Scott Ritter claims US planning June attack on Iran, Iraq election manipulated

[pantom]

As Brutus himself has observed, way back, having Iraq as well as Afghanistan as part of The Empire makes attacking Iran infinitely easier. Just look at a map. And Hersh pointed out in his last New Yorker article that plans for invading Iran have been revised as a result of the conquest of Iraq.
So, the idea we’d never invade Iran is so much wishful thinking. Bush will do whatever he feels like doing, as he has already shown. No one in DC has the balls or the power to stop him.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Ritter did not get money from Saddam Hussein.

[BrainGlutton]

@Magiver

So if a President gives money to a journalist to front his message then the journalist retains his credibility? . . . A journalist has to remain unattached to a story or credibility is lost.

:dubious: No, sir. First, Scott Ritter, though he sometimes holds press conferences, is not and has never claimed to be a journalist. Sedcond, while journalists are expected to retain at all times a certain independent perspective of judgement WRT to stories, that is not the same thing as detachment or even impartiality. To the contrary, truly great journalists have a lot of emotional investment in the stories they cover, and often openly favor one side (if “sides” there be) over the other.

@Magiver

Getting money from Saddam Hussein to declare him in good standing is about as detached as you get.

:rolleyes: According to the story cited, the point of the documentary in question was criticism of the UN sanctions – which is not the same as declaring Hussein “in good standing,” and many people who had no use at all for Hussein similarly levied harsh criticisms at the sanctions. I’m sorry, but we don’t all live in your black-and-white Manichean world. There are usually more than two sides to any question.

[Magiver]

What is the point of your question? Ritter admitted taking the money from Shakir. Shakir is connected to Saddam. Do you need a photo of Saddam handing him a giant novelty check to acknowledge the event?

At some point you have to allow for the obvious or there can’t be any ground for discussion.

[BrainGlutton]

@Magiver

Ritter admitted taking the money from Shakir.

As I pointed out earlier, the CNN story you cited does not mention Shakir, and the New York Post story you cited does not mention Ritter.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Ritter did not take money from Hussein. Give it up. That dog won’t hunt.

[Magiver]

have a nice day.

[Well]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Cite that he did a 180 on his opinion?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

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.

Vs

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

180?

or,

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

You had this statement on the one hand, but on the other hand, this administration’s saying, wait a minute, we can’t go forward with aggressive inspections because they will lead to a confrontation with Iraq, but let’s understand the confrontation is because Iraq will not comply with the law passed by the Security Council. So we weren’t allowed to do our job out of fear of a confrontation in which the United States would not be able to muster the required support of the Security Council to respond effectively or to respond in a manner which they had said they would respond in Resolution 1154.

Vs

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

Removing Saddam Hussein has been the policy of every American president since George Herbert Walker Bush.

180?

and,

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

Well, in this I would only echo the words made by the Secretary-General and other personnel back in February, who said that you couldn’t have had the February MOU without the real and credible threat of military force. That’s an obvious statement. You can’t expect to enforce the law unless you have the means to carry out the enforcement.

vs

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’’ This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.

180?

finally,

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

This is lunacy. The bottom line is we haven’t had-the United States hasn’t had this kind of Security Council support for many years now, and Security Council support is eroding, eroding in large part because of a lack of American leadership. I don’t know what they’re waiting for. The Security Council is on a gradual, even a steep slide downhill in terms of its ability to support, or willingness to support the special commission. And there’s no indication that anything the United States has been doing would turn the Security Council around. So I don’t know-it sounds an awful lot like an excuse. It seems like it’s a strategic pause, because it’s been taking place for many years now.

vs

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn’t want to inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors back in.

And I also think Ritter should stick to his feild of expertise and go with one story on the subject instead of trying to play the international mystery man who attempts to foil the diabolical plots of the evil US imperialistic regimes.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1338708,00.html

Lisbon - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

“The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win,” he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here on Tuesday evening.

“We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable,” he said.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

No. No 180 there. You’re comparing statements made in 1998 to statements made five years later. A lot had changed. And he never said Iraq actually had WMDs.

