Ritter on Wolf Blitzer was brilliant

[kcwayne]

He absolutely made the case for how this nation has been mislead and is calling for an investigation of not only the intelligence, but more importantly the policy making that led us to invade Iraq.

Wolf made a feeble attempt to get Scott to say that it was all for the better good because the Iraqis are in better shape after Sadam's ouster, and Scott hit it out of the park. Wolf said "We'll leave it there".

Scott said that the Iraqis are suffering now because of our unilateralism, and would continue to do so. But he felt that the more important issue was the loss of the democratic process in America, and that we would suffer for this for years to come.

Wolf crumpled.

Way to go Scott. You are an American hero.

[tom_paine]

1. Huzzah for Scott Ritter!

A True American Patriot!

We need all of 'em we can get these days!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. Scott to Bush*: :georgie you're BUTTASS NAKED and you're UGLY!"

i want a transcript of that....Scott was best i have ever heard anyone state the facts!

[0007]

39. Scott Ritter has always held his own in a debate

Never once have I seen anyone get the best of Scott Ritter.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

43. i agree

[leesa]

48. Agreed. I have never heard anyone so concise and calm as

he presents simply devestating facts regarding this treasonous action by the Crime Family.

[Justice]

3. Scott Ritter Is A Profile In Courage

[Dudley_DUright]

4. I like how Ritter slapped Wolf down

when Wolf tried to link Iraq with 9/11. Great job Scott! We need more truth tellers on the tube.

[asjr]

8. Oh, yes

I was watching and cheered and cheered. Ritter stated it exactly and how Wolfie couldn't get out of it.

[stanwyck]

It's so dispiriting

that Wolfie has become such a tool. What has happened to people? Is there no one left with an ounce of dignity or honor? I can't watch Blitzer anymore. It's just too sad. He's like a pod person. Did he get a lobotomy?

[StClone]

5. Sometimes the Media does us a favor

When they trot out a GOP line and we have a source (in this case Ritter) to not only counter it but blast it out of the park.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. bushco* is in CRASH AND BURN mode!!!

[maggrwaggr]

36. that's what I'm hoping

I really really want Colin Powell's words from the State Dept's own website to come back to haunt them NOW:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

<<And frankly have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. >>

[Barrett808]

7. Have they posted the transcript yet? n/t

n/t

[KissMyAsscroft]

9. I like how they brought Spector out right after him...

to counter him.

He wasn't nearly as forceful and brilliant as Ritter.

Love that man!

[Ilsa]

10. Ritter was great on C-Span this mornignngalso.

He slapped down some hoser that called him unpatriotic for saying the US would eventually leave Iraq with its tail between its legs.

But there were definitely more positive calls taken on the air than negative ones.

[MariaS]

22. Did you listen

to the Washington Times editor on after Ritter. First thing out of his mouth was a lie about something Ritter said that anyone listening knew wasn't what Scott said. I loved the man who called him on it later in the segment.

[alittlelark]

26. I tried calling in on that one too

It was outrageous! That R-wing nut sounded 'the fool'! I hope alot of independents and moderate repub's saw that! It was amazing spin!

[loudnclear]

31. Way to go! We have to start calling people on what they lie about.

If we don't do it who will? certainly not the meida. Everytime we hear one of those pundits or callers make a bold face lie or state some unsupported allegation we need to call in and straighten them out...even if we can't get our call in until the next day!

Someone said it here last year. We need to organize some "Rapid Respone Teams" RRTs. Anyone who has the facts on an issue that can be confirmed should take it upon themselves to respond to the media and their audience who seek to propagandize, smear, and mis-quote our side.
GO RRTs!!!!

[stanwyck]

45. Washington Times whore

he intentionally misstated Ritter's comment. I was so gratified that he wasn't allowed to get away with his blatant lie. I guess these conservative whores aren't used to having anyone call them on their lies. How can a guy, sorry -- don't remember his name, who makes his living as a journalist be so openly partisan? When quizzed about Bush's military record, he stated, more than once, that he was sure that Bush would have gladly gone to Viet Nam if that's what his country wanted him to do. Really? Exactly how does he know this? The man was depraved. The callers did a wonderful job of pinning him on his whoring. These RWNs believe everyone else is stupid.

[calimary]

29. Ritter was absolutely staggering! A real barn-burner! I was utterly

flabbergasted that
a) they even let him on the air
b) they let him on the air unopposed - he was the sole guest during his segment, no republi-CON apologist on with him to "balance" the presentation - I guess they had Specter on afterwards
c) he was able to say as much as he did.

POWERFUL, SHOCKING, ASTOUNDING, AMAZING, BUTT-KICKING, EXPLOSIVE!!!

Ritter is a one-man weapon of mass destruction.

I kept thinking that this could well be the beginning of the end...

UTTERLY ASTONISHING!!! JUST AN ABSOLUTE BLACK BELT!!!

AND, he had superb comebacks to the two obnoxious arguments people knee-jerk you with (or is that circle-jerk?):

1) it's an intelligence failure - NO, he said. Ritter said it's a POLICY FAILURE, and outlined in some detail how the American, British, AND Israeli intelligence had stated, with Colin Powell and others confirming, in EARLY 2001 (MONTHS before 9/11) that Iraq had nothing and posed no threat. POWELL ACKNOWLEDGED THIS HIMSELF, Ritter said. Ritter said the intel wasn't faulty, it was the people picking it who were faulty, and that the fault goes all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

2) the people of Iraq are SO much better off now, without Saddam - NO, Ritter said. First, he said - "you'll have to ask the people of Iraq about that." Wolfie pursued: well, don't YOU think so? Ritter said NO. The people of Iraq are NOT better off, in fact they're going to be suffering for years because of what we've done. AND, he added, AMERICA is going to be suffering for years for what we've done. We're not any better off, ourselves.

