BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 10 - 04:00 AM

Is this the same Scott Ritter who helped write the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council that was delivered in January 1999. The report that solely indicates the discrepencies in the Iraqi records that provided the information on what Iraq may have possessed that appeared verbatum in the so-called "Dodgy Dossier" of September 2002.

The Scott Ritter who came out with this on 31st August 1998 on the Online News Hour Show:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons program.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but between August 1998 and November 2002 Scott Ritter never returned to Iraq and in that period there were no UN weapons inspections.

Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998.

In his letter of resignation, Ritter said the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work. Ritter later said, in an interview, that he resigned from his role as a United Nations weapons inspector over inconsistencies between United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154 and how it was implemented.

The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that were not being complying with.

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

Now then Stingsinger, you said:

Somehow, I would trust Scott Ritter's opinion over that of Teribus who also has an "opinion".

Only thing is I have not changed my view point, I have not changed my opinion, reading the above it would appear that Scott Ritter and myself are on the same page.

More on Scott Ritter after leaving UNSCOM:

1. In 1999, Ritter wrote Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All in which he reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date.

2. In the same book, Ritter criticized the current U.S. policy of containment in the absence of inspections as inadequate to prevent Iraq's re-acquisition of WMD's in the long term.

3. Ritter promoted a conciliatory approach toward Iraq in the 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq, which he wrote and directed. The film tells the history of the UNSCOM investigations through interviews and video footage of inspection missions. In the film, Ritter argues that Iraq is a "defanged tiger" and that the inspections were successful in eliminating significant Iraqi WMD capabilities.

OK then Stringsinger, the man has not been to Iraq for two years, neither has anybody else. What has caused him to change his mind?? What new information did he have and where did he get it from?? Why would the source of this new information give it to a private citizen as opposed to UNSCOM who at that time still existed?? Who would you have given the information to?? I sure as hell know who I would have given it to in order for it to have the most beneficial effect.

Ritter's Iraq War Predictions

"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win... 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... Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost,"

Didn't quite pan out that way did it Stringsinger.

On Iraq's lack of WMD in 2002:

In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:

1. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

2. We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

3. If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple.

4. As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.

Excuse me but WTF happened to:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons program. - Scott Ritter

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 11:05 PM

I'd spell it "opportunism". ;-) They care not for the truth, but only for "victory", and a chance to hurt the opposition. Of course, their version of "the truth" is all their own, so they probably imagine that they DO care for the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 06:53 PM

P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N ?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 06:33 PM

Ya' know, I didn't hear the rigthies complainin' too much about Senator "Wide Stance" or Governor "ApplilacianTrailerHiker" or any of these other Repubs who have been caught doin' waht the preacher man said not to do...

How do you spell hypocrisy???

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 06:19 PM

It's quite possible that a man CAN be a credible witness on political events and CAN expose political lies...and may STILL be someone who has a weakness for something like child pornography.

The one does not serve as an automatic cancellation of the other.

If Scott Ritter was right in his testimony about Iraq and the Bush administration, it is completely irrelevant whether or not he has character flaws in some other private area of his life.

And it's also possible that they framed him.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 12:28 PM

"When the number two man in a religious dictatorship makes statements about what his country will or will not do, I think it might possibly, perhaps, IMO, be reasonable to assume that this represents the policy of that state, in the absence of any negation by any other government spokesperson."

So says BB.

When Cheney speaks for Bush, then we can assume that he is the "spokesperson" for the US government. Could it be that the US is a "dictatorship" in that case?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 12:22 PM

Somehow, I would trust Scott Ritter's opinion over that of Teribus who also has an "opinion".
Sawzaw will also adopt the misinformation given by tabloids.

It's amazing how uninformed information finds its way to these threads.

The idea that police stings in this country are not directed toward political dissidents
is naive. Grow up.

