# Scott Ritter claims US planning June attack on Iran, Iraq election manipulated **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540 "2005-02-23T15:42:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/21 "2005-02-23T21:59:41Z")
Bombing and invading are not the same thing. Don’t confuse them. Clinton bombed Iraq, he did not invade it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/22 "2005-02-23T22:00:32Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > This is ridiculous. > > The U.S. has publicly stated that there is no plan to invade Iran. But Ritter says we will be bombing Iran in June. :rolleyes: There’s a big, big difference between INVADING (eg, what we did in Iraq) and BOMBIMG a few key sites. I think the probability of a full-scale invasion of Iran is extremely small. But dropping a few bombs is not out of the question, although I can’t see it being done without approval from Congress. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/23 "2005-02-23T22:01:54Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > Does the president really sign off for military actions months ahead of time? Obviously, if any preparation is required. Our troop buildup for the Iraq invasion took months. Of course, a bombing raid on Iran could be done from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf and would require only a few hours’ notice. > [@Malodorous](#): > > Also an attack on Iran would need either a nod from congress or some sort of evidence of a “clear and present” danger, right. Bush orders a bombing raid without consulting Congress; it’s over in a few hours; what’s a Pub-controlled Congress gonna do about it? It’s a _fait accompli._ The question then becomes, how does Congress respond to the resulting situation? I.e., if Iran retaliates by attacking some of our ships in the Gulf . . . ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/24 "2005-02-23T22:24:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > There’s a big, big difference between INVADING (eg, what we did in Iraq) and BOMBIMG a few key sites. I think the probability of a full-scale invasion of Iran is extremely small. But dropping a few bombs is not out of the question, although I can’t see it being done without approval from Congress. When Clinton bombed the Sudanese asprin factory, did he get congressional permission? I can’t remeber. Of course there’s probably a legal difference between acting against a privately owned factory and a gov’t nuclear instillation, but I imagine the two cases would be somewhat similar. > [@BG](#): > > Obviously, if any preparation is required. Our troop buildup for the Iraq invasion took months. Of course, a bombing raid on Iran could be done from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf and would require only a few hours’ notice. I’m sure we have enough military assets in Iraq/Afganistan to blow up any number of targets in Iran, so I don’t think that getting stuff into position would take 3 months. Of course gathering intellegence about the targets could take that long (and according to Hersch, we’re doing that), but from the article, that doesn’t sound like what Ritter is talking about. Instead, Ritter makes it sound like they have a plan ready to go, and that Bush is O.King it. Seems unlikely to me, but perhaps someone who knows more about how such things are done will chime in. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/25 "2005-02-23T22:52:32Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > When Clinton bombed the Sudanese asprin factory, did he get congressional permission? I can’t remeber. Of course there’s probably a legal difference between acting against a privately owned factory and a gov’t nuclear instillation, but I imagine the two cases would be somewhat similar. I don’t remember either. IIRC, it is at least expected that the prez will consult with (but not seek approval from) Congressional leaders from both parties on the relavent committees (eg, Senate Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee). ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/26 "2005-02-23T23:30:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Speaking of S.O.P. I think we should investigate if Bush is assembling a O.S.P. for Iran… [The INC of Iran?](http://newsjunkiesunanimous.com/simonxs_seen/mek_notes/mek_notes.html) ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/27 "2005-02-23T23:36:26Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > In Bush’s own words, the idea that we are planning to attack Iraq is “ridiculous.” Of course, “[h]aving said that, all options are on the table.” The actual quote is: (Italics mine) > [@](#): > > The idea that the U.S. is getting ready to _invade_ Iran is ridiculous," I don’t doubt that we are getting ready for airstrikes. Doesn’t take a Kreskin to see that one coming. But an invasion? Nah. As for the phonied election results, it sounds like Mssr.Ritter is just borrowing a line from the DNC. Some people seem to think Bush has some fell powers to manipulate election at his whim, what with altering results by a certain percantage hither and yon. Of course, as is the case with the wild-eyed claims of election fraud here, no evidence is offerred, just accusations and hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/28 "2005-02-23T23:40:35Z")
