Scott Ritter Says Iran Attack in June, Iraq Elections "Cooked" (from ATSNN)

Former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, announced that Bush has "signed-off" on an attack on Iran for June. He also anounced that the Iraq elections were "cooked". The claims were made at a talk given with Dahr Jamail in Washington state at the historic Capitol Theater.



Scott Ritter has been hailed alternatively as a "true-blue American hero"(Time Magazine, September 2002) and an either Israeli, Iraqi or Russian spy. He spent seven years in Iraq a UN weapons inspector famous for his bullish approach.
It is interesting to note that only the internet is publishing this piece, and the mainstream, which is alleged to thrive on sensationlism, is glaringly silent. "Big News" seems a matter of pure propogandised bias to this reporter.

Here is some good news, though, an addendum to the article from United For Peace of Pierce County:

NOTE:  This piece generated extraordinary public and media interest.  As of 5:00 p.m. on Mar. 3, it has received 80,180 hits; the volume of hits caused the UFPPC web site to crash several times on Feb. 21.  The article, or parts of it, have also been posted on more than 3,000 web sites.  It has been cited or alluded to by many publications and journalists, including the Economist, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and a commentator for Salon.com (see below), as well as by web sites around the world, including in Iran, and inquiries have been from ABC News, Pacifica Radio, etc. 

I would say we may be witnessing a milestone in the paradigm shift from mainstream media, which is a top-down organisation, as the public's main source of information, and the internet, which is a ground-up organisation.



Here are some links to provide background and insight on Ritter:

Related News Links:
www.time.com
www.time.com
news.bbc.co.uk
english.aljazeera.net



[edit on 13-3-2005 by billybob]

[edit on 13-3-2005 by billybob]

[edit on 13-3-2005 by billybob]

[edit on 13-3-2005 by billybob]

I REPORTED THIS OVER A MONTH AGO!!!!!:m ad:

But no one believed me.... just because my sourse was a pulitzer prize winner, broke the Abu Gharib Prison Abuse Scandal, broke the three other scandals, you know, unreliable.:mad :

Sorry, just mad that I reported this over amonth ago and everyone(bush babies) you have no proof, he's just guessing, he's working for the liberals, it's all lies, god won't do this. Pisses me off when I report it, no one believes me because my source is so great he has broken so many scandals wide open and they don't like what they are hearing.

I still don't understand why the rantings of a traitorous pedaphile on al Jazeera's payroll are news...

if he's a pedophile and a traitor, why hasn't he been charged or arrested?

Sorry to point this one out, but the whole posting is one massive link that goes no where.

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

I posted this a while back and discussed Ritter's sexual predilictions as a possible clue to his motives. So he (ostensibly) tries to meet teenage girls over the internet and that makes him a 'pedophile'? Interesting stretch there. Not defending him of course, but propaganda comes from both sides. Having the "teenage-girl" sexual perversion is not unusual for human males, and yes, Ritter's credibility is totally shot, but he still has a long background in military intel so I think he's worth listening to. "In Shifting Sands" was an excellent documentary and is NOT a Michael Moore type-piece. It tells the facts about UNSCOM and how it was manipulated. I found it very informative.

I think it was the teenage-girl sting operation that provoked Rittter to come clean and start stumping for the anti-war side. When a man is exposed and his credibility is lost, what does he have to lose? I think this is when a lot of men start telling the truth. Otherwise, Ritter could easily slink away into his shame, right? That he doesn't do that tells me something about his character.

Anyway, here's the thread that I'm referring to. All of this has been hashed out there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



[edit on 13-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

james the lesser, keep a stiff upper lip, man. we still have a voice, we just have to scream a lot louder over the din of nationalist fever.
there is a major push on by the neocon controllers to demonise everything and anything that doesn't goosestep to the party line.
see 'the delphi technique' for insight on the steering of perception by a 'group facilitator'. in the case of the mass media, the facilitator is the office upstairs from whence issues all memos of TRUE, FALSE, or IGNORE.
listen to neocons repeat, 'THE MAJORITY HAS SPOKEN, GET OVER IT', when the election was questionable at best, and an all out coup at worst, and the margin was so slim, you couldn't slip a credit card through it. this is the delphi technique. managing perception with careful chosen words, to make it seem that consensus has been reached, when in fact the group has been carefully steered by the handler/facilitator.
we have a major claim made by a major player with major penetration into the media market via the internet, here. the mainstream silence is deafening.

be cool .

"I still don't understand why the rantings of a traitorous pedaphile on al Jazeera's payroll are news..."

Innocent until proven guilty. I think this is still the case.

Scott Ritter tells the truth. (He was right before)

Be prepared for midsummer worldwide chaos.

Has voting been suspended on this one or what? I voted for an upgrade, refreshed and it still says "1". Tried to vote again and it says I've already voted.

