Scott Ritter ..an idiot..YES!

[BaliBabyDoc]

Scott Ritter has changed his story so many times I can't tell who he works for anymore.

I want you to back that shyte up. That's pretty close to saying the man would sell out his country. I think any American and certainly a Marine (once a Marine, always a Marine) deserves better. My difficulty is with the biased, reductionist information provided by most US news sources and the US government.

As for Ritter having to trumpet his patriotism, it's a sad state of affairs when the predominant MO is to question the patriotism of anyone that has a different opinion. The challenge from informed sources like Ritter are met with guilt by association. Damn, if that's going to be the criteria EVERYBODY and every nation supports terrorism in one form or another.

 

[Harvey]

I've watched several interviews with Scott Ritter over the past few days, and he is very right about one thing; assuming an inspection/disarmament team does return to Iraq, it cannot compromise its own crediblity by going outside the rule of law.

That is what happened, before when our own CIA corrupted the inspection process by including CIA operatives in the group. That's like expecting to convict O.J. based on Mark Furman's testimony. No matter what they actually find, once Saddam can paint the inspection group as corrupted, their work becomes suspect, and everything we could hope to achieve falls apart.

Iraq is not about to nuke anyone within the next few weeks, so there is no rush to do this any way but the right way. No matter what they say, now, I don't believe for a moment that Saddam will really allow unlimited investigation of their weapons capability. All we have to do is allow them to show themselves for what they are, and we will have all the justification necessary for demanding more severe enforcement in disarming his government, even to the extent of removing him entirely. However, to get and keep the support of the rest of the planet, it will have to be done by the book.

That's what Scott Ritter is saying, now, and he is right.

 

[UltraQuiet]

From here Ritter

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.

...and from here Ritter2

RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.

So which is it? We probably got most of them but they can regenerate pretty quickly or we got 90-95 percent of them and they probably don't have any more, the latter statement made almost 4 years after the fact. As I said before, I have the utmost respect for Scott Ritter but I think he is being given more credibility than what is warranted. His position has changed dramatically and I want to know why. I heard him the other night on CNN and he said that it was almost guaranteed Saddam had WMD.

Edit: Just saw your second post. The man wrote a book. It is not beyond the scope of imagination that he has become contoversial to sell books. I'm a Bush type simpleton so we'll use a baseball example. Just before Jose Canseco released his book he went around to every talk show and said at least 50% of ball players were using steroids. Is that fact or hype? I want o know what the real deal with the 400K dollars is, why he has spent time in Iraq and why his story has changed almost 4 years after he did his last inspection.

 

[Moonbeam]

If I hide the parts of a weapon with a shelf life of five years I can reconstitute it rather quickly anytime within five years. After that I can't. With regards to the 5 to 10% of capacity left one would have to know if that was a percent of total productive capacity, or if total destruction of some phases of production were achieved and a higher % of some other phase remains.

 

[bonk102]

haha, that was some funny stuff, what a retard

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
From here Ritter

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.

...and from here Ritter2

RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.

So which is it? We probably got most of them but they can regenerate pretty quickly or we got 90-95 percent of them and they probably don't have any more, the latter statement made almost 4 years after the fact. As I said before, I have the utmost respect for Scott Ritter but I think he is being given more credibility than what is warranted. His position has changed dramatically and I want to know why. I heard him the other night on CNN and he said that it was almost guaranteed Saddam had WMD.

Edit: Just saw your second post. The man wrote a book. It is not beyond the scope of imagination that he has become contoversial to sell books. I'm a Bush type simpleton so we'll use a baseball example. Just before Jose Canseco released his book he went around to every talk show and said at least 50% of ball players were using steroids. Is that fact or hype? I want o know what the real deal with the 400K dollars is, why he has spent time in Iraq and why his story has changed almost 4 years after he did his last inspection.

Maybe I'm just daft, but what's your point? Where's the "which is it" do you speak of?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

How much money do you think Bush & Co. spend on PR?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

No kidding, I'm not seeing any contradiction.