[BrainGlutton]

@Magiver

have a nice day.

A generous sentiment, which I do not choose to reciprocate.

[Well]

@Diogenes the Cynic

No. No 180 there. You’re comparing statements made in 1998 to statements made five years later. A lot had changed. And he never said Iraq actually had WMDs.

He did say Iraq can build them within a matter of months.
Let me simplify it a bit to show what I think equates a 180.

Ritter resigned as a Chief Weapons Inspector in 1998. There were no UN inspections between '98 and November 2002.

The former of the sets of my quotes were made by Ritter in '98

The latter of the sets were made by him in July of 2002.

If you look carefully, there were no inspections by the UN in Iraq since the two timeframes to amount for the discrepancies wich I think are the follwing:

[ul]
[li]In '98 he says Iraq still has proscribed weapons capabilities.[/li][li]in '02 he says that no one has substantiated the allegations and that he, personally, witnessed the effective elimination of them in '98[/li][/ul]

[ul]
[li]In '98 he seems to say that the US had a “fear of a confrontation” with Iraq wich made him unable to do his job and subsequently resign.[/li][li]in '02 he says “Removing Saddam Hussein has been the policy of every American president since George Herbert Walker Bush.”[/li][/ul]

[ul]
[li]In '98 he says that without realistic threat of military action, Iraq will not allow the investigations to begin again[/li][li]in July '02 (when Iraq was demanding the lifting of sanctions before it allows inspections again ) he apparently ululates the buildup of US forces in the region and the realistic plans to use force if necessary. [/ul] [/li]
[ul]
[li]In ‘98 he postulates that the US is using the ineffectiveness of the UN (“in large part because of a lack of American leadership”) to support the inspections as an excuse to not put pressure on Iraq wich seems to stem from the US’ “fear of a confrontation”.[/li][li]in '02, when the US was producing his “real and credible threat of military force” and attempting to lead the UN in the implimentations of their resolutions, and apparently it is up to the UN, no less, to make sure the inspections take place.[/ul] [/li]
Now, unless you can provide proof that between '98 and november 2002 that Saddam became more effective at dismantling his own WMD capabilities than the inspectors and also that UN became more effective in it’s abilites re. Iraq without US leadership, I don’t see what it is that could have changed between the timeframe provided.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I don’t see any contradictions there. Sorry. Five years is a long time annd he never said they had WMDs anyway.
Plus, we know he was right about Iraq having destroyed everything. so there’s no question of dishonesty in having said what he said in 2002.

In 2002, he said Iraq had no WMDs and it turns out he was correct. How is that a problem for his credibility?

[Well]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I don’t see any contradictions there. Sorry.

WTF? Saying Iraq had the ability to produce WMD’s in a month, and then stating that he personally saw the elimination of those abilities at the same time is not a contradiction? Are you seriously trying to be antagonistic to whatever I say? or do you honestly not see it?

And I was replying to your request for a cite that Ritter did a 180. I think I provided that cite, and all you can say is “eh, don’t see it, sory”. Thats pretty pathetic even from you.

George Bush said he was going to lower taxes and he did. I guess his credibility is golden right? :rolleyes:

[Declan]

@Malodorous

Does the president really sign off for military actions months ahead of time? I can imagine that the Pentagon has developed plans and Bush has seen them, but I can’t imagine that anything approching a “final go ahead” is given until a few days before the event.

I would imagine that any miltitary action , other than retalitory raids and whatnot are signed off by the president , ahead of time. Fuel has to be bought , live fire exercises , large scale joint service exercises , pre-postioning of equipment in allied or foreign nations .

As well , forces currently in theater would need a certain amount of lead time to deter Iran from striking either Afganistan , Iraq or as has been said , the persian gulf area itself

Also an attack on Iran would need either a nod from congress or some sort of evidence of a “clear and present” danger, right. It would be hard to say that the danger is “clear and present” and then delay the strike 3 months.