BTW Kerry was responsible for not taking an active stand on Iraq. He gained the flip-flop moniker for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 09:18 PM

Always attack the messenger... No matter how long it takes find something... Anything... Just keep throwing suff until something sticks...

Shame on you, Sawz...

You should have started another thread...

Your bad...

B~!

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 08:39 PM

Ex-U.N. nuclear weapons inspector Scott Ritter charged in child-sex sting
NY
DAILY NEWS January 14th 2010

Ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter was nabbed in a online child-sex sting, accused of engaging in a graphic chat with undercover cop posing as a 15-year-old girl.

It was the second time Ritter, 48, of upstate Delmar, was caught in a kiddie sex dragnet. In 2001, he blamed his troubles on a vast right-wing conspiracy, and the charges were later dismissed.

On Thursday, Ritter was keeping his mouth shut.

"I told you guys I'm not going to say anything, so please just go away," said the staunch critic of the Bush administration's push toward war with Iraq.

Monroe County detectives busted Ritter after they traced his explicit online chat through a cell phone number he gave a Barrett Township, Pa., undercover cop posing as underaged teen named "Emily" on the Web.

Detectives said Ritter was allegedly trolling chat rooms for jail bait last February when he came upon Emily's profile photo and asked for more pictures, according to an affidavit obtained by the Pocono Record.

Ritter, the married father of twin teen daughters, allegedly turned on his Web-cam and fondled himself on camera. Cops have photos of the perverted act.

He was arrested in November and released on $25,000 bail.

In a 2003 TV interview Ritter admitted he had faced online child-sex charges in New York in 2001, but claimed the case was trumped up to silence his criticism of the Iraq war.

He served as a UN weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998 before resigning.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 07:39 AM

"...they are not really a dictatorship per se"

You're a funny guy, alright, bb

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 07:08 AM

;-D !

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 07:08 AM

Not my way, my fear.


Take a look at the religious leadership in Iran- they are not really a dictatorship per se.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 06:54 AM

Let's hope we don't have to run for them...

If bb could have his way, that could well be the case.

We would have a head start, though

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 06:46 AM

I's rather be over the hill than under the hill any day!

thanks, fred!!

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Fred Overhill
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 06:14 AM

Would that suffice, freda?

Fred...,
but that's not important

(I could also call myself: 'Fred..., not "freda Fred"..., just in case anyone thought it might be important')

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:56 AM

hi Fred.... but that's not important! it's important to me that catters know that you are not me (i get called fred a lot these days).... but i guess that might not be important to you!

fred(a)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:45 AM

Subtle as a kick in the stones, bb

"When the number two man in a religious dictatorship makes statements about what his country will or will not do, I think it might possibly, perhaps, IMO, be reasonable to assume that this represents the policy of that state, in the absence of any negation by any other government spokesperson"

There's a thread currently on the go by Bobertsky, entitled 1 = 2. I think you could introduce a different angle to it...

There's too much 'reasonable assuming' going on in your head for my liking, bb. Could you reasonably assume that the USA could pull the invasion of Iran off on its own, as it swore it could do in Iraq?

My main question to you is... can there actually be a number 2 in any kind of a dictatorship, be it religious or secular?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:40 AM

"I DO NOT see Israel talking about the total destruction of any Arab state- I see several Arab nations saying they would accept serious damage in order to remove Israel from existence." - bb

Tuesday 1 March 2005 Telegraph.co.uk

   
'America would back Israel attack on Iran'By Francis Harris in Washington(Filed: 18/02/2005)

President George W Bush added a new twist to the international tension over Iran's nuclear programme last night by pledging to support Israel if it tries to destroy the Islamic regime's capacity to make an atomic bomb. Asked whether he would back Israel if it raided Teheran's nuclear facilities, Mr Bush first expressed cautious solidarity with European efforts, led by Britain, France and Germany, to negotiate with Iran. But he quickly qualified himself, adding that all nations should be concerned about whether Iran could make nuclear weapons.

