Posted on 09/10/2002 8:09:59 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
UNAMERICANS Scott Ritter and William Pitt Slam Bush and America in New Book (BIG BARF ALERT)
While crusing the dark side I came upon Scott Ritter and William Pitt press release for their unamerican book slaming Bush and America and its war on Terrorist. Instead builds up the case for kissing Iraq's butt! These 2 fools teamed up is a BIG JOKE! One a left wing nut and the other a traitor. What a combo...
For the spew from the dark side read this below for a major hurl.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Pub OCTOBER 2002
WAR ON IRAQ: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know by William Rivers Pitt with Scott Ritter ,former U.N.weapons inspector
“INSTANT BOOK ” PUTS KIBOSH ON BUSH ADMIN ’S WAR OF CONVENIENCE
In an "instant book" entitled War On Iraq,scheduled for release on September 23, author William Rivers Pitt talks to former U.N.weapons inspector Scott Ritter (a self-described conservative Republican)and debunks the key arguments for war on Iraq.
These are that Iraq has a viable stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and will soon have nuclear capabilities,that Saddam Hussein is an ally of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and that any new Iraqi regime would be friendlier to the West than Hussein's. In the spirit of Thomas Paine, War On Iraq is intended for citizen campaigning.
In War On Iraq Pitt argues that, unlike the televised in-and-out Persian Gulf War:
the current conflict will cause heavy casualties on both sides, the destabilization of the Middle East, and a terrible backlash of terrorist attacks on the United States.
Pitt argues that a war on Iraq will give rise “to exactly the kind of Islam vs.the West al Qaeda sought when it attacked the World Trade Center a year ago.”
William Rivers Pitt offers a non-partisan analysis of the current situation, including a brief history, and conducts a pointed interview with former U.N.weapons inspector Scott Ritter to dismantle the myths about Iraq ’s present weapons program and to uncover the neo-conservative forces behind the White House ’s fixation on Iraq.
William Rivers Pitt argues that the threatened conflict will be playing into the hand of Osama bin Laden (who would like to see Saddam Hussein deposed as much as the Bush administration)and that any attack at this moment in history would be both unprovoked and illegal. Pitt then lays down the framework for a reasonable, informed debate.
The book closes with a stark forecast for American troops if a ground war ensues and urges the nation’s leaders to seek a diplomatic solution before it is too late. An appendix provides senator contact information.
• Weapons of mass destruction unlikely • No tie between Qaeda and Hussein • The problems with regime change • The rise of terror attacks in U.S. • 125,000-copy First Printing • Grassroots Campaigning In Major Cities
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
William Rivers Pitt is a writer and political analyst from the Boston area,where he also works as a teacher.His new book, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, will be published in April 2003 by Pluto Press.
Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, lectures around the country and is an outspoken opponent of the Bush administration’s stance toward Iraq. He is the author of Endgame (1999).
,,,,,,,
Hard to believe we have people like this in America! William Pitt and Scott Ritter forever linked as morons! Pitt couldn't get it right if he tried. From enron to how to vote in Mass this school teacher needs to go back as a student.
Quit sneaking over our electronic border. You're not welcome.
(1) Scott Ritter rigorously maintained for years that Iraq was a threat. He publicly asserted, before Congress, that Iraq could reconstitute its weapons program in six months. That was four years ago.
(2) An Iraqi businessman in Michigan who is a close collaborator with the Iraqi regime gave Ritter $400K to make a documentary praising Hussein. The quality of the clips shown suggest that it cost less than $30K to make.
(3) After being paid off by Iraq, Ritter now claims that he was lying in 1998 and telling the truth now.
Why should we believe him?
And what does Ritter have to say of substance? He stopped critically examinating Iraq 4 years ago. He has absolutely no new information which is not censored by Saddam Hussein. What he does have is $400K and a huge motive to lie.
Ritter knows as much about Iraq in 2002 as you or I.
And your definition of an intelligent person would be someone who is critical of that notorious liar. Hmmm . . .
A side note: since Ritter has made two completely contradictory statements, he was either lying then or lying now. Back then, he had just quit his job - he was beholden to no one regarding his opinion. But now, he has 400,000 reasons to lie. Why are you unable to get it?
