Oh my sweet Jesus, Chumpsky used Scott Ritter as a source. That’s like using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a source.
Chumpsky, kindly read Mr. Ritter’s interviews and articles, starting in August 1998. To make your life easier, just search for “ritter” in Great Debates. The man is conclusively a flat-out liar, and no credible person in the anti-war movement relies on him anymore.
Sua
Not at all, when four years later you have the same exact media sources repeating the falsehood of the inspectors being kicked out. I also notice that several of those sources indicated that the inspectors were pulled out before the UN Security Council had a chance to weigh in on the matter. Additionally, the US began a major bombing campaign immediately after the inspectors left - to me, this is all fairly strong proof that the US will act unilaterally if it feels it can get away with it.
The US’ attitude towards the UN has been one of indifferent toleration at best; from being in serious default on their dues to the present Bush administration’s “multilaterally if we can, unilaterally if we must” stance on Iraq, it’s pretty clear any “concern” the US expresses for UN approval is merely a fig leaf for their actions.
Must-See Iraqi TV!
Sua, Please cite a specific instance of Scott Ritter lynig, please. Disagreeing with Shrub does not count as lying. This administration’s pattern of villifying veterans who have views which are inconvenient to them (McCain, Ritter, Cleland) has been reprehensible.
What can you do but laugh?
Well, Sua, you have demonstrated quite aptly that you are yourself quite a liar. I challenge you on your lies.
Bush doesn’t need to prove anything to France, China, and Russia. He has to prove it to the American people. Yes, that may constitute “indifferent toleration”. To Diogenes’ statement that Bush does not have any proof: Bush has yet to show his proof (if he has any), but it would be hasty to claim that he doesn’t have it. I may just be arguing semantics since I share Czarcasm’s concern that Bush will not share his alleged proof with the American People.
Not a bane at all. The three countries I mentioned have a much stronger justification for invading the US than we have for invading Iraq. In the case of Chile and Guatemala, we directly interfered in their and elections, with horrofic long term results. In the case of Nicaragua we hired a mercenary army consisting of some of the worst thugs in the Western Hemisphere to conduct cowardly cross-border raids (AND tried to interfere in their elections). Have we even apologized?
Of course I’m not referring to Security Council resolutions here, as with Isreal and Turkey. I’m referring to basic moral standards obvious to most three-year olds. But I understand that many people agree with december – might makes right.
I can’t think of any examples of Iraq directly interfering in the internal affairs of the U.S., unless you count the USS Stark or the (possibly fabricated) assasination attempt on Bush I.
The appointment of Henry Kissinger to the 9/11 comission should make it obvious that the current campaign has nothing to do with Saddam’s human rights record. The cynicism involved is breathtaking.
You asked for it…
Kindly note that, in all of the following, the Bushies are not involved in any way. All of the following are Ritter’s own words.
An article written by Ritter in December 1998:
http://www.tnr.com/archive/1298/122...tter122198.html
A November 1998 interview with Scott Ritter.
INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott Ritter Tape
From Ritter’s Congressional testimony in September 1998
9/15/98 Excerpt from Scott Ritter Testimony on Iraq
Here’s part of a post I made earlier about Ritter:
Another golden oldie:
Mr. Ritter in 1998 and early 1999 was railing that Saddam was hiding significant amounts of WMD and was advocating military intervention. Yet in late 1999, despite the fact that no inspections had taken place in the interim, Mr. Ritter unequivocally stated:
http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/Sep-Oct_99/ScottRitter.html
Sadly enough, there are many other examples of Ritter talking out of both sides of his mouth - this is just a sampling.
Sua
Oh, really, Chumpsky? Read my last post, and all the links, then repeat that.
If you dare.
Sua
OK, Sua, how about a report from another Iraqi inspector that says the same damn thing?
A few relevant quotes:
The International Atomic Energy Agency got everything they knew about and took it away. Not to mention
All this, according to the IAEA Report to the UN Security Council S/1997/779, by October 1997 - almost a full year before the inspectors were pulled out.
