smear tactics if his sheets are not clean? I didn't check the Google links for the other stuff (scamming teenage girls?!) but my question still stands.

If you witnessed your government getting into a bad situation (which the Iraq war is, despite what the Bush-backers say), wouldn't you do whatever you could to stop it?

I have count US Marines among my friends and I respect those who defend America. Defending America has nothing to do with this war in Iraq. As a result, I think Ritter is giving speches and talking in public because he believes the truth of what he is saying. The Marine Corp creats warriors but it does not create free-thinkers, that's for sure. If a guy has the guts to stand up to the war machine and fight for peace then he has my respect. If somebody shows me where he's betraying America, then I'm all ears.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Regarding Scott Ritter, while I wold not summarily discount everything he says, I would tend to remember his past and take that into account when evaluating his comments. The same goes for Seymour Hersh. Winning a Pulitzer prize does not make one infallible or unbiased. And Hersh is certainly biased, IMO.

Attacking members of this community for their posting habits has the same value as name calling ( i.e., Neo-con shills ). And ATS moderators' duties go far beyond participating in threads. Those of you who haven't been here long may fail to realize that.

The only influence I have seen moderators exert on threads, other than posting as a regular member, have been to calm down a thread when things get out of hand. Smallpeeps says "Seekerof is an opinionated ATS moderator who goes beyond moderating discussions and will denigrate a topic or totally sit on a thread when it suits him."? Everyone here is opinionated, smallpeeps, yourself included. So what? Stop flaming and continue getting confirmation on the questions you posed in the original thread.

Just my .02



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
So the writer contests that Ritter took 400,000 dollars to make a movie which has an anti-war theme to it and which the Iraqi donator did not contribute to ideologically. What's the problem?


Well, it goes on to say:



Mr. Ritter claims Mr. Al-Khafaji had no editorial input on the film project, a claim he undermines by openly admitting that his benefactor is responsible for arranging Mr. Ritter's interviews with high-ranking Iraqi government officials, including chief propagandist, Tariq Aziz. Even before his project was completed, Mr. Ritter predicted at a press conference that "the U.S. will definitely not like this film." These contacts no doubt helped Mr. Ritter earlier this month, when he returned to Baghdad and became the first American to speak before the Iraqi National Assembly.


I don't know his personal motives, but if this is true, it seems like an ideological contribution, if indirectly.


dh

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I always used Scott Ritters views to demonstrate there was no WMDs in Iraq
As there weren't
I'd accept his predictions equally well



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
I always used Scott Ritters views to demonstrate there was no WMDs in Iraq
As there weren't
I'd accept his predictions equally well


You can't say always, because those weren't always his views. Read above article about his assertions during the Clinton administration, all the way up to the very end.


dh

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I accept that Ritter has changed his views from dire necessity
Haven't we all?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I could have sworn Ritter had explained his change of heart before. From what I understand Ritter was attempting to continue his work for the U.S. government and by continuing the party line that there were WMD in Iraq, he was hoping his job request would be granted. It didn't happen. So when he left he finally let out what he really knew. Which means that Ritter basically stated he knew he was telling a lie about the WMD when he said it before, but has since finally stopped siding himself with those lies.

As for his arrest. As it stands Ritter was never convicted of the allegations and the records of the case were sealed. Hard to really talk much about the case as a result. I don't know about Ritter's previous life history, but if it was a single event of this type and he was never brought to court over it before, or even convicted of it when he was, then there is nothing there to even argue about. The only thing you can get him on is his admitting he was lying along with the U.S. government about Iraq WMD. Which condemns the U.S. government along with him.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Frith]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
I could have sworn Ritter had explained his change of heart before. From what I understand Ritter was attempting to continue his work for the U.S. government and by continuing the party line that there were WMD in Iraq, he was hoping his job request would be granted.




But by 1998, Iraqi obstruction of inspectors reached absurd levels. Mr. Ritter ripped the Clinton administration for its fear of confronting Saddam, whom he described as a "real and meaningful threat." He resigned his post in very public protest.


There goes that explanation of his change of heart.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Maybe so, who knows, but that w____re had it right, didnt he?

Had it right about what? He never certified that Iraq didn't have WMD while in any position to make such a decision. He failed in that task, just like blix.


smallpeps
It could be seen in a negative light, but so could Bush's grandpa's activities with all that 'trading with the Nazis' hassle.

So holding stock in a company that had business dealings with teh nazis is evil, but accepting money from iraqi agents to produce propaganda films is aok?

Ritter has one claim to fame, so to speak. He was an UNSCOM top inspector. IN the leadup to the Iraq war, he was a vocal anti-war opponent, and stated that iraq had no wmd (depsite never saying this when he was charged with determining this). His anti-war statements on the existence of WMD have been vindicated, there were and are no WMD.

That is not enough to accept everything he states, especially since he couldnt' state that when he was an actual inspector. It calls into question his motives and character. Motives and character are important, at least inso far as 'uncritically accepting' what he says. He cites an anonymous top level source as having leacked the info to him. THis is unreasonable.

Based on that, there is no reason to beleive him here. If he is proven right, then perhaps, then, people can listen to him less ciritically.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
If I remember right, Ritter also listed some countries that he believed some of these wmd's were being shuttled off to during Clinton's reign. Maybe he knew that Iraq didn't have much more in the line of wmd's because he knew they were shipped off to other countries.

I also remember him saying they had a launch system and mini-rockets...all they needed was the plutonium or whatever, then they could just pull up to any coastline, and nuke.....