Now I realize that you've named yourself after the Tatar savage who slaughtered so many women and children in Christian Russia.
You're just a jihadist troll, after all. An al-Qaeda sympathizer and a Saddam Hussein groupie. That makes more sense. You can continue fellating Mohammed (a pox be upon him) now.
From their press release:
In an "instant book" entitled War On Iraq,scheduled for release on September 23, author William Rivers Pitt talks to former U.N.weapons inspector Scott Ritter (a self-described conservative Republican)and debunks the key arguments for war on Iraq.
~SNIP~
• Weapons of mass destruction unlikely • No tie between Qaeda and Hussein
~End Excerpts~
After today's speech by President Bush at the UN these two will look like the fools they are.
President Bush stated as a matter of fact that members of Al Qaeda are known to be in Iraq. He would not say this without proof to buttress this statement.
"It took as long to write as it takes to read!"
I have never heard of them before today, but boy, the "progressives" seem to love them.
Sept. 11 Events Calling for "No More Victims"
Sam Husseini, Communications Director IPA
U.S. Abdicates Justice- by Sam Husseini
Norman Solomon, Executive Director IPA (also director of FAIR)
As much as I'm wondering about the flip-flop, I'm wondering why he's in bed with the hard (and Pro-Palestinian) left. Maybe one explains the other?
Maybe they could counter this.
FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001
ACTION ALERT:
USA Today Repeats Myths on Iraq Inspectors
August 12, 2002
An August 8 USA Today article that described how Saddam Hussein is "complicating U.S. plans to topple his regime" repeated a common myth about the history of U.S./Iraq relations. Reporter John Diamond wrote that "Iraq expelled U.N. weapons inspectors four years ago and accused them of being spies."
But Iraq did not "expel" the UNSCOM weapons inspectors; in fact, they were withdrawn by Richard Butler, the head of the inspections team. The Washington Post, like numerous other media outlets, reported it accurately at the time (12/17/98): "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."
USA Today wouldn't have to consult the archives of other media outlets to find out what happened: A timeline that appeared in the paper on December 17, 1998 included this entry for December 16: "U.N. weapons inspectors withdraw from Baghdad one day after reporting Iraq was still not cooperating." USA Today also reported (12/17/98) that "Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council."
As for Iraq accusing weapons inspectors of being spies, Diamond might have mentioned that this accusation has proven to be correct. The Washington Post reported in 1999 (1/8/99) that "United Nations arms inspectors helped collect eavesdropping intelligence used in American efforts to undermine the Iraqi regime."
USA Today was clearly aware of the spy story, since the paper wrote an editorial excusing it. Headlined "Spying Flap Merely a Sideshow" (1/8/99), the paper argued that "spying on Saddam Hussein is nothing new and nothing needing an apology. But the Clinton administration suddenly is scrambling to explain why it did just that." The paper added that the information gathered "no doubt found uses other than just weapons detection. That may not be playing by the books, but it's understandable and probably inevitable."
A U.S. congressman headed to Iraq said Friday his trip could initiate a dialogue and avoid U.S. military action. Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat, said he planned to propose a dialogue between the Iraqi National Assembly and U.S. legislators in a bid to cool the escalating tension between Iraq and the United States.
"These kind of discussions are fruitful in order to give peace a chance," Rahall told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his hotel in Damascus, Syria.
Rahall, who is of Lebanese descent, was scheduled to fly to Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, late on Friday with a delegation that includes former Sen. James Abourezk and Nick Solomon, who heads the Institute for Public Accuracy - a group of Washington-based analysts.
U.S. Legislator Says His Trip to Iraq Could Open a Window for Peace
It was my impression that the embargo on U.S citizens going to Iraq was still in effect. How are these people getting away with this?
That makes him no different from the Muslim hordes who first captured the Holy Land and slew millions of innocent Jews and Christians.
Or the raving Muslim lunatics who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon.
Or your other hero, the cowardly Scott Ritter, who supports a regime that beheads 70 year old women for praying to Jesus.
Now we know what you're all about. Don't speak too loudly on your next trip to Shoney's.
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.