Scott Ritter on Iraq

traprockpeace.org...

Great audio link, I think he was speaking at a high school.

Give it a listen. I agree with almost everything he says, especially the fact that he asserts that the US public has been lied to by their President, consistently.

He ought to be impeached. And Ritter ought to run for office.


jako

I remember when he first spoke out. They shut him up fairly quickly by arresting him for solicitation to a teenaged girl online. That didn't make his claims any less valid. We have worse criminals currently running the show.

Originally posted by heelstone
I remember when he first spoke out. They shut him up fairly quickly by arresting him for solicitation to a teenaged girl online. That didn't make his claims any less valid. We have worse criminals currently running the show.

They did that? That's facist tactit 101? Probably a damn sting. This is getting indignant. At what price tax cuts?

Originally posted by Jakomo

traprockpeace.org...

Great audio link, I think he was speaking at a high school.

Give it a listen. I agree with almost everything he says, especially the fact that he asserts that the US public has been lied to by their President, consistently.

He ought to be impeached. And Ritter ought to run for office.


jako

Ritter's the man. I've been following him and his work since I came home from the Gulf back in '91. He's a true Marine in the best sense and has the highest integrity. Definitely one to watch - and listen to.

Originally posted by heelstone
I remember when he first spoke out. They shut him up fairly quickly by arresting him for solicitation to a teenaged girl online. That didn't make his claims any less valid. We have worse criminals currently running the show.

That didn't go anywhere. It was pure Karl Rove BS.

"When Scott Ritter first spoke out".....
Yeah, I remember that well.

Let's start here:
The problem I see is: "double-speak" Scott Ritter himself.
His reliability as a source is very questionable since his story is changing and is full of logical holes.
Seemingly $400,000, given by an Iraqi businessman, with established ties to Saddam, has greatly enhanced Mr. Ritter's views as well. And yet, Mr. Ritter claims he is in debt because of the film/documentery....some $50,000? Riigghhtt.
The man speaks with "forked-tongue" and his credibility as a 'source' is better left unsaid....

Here's some information on that:

"Saddam Hussein's American Apologist"
Link:
www.weeklystandard.com...

"Ex-UN Inspector Ritter to Tour Iraq, Make Documentary"
Link:
www.globalpolicy.org...

"SLUG: 2-278385 Iraq Sanctions / Movie (L only)"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"Ritter's documentary premieres at UN"
Link:
www.casi.org.uk...



Mr. Ritter speaks "double-talk". Oh Yeah baby.......! Think not? Here's what Mr. Scott Ritter said in an interview in 1998, after his 'retirement' or withdrawal from UNSCOM:

"ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Could you describe the most recent investigation that you wanted to undertake. Give us a little detail about it and what happened to derail it.

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, basically, the investigations that I was tasked with carrying out by the executive chairman involved looking at exposing the means by which Iraq hides their prohibited weapons and weapons capabilities from the special commission. We needed to expose this methodology so that they used so we could get at the weapons, themselves. And the investigation has been going on for several years now, and this summer we were in the process of resuming these inspections, you know, in accordance with the agreement reached by Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein in accordance with the Security Council resolutions that said Iraq had to comply or face severe consequences, so we're trying to get back on task. We had some very specific information, which led us to believe we could go to locations where we would find aspects of this hidden weaponry, of these hidden components, and also uncover how Iraq actually went about hiding these weapons from the commission. We had very specific information, and we believe that if we'd been allowed to accomplish this inspection, we could have achieved meaningful disarmament results."

And here:

"ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is it your contention that without a significant and realistic threat of military action, Iraq will not allow the investigations to begin again, beyond just the monitoring that's already going on?

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, in this I would only echo the words made by the Secretary-General and other personnel back in February, who said that you couldn't have had the February MOU without the real and credible threat of military force. That's an obvious statement. You can't expect to enforce the law unless you have the means to carry out the enforcement."


This interview was done just after Ritter resigned as lead weapons inspector from UNSCOM. Mr. Ritter believed Saddam/Iraq were effectively hiding weapons, and that they still possessed the means to produce WMD's. Somehow today, incredulously and 'mysteriously', Mr. Ritter is singing a different tune. But at the time that Mr. Ritter was most informed, his opinion was that Iraq had the capability of producing the weapons and that without the threat of military force, it would continue to defy the UN and the US. Strange how things have changed, eh? Now, after years of not seeing any 'real' up-to-date information, Mr. Ritter is now recanting or changing his views and 'story'?! That coin must have laned on heads, permanently...

