Posted on 09/13/2002 10:35:14 AM PDT by LSUfan
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I apologize for the length of this post, but please take the time to read it. I think you will find it compelling...
I have compared statements made by Scott Ritter on Fox News today with statements he made in August and October of 1998 to CNN. He has completely changed his story and I don't think he did so just because of $450,000. There is more to it than that.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ritter must be taking lessons from Bill Clinton in evasion...
FReegards...MUD
I would dare say that he probably ought to be in a stockade at best, in Guantanamo as an "enemy combatant" at worst...
Was Ritter appointed by clinton?
God Save America (Please)
Not sure on this one...he may have been recommended by Clintax but beyond that I don't know.
Lets assume Ritter is a lying sack, just like you say. Congressman Ron Paul asks a few good questions of those banging the drums of war (most Freepers). Paul is probabally as close to you will get to a real Republican congressman BTW.
If its more fun to strike poses for the other war-whooping morons on this board, you may want to ignore these questions.
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002
QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?
These questions and about a dozen more that Congressman Paul has asked have been refuted and parsed on more than one thread over the last week. I'm not going to waste bandwidth to rehash those refutations here; needless to say, at least at this juncture, I disagree wholeheartedly with Mr. Paul as well as most of the libertarians on FR, and presumably you.
Cést La Vie...
The man is a NUT CASE that is about ready to blow
Is that an answer?
WHY WE'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS. Saddam's Trap- 1998
SCOTT RITTER 1998 "SADDAM,SHOW ME THE WEAPONS"
SCOTT RITTER 2002 "SADDAM, SHOW ME THE MONEY"
1998
He couldn't do his job because Iraq didn't let him see everything?>>> He wouldn't do his job because he had sympathy for Saddam? The UN wasn't helpful! I didn't find anything!
We have no reason to believe Saddam has WMD, there is no way he could have rebuilt the stockpiles he had?>> I looked the otherway when asked, and thanks for the cash saddam ol boy!
One strange critter this scott ritter.
Please don't put words in my mouth. And since you insist:
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?No, it is true that we didn't bomb the USSR because they didn't bomb us. We weren't in a situation where we were concerned about them bombing us.
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?We want to take out Iraq's capability, present or future, of attacking the US and it's allies. If they can't attack yet, then great! I'd rather take them out before they take out Cincinnati or Des Moines or Bismarck. If they can, the it's just as well. Saddam's shown that he has no adversion to using WMD, period.
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?The last inspections were four years ago. A lot water has flowed under the bridge since. And if nothing was found four years ago, that does not mean that has remained as the status quo. Matter of fact, given Saddam's continued penchant for lying and obscuring the truth of his intentions over the years, you have to assume that he's been a busy beaver indeed over the last four-plus years.
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?Yes, it is true. However, that does not mean, given all the evidence to the contrary, that their verifications can be trusted as gospel.
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?No, this is not true. President Bush said as much to the UN yesterday. He also indicated that there was additional evidence that presumably would be shared with Congress at the appropriate time. As for Saudi Arabia, they are a separate issue, not germaine to the Iraqi situaion.
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?Cannistraro has no clue one way or the other as a former CIA counter-terrorism chief. He is no longer privvy to any government intel one way or the other.
As I said in the earlier note, you, along with the other libertarians on FR have made up your collective minds that Mr. Paul's questions are more meritorious than the intelligence apparatus that the president has surrounded himself with reagarding Iraq.
We obviously disagree. Mr. Paul's questions do nothing to change that situation.
Time will tell.
He is also arrogant, thin skinned and spiteful. Put all that together and you have a traitor-in-waiting looking for a bidder.
This is the "don't worry, be happy" defense, a lie allowing concession that he has some weapons - He complains we don't know - so how does he?
The "$450,000" is a deflection. What other moneys has he received? He has a book coming out. I imagine the money could be laudered by substantial book buys by the Iraqis.
Here's another Ritter article for you, showing his deception:
Saddam's Trap - Why We're Doing Exactly What He Wants ( Ritter on Iraq 12/21/98 )
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
Yes it is true, and this is for two reasons, one general and one idiosyncratic: one does not always have immediately available resources to fight evil, and has to wait for a better opportunity; and, in contrast to Iraq, the stance of MAD (mutually assured destruction) did provide stability for the time being. No such stability exists or is possible with Iraq.
