BS: scott ritter speaks

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:32 AM

So it would appear that the Republican Party were quite willing to allow a foreign news agency attend their conference and quite willing to allow them to identify themselves. The Democratic Party on the other hand although permitting that same foreign news agency attendance at their conference would not allow them to identify themselves.

My question is: What were the Democrats who enforced the removal of the banner frightened of?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:42 AM

Losing votes. What else?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:56 AM

Remember, it was only a Republican president, Nixon, who could dare to open relations with Communist China. Why? Because by merely being Republican he could be seen as above and beyond accusations of being "soft on Communism". A Democrat must ever fear such an accusation, because it has been used for so long by the Republicans as a standard tactic to discredit Democrats.

So, we have the ironical situation that the party which poses as the ultimate defender of the John Wayne faith (the Republicans) is the one which must make the overt overtures to the various "evil enemies" out there in the World that the faith conjures up to keep itself in guns and butter. The "liberal" party, the Democrats, hardly dares to, lest it be accused of the usual stuff it is always accused of.

It is laughable that the Democrats have to pretend to BE LIKE Republicans in order to get elected. That's why they looked high and low for a candidate last time who had an impressive war record. He still got shafted anyway, regardless, in the usual way. That's why they had the poor hapless Michael Dukakis pose for a picture sitting in an Army tank with a helmet on his head. He looked totally out of place, and he was.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Canada has NEVER elected a prime minister on the basis of his military credentials or his arch-patriotism. Never. This country does not run on the John Wayne mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 12:29 PM

I see you made an honest mistake but it shows how quick on the trigger some people can be when are too fervent in their beliefs.

I am sorry Democrats have to modify their behavior to get elected but thems the breaks.

PS I am not posing as any other guest on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 12:47 PM

Beliefs? I support neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. There are no "beliefs" that would cause me to make a mistake like that one. I think it is you who are blinded by your beliefs. You have shown this to be the case by your knee-jerk condemnation of Al Jazeera, and your knee-jerk criticism of the Democrats for having them at their convention, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the Republicans had them at their convention as well.

As far as the Democrats taking down the banner... this is entirely consistant with the way I tend to see the Democratic party overall... a bunch of lying hypocrites (just like the Republicans).

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,Argus
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:25 PM

Karl Rove is an innocuous looking little fat man. But he has the mentality of Machiavelli and the ethics of a killer shark. When I see how the advocates of the Right, right here on Mudcat, invariably attempt to counter something they don't like by immediately bringing in irrelevancies, such as who displayed what banner at which convention, or the special favorite, attempting to focus the argument on the supposed sex life of someone who made a statement they would rather the public not hear, it becomes obvious that the spirit of Karl Rove bestrides the land like a Colossus.

These are that tactics of those whose goal is tyranny.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:00 PM

It is possible that I did but I don't recall any "knee-jerk criticism of the Democrats for having them at their convention"

But I do recall a kneejerk defense of al Jazeera and a knee jerk condemnation of the republicans by you.

Your knees are jerkier than mine.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:37 PM

It is possible that I did but I don't recall any "knee-jerk criticism of the Democrats for having them at their convention"


To refresh your memory...

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,Woody - PM
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:55 PM

Ahem:

FrontPageMagazine.com | July 30, 2004

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14452

"Despite Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry's assertion that as President, he would "use every available resource to destroy terrorists and deny them sanctuary�and new recruits," one of the invited guests at the now-concluded Democratic National Convention was an organization that has served as a terrorist recruitment tool, a communications conduit for al-Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular. This network has repeatedly described Palestinian suicide-bombers as "martyrs." High above the platform and the sea of "Kerry-Edwards" placards, covering the convention from a skybox towering over the Fleet Center floor was Arabic network al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite news agency whose allegedly "factual and accurate" news coverage has been blatantly anti-American. The Democrats were at least savvy enough to remove the network's banner, which had been strategically placed near the speakers' podium. But how could any candidate or political party "serious" about terrorism make no fuss about allowing such a news group inside its convention?...

...It would appear al-Jazeera not only shares the airwaves with al-Qaeda; it shares personnel, as well. In 2003, Taysir Allouni, a popular reporter for al-Jazeera, was arrested in Spain for having links to the al-Qaeda terrorist group. Allouni, who interviewed Osama bin Laden after 9/11, was accused of giving assistance to two al-Qaeda officials: Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, alias Abu Dahdah, who was arrested in November of 2001, and is believed to have been Spain's al-Qaeda commander; and Mohamed Bahiah, alias Abu Kalhed, who is believed to be an al-Qaeda militant fighting in Afghanistan....

