Email This to a Friend
Scott Ritter: Anti-War Problem Child
Former UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter was correct in his pre-war assessment that Saddam Hussein had been defanged of WMD. But his subsequent pronouncements about Syria, Iran, and other security issues cast serious doubts on his objectivity.
The conservative “realist” school of foreign policy does not lack for sinister fools, but Scott Ritter owns a coveted place near the top of any list. He is a stalwart Republican who has nevertheless become the doyen of the antiwar community for his correct prediction about the neutered state of Saddam Hussein’s prewar WMD capability. Yet lest one instance of being right lend him a reputation of defense policy soundness, there are many items in his resume that must be weighted against any comment he offers in the field of international relations.
Ritter resigned from his position as the UN weapons inspector for Iraq, which he held from 1991 to 1998, because he thought that the erstwhile US policy of containment was insufficient in preventing Saddam Hussein from developing WMD. Ritter’s team had been denied access in 1998 to various weapons-making facilities in Iraq, and so he was well poised to pass judgment that the regime had something to hide — whether actual WMD material or a proven desire to manufacture it at a later date.
Ritter was always doggedly opposed to the military removal of the Iraqi dictator; instead, he advocated the resumption or “normalization” of US-Iraqi relations – despite the Ba’ath’s unequaled record of genocide, foreign aggression, and domestic totalitarianism. When Ritter resigned from his UN post in frustration, he told interviewer Elizabeth Farnsworth:
“The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we’re not complying with.”
And:
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.
A year later, he published a book entitled Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem – Once and For All, in which he restated the failure of the international community to get Baghdad to start complying with the law and acting transparently.
Then, in 2000, Ritter co-wrote and directed a documentary “In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq,” in which, despite his prior minatory rhetoric, he attempted to show that country was actually a “defanged tiger.” The film was financed by an Iraqi businessman named Shaker Al-Khafaji using pilfered money from the oil-for-food program.
In 2002, during the lead-up to the war he fervently opposed, Ritter refused to elaborate for Time magazine on the “horrific” conditions of the children’s prison he inspected at the General Security Services headquarters in Iraq, fearing that the gruesome details would “be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.” In that same interview, he clearly contradicted himself and lied about his former position:
In 1998, you said Saddam had “not nearly disarmed.” Now you say he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I’ve said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact.
(This may be interpreted charitably as Ritter’s ex post facto admission that he himself had no substantive evidence for his prior claim.)
Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Ritter has said in public that he believes life was better under Saddam Hussein and that the current Iraqi “resistance,” consisting of Shia sectarian death squads, Sunni revanchists, and the imperialist beheaders of Al Qaeda, is a “genuine grassroots national liberation movement.” To which he adds: “History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilize and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government.”
Finally, Ritter clangorously foretold, based on what he claimed was recherche inside information, that the Bush administration would bomb Iran in 2005. (He now says it will do so any day.)
Again, such a dubious curriculum vitae must be weighted against Ritter’s past, present and future pronouncements. An honest observer, whatever his politics, will admit that the former weapons monitor has lost all claims to objectivity, if he ever had them. So it comes as no surprise that in his latest Comment is Free post for the Guardian, Ritter exculpates Syria for its development of an undisclosed nuclear reactor, which was powdered by Israel in September of last year:
Largely overlooked in the wake of the US revelations is the fact that, even if the US intelligence is accurate (and there is no reason to doubt, at this stage, that it is not), Syria had committed no crime, and Israel had no legal justification to carry out its attack. Syria is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and under the provisions of the comprehensive safeguards agreement, is required to provide information on the construction of any facility involved in nuclear activity “as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced to a new facility”. There is no evidence that Syria had made any effort to introduce nuclear material to the facility under construction.
What Ritter does not say in his briefest mention of the “Syrian-North Korean nexus” is the full extent of that US intelligence. As reported by theFinancial Times, the CIA has images that show North Korean nuclear scientists working in the now-extinct Syrian facility, which was located in near the town of Al Kibar:
One photograph shows a North Korean nuclear scientist Chon Chibu standing beside his Syrian counterpart. Mr Chon, who worked at North Korea’s Yongbyon plutonium reactor, has previously dealt with US officials. While the date of the photography was unclear, the official said a car in the background suggested it was sometime after mid-2005. The US believes North Korea provided designs for the Syrian reactor, which was a “dead ringer” for Yongbyon. The official said Washington was unsure whether any North Koreans were killed in the Israeli air strike.