> [@](#): > > But since Ritter was RIGHT about that and Bush was proven to be a liar, why shouldn’t we believe Ritter now? For the same reason that, if two years ago I had postulated, “Bush was right about Subject X, why wouldn’t he be right about WMDs?” I would have been laughed out of the thread. Further, be well aware that a person can be wrong without being a liar. I’m referring to Ritter… he may very well believe his words to the letter. Doesn’t make him right. On the other hand, the only thing that can make him right is if bombs do fall in June. If the administration just wanted to be a pack of dicks (well, more so, in the eyes of many), they just have to hold off the fireworks for a couple weeks. “See? See? Ritter’s full of shit! We’re bombing in JULY! Take that, you stupid liberals, hahahahaha!” ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/29 "2005-02-23T23:44:11Z")
Well it’s not like Ritter has ever taken a ridiculous position, that seemed absolutely moronic and far outside of the conventional wisdom – and was [proved right](http://slate.msn.com/id/2105434) , right? Well … it’s not like he could do it twice … right? FTR IMO: “manipulating” the elections? No. I do wonder though if there is a cop out (less inflammatory) definition of “manipulating”. Bombing Iran in June? Probably not that dramatically – I am sure a number of scenarios have been planned out … if X happens then Y, followed by Z. Could one scenario possibly be “If by June 21st there is no movement by Iran and Iraq is the same and the political stars are aligned we will hit the facilities?” Maybe. But there is no locked into “plan”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/30 "2005-02-23T23:55:00Z")
> [@jimmmy](#): > > FTR IMO: “manipulating” the elections? No. I do wonder though if there is a cop out (less inflammatory) definition of “manipulating”. Well, the quote is, “He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials “cooked” the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.” Implying that the official vote count does not match the actual vote count. I’m skeptical about that, because the official count is not exactly favorable to U.S. interests. If Negroponte were meddling with the count, wouldn’t he have produced an outcome where the Shi’ite UIA did not get an absolute majority in the National Assembly? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/31 "2005-02-24T00:02:42Z")
Prior to 2002, Scott Ritter (UN weapons inspector) had some credibility. However, we’re now talking about the Scott Ritter who ([by his own admission](http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/10/07/ritter/)) accepted $400,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji to do a documentary critical of UN sanctions. [Shakir al Khafaji](http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/39637.htm) received millions of dollars of crude oil vouchers from Saddam and was listed on an honor roll in Uday Hussein’s newspaper (before Saddam pulled the plug). Scott Ritter’s credibility is gone. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/32 "2005-02-24T00:13:58Z")
How does that hurt his credibilty? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/33 "2005-02-24T00:37:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How does that hurt his credibilty? Well, you do see the clear conflict of interest that existed, correct? Unless you meant that the whole thing is somewhat moot now that sanctions are lifted and the Oil for Food scandal unveiled. And good catch on the attack vs. invade, **Brutus**. I didn’t think of that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/34 "2005-02-24T00:55:50Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Well, you do see the clear conflict of interest that existed, correct? > > Unless you meant that the whole thing is somewhat moot now that sanctions are lifted and the Oil for Food scandal unveiled. > > And good catch on the attack vs. invade, Brutus. I didn’t think of that. I just don’t see a conflict of interest anyway. If he was expressing his real opinion, what’s the problem? He had no legal or moral obligation not to criticize UN Sanctions (and I think his criticisms were correct, by the way) and there’s no reason to think that Ritter knew anything about al Khafaj receiving oil vouchers from Iraq at the time. Incidentally, **I** caught the invasion-bombing thing before **Brutus** did. Let’s give credit where credit is due. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/35 "2005-02-24T01:04:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How does that hurt his credibilty? A man loses credibility when he does a 180 on his opinions overnight after accepting money from the person he is investigating. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/36 "2005-02-24T01:13:03Z")
Cite that he did a 180 on his opinion? ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/37 "2005-02-24T01:15:56Z")
Maybe it was only a 177 or 178. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/38 "2005-02-24T02:22:23Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The actual quote is: (Italics mine) > > I don’t doubt that we are getting ready for airstrikes. Doesn’t take a Kreskin to see that one coming. But an invasion? Nah. Yes, **Brutus** , good catch, except that the _full_ quote is, well, ridiculous, whether he said attack, invade, or buttfuck Iran, because he calls it ridiculous, and in the next breath says that we can’t rule it out. However, if any of you folks haven’t learned this one yet, here’s a bit of advice: Never trust a Republican without a cite. Or, paraphrasing a famous Republican: “Don’t trust, and verify.” > **[President keeping Iran options open despite EU pleas](https://www.smh.com.au/world/president-keeping-iran-options-open-despite-eu-pleas-20050224-gdksqq.html)** > [@](#): > > “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,” Mr Bush told a news conference in Brussels on Tuesday. > > “Having said that, all options are on the table,” he said, in a clear reference to military action. Don’t trust that one? How about Dickie Scaife’s own rag: [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/national/s\_306577.html](http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/national/s_306577.html) > [@](#): > > “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,” Bush said last night. “And having said that, all options are on the table.” No? How about Fox News: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html) > [@](#): > > “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table,” Bush said after discussing the issue with European allies. Yeah, good catch **Neurotik** and **Diogenes the Cynic**. Perhaps not cynical enough. You will learn, son. You will learn. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/39 "2005-02-24T02:53:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Prior to 2002, Scott Ritter (UN weapons inspector) had some credibility. However, we’re now talking about the Scott Ritter who ([by his own admission](http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/10/07/ritter/)) accepted $400,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji to do a documentary critical of UN sanctions. [Shakir al Khafaji](http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/39637.htm) received millions of dollars of crude oil vouchers from Saddam and was listed on an honor roll in Uday Hussein’s newspaper (before Saddam pulled the plug). > > Scott Ritter’s credibility is gone. From the linked CNN article: > [@](#): > > By late 2002 and early 2003 – as U.S. forces prepared to invade Iraq – President Bush’s national security team fanned out on TV: to pound the message. > > “Based on what we’ve seen, we are fairly confident that he [Saddam Hussein] is again moving forward to develop a nuclear weapon,” Vice President Cheney said in September 2002. > > But by that period, Scott Ritter had emphatically changed his tune. > > “We have inspectors on the ground. They’re getting compliance. They’re doing their job and they’re not finding anything that warrants a threat worthy of war,” Ritter told Wolf Blitzer in January 2003. > > Ritter became a punching bag, pummeled by some of the most powerful figures in the Iraq debate – from his former boss at the U.N. to the then vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. > > “He is now misleading the world’s public, and I find that sad, wrong and frankly, a touch dangerous,” said former UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler of Ritter in September 2002. > > And Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Richard Shelby said, “I have met Scott Ritter before and I think he’s an idealist. I think he wants to believe that everybody’s good and the world’s going to be safe. But I don’t believe there’s any real credence to his statements. It looks to me like he’s over there courting Saddam Hussein at the wrong time at the wrong place.” > > Ritter had gone to Baghdad in September 2002, to address the Iraqi parliament. He told them the Bush administration had no proof that Iraq had reconstituted its weapons program. > > At the time, Charles Duelfer, another of Ritter’s former U.N. bosses, had this to say: > > “I think that it’s an exercise that supports the Iraq government, him showing up in Baghdad. I wish that Iraqis could come to the United States with equal freedom and speak their minds equally.” > > This was Charles Duelfer on Wednesday in his role as chief author of a new CIA report on Iraq’s weapons program: > > “I think the prospects of finding militarily significant – I sound like I’m trying to create jargon here – but a significant stockpile is, I don’t know, less than five percent.” > > Those prewar attacks on Ritter’s credibility were not entirely baseless. > > **Ritter had, by his own admission, accepted $400,000 from an Iraqi-American businessman said to be sympathetic to Saddam to produce a documentary critical of U.N. sanctions against Iraq.** > > And at the time he leveled those prewar assertions that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, one intelligence analyst points out, Ritter hadn’t been an inspector for years. He had to have been guessing, on at least some of it. > > Guessing or not, most accounts now support much what Scott Ritter said then. No, **Magiver,** this story, by itself, does not detract from Ritter’s credibility. Maybe the money he took from the businessman (not here named as al Khafaji, BTW; and the linked _New York Post_ article on al-Khafaji does not mention Ritter, so I don’t see how you’re connecting these two stories) was, in his mind, necessary financing for a message he was already committed to getting out. If you want to make a movie with a message, you seek out support from like-minded donors – happens all the time, no conflict of interest is present. BTW, was the documentary in question ever made? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540/40 "2005-02-24T03:35:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > From the linked CNN article: > > No, **Magiver,** If you want to make a movie with a message, you seek out support from like-minded donors – happens all the time, no conflict of interest is present. BTW, was the documentary in question ever made? So if a President gives money to a journalist to front his message then the journalist retains his credibility? I don’t see your thought process here. A journalist has to remain unattached to a story or credibility is lost. Getting money from Saddam Hussein to declare him in good standing is about as detached as you get. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-ritter-claims-us-planning-june-attack-on-iran-iraq-election-manipulated/291540.md?page=3)