"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened." His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration's line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts. The remarks may have reflected Mr Bush's personal thinking on an issue causing deep concern in Washington.

Israel, meanwhile, has given warning about Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that an Iranian bomb might be only six months away and that such a weapon would pose a grave risk to its security. Mr Bush repeated the reasons for America's anxiety: "Remember, this all started when we found [Iran] enriching uranium in an undeclared fashion, and it happened because somebody told on them."

Iran's influential former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking yesterday after meeting the Syrian prime minister, Mohammad Naji al-Otari, said his country needed to create a powerful alliance with Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries. Mr Rafsanjani, widely expected to run in Iran's June presidential elections, said the region must "stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the US and Israeli plots".

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:25 AM

And Rice WAS appointed, and confirmed by the Senate, NOT elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:23 AM

Maybe I am being too subtle.

When the number two man in a religious dictatorship makes statements about what his country will or will not do, I think it might possibly, perhaps, IMO, be reasonable to assume that this represents the policy of that state, in the absence of any negation by any other government spokesperson.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 05:16 AM

Fred,

I'll just copy and paste this again, Fred, so as you can read it again. I believe I answered your question... Here goes.... Ready?

"Condi and co were 'democratically elected', Rafsanjani wasn't, I would imagine

Subtle difference there, bb."

When he was president, he was elected. His present position is appointed.

"Has Khameni ever come out and said this?"
(by this, I guess you mean did the president of Iran make the statements that are referred to)

So, if Bush does not say something, but Rice does, you will give that administration the benefit of the doubt you give the Iranians?

"There's loudmouths in every administration, as I'm sure you well know.
They don't always follow the party line.

No reason to kill 100 000 people"

And no reason not to comply with UN obligations, either.


This could waste a lot of space- would you like to explain why you felt it was needed?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 04:11 AM

I'll just copy and paste this again, bb, so as you can read it again. I believe I answered your question... Here goes.... Ready?

Condi and co were 'democratically elected', Rafsanjani wasn't, I would imagine

Subtle difference there, bb.

Has Khameni ever come out and said this?

There's loudmouths in every administration, as I'm sure you well know.
They don't always follow the party line.

No reason to kill 100 000 people

Fred..., but that's not important

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 02:52 AM

Living together in peace is a far better solution- but it requires BOTH sides to stop killing. If that happens, and others in the region like the Iranians do not attack Israel, there might be a chance for peace. So why not tell the IRANIANS that they should stop threatening Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 02:36 AM

Israel has no particular reason to seek the destruction of some Arab state. The Arabs did not arrive from Europe and take over land belonging to local people in Palestine.

Accordingly, why would Israel take such a position? They were the foreigners who came in there, not the Arabs.

It is the Ashkenazim (European Jews) who advanced the political cause of Zionism, went to Palestine, and carved out a state for themselves by violence. That was a foreign invasion, similar to the hypothetical fictional scenario I described with the Armenians in Mexico.

Such an action is pretty damn hard to justify by any rationale. It's not surprising that a lot of Arabs regard Israel's existence as illegitimate and unacceptable.

It's acceptable to me, though, because it's an accomplished fact now, and people should learn to live together instead of killing and terrorizing one another, but I frankly think that the U.N. was badly mistaken in encouraging the creation of Israel in 1948, and yes, I think they did it mainly out of collective guilt for having abandoned the Jews in the 30's and 40's.

That was a bad decision, and it was made at the expense of the Palestinians, who were sacrificed on the altar of western guilt for the Holocaust. It's too late now to reverse it. Somehow, Palestinians and Israelis and Arabs must find a way to forgive the past and live together in peace.

Or...they will just keep killing each other.

You tell me which way is the better choice. One thing for sure...you can't succeed in killing ALL of the "other guys", so I suggest getting along with each other instead. It's an idea with merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 02:28 AM

When he was president, he was elected. His present position is appointed.