Now how about between 1997 and 1998? It could be possible that Iraq had some stuff stashed away and was playing “build a nuke” under the table…
[quote]
by December 1998 the IAEA was satisfied that there were no indications of Iraq having:
[ul][li] produced a nuclear weapon; [/li]
[li]produced more than a few grams of weapons-usable nuclear material (HEU or separated plutonium) through its indigenous processes; [/li]
[li]otherwise acquired weapons-usable nuclear material; or [/li]
[li]retained any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.[/ul]Furthermore, all of the safeguarded research reactor fuel, including the HEU fuel that Iraq had planned to divert to its crash program, had been verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.[/li][/quote]
So what’s the deal, Sua? Ritter’s been saying the same thing - “Iraq hasn’t got shit.” Is Scott Ritter exercising undue influence over Gary Dillon, or perhaps the entire IAEA? Is the IAEA making all this information up out of whole cloth and feeding it to Ritter? Or is Ritter actually perhaps telling the truth, and the whole act of branding him a liar is merely a convenient way for pro-war and pro-regime change hawks of dismissing him without actually having to consider the overwhelming weaknesses of their own position?
Actually, Olentzero, I have no dispute about nukes - UNSCOM verified that, at least as of their last inspection, Iraq’s nuclear program was eliminated.
As for Ritter being a liar, Olentzero, as I pointed out, I relied on Ritter’s own words. In 1998 and early 1999, Ritter repeatedly asserted that Iraq was not disarming, that Iraq had consistently foiled inspection attempts, and that the U.S. and U.N. had to attack Iraq in order to compel disarmament.
Read the links.
Starting in late 1999, Ritter started repeatedly asserting that Iraq had completely disarmed, had acted in full compliance with inspections, and no war was appropriate.
Again, read the links.
The problem is – the evidence didn’t change between early 1999 and late 1999. We (and Ritter) had no new information about Iraq’s WMD. So Ritter had nothing on which to base his changed assertions of fact.
Now, we can dispute when Ritter was lying, either in the 1998/early 1999 period, or in the late 1999 through the present period. But what really can’t be disputed is that, during one of those time periods, he was lying.
Sua
“Because we are a sovereign independent nation.”
So as it happens is Iraq. The US can’t invoke its own sovereignty as a rationale for violating another nation’s sovereignty. It’s also important to note that violation of UNSC resolutions does not, by itself, give any nation the right to unilaterally launch a war. It is for the UNSC to make that decision.
Not to mention the many pragmatic arguments against war which I have gone through many times before. Suffice it to say that even if the UN was begging the US to attack Iraq it would still be a bad idea.
Forgot to add the conclusion …
And the fact that he is demonstratively a liar destroys his credibility and use as a source for both sides. I cannot rely on his early statements as evidence that Iraq has WMD - because he’s a liar. Nor can you rely on his later statements - because he’s a liar.
Sua
That’s pretty damn weak, Sua. I want a SPECIFIC example for a SPECIFIC lie.
I CAN provide examples for Bush flat out lying.
Having read your latest posts, Sua, I can see how you’d be willing to trash Ritter as a reliable source on anything. But since when is reversing one’s position on a subject an immediate negation of one’s credibility? Cause for suspicion, sure, but not outright rejection.
What caused the change? Who knows? Ritter may have known the Straight Dope all along and ultimately had an attack of conscience. Or he may have honestly believed what he said in 1997 and was convinced otherwise by evidence like the above. (I personally think it was the former.) Either way, the change of position is simply not grounds enough to dismiss Ritter as a source for anti-war activity - only investigating his claims and thoroughly debunking them is. Which, in this case, can’t be done.
I don’t think Ritter has ever said that Iraq was 100% disarmed or that it had co-operated with inspectors. I think his point was that inspectors had succeeded in destroying large quantities of weapons despite Iraqi obstruction. Which appears to be true and which is why as long as inspections are allowed to work war would be pretty stupid.
At least as far as his current position is concerned, I should add.
Dammit, Pundit, quit interrupting me! 
I hardly think that december was saying that might makes right - it doesn’t. However, might doesn’t automatically make wrong, either. Certainly, one of the reasons that we are threatening to invade Iraq if they don’t disarm is because we can - if we couldn’t, we wouldn’t be making the threat. But that “we can” bit is a separate issue from whether or not we should. We could also invade Taiwan, if we wanted to. Or Cuba. Or any number of small countries. But we aren’t, which kinda kills the “we’re going to invade Iraq because we can” hypothesis.
Certainly, when a cop shoots a criminal who is trying to kill you, he’s doing it because he can. Does that make his actions immoral?
Jeff
Don’t leave us hanging! Please show us President Bush’s ‘flat out lying’!