....Al-Jazeera has also continually and purposely disregarded the Geneva Convention. By airing video footage of captured American soldiers being interrogated and killed, they are in direct violation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention, which holds the protection of prisoners of war from public curiosity. The agency has flouted this directive, displaying every instance of this occurring, and obligingly passing along the captor's demands. The network also recycled Ba'athist propaganda during Operation Iraqi Freedom.."

This is knee-jerk because it is very predictably and dishonestly critical of Democrats for something that was also done by Republicans.


Defending Al Jazeera is not, in and of itself, inherently knee-jerk. You certainly didn't find my defense of them predictable. You assumed I was defending Ritter. And calling Republicans (as well as Democrats) as a whole, liars and hypocrites is hardly knee-jerk. It's a fact, and can be proven.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:15 PM

Don't be silly, Woody. You've had your knee stuck in your eye for so long you probably don't even feel it there any longer...

May I join Carol in stating that both the Republican and the Democratic parties are organizations so mired in lies, hypocrisy, and unholy lust for power that neither one of them deserves a single vote any longer from anyone. They are the political chains that bind and divide America.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 08:33 PM

Same shit in Canada.

Thats why the NDP (who never have a chance, Federally) has the motto of: Time to give them the boot.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:01 PM

Hey, here's a thought...

What if Judith Miller hadn't ordered that Scott Riiter be blackballed in during the Bush mad-dash-to-invade-Iraq???

I mean, why is it that this guy got the supreme "pass"??? Hmmmmm??? Seems that he has a life time's worth of supreme passes...

Yet a true patriot, Scott Ritter, becomes the bum???

America's greatest curse right now is Karl Rove... His finger prints are all over this...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:15 PM

This is the part I was trying to emphasise:

...It would appear al-Jazeera not only shares the airwaves with al-Qaeda; it shares personnel, as well. In 2003, Taysir Allouni, a popular reporter for al-Jazeera, was arrested in Spain for having links to the al-Qaeda terrorist group. Allouni, who interviewed Osama bin Laden after 9/11, was accused of giving assistance to two al-Qaeda officials: Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, alias Abu Dahdah, who was arrested in November of 2001, and is believed to have been Spain's al-Qaeda commander; and Mohamed Bahiah, alias Abu Kalhed, who is believed to be an al-Qaeda militant fighting in Afghanistan

As reason why Al jazeera is not a reputable news source and people that write for them are not reputable.

The Democrats have no bearing here untill you brought it up in an attempt to make republicans look bad and you did a lousy job in your haste and had to rewrite it later.

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue as far as I can see. It is a Scott Ritter issue but you keep dragging party politics into things.

I say Scott ritter is a scumbag and the fact that he works for disreputable al Jazerra supports that.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:30 PM

Well, Woody, maybe it's time for you to share with the folks here in Mudville, with proper documentation, your history of service to the United States...

Scott Ritter's record is well known...

How 'bout yours???

Yeah, it's easy to use terms like "scumbag" from the safety of GEUSTdom...You fought for your country??? You spent 12 years in the Marines???

Yeah, come out from behind that bush yer hiding behind, tell us who you are and tell us why we should believe anythting you say about how Scott Ritter is a "scumbag"...

Until yer willing to do that, in my book yer new name is "GUEST, scumbag and coward"...

You like that??? Get used to it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:32 PM

The Democrats have no bearing here untill you brought it up in an attempt to make republicans look bad and you did a lousy job in your haste and had to rewrite it later.

Nope. Guess again. I wasn't trying to make anyone look bad. I was showing that your assessment of Al Jazeera is not shared by the Republican party, which I am guessing, is the party you prefer. The reference to the Democrats not having Al Jazeera in attendence could very easily have been a criticism of the Democrats, although that was not my intention either.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:40 PM

Woody--

Re: "reputable news sources"

Waaaaaall, lookie here. You somehow still haven't found time to tell us who puts out "Front Page Magazine". So I helped you out.

Is it a middle of the road Sunday supplement or something similar?

Uh---not exactly.

Front Page Magazine--from probably any search engine--I used MSN Search--being at work at the time---"Read today's influential conservatives on the hottest current events. Featuring David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris..."

Such a shock when I found that out, let me tell you.   Woody, my idol, you let me down.

Let's just say your credibility--on anything--is...uh...not the best.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:52 PM

.... not to mention that Woody is now "GUEST, scumbag & coward", Ron...