So, if Bush does not say something, but Rice does, you will give that administration the benefit of the doubt you give the Iranians?


And no reason not to comply with UN obligations, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Fred..
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 02:22 AM

Condi and co were 'democratically elected', Rafsanjani wasn't, I would imagine

Subtle difference there, bb.

Has Khameni ever come out and said this?

There's loudmouths in every administration, as I'm sure you well know.
They don't always follow the party line.

No reason to kill 100 000 people

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 01:54 AM

LH,

I have no problems with Iranians, it is the current religious government of Iran that I find to be a threat to peace and the existance of the state of Israel.

I DO NOT see Israel talking about the total destruction of any Arab state- I see several Arab nations saying they would accept serious damage in order to remove Israel from existence. There IS a difference in degree.

I seem to recall it was the UN that formed Israel, out of the collective guilt of WW II. So perhaps you need to include that as another example of why we should not let the UN determine our actions- Look at what a job they have done! ( sarcasm)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 01:45 AM

Gosh! Why not tell us what you really think about how bad Iranians are, BB. :-) Man, I am trembling in my little booties when I think how awful they are, after reading your stuff. Maybe...we should just kill them all? Would we be safe then? (Okay, I'm not serious about that...just in case someone misses the satirical intention.)

I guess they like Israelis about as much as Israelis like them. I can't imagine either one of them accepting disaster relief from the other. I can't imagine Israelis going into Iran at this juncture in history to help in disaster relief. It's inconceivable, given the present level of feeling toward Israelis in that part of the World.

The part I don't get is...can you not see at least some reason why Muslims in the Middle East would be angry at Israel? Just a smidgin of a reason since 1948 till now? If you can't...how come????

What if the Armenians, a group who were massacred en masse at one time, had gotten together in 1945-48 and decided to carve themselves out a new homeland somewhere in the World? What if they had a 3,000 year old holy book that suggested that Mexico was once their promised land in an ancient time. What if they had gone to Mexico and Guatemala in the late 40's, and by terrorism and war carved themselves out an enclave on the Yucatan peninsula, driving out most of the local Mexicans and taking their land. Would the Mexicans have gotten mad and tried repeatedly to take it back. YOU BETCHA! What if the Soviet Union had backed the Armenians to the hilt ever since then with high tech weapons and financial assistance, and the Armenians had had the benefit of European education and sophistication plus Soviet aid, and had used it to repeatedly pulverize and dominate the forces of Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and the whole general area? What if after each conflict the Armenians had siezed further chunks of Latin American land and started moving settlers in.

How do you think most Latin Americans would feel about the new Armenian country in their midst? Would they like it? Would they feel like being good buddies and having the Armenians come in and help with their earthquake damage.

I don't think so.

Why can you not see the tremendous grievances that have built up in the Arab World in the last 57 years, and have at least some understanding for it?

I'm not justifying suicide attackers. I'm not suggesting the destruction of Israel. I'm simply suggesting that their are two sides to this dispute and you only give emotional recognition to one side. I believe that is because you don't truly look upon the other side as fully human. I get that impression quite strongly. I agree that the Arabs are directing a Nazi-like hatred toward Jews. I see also that the Jews have been directing a Nazi-like hatred toward the Arabs for a long time, accompanied by a sense of innate cultural, racial and religious superiority.

They are both doing it. They are both being like Nazis in their hatred and contempt for one another. You seem to only see one of them doing it.

Both sides in the Arab-Israeli dispute are under the false impression that they are doing "God's will", I'm sure. I regard it as one set of zenophobic fanatics railing against another set of zenophobic fanatics, and making public statements to whip up their most loyal followers. (however, I am not in that sense judging the individual man in the street in Iran or Israel, I'm speaking of the leadership of both countries).

I don't have any particular fondness for the Ayatollahs or for religious fanatics of any stripe...Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever the heck it is. I regard them all as potentially quite dangerous.