Here's the source for the above quotes and information:
"SCOTT RITTER; August 31, 1998
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript"
Link:
www.pbs.org...


Also...in September, which he later says again in December, of that same year (1998), Mr. Scott Ritter states or indicates to the Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) that Iraq/Saddam still had the means to make a nuclear weapon and that all that was missing was fissionable (fissile) material?!

Source:
"RITTER TESTIMONY CONFIRMS NCI'S WARNINGS
THAT IRAQ HAS ACTIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM"
Link:
www.nci.org...



Personally...
Mr. Scott Ritter lacks any 'source' credibility or credibility at all, especially after this:

"Saddam's Cash"
From the May 5, 2003 issue: And the journalists and politicians he bought with it.
Link:
www.weeklystandard.com...

Excerpt:
"....Al-Khafaji first came to public notice after revelations that he gave former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 to produce a film that criticized the United States for its role in the inspection process. Al-Khafaji, who is listed as a "senior executive producer" of the film, arranged meetings for Ritter with high-level officials in Saddam's government, a feat New York Times magazine writer Barry Bearak found "impressive." Ritter had previously been an outspoken critic of Saddam Hussein, and issued dire warnings about the status of the Iraqi dictator's weapons of mass destruction. His sudden flip--he is now a leading apologist for Saddam's regime--and revelations about Ritter's 2001 arrest for soliciting sex with minors have fueled speculation about the nature of his relationship with al-Khafaji."


Yep. "he's the man" and he definitely "asserts that the US public has been lied to by their President, consistently"........yep.....



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by heelstone
I remember when he first spoke out. They shut him up fairly quickly by arresting him for solicitation to a teenaged girl online. That didn't make his claims any less valid. We have worse criminals currently running the show.

That didn't go anywhere. It was pure Karl Rove BS.

Some one should start a research project. People that have come out against Bush and what has happened to them. That would be some damaging #.

Yes Seekerof. Ritter's flip-flopping is well known. When he first came out against the war in Iraq based upon his new belief that Iraq had no weapons it took everybody by surprise since it was a true role reversal. He wanted to go back into Iraq and be an inspector, so he continually made statements that backed up the idea that Saddam had WMD so that he could go back. After he realized it wouldn't work, he changed his tune.

Sure thats going to kill the crediblity of the man to many people, but when everybody else is saying the same thing, shouldn't Ritter's remarks now hold up to some scrutiny? Give him at least some credit rather than none.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by heelstone]

I'm far from giving him credit.
You insinuating that Mr. Ritter made these "double-speak" comments just so he could get a 'free' trip back to Iraq and be an inspector again?
Ain't going to happen, especially since it was found that he had an audience with Saddam when he agreed to do the documentary. I see he is still not back on any type UN inspection team nor with them in any facility or capacity.
Shame.



regards
seekerof

Seeker: Um, you claim :

"Personally...
Mr. Scott Ritter lacks any 'source' credibility or credibility at all, especially after this:

"Saddam's Cash"
From the May 5, 2003 issue: And the journalists and politicians he bought with it.
Link:
www.weeklystandard.com...

Excerpt:
"....Al-Khafaji first came to public notice after revelations that he gave former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 to produce a film that criticized the United States for its role in the inspection process. Al-Khafaji, who is listed as a "senior executive producer" of the film, arranged meetings for Ritter with high-level officials in Saddam's government, a feat New York Times magazine writer Barry Bearak found "impressive." Ritter had previously been an outspoken critic of Saddam Hussein, and issued dire warnings about the status of the Iraqi dictator's weapons of mass destruction. His sudden flip--he is now a leading apologist for Saddam's regime--and revelations about Ritter's 2001 arrest for soliciting sex with minors have fueled speculation about the nature of his relationship with al-Khafaji.""

That paragraph is NOT in that link, in fact the Weekly Standard link doesn't mention Ritter at all or any UN inspectors. What's up with that? Kind pokes holes in your "argument".


"Also...in September, which he later says again in December, of that same year (1998), Mr. Scott Ritter states or indicates to the Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) that Iraq/Saddam still had the means to make a nuclear weapon and that all that was missing was fissionable (fissile) material?!"

I guess my English must be rusty. I wasn't aware that having the MEANS to make a nuclear weapon" is actually the same as HAVING a nuclear weapon. You stretch things far too thin, and they eventually break. Your point is invalid. You hold this up as proof when it's nothing of the sort.