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
Whereas the preceding question was silly, this one is outright stupid. It is true that Iraq cannot retaliate for our military assault. This does not mean that, while waiting for the time of greater capability, it will not strike us in the near future. From the fact that it is not a match to our military it does not follow that it cannot detonate a bomb in New York or Washington. Kind of pathetic logic on the part of the esteemed congressman, isn't it?
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? True but irrelevant: we worry about his weapons programs that leads towards future armaments, not necessarily the present level.
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? Yes. It is also true that some tourists have visited Iraq and got out. Does he want me to rely on the Atomic Commission in protecting my country?
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Possibly true. But, again, the congressman needs to wake up from hibernation: Iraq has repeatedly attacked everyone in sight --- from its own Kurdish minority, to Iran, to Kuwait, to Israel. There is no doubt that he will use whatever means toward which he works to our great detriment and loss.
Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? One country at a time, congressman. Please.
We elected you to lead, a part of which is having foresight and seeing the big picture. It is "thinking" like this that makes me want to run for office in self-defense.
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?
OK, congressman, we are not going to attack Iraq because it is a terrorist menace but because it is a general menace. Feeling better?
To. Psyop: I agree! I watched Ritter also and it seemed to me he was harboring serious angst! He was practically seething and fuming! And although he seemed to have managed to spar with O'reilly (personally i believe O'reilly is one of the biggest spinners on Earth today, but that is for another time) his fervor (Ritter's) was practically too intense. It was as if he was on speed or some other power-stimulant from the way he was speaking.
Anyways he is either:
a)In possession of some information that others are lacking ...and hence he needs to be animated to show his point of view and 'save us all.'
b) He is seriously angry at the 'establishment' (which could be anything from the Marine corp. to the government, to the 'man') and is thus taking out his anger through the media.
c) He is on some type of drug overdose (which could range from some seriously brewed cup of kenyan coffee with java extract to more 'serious' stuff like metamphetamines ....or maybe he found allah and hence has to be 'in your face').
d) A combination of 2 of the above 3.
e) All 3.
Take your pick. <
WorldNetDaily 9/10/98 ".IRAQ is hiding three technologically complete nuclear bombs and is lacking only fissionable materials to make them operational. This is the view of Scott Ritter, the United Nations arms inspector who resigned on August 26. Mr Ritter made his claim at a recent meeting of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It was published for the first time yesterday by Zeev Schiff, military editor of Haaretz, the Tel Aviv daily. The disclosure, and others about biological and chemical weapons held by Baghdad, came as another showdown between Iraq and the UN loomed."
Newsweek 9/14/98 Periscope "Scott Ritter may not be the last United Nations inspector to quit UNSCOM, the commission charged with dismantling Iraq's biological and chemical arsenal. Other weapons sleuths, feeling betrayed by the cancellation of several surprise inspections this summer, may "throw in the towel," one told NEWSWEEK. Ritter, who bitterly criticized the Clinton administration's Iraq policy as he resigned last month, is now under investigation for allegedly sharing intelligence with Israel. Republicans say the charges are a White House smear. But CIA sources tell NEWSWEEK that the agency, not the administration, raised concerns about his contacts with Israel. The CIA has cleared Ritter, who says he did nothing wrong, but his lawyer says an FBI probe continues."
New York Post 10/1/98 Editorial "It turns out that the White House has been lying about a lot more than just Monica Lewinsky. The issue now is nuclear weapons for Iraq - and the potential consequences are far more significant than Bill Clinton's future. Earlier this month, Scott Ritter, the courageous U.N. arms inspector who resigned in disgust over the Security Council's acquiescence to Saddam Hussein, told Congress he had informed the administration that Iraq has built several implosion devices. All that Saddam needs to build 20-kiloton nuclear weapons - one-and-a-half times the power of the Hiroshima bomb - is a sufficient quantity of plutonium or enriched uranium. After Ritter's testimony, administration officials denied ever receiving such a report - and blasted the ex-Marine's claims as not credible. (Maybe it depends on exactly how you define nuclear weapons.) But now, The Washington Post reports, Ritter actually turned over two such explicit warnings - first in an oral report to the CIA in 1996, and then in a briefing paper for a May 1997 conference held in Washington with the U.S. and Britain.. As one U.S. official told The Washington Post, it is credible that they have all the parts to put together.."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.