I don't know, the guy is a puzzle, who knows......
but, according to him, they had found the wmd's, his higher ups in our government wouldn't force the issue and told him to back off.....you can blame it on clinton if you want, but well, I think you wouldn't be looking at it deeply enough.
Yugoslavia, China was mentioned in that list....we bombed the heck out of the Chinese embassy in yugoslavia.....
Afghanistan was on that list......there gone.....
Iran, syria???
I thing we've been chasing the wmd's....all over the place!!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
You got that right smallpeeps. Seekerof is unusually not present when things go south of cheese for him.


Typcial talking out your butt rhetoric.

You obviously have no, nada, nil, clue to what you speak of there, sweatmonicaIdo. Your tactics and antics on this board and with me (via your u2u messages) are quite well known. Anytime you think I am backing down, you please provide the time and the place and we can see who backs down publically first, k? Bet.

smallpeeps:


Please friend. You swoop down with all righteousness and a montage of graphical medals pinned to your ATS chest and I have yet to see you contribute anything to the threads I frequent.

Your attempts to discredit me are null-in-void and only portray the weakness of your position. This was also indicated in the topic thread that you so linked to in your second posting to this topic. You must have an identity crisis or have low self-esteem....which is it? I have contributed to more than enough of this "Mr. Ritter said that and I swallow every word he says like water" topic thread. Obviously if you had any remote sense of objectiveness, you would have been inclined to research Mr. Ritter and find that the water he provides to drink is laced and is nothing but Al-Jazeera propaganda Koolaid. But thats cool....you can attack and spout as you wish, smallpeeps....there are some here that will provide the information for you, as they are so doing now.


Carry on.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Wow, touched a nerve there, didn't I, seekerof?


So you wanna hit me with your best shot in public? No problemo, we'll make it R.F.K. Stadium, close to where all your neo-con heroes reside. It's only 20 minutes from where I am, sound good? You can choose if you don't like my choice.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I love this place. Only here could an arguement grow out of someones second-hand interpretation of what Ritter said posted out on Rense.com.

I come here to learn, and expand my mind, not scroll through 12 posts to find a reply that is not a challenge, flame or outright jibberish.

Folks, it does not take Ritter to confirm we will attack Iran this year or very soon, and if it is this June, arrest his a** for treason and who ever it was that provided him the information.

Most of us on here know that it is a matter of time when, not if, it happens.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Most of us on here know that it is a matter of time when, not if, it happens.


That's what I said earlier. It's out of the question that the U.S. wouldn't invade Iran.

It's gonna suck when they do...



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Some people here at ATS are more interested in defending their entrenched ideas than actually gaining knowledge.

Did you people even read Ritter's books? Let's see: Military family, USMC, spends years in Mil-Intel, ballistic missile expert under Norman Schwartzkopf, UNSCOM inspector, -- Yeah, I think I'll listen when this guy talks.

His first book (Endgame) came out Nov 1st, 2002 and in it he made the case for a non-war solution which may or may not have worked, but one thing is sure: When we went into Iraq, we expected to find WMDs and prior to that it was Ritter who was saying we would not find them. This fact is not easily glossed over. The complete 180 on his part right around the time of his scandal told me to pay attention because this is where true conspiracies fall through the cracks; under the smear of sex-exposure.

I'm sorry, isn't this a conspiracy website? I mean, when somebody gets nailed due to their perversion, should that make your ears perk up? For all I know, Ritter is a sexual predator trying to feed his secret demons, but what has that got to do with his writings? This arrest (and non-conviction) came in June of 2001. Once you have been 'outed' (with regard to your particular perversion), don't you then start to live a more open life? Heck, if this is true then Ritter would have surely been a pervert ALL his life. Didn't you guys see American Beauty where the old coot doesn't know he's gay until the end? Life is like that for a lot of people, I think. I admit Ritter's taste for young teenage girls is odd, but to say that he does not understand the mid-east is to be blinded by the scandals. Logically, if Ritter wanted to have sex with teenage girls, it doesn't make him non-credible regarding the mid-east or its policies.

After 9/11, a lot of things changed on the field of geopolitik, and I'd say that a guy who spent his life in military analysis may have, on that fateful morning, FORSEEN the gulf war which would result, and therefore (having lost all cred due to his perversions) gone to a totally anti-war stance in order to prevent the larger mistakes America is now making. 80 Billion dollars for a war with no known end?

Ritter: [1] Was known as a hard-a** by the Iraqis while he was on the job (they hated him and accused him of spying). [2] Studied his craft (weapons concealment) well and was an expert. [3] Protested entirely when the UN was backing off Saddam. [4] After 9/11 (and exposure of his perversions in the same year), he wrote a book about Iraq (very insightful book) and proposed a non-war solution. I'd say he did his best to prevent our current SNAFU. Since then he wrote "Frontier Justice" which is the best undressing of the Bush mideast plan I have personally read.

If you think the Iraq war is a great idea and all's well in America, read these two books and check out this link: CIA: Iraq War Feeds Terrorism

Take the sex-blinders off, sheeple!






[edit on 22-2-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Sex-blinders? I think one member mentioned that, I don't think it has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is, Ritter's claim that we plan to attack Iran in June. Here's what Bush said today:



BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said Tuesday that it is "simply ridiculous" to assume that the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program after discussing the issue with European allies.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said.

The assurance to Iran's leaders was Bush's bluntest assessment yet. Last week, he used a series of pre-trip interviews with European journalists to minimize talk of any military attack by the United States.

Bush has walked a careful line between supporting an approach led by European nations to persuade Iran to scrap its uranium enrichment program in exchange for technological, financial and political support without talking about the U.S. reservations about that strategy.

www.cnn.com...


I don't see it happening in June. Hopefully, it doesn't have to happen at all.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join