 

[JellyBaby]

I honestly don't see a "flip-flop" either. Dave's a smart guy so I'm not sure what the deal is...?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
No kidding, I'm not seeing any contradiction.

You and sandorki will see what you want to see. I'm not here to prove anything to anyone. Type "Scott Ritter" into google, start reading and draw your own conclusions. Here's another article.

If you're confused about which Scott Ritter statements you can now believe about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, you're not alone. The Ritter of today, who speaks before the Iraqi parliament denouncing President Bush's policies and asserting that Saddam poses no threat to American interests, used to be a tough-minded hawk when it came to Iraq.
When Mr. Ritter, a Gulf War veteran, resigned from the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) ? the agency charged with ensuring Iraqi disarmament ? in August 1998, he said his departure should serve as a "wake-up call" about the United Nation's abandonment of the goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In a blistering letter to UNSCOM chief Richard Butler, Mr. Ritter sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraqi mass-destruction weapons be destroyed. He also accused U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan of serving as a "sounding board" for Iraqi complaints aimed at impeding UNSCOM's work.
"Iraq is not disarming," Mr. Ritter said on Aug. 27, 1998. Baghdad's failure to do so "means that Iraq will, in effect, win the Gulf War."
In the weeks after these parting shots, he was severely criticized by the Clinton administration, in particular Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and publicly ridiculed by administration supporters on Capitol Hill like Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware.
But, when it comes to Iraqi disarmament, by far the most critical event of the past four years occurred in October 1998, when Saddam effectively forced UNSCOM out. Instead of taking military action to make Saddam back down, the Clinton administration effectively acquiesced to pressure applied on his behalf from Russia, France and China to put UNSCOM out of business and install a much weaker disarmament apparatus in its place. But the Iraqis have refused to permit the new inspection teams to enter the country.
The bottom line? With inspectors having been barred from Iraq for close to four years, Saddam has faced no constraints on his ability to continue with his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. That's arguably the most fundamental thing that's changed since Mr. Ritter quit UNSCOM. How then can Mr. Ritter credibly appear before the Iraqi parliament as he did on Sept. 8 and declare that Iraq "is not a threat to its neighbors," and that Iraq's unaccounted-for weapons materiel "does not constitute a viable weapons capability?"
Mr. Ritter's assertions have, quite understandably, left former colleagues such as Mr. Butler and former UNSCOM inspector David Kay scratching their heads. Both men have essentially said that either Mr. Ritter was lying when he resigned four years ago, or he is lying now. Messrs. Butler and Kay are too gentlemanly to say it, but Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported last Nov. 19 that Saddam welcomed Mr. Ritter to Baghdad in July 2000 in order to produce a "documentary" film called "Shifting Sands," which Mr. Ritter says is aimed at "de-demonizing" Iraq. The film was financed with $400,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real-estate developer from Michigan whom Mr. Ritter admits is "openly sympathetic" with Saddam's regime. Mr. Khafaji, the Standard reported, accompanied Mr. Ritter as he filmed the documentary.
Some people have reached the obvious conclusion that the money may have effected his opinion. But others who are familiar with Mr. Ritter believe that his ferocious anger at U.S. and U.N. pusillanimity in 1998 has somehow been converted in his mind to defending Saddam. Whatever the explanation for his currently unsupportable assertions, it is a sad turn of events for a once admirable Marine.

 

[ToBeMe]

• 
  The World According to Saddam, According to Scott Ritter
  
  In recent weeks if you turned on your television set or opened your newspaper you would have had a hard time avoiding an encounter with Scott Ritter. We take a close look at this controversial former U.N. arms inspector and ex-Marine Gulf War veteran and what he's had to say about Iraq over the years. Here's what we learned.
  
  William Scott Ritter, Jr. was born in Gainesville, Florida 42 years ago. He is seperated, has children, Protestant, Republican, and holds a bachelor?s degree in history from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
  
  
  He is 12-year U.S. Marine Corps veteran, where he served as an intelligence officer for seven years -- including a tour planning for the Gulf War?s Operation Desert Storm. However, he spent the latter part of his dozen years in the reserves, including a one-year stint as intelligence resources officer in New Orleans. He attained the rank of major in the reserves.
  