But, hey, he earned it... Didn't snd in no boy to do a man's work....

No sir, good on propagatin' right winged venom... Good at leiing about decent patriots...

Might of fact, maybe "scumbag & coward" is complimentary....

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:59 PM

Yeah, have to admit, Woody is probably the last one to speak about "reputable" anything. But I just treat everything he says with all the respect it deserves--and you know how much that is--and no more.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 01:30 AM

Oooh Ooow That hurts real bad. Now go over Scott Ritters background like I did.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: .Woody
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:13 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

"...In August 1998, Mr Ritter resigned from his job, accusing the Security Council and the United States of caving in to the Iraqis.

To compel Iraq into compliance, he told the BBC that year: "Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein..."

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:00 PM

Woody -

Posting 'proof' with statements such as:

"It would appear", or "accused of", and "...is believed...", is actually no proof at all. It is simply opinion and should not be accepted as fact. Being 'jailed' is also not the same as being guilty.

Please learn to read propaganda with a critical consciousness. You might arrive at a completely different conclusion if you disregard statements with the phrases listed above. You might also wonder why so-called 'journalists' would attempt to influence public opinion by publishing material that may not be true at all.

Opinion might be true or it might not.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:56 PM

Actually, Joe, the original article that was posted was from here:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j012203.html

Both you and Carol C. have arrived at false deductions.

Carol C. - There are many sources for the passage attributed to Scott Ritter. As you can see, the source cited above is the blog I copied and pasted. There were plenty of other sites that posted the same info. Maybe you need to try some other search words.

...and Joe, no deception intended. I lost my cookies. Now (since your attempt to expose me as a person intent on deception) I will continue to post from the safety of anonymity because being an honest member leads to false accusations. The only reason I cut and pasted was because I found it difficult to summarize his eloquence and I didn't think it was more than one page. I have never mastered the art of the blue clicky. So much for an honest mistake!

You have a very suspicious mind. Do you have trust issues with women, in general, or is it just me?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 04:13 PM

btw - anyone with half a brain can figure out who most guests are anyway. What does it matter, you either agree or disagree. As long as the person does not degrade others on the forum, it shouldn't matter at all. All but one of you are anonymous, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 04:39 PM

No it wasn't Guest,15 Jan 06 - 03:56 PM. (Assuming you are the Guest who started this thread.)

The article you copy-pasted into the opening post in this thread contained all of the following words (within your post, prior to their deletion by Joe)...

"Our troops took an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution and yet they went to war in violation of that Constitution. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about as un-American a war as one can possibly imagine and we must register that fact when we talk about why we're there and where we're going.

Thank you very much.

The other part I want to make sure you see, is this excerpt from an impassioned Ritter at about the one-hour point in the debate, when he seemed backed into the corner of "defending" Saddam Hussein. Watch how he punches his way out of that corner:

I'm not here to defend Saddam Hussein or his regime. I'm not. I'm here to defend the United States of America and our way of life and I'm here to tell you right now that if you support this war, if you support this occupation, you support a process that represents the erosion of what it means to be an American."

The article you just posted a link to in your 15 Jan 06 - 03:56 PM post does not contain the above words.

(The bolded words are Bob Gieger's own and not Ritter's.)

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 05:40 PM

You are right, Carol C. I think it came from here:

http://www.democrats.com/blog/8223

Bob Gieger's blog is on alot of sites. The point is it didn't come from Al Jazeera and that, in fact, many sites carried transcripts of the interview. The words you highlighted, "The other part I want to make sure you see, is this excerpt from an impassioned Ritter at about the one-hour point in the debate, when he seemed backed into the corner of "defending" Saddam Hussein. Watch how he punches his way out of that corner" were included accidentally.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: .Woody
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 08:52 PM

CC: Which of my posts does your rule apply to?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 09:37 PM

What "rule" are you talking about, .Woody?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:09 PM

Posting 'proof' with statements such as:

"It would appear", or "accused of", and "...is believed...", is actually no proof at all. It is simply opinion and should not be accepted as fact. Being 'jailed' is also not the same as being guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:34 AM

The same information that RD and Bobert stated was untrue because it was found on a right wing unobjective blog sh*t originated from John Kerry's site. It was deleted from that web site for an "unknown reason" but it is still cached at Google.

So much for the objectivity of RD and Bobert.

"A Kerry-Edwards administration will put in place a comprehensive new national security strategy aimed at getting the terrorists before they get us. We will transform our military to meet new threats, restore the strength of our alliances, and lead with the power of our ideas. We will use every available resource to destroy terrorists and deny them sanctuary, funds and new recruits."