I think all it really requires is that the leaders of the house and senate be kept informed, the president does have the authority to conduct military operations up to 30 days in length , before going to congress .

Declan

[Malodorous]

@Declan

I would imagine that any miltitary action , other than retalitory raids and whatnot are signed off by the president , ahead of time. Fuel has to be bought , live fire exercises , large scale joint service exercises , pre-postioning of equipment in allied or foreign nations .

As well , forces currently in theater would need a certain amount of lead time to deter Iran from striking either Afganistan , Iraq or as has been said , the persian gulf area itself

Yeah, now that I think about it, 3 months lead time isn’t as unreasonable as I was thinking. Especially since Iran will almost have to attempt some sort of retaliation on nearby U.S. troops.

I think all it really requires is that the leaders of the house and senate be kept informed, the president does have the authority to conduct military operations up to 30 days in length , before going to congress .

Really!!. The president can commit an act of war on another country (as bombing another nations nuclear facilities almost certainly would be) without a nod from congress, even if there’s no obvious threat. Isn’t that really the same thing as giving the president the ability to declare war.

[Well]

@Malodorous

Really!!. The president can commit an act of war on another country (as bombing another nations nuclear facilities almost certainly would be) without a nod from congress, even if there’s no obvious threat. Isn’t that really the same thing as giving the president the ability to declare war.

The Constitution defines who can declare war. It also defines who commands the military. The two are not the same. Apparently, accroding to the Constitution, there is a difference between declaring war and committing an act of war. And I guess the latter would be subject to what an act of war means anyways.

[BrainGlutton]

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (not to be confused with the War Powers Act, or Trading With the Enemy Act, of 1917) says the president has to consult with Congress before hostilities, but its constitutionality is controversial. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_powers_resolution_(US_law):

Provisions

Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)).

Questions about constitutionality

Every president to date has declared the War Powers Resolution to be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has struck down the ‘legislative veto’ embodied in Section 5© of the Resolution in the case INS v. Chadha (1983). However, in every instance since the act was passed, the President has requested and received authorization for the use of force (though not a formal declaration of war) consistent with the provisions of the resolution. The reports to Congress required of the President have been drafted to state that they are “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution rather than “pursuant to” so as to take into account the Presidental position that the Resolution is unconsitutional.

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution — Philip Bobbitt’s in “War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely’s War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath,” Michigan Law Quarterly 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364-1400 — runs as follows: “The power to make war is not an enumerated power” and the notion that to “declare” war is to “commence” war is a “contemporary textual preconception”; the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that ‘declaration’ was only meant for total wars, as shown by the history of the French Naval War (1798-1800); in general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as “linked and sequenced”; Congress’s control over the armed forces is “structured” by appropriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized. (It should be noted, however, that Bobbitt, the nephew of Lyndon Johnson, also argues that “A democracy cannot . . . tolerate secret policies” because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.)

The intended purpose of the act was to serve as a check on the power of the President to commit the United States to military action by exercising the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war under Article One. Many constitutional scholars have questioned the usefulness of the resolution, pointing out that Congress has tended to defer to the Executive when conducting war.

[Evil_One]

I’ll jump in with a little mockery and derision.

Ritter was simply telling an audience what they wanted to hear. Alleged “secret plans” being contemplated by Satan himself. Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

I’m sure they save Ritter a seat at the National Security Council table. Does anybody seriously think that even if a pre-emtive strike was in the works that the timing of it would be leaked?

And the fiction about “fixing the elections” is a desperate attempt to taint what is seen as good news for the Bush administration.

Ritter misses the spotlight…and now that he got the pleasure of some audible gasps from gullible people, I’m sure he’s happier.

[andros]

@Evil One

Does anybody seriously think that even if a pre-emtive strike was in the works that the timing of it would be leaked?

Absolutely. I can think of several reasons something like that would be deliberately leaked.

[Magiver]

@BrainGlutton

A generous sentiment, which I do not choose to reciprocate.

It wasn’t offered to you. Have whatever day suits your needs.