Yongbyon, of course, is where Kim Jong Il’s got the fissile material for his nuclear arsenal. Now you may wish to believe that Syria’s intentions were pure (aren’t they always?) and that it sought only to construct a reactor for peaceful purposes. But then you must ask yourself: Why could it not do so without the help of the peninsular A.Q. Khan? And why would it choose to construct a gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor whose only design precursor in the past 35 years was not used for “peaceful” purposes? (The Al Khibar reactor seems to have been a smaller version of its North Korean counterpart.)
The Assad regime is legally bound, under the covenants of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory, to report any and all atomic activity, as well as the construction of equipment that might be used for such activity, to the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure the proper “safeguards”:
Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.
Ritter attempts to elide this clear language by arguing that without actual plutonium or a “reprocessing capacity,” Syria is only accountable under the IAEA’s “additional protocol of inspections,” which are voluntarily undertaken by each country and have not been undertaken by the one in question. On April 28, Ritter further mischaracterized the NPT to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now when he said:
[F]acilities [need only] be declared to the IAEA only when nuclear materials are to be introduced to these facilities, that a facility under construction is not a declarable item. And so, it’s absurd to sit there and say that just because Syria and North Korea were pouring concrete that they are somehow breaking the law.
What does he mean by “are to be introduced”? According to the CIA, the reactor was not simply “under construction” but nearing “operational capability” in August 2007, which means it would have indeed been ready for the introduction of plutonium round about the time of its annihilation. Ritter’s semantic dodges do not alter that assessment. Nor does he allow that Syria’s haste in burying the immolated reactor and eliminating all traces of ancillary equipment suggest that it, too, had something to hide from international inspectors. It covered the destroyed reactor vessel with tarpaulins, and built structures over other debris in order to block satellite observation of the site. It also performed a controlled demolition the husk of the reactor building in October 2007. And naturally, the location of the facility, obscured by canyons and a manmade “earthen wall,” was clearly chosen for its secrecy. Now, if Damascus wished to show that Israel took out a harmless edifice constructed for domestic energy needs, why go to all this trouble to erase the exculpatory forensic evidence?
The fact that the IAEA had no knowledge of the very existence of Syria’s nuclear project should do more than raise an eyebrow. I quote from a press release the agency issued on October 15, 2007 — it is the last such statement I’ve been able to find on the matter on the IAEA’s website:
Statement attributable to IAEA Spokesperson Melissa Fleming on recent media reports concerning Syria:
1. The IAEA has no information about any undeclared nuclear facility in Syria and no information about recent reports.
2. We would obviously investigate any relevant information coming our way.
3. The IAEA Secretariat expects any country having information about nuclear-related activities in another country to provide that information to the IAEA.
4. The IAEA is in contact with the Syrian authorities to verify the authenticity of these reports.
CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed on Tuesday that had the reactor been completed, in two years it would have had enough plutonium to produce one or two bombs. Ritter contradicts himself yet again by stating that while there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the U.S. intelligence on the matter (see his Comment is Free post extracted above), it is “absurd” to credit the notion that the Al Kibar reactor was on the “verge of becoming operational.” So is the intelligence flawed or isn’t it?
Ritter also neglects to mention Syria’s suborning of Hamas and Hezbollah, its strangulation of Lebanese independence and democracy, and myriad other crimes against international law for which its guilt is now only questioned by isolationists and apologists for Mideast fascism. Ritter’s presumption of Damascus’s innocence is, like everything else he says and writes, too tendentious to be taken seriously.
Michael Weiss is the New York Editor of Pajamas Media. His blog is Snarksmith.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
38 Comments
1. John Samford:“He is a stalwart Republican who has nevertheless become the doyen of the antiwar community for his correct prediction about the neutered state of Saddam Hussein’s prewar WMD capability.”