Real spirituality doesn't follow any religion exclusively, and it respects the good in all religions. That is something the organized religions themselves need desperately to look into...

Guest - I'm not a liberal. There are plenty of things I disagree about with those who are what is usually termed as the classic "liberal". I'm a radical, if you want to give me a label. I am happy to expose hypocrisy regardless of whether it's parading around on the Right or the Left side of an issue. I have no party affiliation nor religious affiliation nor knee-jerk loyalty to any predefined pressure group out there.

Overly strong tribal identity defeats individual thought. So does overly strong partisan loyalty. It's called "being a sheep".

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 12:55 AM

Does Rice speak for the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Ah but
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 12:51 AM

... does he speak for Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 12:05 AM

>>>>"Expediency Council" Chairman Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani <<<<

>>>>> one of the two seniormost politicians <<<<<<<

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:59 PM

(Hmmmmm?

Chief of State: Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khameni

Head of governemnet: President (Ali) Mohammad Khatami-Ardakaini...)

(Now whoes statements have been shown to be false???)

(Going back to ignoring bb's ignorant postings...)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:37 PM

Bobert:

You made a statement

"Rafsanjani does not speak for Iran"


I have shown that YOUR statement is false.

If you choose to ignore it, fine- but don't bother telling us you have anything worth saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:34 PM

(Still ignoring bb's copy and paste ingnorance...)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:31 PM

(älç´ äk´bär häsh´emç räf&180;sänjän´ç) (Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani) , 1934-, Iranian religious and political leader, president of Iran (1989-97). A Shiite clergyman and supporter of Ayotallah Khomeini , Rafsanjani was imprisoned several times during the 1960s and 70s for his political activities. After the ouster of the Shah (see Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi ), Rafsanjani helped found the Islamic Republican party and built his political power base as speaker of the parliament (1980-89). From 1988 to 1989 he was also acting commander in chief of the armed forces. In 1989, Rafsanjani was elected president, receiving some 95% of the vote. A pragmatic conservative, he sought to revive Iran's badly flagging economy on free-market principles and moved to improve relations with the West, reestablish Iran as a regional power, and gradually reopen the country to foreign investment. He was reelected in 1993 with two thirds of the vote but was barred from seeking a third term in the 1997 elections. In 2000 he was narrowly elected to parliament, but he soon resigned his seat.

In a rare and exclusive interview in Tehran Sunday, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president and the consensus frontrunner in June's presidential elections, talked with USA TODAY's Barbara Slavin about U.S.-Iranian relations, al-Qaeda, and Iran's alleged nuclear bomb program.

Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that the United States cannot stop Iran from pursuing nuclear technology and warned against choosing a military "adventure" in the country.

"The Persian Gulf is not a region where they can have fireworks and Iran is not a country where they can come for an adventure," Rafsanjani told Muslim worshippers after Friday prayers.

and from Reuters

Feb 11, 2005 — TEHRAN (Reuters) - Washington will not stop Iran pursuing nuclear technology and should not attempt a military "adventure" in the country, an influential cleric said on Friday.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has exhorted Iran to give up what she says is a nuclear weapons program.

U.S. officials have stressed diplomacy but not ruled out an attack against atomic sites, which Iran insists are to meet booming demand for electricity.


Rafsanjani: 'US should Follow Peaceful Approach with Iran'
Anadolu News Agency ^ | Friday 11, 2005


Posted on 02/11/2005 5:02:23 PM PST by F14 Pilot


Former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Akbar Hasimi Rafsancani, has said American officials should follow a peaceful path with Iran.


