Scott Ritter. The world's hero, and the voice against Bush. Some opinions too.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Pollux V, Sep 10, 2002.

  1. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    On the Daily Show, of all tv shows where various people in the news are interviewed, Jon Stewart interviewed the back-then not-so-infamous Scott Ritter, who, as you may or may not know, was the chief UN Weapons Inspector for Iraq, and an ex CIA Agent (or something to that effect).

    Anyway, as I watched this guy really clear up misconceptions that were on all of our minds at the time about Iraq, about bioterror threats, and about war with Iraq itself, I easily slipped into the sense that this man knows what he's talking about, that I believe completely that if Scott Ritter says, as he is saying now, that there is no threat to the US from Iraq, then...there is no threat to the US from Iraq.

    At the moment I believe he's working as a private citizen in Iraq, broadcasting to the world as often as possible about how no threat exists (at one point shooting an interview in front of the nuclear production facility that was leveled during one of our previous assaults). But one thing that really sold his ideals to me was the fact of how the president has, for many weeks, been selling his idea to go to war with Iraq, that he has definitely made up his mind, even if virtually no evidence exists of a threat now or ever (Cheney even at one point saying--this is an indirect quote--that we're going on assumptions here rather than evidence).

    While watching CNN Daybreak before heading out to the school bus one of their radio guests that they invite to the show (a new fad apparently) stated that the democrats (he was biased against them) would bog down congress in procedures or simply delay the vote [on going to war] until the elections were over for their own gain. I hate to say this but for the life of me I can't remember why he believed they would do this, I've sat here for five minutes just thinking about it....let me check cnn.com. Ahhhh! Aha! I've found it! Here's a quote from today's transcript: "They will not allow a vote until after the election. They do not want Democratic congressmen or senators to have to go on the record about what to do about Iraq until after the election, where the voters can't hold it against them." This is a quote from Neal Boortz.

    Now, why just the democrats? Why not the republicans as well? If I thought that it was fairly possible that I would f*ck up in congress, no matter my political alignment, I would either vote against possibly-f*cking-up or, as he has said, hold off the elections until I'm in the clear. Chances are, if either party does this than it won't be hard to figure out why, and they'll lose in the elections anyway. Even if the polls say that americans are in favor of war, I have mere faith (and only faith) that the majority, that is, if every american were surveyed (children too) we would find negativity to going to war. I can only hope that the democrats feel this way as well, and that at least in the senate they'll be able to vote down a request for action.

    So we come to the point that Bush will hopefully arrive at: Congress says no, you can't go to war bushy maiii boy. So whaddya do? One of two things: respect their wishes, admit that you're wrong and focus on other issues, or---or do the predictable thing and fight for no less or more than 100 days, during which case you will have congress FURIOUS at you, will lose any tinges of power you actually have, but it will all be worth it, because you're ousting an oppressive rule (even though it is my opinion that at this point it is Bush amongst various others that should be ousted).

    So, my hopes, my thoughts, and my predictions. Take care noble one who has read this whole thing.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    As much as I want him to be right ....

    The Ritter interview on The Daily Show was hilarious, but if anyone noticed, it kicked off a sort of PR tour for Mr. Ritter.

    As much as I want him to be correct, I do still wonder about the timing of it all, especially in light of the $400,000 he received from an Iraqi advocate in Chicago. (Caught that on MSNBC last night; Matthews couldn't bear to avoid that subject.)

    I do hope he's correct. History will prove his actions one way or another, but until certain questions are settled, Mr. Ritter's credibility is, unfortunately, in the crapper. Me? I'm devastated. I couldn't believe the allegations. But until that question is settled, it is only fair to wonder about Mr. Ritter's integrity at this moment. $400k from an Iraqi advocate, a role in an Iraqi propaganda film (as such), and a PR tour to Iraq. There is also the possibility that he knows damn well what he's doing and why he's doing it.

    History will prove.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    True. We can only hope. BUT eventually we'll see and probably live through it.

    Ahh, I had no idea. Even if he is being paid off, even if the daily show was hilarious (I thought it was at least informative) as it always is, I...perhaps blindly, trust him. As much as I hate to become yet another tool of the media, this guy was convincing, and continues to BE convincing. Here he is, in Iraq, saying there's nothing to fear, while back in the US, our leaders are saying:

    'okee dokee here's this guy who at one point gassed his own people. AS americans it is our DUTY to oust such an oppressive man who would seek to take away the rights of his people and replace him with who WE above all believe is the better man. Oh, and let's make sure to use our planes and stuff, because the public, historically, supports governments that wage war (aren't they just GREAT--that public of ours). Screw peace, screw morality and justice, we have a war to wage and blind ideals to plaster the world with! We are americans! We are all that matters!'
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    i too am pissed. i quoted him!

    however, just because he is now cashing in doesnt mean that his reports,
    which are quite a few years old, are untrue

    talkradio wants him hanged for treason

    also do we have access to the reports of the inspection team that went into
    iraq? what website is it posted on? can we request these documents from the govt?

    history will prove? find out if the man is credible, get behind him and start protesting against the war before it is too late (i am too old for that shit)
     
  8. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    And I'm too young.

    So do the conservative congressmen, no doubt. Send him off to saudi arabia and have him whipped for brewing beer!

    We'll only know after this whole thing is over, decades from now. Maybe centuries. In which case, chances are good that none of you reading this will know, either.
     