Source johnkerry.com


Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:12 PM

"Front Page Magazine"--now there's a good objective source---pray tell, Woody, who puts it out?

Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:14 PM

Dom you actually believe any of the right winged blogsh*t you post here, Wood-ster???

Next thig you'll have Mohammed Kerry as the 20th terrorist...

You are qickly becoming a comic jerk 'rounf here with yer absolute junk...

(But, Bobert... Maybe Woody is a closet progressive that is just trying to make the righties look like lunnies...)

Ahhhh, nvermind, Wood... Keep on truckin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 06 - 08:20 AM

Why would Scott Ritter be the "Darling of the Dems"??? They avioded him like a radiation pit in the mad-dash ti invade Iraq... Just as Judith Miller of the New York Times did in ignoring him as if he was germ infested...

Kerry is no spokesman for the anti-war movement or the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which other than a few folks in the House ain't all that progressive anyway...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: .Woody
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 03:51 PM

Sorry CC. that was dianavan. I was going too fast again.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM

Old Guy - Those statements do not prove anything. Those statements are speculative.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:28 PM

Ok. I will accept that as long as you hold your friends and yourself to the same standard.

When someone is jailed, is that not a fact that they were jailed?

Being jailed is not proof of guilt but it is an action that did take place, an action of a court somewhere.

When someone here makes a statement that is not backed up by fact, is that speculation?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 12:07 AM

"Front Page Magazine"--now there's a good objective source---pray tell, Woody, who puts it out?

Well Bobert, they got that information you objected to directly from johnkerry.com so why are you knocking on Woody about it?

It has been "removed" from the John Kerry site for some inexplicable reason but it is still cached at Google. In case it goes away here it is again:

July 22, 2004
Statement by John Kerry on the 9/11 Commission Report
For Immediate Release

Detroit, MI - Senator John Kerry issued the following statement today:

"After months of hard work for which we are all grateful, the 9/11 Commission has produced a report with urgent implications for the safety of the American people. Nearly three years after terrorists attacked our shores and murdered our loved ones, this report carries a simple message about our current state of security for every American who remembers that dark September day: We can do better. We must do better. And it's time to act – now.

"I received an initial briefing on the report from Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton this morning.   We have a big agenda of reforms and no time to lose in tackling them. I understand that Senators Lieberman, McCain and others will soon introduce legislation that contains the Commission's recommendations. The administration and the Congress must get to work on this legislation immediately.

"This is not a time for bickering. It is not a time for politics. When it comes to protecting our people and securing our homeland, there are no Democrats. There are no Republicans. There are only Americans who will do anything to defend America and our way of life.

"This is a time to come together. This is a time for bipartisan solutions. And this is a time to act – now.

"The terrorists will not wait for us, and we must not wait for them.

"And mark my words – if I am elected president and there has still not been sufficient progress on these issues, I will not wait a single day more. I will lead.

"I will convene an Emergency Security Summit that brings together leading Democratic and Republican members of Congress, leaders of the agencies that play a vital role in our fight against terrorism and the 9/11 Commissioners. We will assess what we have achieved and what more is to be done. And then we will do it.

"With so much at stake, we need to gather leaders who are ready to be reformers and work together to find solutions. And, as president, I will be directly involved in making sure that we do anything and everything to make our country safer.

"A Kerry-Edwards administration will put in place a comprehensive new national security strategy aimed at getting the terrorists before they get us. We will transform our military to meet new threats, restore the strength of our alliances, and lead with the power of our ideas. We will use every available resource to destroy terrorists and deny them sanctuary, funds and new recruits.

"We will also transform our intelligence services -- by strengthening leadership, maximizing coordination among our intelligence agencies, and making sure that we have the personnel at home and abroad to get the job done.

"And we will strengthen our homeland defenses. From better protecting our transportation systems, to safeguarding our ports and infrastructure, to improving our emergency communications systems and integrating our watch lists, to providing our first responders with the resources they need to do their jobs – we will do whatever it takes to make our homeland more safe and more secure.

"We must act – now. As president, I will not rest until I can look into the eyes of a mother who lost her son in those towers and fought for this report to come out and say 'We are as safe as we can be.' I will not rest until I can look into the eyes of a firefighter or a first responder whose colleagues ran up those stairs while others ran down and say 'We are as safe as we can be.' And, as president, I will not rest until I can look into the eyes of the American people who want a future of freedom and security and say 'We are as safe as we can be.'"