Rafsanjani Warns U.S. Against 'Adventures' in Iran

Fri Feb 11, 2:21 PM ET   World - Reuters


By Christian Oliver

TEHRAN (Reuters) - An influential Iranian cleric, in a new blast against Tehran's arch-enemy, told Washington on Friday it cannot stop Iran pursuing nuclear technology and should not attempt a military "adventure" in the country


With the electoral battle between Iran's conservatives and reformists for the control of the Sixth Majlis (Parliament) escalating during the run-up to the poll on 18 February, attention is turning increasingly to the role of Hojatalislam Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
The attention is well-deserved. Besides being

>>>>> one of the two seniormost politicians <<<<<<<

- the other being Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, the Supreme Leader - in the country, Rafsanjani has a reputation for mediating successfully between competing factions.







Sure sounds like he is speaking for Iran to me. But I guess Bobert knows so much more than me I should just accept anything he says as the Bobert-given truth, and not bother trying to find out reality.



Every year, in a tradition introduced by the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomenei, Iran marks World Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan to show its solidarity with the Palestinian people. Former Iranian president and

>>>>"Expediency Council" Chairman Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani <<<<

gave the Al-Quds Day sermon on December 14, 2001 at Tehran University, which was attended by thousands of worshippers. In the sermon, he addressed solving the problem of Israel with nuclear weapons.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:14 PM

No, Bobert, like if Cheney or Rice were to give a speech.


Or are you saying that the clerics are not the rulers of Iran? If not, who is?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:10 PM

(bb's interpretation of world affairs... Like if Jerry Falwell were to give a speech in Germany the German's would believe that Jerry Falwell was speaking for the United States governemnt...)

(still somewhat ignoring bb's ignorance)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 11:05 PM

Bobert: "Rafsanjani does not speak for Iran."

"TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran's most influential >>>>ruling <<<< cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.




D. Prager Dec 30, 2003

If you want to understand the Middle East conflict, Iran has just provided all you need to know.

A massive earthquake kills between 20,000 and 40,000 Iranians, and the government of Iran announces that help is welcome from every country in the world . . . except Israel.

This little-reported news item is of great significance. It begs commentary.

Israel not only has the world's most experienced crews in quickly finding survivors in bombed out buildings, it is also a mere two-hour flight from Iran. In other words, no country in the world would come close to Israel in its ability to save Iranian lives quickly.

But none of this means anything to the rulers of Iran. The Islamic government of Iran has announced to the world that it is better for fellow countrymen and fellow Muslims -- men, women and children -- to die buried under rubble than to be saved by a Jew from Israel.

That is how deep the hatred of Israel and Jews is in much of the Muslim world.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims -- Arab and non-Arab, Sunni and Shi'a -- hate Israel more than they love life. Leaders of the Palestinian terror organization Hamas repeatedly state, "We love death more than the Jews love life." And now, Iran announces that it is better for a Muslim to asphyxiate under the earth than be rescued by a Jew from Israel.

Naive Westerners -- which includes most academics, intellectuals, members of the international news media, and nearly all others on the Left -- refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Arab/Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews. Yet, there is no hatred in the world analogous to it. Not since the Nazi hatred of Jews has humanity witnessed such hate.

That is why finding survivors from earthquakes, creating a Palestinian state and life itself are all far less important in much of the Islamic and Arab worlds than killing Jews and destroying the little Jewish state.

That is why Arab newspapers run articles by Arab professors describing how Jews butcher non-Jewish children to use their blood for holiday meals.

That is why Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad could get a standing ovation from the heads of every Muslim country when he told them "the Jews rule the world by proxy."

That is why Palestinian parents celebrate the suicide terror of their sons -- the joy of killing Israeli families far outweighs the pain of the death of their child.

Western naifs like to believe platitudes such as "Deep down, all people are really the same," "All people want peace," and the great untruth of multiculturalism that no culture is morally superior to another. That is why they choose not to face the truth about the Nazi-like hatred that permeates the Arab/Muslim world and the consequent moral gulf that exists between it and Israel. It shatters too many of their illusions.

Surely the Iranian refusal of rescuers from the Jewish state ought to help all these people acknowledge the unique hatred that is at the root of the Arab-Israeli dispute and recognize that it is therefore a conflict unlike any other on earth.