Two lies, you lose.
May 3, 2008 - 1:53 am 2. Rick554:Ritter is a traitor and a RINO, not “a Stalwart Republican”. You can call him that, but it doesn’t make it so. You can call my aunt my uncle but that won’t make her balls itch.
Saddam moved enough toxins from Iraq to Syria in early ‘03 to kill millions of people. The General in charge of the transfer wrote a book about it, there are affidavits from the pilots, the warehouse guys and a paper trail at both the Air Force bases on the Iraqi end. There are radar records of the flights as well as samples of the poison gas captured by the Jordanians when terrorists tried to use it in an attack in Jordan. That gas matched samples taken by the UN from Iraq after the Operation Desert Storm.
I’m not even mentioning the 900 some chemical weapons found. Not sure why the radical left keeps making this bogus claim. It is long past the point in time where it matters.
The evidence is overwhelming. What wasn’t found was a bunker with huge amounts of WMD laying around. That wasn’t going to be found because it NEVER existed. Saddam isn’t going to put all his eggs in one basket, especially a basket that the US Air Force could destroy whenever they found it. The only people claiming there was a huge mound of WMD’s was the Media.
The rest of the world ( those with IQ’s larger then their shoe size) knew that, like ALL the other nations with WMD’s, Iraq would keep them in many small sites so they would survive a preemptive strike. Saddam learned his lesson when the IAF blew up his reactor.
HMMM Seems to me the “Stalwart Republican” had other issues as well. Will the MSM report his other “problems” as well? I kinda doubt it.
May 3, 2008 - 3:44 am 3. M.E.:“Ritter was always doggedly opposed to the military removal of the Iraqi dictator; instead, he advocated the resumption or “normalization” of US-Iraqi relations – despite the Ba’ath’s unequaled record of genocide, foreign aggression, and domestic totalitarianism”, i.e. this man was supporter of the absolutely criminal regime that may be confronted only with the Nazi.
May 3, 2008 - 5:54 am 4. Ciscokid:It is necessary to remember that the fundamental character of the totalitarian regimes is darkness (“sekretnost’”, as it was said in Soviet Russia). This means (using a mythological image), than it cannot be absolutely known the poisons that boil in its dark viscera, and that some day can burst flooding the world with their mortal content. The history of the Soviet atomic bomb demonstrates it very well. I have arrived to the conclusion (analyzing Sudoplatov’s “revelations” in his “memoirs”), that the bomb test in August of 1949 ended in a catastrophe, that is, there was an uncontrolled explosion which dimensions it is difficult to imagine, but it was hidden to Stalin and presented like a great success. What Stalin did not know, Beriya did. He deluded his Master that the Soviet Union had an effective atomic bomb. The same illusion, I am sure, guided also the political mania of Saadam Hussein, who believed to have weapons that he really had not. But, as the Russians arrived finally to the nuclear weapons, imposing upon American indulgence, also Saadam Hussein would have got a day the desired weapons, provoking an uncontrolled explosion with unimaginable consequences, had it not been for this truly providential American invasion.
Ritter? Why not try satisfying him by offering a spot on Trump’s celebrity apprentice show. Best idea. Stick Ritter in a house (Petri dish) filled with people arguing against him until he can’t respond anymore without spitting. Viewing the show in HDTV will really come in handy for measuring “how far it flew”. Start a contest & send the winner baby wipes.
Ritter’s a fire fly for the spot light. How many people, off the top of their head, know the names of all the other weapons inspectors?
May 3, 2008 - 7:37 am 5. dan:people seem to think that the russians lost the cold war and said, “well played, old chap – well played! well, i guess that’s that then.”
are you people stupid or something? the russians moved the wmd’s to syria and, in my opinion, to belarus, and/or destroyed them. why? their primary victories in the cold war were political, depending on fools like you and agents like ritter to maintain this facade of stupidity made plausible only by its popularity and articulation in the mass media that had gained its authority during the second world war.
ritter is a whore, you are whores, we are ashamed of you, shut up.