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:j8oH-auW5boJ:www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0722c.html+%22use+every+available+resource+to+destroy+terrorists+and+deny+them+sanctuary%22&hl=en

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 08:13 AM

Maybe I'm missing the crux of the arguement here...

During the mad-dash-to-Iraq there was a very sizable anti-war movement which, of course you weren't part of, you might not even know occured... Scott Ritter became a staple speaker at many rallies. He aslo was interviewed over and over on Pacifica radio...

I don't recall him saying anuthing supportive of the Democrats but do remember him openly querstioning the claims of WMD's that the Bush War Machine was pounding into folr head 24/7...

Now, since it turned out that Scott was correct and Bush was NOT, he, like evry other person who might know somehting that Bush doesn't, becomes Karl Rove's enemy... We have seen what happens to folks who become the "enemy" with the Bushites... They "blog" him or her to death... This has been their M.O. Doesn't much matter who you are, all you have to do is be "correct" and you become the "enemy"...

Yeah, the Bush-bloggers are very good at taking a vast amount of information and misinformation and mixing iut up with a little creativity and speculation and come up with some purdy wild attacks on folks...

I am 100% sure that if Jesus was to returen to Earth they'd have a well financed blog making Him look like some Charles Manson character....

Bottom line, Scott had it correct 'n Bush didn't...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:32 AM

Bobert suffers from blogophobia and flopflop mania.

If there is a blog somewhere that backs him up he is all fer it.
If a guest posts with something that confirms his position, he is welcome.

He likes flipfloppers. You know, the kind that are right and wrong.
"I actually voted for it before I voted against it. I am right either way" That way Bobert can say Ritter was right even though he was wrong at first.

I say flipfloppers were either wrong then or they are wrong now. Each position cancels out the other and you end up with nothing that means anything.

I prefer people that stick to their beliefs over people who change their positions to suit the occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:43 AM

Drivel, Guest; sniping at a messenger you don't want to hear from.

Cowardly, and not even well sniped at that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM

Amos:

You did not want to hear that so you snipe at the messenger.

Are you Anti-blogs and pro-flipfloppers?

Do you welcome gusets that agree with you?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST,who started this thread
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:52 PM

Guest says, "I prefer people that stick to their beliefs over people who change their positions to suit the occasion."

I think you mean you prefer people who stick to their beliefs even when they realize they are wrong.

I think there is nothing wrong with admitting you might have a made a mistake and changing your opinion based on current information.

In fact, Guest, thats what intelligent people do.

Stubborn people "stick to their guns" in spite of relevant information. Thats called pig-headed obstinance or just plain ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:37 AM

Scott ritter is a conflicted scumbag that has flip-floped twice and got paid off by Saddam.

"March 19, 2002 |   During the Gulf War, Scott Ritter, then a junior military intelligence analyst, picked a fight with his boss. He filed one report after another challenging Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's claims about the number of destroyed Iraqi Scud missiles. We cannot confirm these kills, Ritter reported, much to Schwarzkopf's bewilderment. Despite pressure from the top, Ritter, a Marine captain from a military family, held his ground, challenging his superiors and the establishment.
That was just a warm-up for the man the New York Times called "the most famous renegade Marine officer since Oliver North."
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/03/19/ritter/index_np.html

"By 1995, Ritter said both he and former chief weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus believed Iraq was ''fundamentally disarmed.'' He noted that the head of Iraq's weapons programs - Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamal al-Majid - told Ekeus after he defected to Jordan in August 1995 that all of Iraq's banned weapons had been destroyed."
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00649.html

(in 1998) "He claimed that Saddam had as many as three nuclear weapons ready for use as soon as he could lay his hands on the necessary fissile material (hence all the excitement over Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Niger). He also severely undermined UNSCOM's credibility by revealing that he had worked closely with Israeli intelligence for much of his seven-year tenure, thereby confirming Iraqi suspicions that UNSCOM was nothing more than a front for a variety of Western intelligence agencies." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/10/30/borit30.xml

"To compel Iraq into compliance, he told the BBC that year (1998): "Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

"Ritter said, "The Clinton administration has proven itself particularly adept at destroying coalitions created for just causes. We had a coalition arrayed against Iraq, which was supportive of the disarmament requirement of Iraq. But the Clinton administration's narrow-minded policies of regime removal and continuation of economic sanctions effectively destroyed that coalition."
http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9903/30/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."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

"Mr Ritter formed a partnership with Mr al-Khafaji to finance the film, Shifting Sands which, according to Mr Ritter, "proved" that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In an interview with the New York Times in 2001, Mr Ritter stated that none of Mr al-Khafaji's funding came from Saddam's regime. Of the £250,000 spent on the film, he said that only £26,250 went into his own pocket.