So, too, the immediate and sincere Israeli offer of rescuers to Iran should make the moral gulf between Israel and its enemies as clear as day. Despite the fact that Iran is the greatest backer of anti-Israel (and anti-American) terror and despite the fact that Iran repeatedly declares that Israel must be annihilated (in other words, seeks a second Jewish Holocaust), Israel offered to send its people to save Iranian lives.

The two reactions -- Iran's preference for Iranian deaths to Israeli help and the Jewish state's instinctive offer to help save Iranian lives -- ought to be enough anyone needs to understand the source of the Middle East conflict. But they won't. Because those who are anti-Israel or "evenhanded" are not so because of the facts, but despite them.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:43 PM

(Still ignoring bb's ignorance...)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:42 PM

"You were the one who said that those of us on the other side think you and yer buddies are subhuman..."


You mean you HAVEN'T read the posts that your friends have put up here?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:39 PM

No, GUEST, you just think we're mean because we don't agree with you and Bush about letting Boiss Hog call all the shots...

You were the one who said that those of us on the other side think you and yer buddies are subhuman...

Now, start yer own thread and we'll see.

Heck, I'm willing to discuss anything you want to talk about. I am fully capable of discussing ideas, issues and policies.

I have had good training since I deal with conservatives every day of my life and, believe it or not, work with conservatives in a few of the programs I am involved with...

Conservatives ain't bad folks.

Blind followers are...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:31 PM

I have found far more "mean" liberals here than I have conservatives- you have us outnumbered, so I guess you are in charge. Just like Bush is in the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 10:07 PM

Well, GUEST, you pick the topic and I couldn't care less what it is. You take the Buds administration's Point-of-View (POV) and given his propensity to give into big money, I'll take the other side... Heck, everywhere I look all I can see is how Boss Hog is tuniing the show and Bush is just Boss Hog's puppet...

Yeah, you pick the issue, start a new thread entitled "Bush is right on this one" and I'll be there...

Pick any friggin' thing that has helped all of the country...

I'll be looking for your thread...

Meanwhile, if you want to continue yer little chest pounding here on this thread, knock yerself out...

Oh, and BTW, most folks who are folks singers don't like yer guy too much so if yer lookin' for folks with whom you will agree, Google in Chamber of Commerace, 'er Young Republicans. Folkies don't like mean people...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:43 PM

" It was a statement of what I see, here and in other threads.
How would you call it ad hominum?"

Definition of ad hominem: 'Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason'

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:38 PM

That's better.
Certainly better than 'ANYONE'
(which is ad hominem)

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:33 PM

correction to the last line...

... that SOME of the liberals here...

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:32 PM

Nope. It was not. It was a statement of what I see, here and in other threads.
How would you call it ad hominum? Are you stating there are NOT complaints about Bush attacking those who do not agree with his world view? Or are you stating that the liberals here are not making even more malicious attacks on those that deviate from their viewpoint?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:24 PM

I suppose that wasn't an ad hominem argument

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:20 PM

LH,

"Well, it's a whole lot more important to be good-hearted than to have a big I.Q. Some antisocial people are brilliant, after all, but they're still no boon to society. "

Agreed- so why is there such an effort on the part of some posters to say that Bush and any who might agree with even one point of his are such stupid, subhuman idiots? Is it too much to ask them to address what they think he is doing wrong, instead of making ad hominum arguments?

Once upon a time I thought there might be room here for civilised discussion and the airing of different viewpoints, so that I might better understand what those who did not agree withg me were thinking. I have found that ANYONE who deviates from the liberal-defined Order of things is subject to personal attacks, insults, and ridicule. Seems that the Left here is even better at that than the Bush administration is in the real world- but that does not stop the comnplaints about Bush attempting it, NOR the attempts here to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 06:15 PM

According to Billy Crystal "...9/11 is also his SAT score..."