May 3, 2008 - 7:41 am 6. Muggins, San Jose, USA:Hussein Defanged? The opposite is true. Although his stash of chemical weaponry was not
present after the invasion, Iraq had the chemical factories and technical know-how to make them in only a few weeks. In fact, those chemical vehicles that were claimed by the left to be for making fertilizer were guarded by Iraqi troops when liberated by U.S. troops. Now, why would troops guard a fertilizer factory? So, not only did Hussein have the industrial base to make chemical weapons quickly, but he still had huge stores of yellow cake to make dirty bombs. I fail to see how Ritter was even remotely correct.
http://calling-muggins.blogspot.com/
May 3, 2008 - 11:06 am 7. Eliyahu:John S is right about Saddam shipping WMD to Syria before the war. In fact, former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon announced these shipments in the Fall of 2002. Further, various Syrian exiles have reported the transfer of WMD to Syria from Iraq, and one of them even claimed to know the locations of the WMD.
The question is why Pres Bush allows his supposed political opponents to charge him with inventing the WMD in Iraq before the 2003 war.
May 3, 2008 - 11:47 am 8. Shef Rogers:We’ll never forgive him for being right.
May 3, 2008 - 12:29 pm 9. RE:Ritter has always struck me as someone on the take.
May 3, 2008 - 3:30 pm 10. John Samford:Eliyahu, First it really doesn’t matter. Saddam has pretty much finished decomposing by now. The Liberation is long over. If it wasn’t for Bremmer starting an insurgency, the Campaign for Iraq would be in the books.
May 3, 2008 - 6:53 pm 11. Eliyahu:Second, President Bush tried very hard to reach out to the left. Ignoring the canards from the moonbats was part of that reaching out. It didn’t work, which my grandpa could have told him would happen. I told him it would happen. Reaching out cost Dubbau his support on the right without gaining him anything on the left.
My grandpa once told me that proving a fool to be a fool doesn’t make the fool wise, it makes him mad. Then you are left with a mad fool to deal with.
The rabid left would not know a fact if it bit them on the arse. You cannot change a socialist’s mind with facts, since their mind was made up without any facts. Like arguing with a religious fanatic.
I have a theory that Socialism is a religion. It meets the criteria established by the courts with Scientology. As a political or economic system, Socialism has been disproved.
As far as the WoT, the terrs major weapon is the MSM. BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, et. al. are all working for the Jihadists. Some are unwitting, which doesn’t make their efforts any less treasonous. This can be laid at President Bush’s feet also.
The Constitution defines treason as “giving aid and comfort” to the enemy. It is up to each generation to define what “aid and comfort” is.
Jane Fonda should have been put on trial. That would have settled the issue, one way or another for that generation. Scott Ritter needs to be tried for treason. That will set the standard for treason for the current generation. Bush doesn’t have the ‘nads for it. Ashcroft would have. Dubbua is more hat then cattle. I think Condi keeps his testes in her attache case.
John, first, I forgot to mention an article by Prof Raphael Israeli of the Hebrew University on the findings of WMD in Iraq after the 2003 war. This was published in the Israeli bimonthly Nativ in Hebrew and is available on the Net in English.
http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/09-issue/israeli-9.htm
Secondly, John, when Bush allows his opponents to call him a liar on this issue of WMD, which is a major issue of great concern, then Bush is failing his duty. But I consider it very peculiar that Bush gave up on this particular matter. And I don’t blame Condoleezza Rice [Bitter Rice], although I can’t stand Condi and believe that she is an enemy of Israel. I think that maybe Bush wants to improve the Arab image in the USA. After all, his father and james baker have long been very palsy with the Arab kings and sheiks and emirs, etc. Maybe Bush is pro-Arab, whatever most people may think. To conclude, failing to tell the American people and the world about the findings of Saddam’s WMD after the war allows Arab apologists a clear field for their lies and endangers Americans and the world in general.
May 3, 2008 - 10:30 pm 12. Fen:We’ll never forgive him for being right.
He wasn’t right. His own reports state that, regardless of any presence of any WMD stock, Saddam had a WMD program and intended to redouble his efforts once sanctions were lifted.