While he confirmed that he had received money from Mr al-Khafaji, Mr Ritter said that he had had his business associate checked by CIA "sources" via a friend who was a reporter, and was reassured." Later he claimed the deal was approved by the State Department.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/writt04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixnewstop.html

"On January 25, 2004, a daily newspaper in Iraq called al Mada published a list of individuals and organizations who it says received oil from the now-deposed regime. Among those listed is Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American from Detroit, who ran "Expatriate Conferences" for the regime in Baghdad. Al Khafaji also contributed $400,000 to the production of Scott Ritter's film "In Shifting Sands." Finally, al Khafaji arranged travel and financing for the "Baghdad Democrats"--Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior--last fall. Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott's Legal Defense Fund."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/605fgcob.asp

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 06:13 PM

So there was a big change in Ritter's outlook from 1998 to 2001.

Since he was in a position to observe the changes in Iraq, it probably accounts for the change in Ritter's position.

What was true in 1998, was no longer true in 2001.

We do not live in a stagnant world. Change happens all the time.
People who cannot change their minds according to changing circumstances are confined by dogma.

Someone should tell Bush this.

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 01:22 AM

February 21, 2005      US confrontation with Iran
               Sam Seder, hosting Air America's Randi Rhodes show, interviews Scott Ritter about statements he made at Olympia's Capitol Theater three days earlier (see February 18, 2005). Responding to a question about possible US military air strikes on Iran, Ritter says: "I have sources, which are unimpeachable, which I would not state who they are, who told me in October of 2004 that the president had been briefed on military strike options against Iran that were to commence in June of 2005. And that the president signed off on these plans."

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 01:09 PM

GUEST, 21 Jan 06 - 06:13 PM

"So there was a big change in Ritter's outlook from 1998 to 2001.

Since he was in a position to observe the changes in Iraq, it probably accounts for the change in Ritter's position.

What was true in 1998, was no longer true in 2001."

Care to expound on how Scott Ritter was in a position to observe the changes in Iraq within the time frame quoted?

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 12:00 AM

Shakir al Khafaji (born 1955) is a Detroit-based Iraqi-American businessman involved in the United Nations Oil for Food scandal. He immigrated to the United States in 1975. He graduated with a degree in architecture from Lawrence Tech University.

In 2004 he was reported by the Wall Street Journal to have received funds from Saddam Hussein and to have helped bankroll the lobbying activities of former weapons-inspector turned anti-sanctions activist, Scott Ritter - notably $400,000 for a 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands on the effects of the sanctions. Al Khafaji admitted to the Financial Times to selling oil he received from Hussein's government to Italtech, an Italian company which then sold the oil to Bayoil, a Houston company. The newspaper estimated he made around $1.1m from the oil for food programme.

Al Khafaji's name appears at least twice in the 2004 Duelfer Report, for oil export contracts M/8/117 and M/10/24. He was one of two Americans on the 270-name Al Mada list.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Shaker+al-Kaffaji

In an interview with the Financial Times, Khafaji admitted that he received and sold Iraqi oil contracts to Italtech, an Italian based oil trading company, which resold the oil to Houston-based Bayoil.

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg00286.html

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 12:13 AM

"One of the beneficiaries of the bonds was Shakir to the Khafaji, a iracheno emigrated in America that just in the period in which it received "coupon" for 5 million barrels of crude oil gave 400mila dollars to the former inspector of the UN Scott Ritter permettendogli to produce a documentary in which it supported that Saddam was "a paper tiger" and not was more reason than to continue the embargo. To the Khafaji its coupon just to the Italtech and from some documents of the livornese society sold those, of which "Sole-24 Hours" and the "Financial Times" are enter to you in possession, turns out that the million dollars poured to "Shakir" arrived from the Bayoil usual."

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/fc?cmd=art&artId=596228&chId=30

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 01:51 AM

New York Times
"..In so doing, he (Scott Ritter) became the most famous renegade Marine officer since Oliver North. He is in some sense a defector, and the problem with defectors, as many a weary debriefer knows, is that after a point they run out of fascinating facts observed firsthand and begin to opine and improvise..."

Subject: RE: BS: scott ritter speaks
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 07:29 PM

GUEST,who started this thread

People who were wrong need to flip flop.

People who were right do not need to flip flop.