The elite cabal has developed the smear campaign to a fine art. Check out the smear campaign run by the British cabal against Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan who spoke out against the use of intelligence gained through torture by the UK government.

Ex-ambassador slams Straw over torture
In March 2003 he was summoned to the Foreign Office, where, he says, he was told that “yes, [intelligence] may be obtained under torture, but provided we didn’t specifically ask for the individual to be tortured or do the torturing ourselves, that’s not illegal. And that [UK Foreign Scretary] Jack Straw had personally considered the matter and the security services decided this was useful material, so we should keep getting it and I should shut up.”

He did not, and later faced a disciplinary hearing on unrelated allegations of financial corruption, being drunk on duty and having sex with Uzbek women in return for UK visas. He was subsequently exonerated, but not before he suffered a nervous breakdown .

The only explanation for the allegations, he claims, was that the Foreign Office “simply invented them to scare me into resigning”.

If you know a man's sexual traits, you can control him. Most men by the age of 40 have some sort of sexual perversion or fetish that they need in order to get it up. If he doesn't have one, then you simply make one up. Failing that, his fetish is probably going to be money, and you can control him through that. That's why the elite don't like women in positions of power. They're more stubborn, can't be smeared with pedophile allegations, have clearer set principles of right and wrong, and are much harder to control. One nutbag science fiction writer learnt the secret of the system and made millions of it. L. Ron. Hubbard. Some of you might know of him...

Well, I guess we'll know the truth of this one in June, eh? Still, I'm curious why voting is supended on this...

How in the world would Scott Ridder know about any impending plans to attack Iran? If such plans are in the works very few people would know about it at this time. I am not saying that we don't have plans to attack Iran but just how would Scott Ridder know? Can someone answer that question.

I would say we may be witnessing a milestone in the paradigm shift from mainstream media, which is a top-down organisation, as the public's main source of information, and the internet, which is a ground-up organisation.

I voted no on this submission, larely because of this. Its irrelevant to the story. And this story itself shows why whats proposed above isn't going to happne. 'ground up' media means rumour and innuendo.

'ground up' means grass roots popular movements that are born and grown outside of corporate influence.

And just where is Scott Ritter getting his information? Or is this just some WAG he has going on? One article described him as an "Indepentant Consultant"

A number of small news independents covered Ritter's speech.

Obviously, he made the speech and said what is being reported he said. Also obvious, MUCH effort has been made to prevent details from said speech reaching the mainstream.

Whether or not Ritter's reports are accurate is another question. However, given the very great effort being expending to prevent details of this speech from getting out, somebody is taking him quite seriously indeed.

A few more links.


electroniciraq.net...
technocrat.net.../02/22/0155237&mode=thread
www.ufppc.org...
www.dummocrats.com...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

And on ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


.

as posted by soficrow
...somebody is taking him quite seriously indeed.

Your melodramtic poetry aside, please feel free to let us know who that "somebody" is when you feel it is within your best interest and objective determination to do so, k?

How about that it is not that no one or anyone is 'suppressing' what he has to say or has said, but that it is his own past and subsequent reputation that is keeping many from paying anything he remotely says any sort of credence.....but then again, there is always "somebody" that will, right?



seekerof

[edit on 13-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Hardly an unbiased (or even important) source:
www.canadiandimension.mb.ca...
"Now in its fifth decade, CD provides an independent forum for debate on a broad range of issues of interest to the Left."

The more things progress, the more the two "sides" (left-and-right) grow further apart in their collaborative shouting match of distractive verbal feuding. Leaving those in the middle to shake their heads and wonder what's next.

as i see it, the issue is not whether he's right or not. the article is that he said these things, which he did.
this is not just 'some guy'. he was in iraq for seven yrs. he was time magazine's 'man of the week' in 2002. to just ignore him or try and sweep him under the rug is the action of the ministry of truth.

the magazine is leftist, but they're not trying to hide it. is 'left' information not news?
is scott ritter a leftist?
this article has been published by many sites, and the information, true or false, is becoming widespread. to me, this is what 'news' is.
trying to slot it as 'left' or 'right' seems a strange way to treat truth.
he truly said it. is it true? more news to follow, eh?

Wrong thread. My apologies.



seekerof

[edit on 13-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Why exactly do all replies to submissions get stripped off and become unviewable* except by means of the Reply Button? It is something I fail to understand. I need some ATSNN remedial school. How is the function of reading replies any different for a submission than for any other forum whether the thing is upgraded or not?

billybob, there will always be a tendency to shoot the messenger... and there is no puppet mesenger more corrupt and humanly useless than the incumbent POTUS.

Wheels and roundabouts.


* and then reappear miraculously

[edit on 13-3-2005 by MaskedAvatar]