  
  For three years he worked for the United Nations? Office of the Special Commission as chief of the concealment investigations unit in Iraq, resigning in protest from this post in 1997. (All inspectors left Iraq in 1998.) He also served as lead liaison between the U.N. and the intelligence services of the U.S., the United Kingdom, Israeli and other nations for three years.
  
  
  In 1999 he authored, a book, "Endgame, Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and For All.?
  
  
  He is a volunteer firefighter, enjoys golf, and -- by the way -- is on record saying he one of the world?s foremost experts on all things Iraq.
  
  
  "I know Iraq better than just about anybody in the US,? the former Marine recently boasted to New York-based journalist David Wallis, a regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine and The Washington Post.
  
  
  With this impressive background to his credit, he has had a lot to say:
  
  
  To Jim Lehrer?s NewsHour, August, 1998:
  
  
  NewsHour: Does Iraq still have proscribed weapons?
  
  
  Ritter: "Iraq still has proscribed 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??
  
  
  NewsHour: What was happening in your investigations that made you feel you had to resign?
  
  
  Ritter: "Well, basically, is the investigations had come to a standstill, were making no 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"
  
  
  To the House International Relations Committee, September 1998:
  
  
  Ritter: "[T]he special commission had received sensitive information of some credibility, which indicated that Iraq had the components to assemble three implosion-type devices, minus the fissile material, and that if Iraq were able to obtain fissile material of the quality and of the proper physical properties conducive to such a weapon, then they could assemble three nuclear devices in a very short period of time.?
  
  
  Committee: What?s the likelihood that we would detect that fissile material?
  
  
  Ritter: "[M]aterials such as the components of a nuclear weapon are protected by [Iraq?s] Special Security Organization, as are chemical, biological and ballistic-missile components. And this in fact was the purpose of the inspection teams that I was tasked with leading -- to break through the wall of concealment put up by the Special Security Organization and get to these components. We have not been allowed to do these jobs, so right now my confidence in the ability of the inspection process to find these components or fissile material is very low indeed.?
  
  
  Committee: What is "a very short period of time??
  
  
  Ritter: "If the components of the implosion device are operational, if they have not been damaged through moving them around the country and hiding them from the inspection teams, and the fissile core is of the correct properties, it?s a matter of days, maybe weeks before they could be assembled into a device.?
  
  
  
  
  Then, to the Times Union, February 2001:
  
  
  Ritter: "The reality is simple. Iraq has been disarmed, and has been fundamentally disarmed since 1996.??
  
  
  To Fox "On the Record? with Greta Van Susteren, May 2002:
  
  
  Van Susteren: Can Saddam Hussein harm the U.S?
  
  
  Ritter: "He doesn?t have that ability.?
  
  
  Van Susteren: Is he going to get it soon?
  
  
  Ritter: "No, he has been effectively disarmed.?
  
  
  To the British at Westminster, July 2002:
  
  
  Ritter: "If the US makes a move on Iraq, eliminates Saddam and Iraq goes fundamentalist, there is a very good chance that a domino effect will come into play. We will see Saudi Arabia fall, Kuwait fall, Jordan fall, Egypt fall and the entire region being swept up in a sea of anti-Western, Islamic fundamentalism.?
  
  
  To John McLaughlin, "One on One,? August 2002:
  
  
  Ritter: "[T]he Iraqi [uranium] enrichment capability has been eliminated off the face of the earth; there?s nothing left. [T]he bottom line is Iraq does not have a nuclear capability today.?
  
  
  To the Iraqi National Assembly in Baghdad, September 2002:
  
  
  Ritter: "My government as well as the Brittish are making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon the rhetoric of fear and ignorance as opposed to the reality of truth and fact I have come to know here in Iraq...
  
  
  "The truth of the matter is that Iraq is not a sponsor of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11, and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamentalist extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day?
  
