Is Scott Ritter a hero?

The BBQ Pit
21

Update:

Here’s an article from CNN which has some good details on this.

First of all, the Clinton administration never acknowledged that it had any spies in Iraq, and the U.N. claims to have had absolutely no knowledge of that.

The only evidence we have comes from an ‘unnamed credible source’ that ONE engineer was working for the CIA, and did ‘something’ to a piece of inspection gear. Later in the article, it claims that information came from galley proofs of a book by Scott Ritter. Where have we heard that name before? Anything he says is totaly non-credible.

But still, I will admit that it looks like there is reasonable evidence that at least some effort was made to piggyback some spying activities on the UNSCOM program.

The next question is, so what? Like, we shouldn’t spy on Saddam? I hope the U.S. government managed to plant thousands of spies in that country.

22

His statements now are completely opposed to his statements then. Unless you can convincingly explain the discrepancies–not just rationalize them–the only question is whether he was lying then or is lying now. Of course, I suppose it could be both. And in line with Sam Stone’s hypothesis, I suppose he could be utterly delusional.

23

Why? 'Cause it gives them something to be right about, thats why!

Not everybody sees things as we do, Sam. If they regard Saddam in a more neutral light than he deserves, it would be obvious that we have given him an entirely reasonable premise to reject further inspectors, we would do nothing different.

24

Could you lay that out for us, Minty. I’ve heard that said but no one has clearly juxtaposed statements.

25

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” – Arab proverb.

26

From the link in the OP:

This little exchange alone makes me think that Ritter is a total idiot. Saddam didn’t sign a single agreement the UN came up with, so Saddam didn’t agree with the UN, but he agreed to the agreements with the UN. WTF? If the Iraqi government signed the UN papers Saddam, since he is the dictator of the country, accepted the agreement. Bickering about who actually signed the papers is a waste of time.

Ritter has no credablity. He contradicts himself at every turn and makes no sense.

BTW, here is a quote for those who seem to think Saddam is a nice little Teddy Bear that has no harm in his heart.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/216328.stm

What a nice guy.

Slee

27

Well, that certainly addresses all my illusions about what a sweetie ol’ Saddam is. Sure got that clarified, thanks to Sleestak.

As to the excerpt from the interview: it puzzled me when I read it and I cant really say I get it. What is clear is the hostility of the interviewer. Perhaps a miscommunication? Dont really know.

Now if it is the contention that Mr. Ritter is confused, this could be offered in evidence. As to the contention that Mr. Ritter is a deliberate liar, it is mute. Most of his statements in the interview struck me as entirely rational, so I cant buy the idea that he is somehow delusional.

But if this is offered as proof that he is a deliberate liar, it falls far short.

28

In order to understand enough about the weapons of interest, one has to come from the intelligence community. Or, the science background that is necessary requires constant contact with same in daily life. Basically, finding qualified inspectors without extensive contacts with the military intelligence establishment is impossible.

Verification of the inspectors apparent discoveries, tracking down leads, or generally knowing where to look on the ground requires further contact with the military intelligence establishment. Inspectors are spys, after all. That is a big part of the inspector’s job description.

29

:smack:
Dammit, during the interminable submit period I realized I had missed this paragraph. Um, what Sam said, plus some stuff.

30

I’ve gotta say, elucidator, you seem pretty dishonest in your arguments. First you say you don’t think he’s lying, but when someone brings up that his statements from a few years ago directly contradict his statements now, you say he’s confused? This isn’t some child we’re talking about, he’s a grown man talking about a field that he is(well should be) very qualified to talk about. He had no reason to be confused, nor does he come off as someone who is simply misunderstanding the conversation. he contradicts himself withen a matter of moments after the original statement! you may see a man confused and flustered by the “hostility” of the interviewer, but I see a liar scrambling to rationalize his own falsehoods.

31

You’re kidding, right? Or, respectfully, are you that deluded?

The economy tanks all summer, the stock market drops like a rock, millions thrown out of work, massive layoffs reported every week, historic corporate scandals coming out of the woodwork, many average people losing thier retirement savings. These items were nearly all that was discussed in July and August on this very board and by all the Joe Six-Packs I encountered.