Anti-war activists want to pretend that Saddam was clumsy and stupid, playing the game by the last war’s rules, building up and storing WMD stocks for later use. But what he really sought was to complete the research to create WMDs, then develop a manufacturing infrastructure that would remain light and covert – easily hidden, offline and undetectable to Western intelligence, yet capable of spooling up WMDs within a few weeks notice. The inspection’s regime only served to teach him our methods and develop counter-measures to thwart them. Iran and and its proxy Syria, if they were paying attention, got a crash course on our intelligence gathering and inspection methods for free.
The problem with Ritter is he that he allowed his own ideas re our foreign policy to interfere with his analysis and judgement, as demonstrated by serveral examples in this article.
May 4, 2008 - 6:44 am 13. Norman:So Saddam moved his WMD to Syria right. Can anyone prove it! Come on any pictures I might even accept an ink and pen drawing. What a bunch of maroons to believe this garbage. Saddam was contained and we went into Iraq for the oil. If you can’t understand that by now then I suggest that you seek consulting.
May 4, 2008 - 7:04 am 14. bill:How can you believe anything this jerk said about anything???? Have you seen him present his garbage?
==================
The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The “girl,” however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.
WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the “teen-age girl” twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York’s capital.
Sources tell the Albany Times-Union that Ritter actually had two run-ins with police. The first occurred in April 2001, as the former Marine reportedly drove to a Colonie business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He was reportedly questioned by officers, and released without a charge.
Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of online sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.
Colonie police Deputy Chief Steven Heider told WorldNetDaily that he cannot confirm the allegations, explaining that if they were true, the details would have been sealed by a court order.
“A sealing order is exactly what it says it is,” he said. “We’re not allowed to talk about anything under sealed court order, and I’m not saying that one exists.”
However, WND has learned that NBC television affiliate WNYT in Albany has video of a mug shot of Ritter after the arrest.
“If it’s not him, it’s either his clone or a twin,” the station’s news director, Paul Conti, told WND.
WorldNetDaily reported earlier that WNYT said it had footage of the arrest, but Conti clarified that the station has video of the scene, shot after the arrest.
Scott Ritter
The news director said the 16-year-old girl had been lured by Ritter to meet him at the Burger King in Menands, N.Y., in order “to have her watch him have sex with himself.”
“Anyone who went to the Burger King that day could confirm the details of that event and report that a sting operation was underway that involved a decoy officer posing as a 16-year-old girl,” Conti said.
Callers to today’s Rush Limbaugh radio program brought up the issue of Ritter’s arrest, to which the conservative talk host responded:
“If I were Scott Ritter, I would just come up with a ‘Hey, I was just doing research here.’ … The Pete Townshend reply.”
“You know we’ve all wondered,” added Limbaugh, “why it is that Scott Ritter has done a 180 on what he originally saw as a weapons inspector and then the last couple years, it’s like ‘Nah, the Iraqis don’t even have the capability to make a thumbtack, much less a chemical weapon.’”
Still, Limbaugh downplayed the incident.
“I’m surprised that this bothers anybody,” he said. “I mean look at these reality TV shows out there, everything going on, ‘Bachelorette,’ ‘Joe Millionaire’ … we had oral sex in the Oval Office … I’m just surprised [at] the selective application of morality, that we seem to have certain things bother us and other things don’t.”
As WorldNetDaily reported Saturday, Ritter is calling for the ouster of President Bush for what he feels are unnecessary and murderous actions in the conflict with Iraq.
“I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors,” the 41-year old told WND. “Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can’t think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies.”
“When you go to war you open up a Pandora’s box, the results of which cannot be predicted,” he said via telephone as he drove from his upstate New York home to appear on Fox News. “Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It’s got to be worth the sacrifice that you’re asking others to make.”
Ritter’s views against the conflict with Iraq could be in jeopardy depending on the amount of national media attention his arrest receives, said Robert Thompson, professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University.
“When you’re a talking head, your whole reason for being has got to be the image of anything you represent,” Thompson told the Times-Union. “If the story starts getting to be a big issue, there will be talking heads making their careers on the end of this talking head.”