  
  "I know that weapons inspectors whom followed me were used to collect information pertaining to the security of Iraq and its leadership that had nothing to do with the mandate of disarmament and everything to do with facilitating the unilateral policy objectives of those who sought to interfere in the internal politics of Iraq?
  
  
  "I know that weapons inspectors are not at work in Iraq today, not because the Iraqis kicked them out, but rather that they were ordered out by former executive chairman of the weapons inspection regime Richard Butler under pressure from the United Nations and without the permission of the Security Council -- in order to clear the way for a military aggression in December 1998?
  
  
  "I know that the vast majority of the more than 100 targets bombed by the United States and Great Britain during Desert Fox [the December, 1988 ?military aggression?] had nothing to do with weapons production capability, but rather the leadership and security establishments of the government of Iraq, and that the precision in which these targets were bombed was due in a large part due to the information gathered by weapons inspectors??
  
  
  And to David Wallis, September 2002:
  
  
  Ritter: "This war is about political ideology. It?s about a bunch of conservatives and liberals in Washington D.C., who have hijacked the national security of the United States for pursuit of their own politically driven ideological objectives. These people have embraced a policy of unilateralism and using American force to achieve global dominance.?
  
  
  In yet another Wallis interview:
  
  
  Ritter: "Bush said he was a compassionate conservative. He said he would not allow hubris to be injected into US foreign policy. He said he would reach across party lines to build a government that was representative of what the majority of American people want. I believed him. He lied to me.?
  
  
  Wallis: Sleep well at night?
  
  
  Ritter: "Iraq never had the means to aerosolize anthrax. What they produced was crude. The only way an Iraqi biological agent would kill you is if it landed on your head. With chemical weapons they don't have the ability to produce mist sprays to deliver a deadly agent over a wide area. Am I sleeping well? You're damned right I am.?
  
  
  In a break from dispensing his nuggets of wisdom, Ritter reflects wistfully: "I appreciate the stark contrasts of the Iraqi desert. I love Iraqi desert mornings. I love Iraqi desert evenings. I love Iraqi desert sunsets. I love when rain falls on the Iraqi desert and kicks up dust and you can smell the earth. I feel at home there?
  

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh man, I've changed my mind on this Ritter guy. He was a 100% till he said he likes Iraqi sunsets. Now I know he's just a worthless traitor. He likes Iraqi sunsets. Bwa ha ha ha. What an incitement. The guy's a traitor.

Clearly, what Ritter is guilty of is fingering Bush as a man with a lunatic policy, attacking other countries out of fear, greed, and ambition. Bush will turn the US into a pariah state.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh man, I've changed my mind on this Ritter guy. He was a 100% till he said he likes Iraqi sunsets. Now I know he's just a worthless traitor. He likes Iraqi sunsets. Bwa ha ha ha. What an incitement. The guy's a traitor.

Clearly, what Ritter is guilty of is fingering Bush as a man with a lunatic policy, attacking other countries out of fear, greed, and ambition. Bush will turn the US into a pariah state.

Oh man................beamer, you are so right! We're just attacking at will aren't we????:Q Who will it be tomorrow???? Canada?????:Q This Ritter guy is a savior just as beamer says!!!! beamer.......when you packing your bags to leave for Iraq to be with Ritter in the Iraqi desert and in a country clearly better than where you are now???????

 

[Moonbeam]

Dave, you didn't respond to the shelf life factor. Seems to me it explains your supposed contradiction. I think it's important when judging a man's integrity that you hear his defense rather than those whose policy his words threaten. Ever since I was 10 years old I've claimed I'm 10. I like to be consistent.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Zen Master told me that any sunset is a good sunset when you're enlightened.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Zen Master told me that any sunset is a good sunset when you're enlightened.

Hmmm, something of a goal to set for yourself then isn't it? Quite a lofty one too considering the source!

 

[JellyBaby]

Moonbeam, you'll not convince people who are spoon-fed their opinions of Ritter.