And the GOP, the pro-business party, would have seen no effect whatsoever in the coming elections?

Is your memory so short as to forget what deep shit the elections were starting to look like just one month ago?

During the summer, there was a huge possible backlash building that could have (and may still) cost the GOP (and, to be fair, any incumbent) seats:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020725-4525228.htm
http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_104.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/17/opinion/polls/main515481.shtml

There were sanguine statements in these stories from GOP pollsters, mostly regarding W’s high approval ratings. But the groundswell was apparent: people were pissed off and wanted something done, and the elections were just over the horizon. This is not a good situation when going into mid-term elections, especially when the stakes for control of both houses is so high.

So, yes, dammit, the timing is amazingly suspect: NOTHING new has happened with respect to Iraq in many months. Not a damned thing. But now, suddenly, Iraq is issue number one and on the front burner for this administration –and just in time for the elections.

Why was Iraq and ‘regime change’ not an important issue for the Bush administration in, say, February of this year? Or in August of 2001? We had nary a peep from the Prez about Evil Saddam at these times, and certainly not the ham-handed, unilateralist sabre-rattling of August (with a nod to the Born Again globalization shown on 9/12 at the UN).

But now, just in time for what may be a congressional squeaker at the polls, we have the Dogs of War, front and center, on the evening news, every damned night.

It’s convenient as hell. Brilliant even. I applaud the administration’s timing. But I am also appalled at those who blithly see no connection at all in the timing of this orchestrated war-fest. War may need to happen, but I have no doubt that the timing of said war-mongering was entirely chosen by this administration to have the maximum political effect.

Please don’t misunderstand me. Saddam is a menace. But he was the same menace six and 12 months ago. There’s nothing new here except rhetoric and timing from the executive branch.

32

Well, lay them out, then. What are these contradictions?

33

you’re kidding right? why don’t you go read ritter’s book Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and for All and then read any transcript of any interview he’s done lately and then try to ask that with a straight face(once you get past the logical inconsistancies of the book). You might take particular note of the portions that chastise the Clinton administration for NOT invading Iraq.

34

So let me get this straight, Saddam is a menace, but because he is not a greater menace now than he was in the past, we shouldn’t worry about it. ok, good call there neville chambelain.

35

I’ve read a couple of his interviews, including the one cited here. I’ve also seen some independent verification of one of his most important contention. Cited above.

I’ve also seen that he is despised with a visceral hatred by some people. The leads one to suspect there is a strong emotional component to all this. It would appear that some wish to insinuate that Ritter is a traitor without actually saying so.

It wouldn’t be the first time a man honestly spoke what he felt was right for his country and was shouted down as a “traitor”.

Nor would it be the first time an ego freak “ran off the rails”.

But all you seem to be doing is insisting that anyone who doesn’t agree that Ritter is full of shit must be stupid or treacherous.

If you are so sure, you certainly must have proof.

Bring it on. Or shut the fuck up.

Its really quite simple.

36

Then explain, please: if you agree that attacking/containing Saddam is important (and I don’t necessarily disgree with this sentiment)…

Then why you aren’t utterly pissed that the administration hasn’t acted more quickly, but waited until September to rattle SH’s cage?

If SH is that important, that dangerous, that menacing, I’m pissed that W was sitting on his hands all this time. Why was February of this year not a good time to act?

And is ‘dittohead’ prominently displayed on your resume? Idiot.

37

What do you mean? The administration has been beating the war drums on Saddam since Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech. The campaign against Saddam started on that day.

38

you’re right, squeegee, maybe he should have acted sooner. may clinton should have. maybe George H. W. bush should have finished the job the first time. I just don’t understand the reasoning that past inaction is a good reason for future inaction.

39

5-HT, I have no problem with taking on Saddam. But possibly (<—note – “possibly”) using the issue for political gain pisses me off. Our country’s security is not a political football to be tossed around to impress the electorate, and I’m damned unhappy that that may be the case.

40

From his interview in Time (emphasis added): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

Good for you, Ritter. You “waging peace” is more important than those kids and the facts. I’m sure the kids will understand. The ones that live, anyway.

Whatever good he’s deluded himself into thinking he might do, this makes him an asshole.