Two months later, the source said, Ritter was caught in the same type of Internet sex-sting operation after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to a Burger King in Menands. The supposed teenager actually was an undercover investigator posing online as a minor as part of the town Police Department’s investigation of Internet sex crime, the source said.
Police charged Ritter with attempted endangerment of a child, a Class B misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of 90 days in the county jail.
May 4, 2008 - 7:13 am 15. Paul:In a recent interview, Karl Rove admitted the Administration made a mistake when it dod not take on the “Bush Lied” charges. This President has been too willing to let History be his judge. To remain an effective President he needed to retain at least some popularity and fighting back against those charges would have helped.
There have been at least four investigations into why the WMD estimates were wrong (Dr. Kay’s, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Blue Ribbon and the Iraq Survey Group). All found the CIA portrayed its estimates as hard facts and hid just how thin the underlying evidence was.
The President should have, at the very least, denied the charges that he lied and release the intelligence estimates upon which his decisions were made. The bland summaries that came out of the investigations years later were too little, too late to exonerate him. Perhaps he was too focused on trying to actually win the war and run the country rather than on defending his image. I’ve always been amazed at how cleary and resolutely he addresses the evil he finds in our country’s enemies and how oblivious he is to the effects of the vicious attacks his political opponents launch. Frankly, if a President’s popularity falls enough, even his own party members will be happy to defy him, gutting his power.
May 4, 2008 - 7:20 am 16. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:“When fiction rises pleasing to the eye,
May 4, 2008 - 7:24 am 17. Jack:Men will believe, because they love the lie;
But truth herself, if clouded with a frown,
Must have some solemn proof to pass her down. ”
Charles Churchill, An Epistle to William Hogarth
Not only has Bush failed to defend himself on the WMD being moved, but he let go of the Saddam – al-Qaeda link. Many accounts exist of “foreign” terrorists being trained in hijacking in the airliner fuselage at Salman Pak (seen on satelitte photos), but I wonder what became of that Plane? I certainly would have gone over it with a fine-tooth comb and performed DNA analysis on every hair found.
Why has Bush conceded the two best justifications for the Iraq invasion? I can see the elder Bush saying, “son, if you show that Saddam had a role in 9/11, people are going to say that the twin towers would still be standing if your father had taken out Saddam in 1991. Use the WMD justification – everyone knows that he has them.”
When Russian complicity became known in moving the WMD to Syrian control, Bush was faced with at the best starting a new cold war with Russia and the prospect of half of the population demanding a war with Syria, while the other half and most of the media saying that Bush lies. Unfortunately he had to go with the least effective justification – nation building.
May 4, 2008 - 8:19 am 18. Don Meaker:Scott Ritter becomes more and more anti-Bush, because the moonbats will forgive him his attempt at sexual perversion.
The fact was, Saddam was inhibited somewhat by sanctions. Sanctions were not going to be extended forever. Saddam Husayne was preparing to reconstitute his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted.
Inspections and sanctions had some effect. No inspections and no sanctions….. Better that Saddam had his neck stretched after a trial conducted by the people he had oppressed. No dictator that I know of ever was extended that courtesy before his execution. Congrats to the people of Iraq, worthy successors to the early lawgivers.
May 4, 2008 - 8:57 am 19. Moultrie:Truly this riddle, why Bush failed to defend himself on many Iraqi issues, WMD, pre-war Intell, AlQ & Iran in Iraq, and finally allowing the State Dept to FU the post invasion…will puzzle a lot of his Conservative supporters.
May 4, 2008 - 9:14 am 20. Tim:IMO, GWB is just not a strong individual and a so-so leader, he failed to recognize his internal incompetants as well as enemies and really lacked a strong vision of what this country needed after 9/11. We got a mix of GHWB & BJClinton when we needed a Reagan!
Hey Scott! Wanna go over to the Burger King parking lot and pick up some twelve year old girls? This guy is a pathetic, lying piece of, er, flotsam, who was on the take from Saddam’s regime to make his “epic movie” and was also found by police trying to pick up underage girls in a Burger King! Why would anyone take anything this guy says seriously at all is beyond me. If you lie once, you’ll lie again. Courts have known that for ages. Shouldn’t we?