To the others, I would suggest you so some searching, across a wide variety of news sources and, at the very least, listen to what Ritter says in an interview. You'll be surprised.

 

[SuperTool]

I think that Ritter is not an idiot. If you show me that Iraq has nukes, I will say he is.
As far as Iraq giving chem and bio weapons to Al-Qaeda, that sounds like complete nonsense. Why would Al-Qaeda procure biological weapons from a country under blocade and soon to be resumed inspections, when they can just develop them in the states with very little difficulty. Look how much trouble FBI has finding that Anthrax killer. If they can make Anthrax in their basement here, why would they waste their time going to Iraq and developing anthrax there, and importing it? Makes 0 sense.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dave, you didn't respond to the shelf life factor. Seems to me it explains your supposed contradiction. I think it's important when judging a man's integrity that you hear his defense rather than those whose policy his words threaten. Ever since I was 10 years old I've claimed I'm 10. I like to be consistent.

I'm not sure what it is that I am supposed to respond to. I've linked to two articles where I think he is clearly contradicting himself and posted a third. ToBeMe has posted some of the same but to be fair they are sound bites. Personally Moonie, I don't think you want the truth or even enough facts to make an intelligent evaluation. You jumped all over an article someone posted yesterday that was critical of the Bush admin. and when I posted the link to the source document (90 pg PDF doc) which showed what a pack of lies the article was, you dismissed it as being too hard to work with. If you're just going take every opportunity to give Bush a rip that's fine, you should head over to Ars. There's an ongoing ultra-liberal, anti-Bush, anti-American hate fest over there and you'll fit in nicely. Be forewarned though. When you post in the Soap Box over there they expect links to credible sites (Noam Chomsky is very credible to them) and if you don't, they get very angry.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

You and sandorki will see what you want to see.

And you won't?

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Moonbeam, you'll not convince people who are spoon-fed their opinions of Ritter.

To the others, I would suggest you so some searching, across a wide variety of news sources and, at the very least, listen to what Ritter says in an interview. You'll be surprised.

I agree...... almost all the major media here and abroad, his ex friends and co-workers are all so damned biased.................better to listen to Iraqi TV and radio for the most unbiased straight forward opinion on Ritter!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My dearest, etech, you speak of this board as though it were your own and yet return after proclaiming it too shallow for your great mind and even deign to address me whose opinion you care nothing about. Your internal inconsistency is as apparent as your lack of functioning intelligence. First you slime a great American with your terrorist lies. Then you imply that I am the terrorist, I who supplied you with all the necessary data to discover that the inane implication you hallucinate in the Ritter quote says actually says nothing at all.

You see Ritter wants Iraq disarmed. He believes exactly as you quote. But he wants the legality of inspections that are not corrupted by either side. Bush wants war. That's all he wants. He wants Saddam dead and America in control of Iraq. He wants to establish a new American foreign policy. We will take you over because we can. It's a great policy for moral lepers. It's people that support that who are the sell outs although most probably they never had any thing to sell in the first place. You're not much of an American when you start calling the real patriots, those who feel that the purpose of open and free government is to welcome and air all points of view, to critique the government in order to improve it. Naturally for the small minded and the bigoted, light is an anathema.

"My dearest, etech, "
Moonbeam, do not refer to me as your dearest anything.

?you speak of this board as though it were your own and yet return after proclaiming it too shallow for your great mind?

That is another of your lies. The truth is in this thread. for anyone that cares to seek it out. I would offer to continue the debate there but it is now locked. Many members spent time and effort to offer suggestions only to be met with the arbitrary ?"At this time no changes are going to be implemented. This discussion is now closed "?
The reason I choose not to spend as much time on this board that I used to truly enjoy is in that statement and the thread..


?Your internal inconsistency is as apparent as your lack of functioning intelligence?
I would have to have some respect for you Moonbeam to be insulted by you. I don?t, save your typing for someone that does not know that you post propaganda that can only benefit the enemies of the US on this board.
I ask you again. Tell us all why you felt it necessary to post this.