  9. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    decades? centuries?
    this will be over pretty soon and we will find out in less time than you think.

    i really dont have a problem with saddam arming himself. i would if i was the leader of a country
    problem that i have is asserting that we will be a target!
    usa today headlines ""saddam scuds new york"!!!!

    am i the only one here that wants to fuck the saudis instead of iraq

    i mean mesopotamia, babylon,etc vs bedouin tribesman!
    did you see bush and the prince on his ranch cackling with glee?
    why those ............

    i am ranting. i stop now
     
  10. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    If they don't pose a threat to us then there is no reason to attack. I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia posing a threat, sure I know they're despotic n stuff (like me) but unless they start killing americans or harming them (amongst a slew of other things) then there's nothing morally we can do.
     
  11. MacZ Caroline Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    271
    I wouldn't take any besmirching of Scott Ritter very seriously. Notice how quickly the "powers that be" managed to blast the news of the $400K payment out? So what? He got paid. His opinions have been voiced through numerous unpaid interviews and so forth over the years.

    Note too that he was originally very unpopular with the US govt for protesting that weapons inspections weren't hard line enough, were too non-confrontational and uncovered too little of the truth. He was very much at odds with the Iraqis.

    Personally, I think that when, over time, someone expresses two opposite opinions with equal vehemance and passion, it reflects a mindset uncomfortable with anything but the truth. (Which is somewhat different to our political types - the true mouthpieces-for-hire.)

    He's been penalised in all sorts of ways in the past for speaking his mind and attempts to discredit what he says have gone hand-in-hand with this.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Like I said ...

    Like I said:
    The $400k is a huge question mark, but history will prove one way or another. Peter Arnett took flak, but he seems to have maintained his integrity. He's still around and I'm pretty sure The Daily Show has gotten off a couple of jokes about him in recent days.

    I do hope Mr. Ritter is correct. For anyone that saw The Daily Show "Headlines" bit a week or so after the Ritter interview that showed Ritter in front of (I think) the UN saying Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors, the region, the US, or the world in general ... I still hold faith in that.

    History will prove, one way or another.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Markx Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    970
    I have been reading his reports every now and then in new media too. They are pretty old like 3 or 4 years old. But anyways, I just like to share another piece of newsl.






    UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. chief weapons inspector said Tuesday there is no evidence from aerial photos or other sources that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or is trying to build them.


    But Hans Blix said there are still "many open questions" about Iraq's weapons programs that need to be answered.

    He urged Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors to return and reiterated that if Baghdad cooperates fully with inspections he could recommend that the Security Council suspend sanctions within a year.

    U.N. inspectors left Iraq ahead of U.S. and British airstrikes in December 1998 to punish Saddam Hussein for not cooperating with inspections. Under council resolutions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, sanctions cannot be lifted until inspectors certify that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed, along with the long-range missiles to deliver them.

    The United States is trying to win international backing for action against Iraq, claiming it is rebuilding its weapons programs. President Bush is expected to make his case to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday.

    Speaking to reporters after a closed-door council meeting on his latest report, Blix said satellite photos show that Iraq has rebuilt at sites that were bombed in 1998, "but this is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction."

    "The satellites don't see through roofs," he said. "So we are not drawing conclusions from them. But it would be an important element in where, maybe, we want to go to inspect and monitor."

    "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or was constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council — report to them," Blix said.

    He said it was in Iraq's interest to invite inspectors to return, and he reiterated his readiness to hold discussions on practical arrangements for resuming inspections to avoid the conflicts that arose during past inspections.
     
  14. Don H Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    642
    He will pay dearly for telling the truth
     
  15. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    so after hearing both sides of the story (inspectors vs us govt)

    i think saddam is arming himself but not on the scale that some would have you believe in order to justify an invasion

    and no matter what reason is given, the usa is clearly the aggressor here if they invade
     
  16. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    It's treason to speak the truth in the supposed land of free speech??? I think these talkradio people, whoever they are, must be about as anti-American as it is possible to get.
     
  17. Don H Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    642
    Thats the way it has been for hundreds of years in America.
    To my inlaws I am a nigger lovin Jew lovin unamerican ass hole.
    To me they are anti American in the worst sense.
    Were just one big happy family that has learned how not to speak
    until they leave the room.
     
  18. Captain Canada Stranger in Town Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    484
    I don't know how well publicised it is in the US but our dear leader, Tony Blair, will publish the UK's dossier of evidence on Iraq's WMD programme a week on Tuesday. Should make interesting reading and it is, coincidentally, the day parliament is recalled to debate war with Iraq.

    The press over here as notably shifted in the past week or so towards being more in favour of an attack. Whether this is simply a reaction to the inevitability of the whole thing or they know something we don't will be answered, I suppose, when the the all important dossier is released.

    Statements from the government have been interesting on the issue. Ritter is talking about his time as a weapons inspector which is now some four years ago. Wht we're hearing now is that Iraq has 'significantly stepped up its efforts to acquire WMD materials in recent months'.

    Hmmm. Could this surge in efforts to obtain a nuke be in anyway related to the fact that Bush made it clear in January (with the 'axis of evil' speech) that we will be invading come what may?

    Self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps?

    This raises another question for me. Assuming that Iraq has some nasty weapons (which I don't think he can deliver anyway given the state of his handful of rotting Scuds), is he more likely to use them when Baghdad is surrounded by the US Marine Corps or when he's trying to get sanctions lifted?

    You know what they say about backing a frightened animal into a corner...
     
  19. gangadeen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    dont see hopw the leader of the only country that has been irresponsible with the use of nukes is the worlds policeman on the subject ....
     
  20. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    ...dialing John Ashcroft's office...
     
  21. gangadeen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    there's no sign of intelligence on the end of that line ...
     
  22. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    Hey! Look! My sentences are unfinished....
     
  23. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390

Share This Page