In fact, NOWHERE in ALL those links you posted does Ritter actually say that Iraq has WMDs.

""ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability."

Are we speaking the same language? The CAPABILITY of producing them does not equate to HAVING them.

"The man speaks with "forked-tongue" and his credibility as a 'source' is better left unsaid.... "

I will believe Scott Ritter before I believe any lying scumbag politician (Republican, Dem, Green, Independent, whatever) with an agenda, and I would recommend that you do the same. And questioning Scott Ritter's sources, considering he was ON the last UN inspection team is ludicrous. Does a bonehead Weekly Standard reporter have more of a finger on the pulse of Iraq than Scott Ritter? Do YOU?!

Ayoye.

jakomo

I guess we're all forgetting about his little brush with kiddie porn, huh?

Ritter's not a very reliable source.....despite his apparent credentials...nor is his morality something I'd put a stake in.....

Ritter's fans deny the truth.
Time and time again he told us that there were WoMD.
That's not conspiracy - it's a fact. Just because he's changed his tune doesn't mean that he should be trusted.
If he was a liar in the first place, why give him credibility now?

If anything, he's just as untrustworthy now as he was then.

He's a perv....

www.strangecosmos.com...

Many other links, but this came up quicker.....

Gazrok: ? How does it affect his credibility as a former UN weapons inspector if he likes ANY type of porn? He could like getting cornholed by Komodo dragons and it doesn't invalidate his argument.


You're all so desperate to say he's wrong, he's a liar, he's a pedophile, etc.

Guess what, based on REALITY, he's right and you're wrong.

NOTHING has been found in Iraq. No WMDs, no WMD programs, nothing. David Kay's team of 1400 inspectors (1400!) is leaving Iraq EMPTY-HANDED.

So you can argue as much as you want about his personal choices, but one thing is clear : THERE ARE NO WMD'S IN IRAQ, AND WHEN RITTER CLAIMS THIS, HE IS CORRECT!

If you would rather believe your lying, deceitful President than him, that's your damage. Maybe you're disconnected from reality.

One more time: NO WMD'S IN IRAQ. NONE. Even with the entire country occupied, nothing has been found. NO-THING.

Not only have you been lied to, but now you're standing there STILL believing the lie and saying "Thank you sir can I have another".

If I was a politician I would hope that more people were like you out there in the electorate. Blindly supporting their lies and half-truths EVEN AFTER THEY'VE BEEN PROVEN AS LIES!

Astounding.

And to whomever wants to contest my points, please open with an article SHOWING WHAT PROHIBITED WMD'S HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ. I'll be waiting.


jakomo

Also, did any of you people arguing actually LISTEN to the link?

I'm not arguing against there being no WMDs in Iraq... this much seems all but a fact at this point. What I was saying is that perhaps you've also missed his other public speaking, such as prophesizing Nostradamus style, or his solicitation of sex with a minor....

Maybe you don't demand morality from those trying to take a moral high road against a war, but I do... So, if his motives aren't morality...then perhaps the message is more profit driven, such as the fee he charges for commentation???

I'm not defending Bush, nor am I saying that what Ritter is saying is necessarily false...but like Bush, he too has cried Wolf! too many times....

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

In the case of Mr. Ritter, please inform me of where he is so I can be in that line to cast that "first stone"!



regards
seekerof

I am without that particular sin, that's for sure, hehe...

I equate that particular sin right up there with rape, murder, etc., so yeah, at least in my opinion, the fact that he's solicited this seriously tarnishes his credibility...

Perhaps it's not looked upon as a big crime where you come from, but it is here...

I'm just attacking his credibility, not his message... The WMD excuse is, and always has been a farce...but the war was still necessary for many reasons... Yes, I wish Bush had gone about this properly, and under UN mandate...and yes, it may cost him re-election (though I doubt it...*sigh*)....but it was the right thing to do.. It wasn't done right, but it was the right thing to do for the US...

Originally posted by Jakomo



So you can argue as much as you want about his personal choices, but one thing is clear : THERE ARE NO WMD'S IN IRAQ, AND WHEN RITTER CLAIMS THIS, HE IS CORRECT!

So what about when Ritter claimed that there were WoMD? Was he correct then?
Of course, there's always the suspicion that his recent views correlate with your thinking, so you conveniently skim over the fact that he has been caught lying before and now claim he should be trusted........



[Edited on 14-1-2004 by Leveller]