I mentioned months ago that I heard a report that the bombing patterns in Afghanistan correspond to places where war lords were demanding bribe money for the pipeling going through areas of their control.

Who do you think would start propaganda such as that? Who would benefit from discrediting the US and it?s military when they are engaged in battle. Do you even stop to think of the consequences of that post and what you are doing to our military men and women overseas when you post what is very probably a lie started by the men our forces are fighting. Justify your reasons for that post. Prove what it alleges or admit to posting lies and distortions for some purpose that only you know. In deference to the originator of this thread please continue this in the original thread where you posted your lies.
original thread

That is why I consider you as aiding and abetting the terrorists. You post their lies.

"You see Ritter wants Iraq disarmed. He believes exactly as you quote. But he wants the legality of inspections that are not corrupted by either side. Bush wants war."

Pres. Bush seems to be in agreement with the 1998 Ritter.

BBC Tuesday, December 22, 1998
If deemed necessary to compel Iraq into compliance (and I believe this to be the case), then Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein.
It is an extreme solution for an extreme problem. But half measures such a Desert Fox are much worse, in my opinion.

"First you slime a great American with your terrorist lies."
This is who you are calling a great American?

The Wall Street Journal | September 18, 2002
"Mr. Ritter's arguments lately have deteriorated, from discrepant to disturbing. On Dec. 7, in a speech delivered at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in Washington, Mr. Ritter suggested that Saddam would be justified in working with al Qaeda to blow up a U.S. government building."

Naturally for the small minded and the bigoted, light is an anathema

Are you starting to feel the light now Moonbeam? All that glitters is not gold, sometimes it is only pyrite.

edit/fixed bad link only

 

[JellyBaby]

almost all the major media here and abroad, his ex friends and co-workers are all so damned biased.................better to listen to Iraqi TV and radio for the most unbiased straight forward opinion on Ritter!

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
You and sandorki will see what you want to see.

And you won't?

What makes you think I want to see Scott Ritters credibility dissapear? He's a former Marine officer which means I take him at his word from the get-go, no questions asked. I also remember being very much on his side in 97-98 when he was deriding the Clinton admin. every chance he got. If you think I want to see what I consider a reversal of his opinions about Iraq, after writng a book, speaking before their legislature, and working for a very staunch Saddam supporter, you are sadly mistaken.

If anyone out there thinks I am being "spoon fed" my opinion about Scott Ritter, you too are sadly mistaken. I've probably read 50 articles on him in the last week and watched him every time he was on TV. Short of interrogating him myself, I don't know what else to do.

 

[ToBeMe]

Here's another from the WSJ September 18th 2002..................

• Ritter of Arabia
  By Stephen F. Hayes
  The Wall Street Journal | September 18, 2002
  
  
  On the eve of the Gulf War, a young Marine named Scott Ritter wanted to quit. But when President George H.W. Bush began dispatching troops to the Persian Gulf, Mr. Ritter changed his mind. "I can't leave the Marine Corps when my country's getting ready to go to war," he said later. "That's a dishonorable thing to do."
  
  Today, as a second President Bush prepares the country for war in the same land, Scott Ritter is seemingly doing P.R. for Saddam Hussein, appearing anywhere he can get an audience to dispute the contention that Saddam is a threat to the world. Mr. Ritter shows up on National Public Radio, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS, ABC, NBC and each of the all-news cable networks. Prominent newspapers -- the Boston Globe, Newsday, the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times -- have published his rants. He is quoted approvingly by members of Congress and world leaders. Indeed, Scott Ritter has probably become the leading opponent of intervention in Iraq.
  
  But he wasn't always a dove.
  
  American Cowboy
  
  Mr. Ritter worked in intelligence at Central Command during the Gulf War, and shortly thereafter joined UNSCOM, the U.N. team assigned to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. In his seven years in that role, Mr. Ritter earned a reputation as a tough, some would say belligerent, inspector. The Iraqis hated him, and complained each time UNSCOM sent the American "cowboy" inspector. To the extent that U.N. inspectors were able to partially disarm Saddam, Mr. Ritter deserves much of the credit.
  