May 4, 2008 - 9:32 am 21. Rick554:A perv is the DEMS big hope??? lolololol Yeah ok.
May 4, 2008 - 9:38 am 22. Fen:Norman: Saddam was contained
He was hardly contained. Witness his attempt to purchase uranium from Africa, the absolute farce of sanctions, the gathering push by “peace” activists to remove sanctions, the Oil for Food scam, his continued support of terrorist organizations… You’re still using Cold War jargon, fighting the current war with the last war’s battle plan. As if “containment” means the same thing in an asymmetrical world war.
and we went into Iraq for the oil
Ah yes, the critique of amateurs and BDS sufferers. We didn’t go into Iraq for oil. We realized, after 9-11, that we faced a triangle threat of 1) rogue states 2) with WMD programs 3) that sponsored terrorist orgs for anonymous proxy attacks against the West. My neighbor is as confused and ignorant as you are: last week I had a diseased tree fall on my property. I removed it. I ALSO cut down other trees in the area that were likewise infected. My neighbor complained my actions were “unprovoked”….
Norman: What a bunch of maroons to believe this garbage.
“Reason is the first victim of strong emotion” – Frank Herbert.
May 4, 2008 - 10:07 am 23. Subotai Bahadur:Leaving Mr. Ritter’s fondness for underage girls aside, there is a more prosaic explanation for his reversal on Iraq. I offer this article in the WEEKLY STANDARD that explores the bribing of journalists by the Hussein regime. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/605fgcob.asp?pg=2
Ritter received $400,000 from Shakir al- Khafaji, an associate of Tariq Aziz, Hussein’s Foreign Minister. We are dealing with politics here. In the political world it is a good rule of thumb to never ascribe to scruples that which can be more easily be explained by bribery.
Subotai Bahadur
May 4, 2008 - 10:23 am 24. Chuckles48:“Syria had committed no crime, and Israel had no legal justification to carry out its attack.”
Well, other than the minor fact that Israel and Syria are still in a state of war.
May 4, 2008 - 12:33 pm 25. heather:I wondered why Mr Ritter knew so much about Saddam’s kiddie prison… and then when he was caught in that sting over that underage girl back in the USA… to me it has been obvious why he would do that 180 over the takedown of Iraq. It was a simple case of blackmail. I wonder who has the videos of Ritter with the little Iraqi children now? Syria?
May 4, 2008 - 10:04 pm 26. epobirs:Norman, no rational person believes we went into Iraq for the oil. If that was what we really wanted, all we had to do was lift the sanctions and buy it for cheap. Saddam made numerous overtures in pursuit of that. Instead, knocking over Saddam’s regime and remaking the nation has produce what is easily the most expensive oil in all of history.
May 5, 2008 - 12:20 am 27. Christopher Taylor:his correct prediction about the neutered state
You’re sure he was correct?
May 5, 2008 - 11:01 am 28. John Samford:“So Saddam moved his WMD to Syria right. Can anyone prove it! Come on any pictures I might even accept an ink and pen drawing. What a bunch of maroons to believe this garbage.”
What would you consider poof? The evidence that Saddam moved his WMD’s would stand up in a court of law, what is your standard? Stop moving the goalposts and state what you will accept as evidence that Saddam had WMD prior to the ‘03 invasion of Iraq. That way when it’s presented to you , you will at least STFU. You won’t change your mind, since you are missing an element essential for that action.
May 5, 2008 - 11:54 am 29. sfcmac:On a positive note, McCain will win the election, which will give BDS sufferers a new lease on life. They will become McCDS sufferers and continue their rabid moonbattery.
Scott Ritter’s statements about Hussein are patently false. I’m a retired Soldier, former Intelligence Analyst, and Iraq war veteran. I don’t know why the ‘former UN weapons inspector’ decided to prostitute himself to the anti-war bunch, but that doesn’t make our involvement in Iraq any less of a good cause.
Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to U.S. forces in the region. He was a WMD-weilding megalomanic who had chem and bio weapons and proved he was willing to use them with the slaughter of 5000 Kurds at Halabj. He also had ties to terrorist cells, which he provided with money and safe haven.
BTW: These are just two examples of what was discovered after our invasion:
1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.energy.gov/news/1388.htm
It’s amazing that the reasons for the war are still being debated. Afghanistan is always ommitted from the rhetoric, but nonetheless, just as crucial in the war against Islamofascism. Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, are just two battlefields in this struggle for Western civilization.
Though the WMDs were not the only reason to invade, I’m damned glad we found them before they could be used against us.
Ritter is a tool.
May 5, 2008 - 2:19 pm 30. Garrett Stasse:John Samford is absolutely correct. The evidence is overwhelming that Saddam moved WMD to Syria because: Two of his top generals said so in recorded interviews; captured minutes detail Saddam’s deception and outline what he had, when and where; Libya gave up the joint nuclear program it ran with Iraq for fear of US invastion, and the remnants of numerous WMD programs were discovered after the liberation. All of this is documented. People who don’t believe it have been mislead by the media, which blatantly failed to report on those developments.
May 5, 2008 - 3:39 pm 31. Kent State’s Yearly Whine Fest « The Foxhole:[...] Link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/scott-ritter-anti-war-problem-child/ [...]
May 5, 2008 - 3:54 pm 32. Javelin:Yawn, you will all believe want you want to believe. Don’t let facts get in the way.
May 5, 2008 - 11:15 pm 33. RogerCfromSD:Javelin, if you weren’t such an apparent narcolept, you’d know that what we believe ARE the facts. Not the BDS conspiracy theory rantings of pony-tailed hippies.
May 6, 2008 - 5:03 pm 34. John Samford:Javelin, here is a clue. Actually several clues, all-4-U;
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Watch your “Hero’s of the Left” in action.
BTW, this ad will play EVERY DAY in EVERY Market this fall.
When you lift a rock, it’s not unusual to see creepy things running from the light. Facts have the same effect on a certain type of politician.
May 6, 2008 - 6:53 pm 35. Javelin's a Jackass:It will be amusing to see how those politicians respond to this ad. I’ll bet they call it an attack. Intelligent people will ask at that point why replaying their own words is an attack? Or why do they run from the light?
Fear? Why do people vote for politicians that fear the light of truth?
Hey Javelin,
Don’t let the facts get in the way. I see a number of people who have presented links and information about this. Where’s yours? Any facts you’re willing to share with us? Did you ever read the 9-11 commission report? How about the ISG report? Did you notice the info in there about WMD and Iraq?
We all await your semi-literate response with baited breath.
May 14, 2008 - 7:01 am 36. The Three Dumbest Neocon Predictions Since the Disaster in Iraq « Politics or Poppycock:[...] WMDs, Ritter was subjected by Pajamas Media to a classic right-wing character assassination, “Scott Ritter: Anti-War Problem Child.” That hit piece appeared on May 3, three weeks after Greenwald predicted the coming of the [...]
Aug 25, 2008 - 7:31 am 37. The Three Dumbest Neocon Predictions Since the Disaster in Iraq « OPERATION ITCH:[...] WMDs, Ritter was subjected by Pajamas Media to a classic right-wing character assassination, “Scott Ritter: Anti-War Problem Child.” That hit piece appeared on May 3, three weeks after Greenwald predicted the coming of the [...]
Aug 25, 2008 - 8:15 am 38. Mark Hadley:Scott Ritter is one of the few willing to tell the true facts to Americans these days. Is it required that all Americans be either right or left? There is a middle ground and it becomes incresingly difficult to sort out the mess between the right and left to find the truth. I’m an independent and it’s the independents like myself that will have the final decision on our next president. Isn’t it such a coincidence that Scott Ritter, hated by the right, under investigation by the FBI for doing his former job as a weapons inspector, would suddenly have soliciting a minor charges crop up? The very person who needs to have his credibilty questioned to satisy everyone, right and left. Please. God bless Scott Ritter.
Sep 17, 2008 - 6:00 pm