  But by 1998, Iraqi obstruction of inspectors reached absurd levels. Mr. Ritter ripped the Clinton administration for its fear of confronting Saddam, whom he described as a "real and meaningful threat." He resigned his post in very public protest.
  
  In congressional testimony that September, Mr. Ritter declared that Iraq was "winning its bid to retain its prohibited weapons," and cautioned about the future. "Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated," he testified, "Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months." The inspections ended in December. That month, Mr. Ritter amplified his earlier warnings in an article in the New Republic:
  
  "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed," he declared in one interview recently. "Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. These agents are stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
  
  Then, at precisely the time Saddam was to have reconstituted his arsenal according to Mr. Ritter's projection, the former inspector flipped. "Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability," Mr. Ritter declared. "Iraq represents a threat to no one."
  
  What explains Scott Ritter's change of heart? Only he knows, it has come at a cost of many friendships with former co-workers and friends, as well as causing many problems within his family. As his views have changed, he's taken money from a source who has led many to question his objectivity.
  
  Over the past two years, Mr. Ritter has taken $400,000 from Shakir Al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam, to produce a documentary called, "In Shifting Sands." Mr. Ritter concedes that Mr. Al-Khafaji is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." And that may be an understatement. Mr. Al-Khafaji runs propaganda sessions for Saddam. Euphemistically known as "expatriate conferences," the biannual gatherings decry the "terrorism and genocide" the U.S. commits against the Iraqi people through U.N. sanctions.
  
  Mr. Ritter claims Mr. Al-Khafaji had no editorial input on the film project, a claim he undermines by openly admitting that his benefactor is responsible for arranging Mr. Ritter's interviews with high-ranking Iraqi government officials, including chief propagandist, Tariq Aziz. Even before his project was completed, Mr. Ritter predicted at a press conference that "the U.S. will definitely not like this film." These contacts no doubt helped Mr. Ritter earlier this month, when he returned to Baghdad and became the first American to speak before the Iraqi National Assembly.
  
  "There are those who wish Iraq harm regardless of the circumstances or costs, and many of these currently reside in the government of the United States," he told the Iraqis. "We must find a way to overcome the politics of fear and those who practice it. The best way to do this is to embrace the truth. In regards to the current situation between Iraq and the United States, the truth is on the side of Iraq."
  
  Mr. Ritter's arguments lately have deteriorated, from discrepant to disturbing. On July 7, in a speech delivered at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in Washington, Mr. Ritter suggested that Saddam would be justified in working with al Qaeda to blow up a U.S. government building.
  
  Here is Mr. Ritter's take on the Prague meetings between an Iraqi spy and Mohamed Atta, as transcribed by the Center: "What it appears transpired was that the Iraqi intelligence officer spoke with Mohamed Atta at length about an attack. If you're the Iraqi government and you're looking at the United States, they are a legitimate enemy. Indeed, you could make the case that under international law, they are a legitimate target."
  
  'Fundamentally Disarmed'?
  
  At times, Mr. Ritter seems confused about what, exactly, he should be saying. In one sentence he'll declare Iraq "fundamentally disarmed," and in the same interview argue that Saddam would be a fool to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction because his neighbors won't get rid of theirs.
  
  Nothing will keep Mr. Ritter from sharing his views on the possibility of Saddam's nuclear arsenal. In an interview from Baghdad, Mr. Ritter was asked about a New York Times exposé on the Iraqi government's procurement of aluminum pipes. These pipes, say weapons experts, are precisely those needed to manufacture nuclear weapons. No one, of course, other than Iraq insiders can be sure that those pipes would be used for that purpose.
  
  But Scott Ritter confidently says he knows that they will not. "Thousands of aluminum pipes, and we're going to go to war over thousands of aluminum pipes? This is patently ridiculous. These are aluminum pipes coming in for civilian use. They are not being transferred to a covert nuclear processing plant or any covert nuclear activity whatsoever."
  
  With such assurances, who needs inspectors?