BRILLIANT!!! FUCKIN' BRILLIANT!!! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph - I have NEVER seen such a clear-cut, direct, no-holds-barred, no-punches-pulled, powerful rebuttal to the shit spewing out of this White House. THIS guy should be running for president! I am FLOORED!!! I AM IN AWE!!! I pray for this guy's safety. I think we all need to.

[maggrwaggr]

37. Colin Powell's words right here

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

<<And frankly have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. >>

Just waiting for the national media to bring this up.

[economic justice]

11. American Hero? Ritter is a liar.

Which Ritter to believe?

Keep in mind what intelligence officials think regarding Ritter's flip on his Iraq views. He's now a Kucinich supporter of course...but THIS IS SCOTT RITTER:

From "ENDGAME"

In his book, "ENDGAME":

"On April 18, 1991, Iraq submitted its declaration to the United Nations, initiating the process of sham and deception that would never cease. From the outset he decided to outwit the disarmament provisions of the Security Council resolution. Broad guidelines were established from the start. Iraq would not declare any aspect of its nuclear weapons program, nor would it admit to any violation of the nonproliferation treaty. It would not declare any aspect of its biological weapons program. Iraq's most advanced chemical weapon, VX, was to be totally hidden from the inspection teams."

MORE RITTER:

"The first step in any military confrontation intended to remove Saddam from power and transform Iraq into an international law-abiding nation is to convince the American people that this is a morally just fight. Saddam has provided the world with a massive body of damning evidence from which to assemble such a case, some of which I've discussed in this book. There is certainly moral justification to take action to overthrow Saddam."

"In the end, the hard reality always surfaces: to remove Saddam, we must employ the military forces of the United States. The time to solve this problem is now, when the cost in terms of lives and resources will be far less than it would be in the future. However, it is very difficult to mobilize support for war based upon a potential threat. It is easier to hope that containment through a combination of economic sanctions and limited military action will suffice. But the framework of containment is collapsing, and Iraq is on the verge of breaking out. And when it does--perhaps three to five years down the road--the world will face a serious confrontation. The only way to prevent Saddam from igniting conflict is to overthrow him through military action, that is what we must do."

Bill Clinton has a hard-line on Saddam and Democrats today should not accept new apologists for Saddam. Money talks, huh Scott?

[jpak]

13. Ritter told the truth - Bush lied

them's the facts

spam on.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. what's being a Kucinich supporter got to do with anything???

thanks again for your "fair and balanced" assessment of Scott Ritter

[economic justice]

17. Ritter lies - he's no friend

Will Dennis ask Ritter WHAT CHANGED HIS MIND? I've heard him dodge the questions. I think the guy is an opportunist and a liar. I think Kucinich receiving his endorsement does NOTHING positive for Kucinich.

[JAbuchan08]

18. Ritter has answered the questions about his "flip-flops" before

The fact is that he was with those same inspection teams and saw the underhanded way that David Kay conducted himself. Weapons inspectors served the purpose of denying Iraq the sovereign right to detain spies. In other words they over-reached their mandate.
Ritter has basically said that when new facts came to light he allowed those new facts to enter into his reading of the situation. Unfortunately I do not remember the interview in which he was confronted about these supposed "flip-flops." I remember thinking to myself "oh no, another warrior bites the dust because he changed his mind." but then he blasted the question out of the park. Can anyone remind me of his answer to the charges that he "flip-flopped"

[economic justice]

20. I've heard the spin....ASK RITTER

Will Pitt & Dennis Kucinich should ask the follow question of Scott Ritter and then investigate on their own:

Scott, What are the circumstances regarding your dismissal as a weapons inspector?

[ParanoidPat]

38. "Dismissal" you say? You're just TOO easy to 'de-bunk'!

.....From BBC News :evilgrin:

Tuesday, September 29, 1998 Published at 18:11 GMT 19:11 UK

World

Inspector condemns UN



Scott Ritter: resigned after seven years

A UN arms inspector has told the BBC why he quit the international team investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Scott Ritter led the team in Iraq for seven years before resigning in August, saying he could no longer do his job.

Now he has accused the UK and the US of trying to maintain merely an "illusion" of controlling Saddam Hussein's arsenal.

In reality, western leaders did not want to push the issue because of a lack of public support for military strikes against Iraq, Mr Ritter told the BBC's Fergal Keane.

Mr Ritter's critics - including the UK Foreign Office and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - say he cannot see the wider political context.

<snip>

Check this out from Global Policy.org

<snip>

If there ever were any doubts that Butler has been serving the interests of the US, the events surrounding the latest outrage against Iraq put them to rest. Former senior UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter told the 17 December New York Post that US officials prodded inspection teams to provoke a crisis to justify bombing. 'What Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up,' Ritter said.

Ritter is hardly a friend of Iraq. He was a US military intelligence officer based in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War and was at the center of a crisis in January 1998, when Iraq accused Ritter of being a US spy. Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because he claimed it and the US were 'too soft' on Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Dishonesty

An examination of Butler's report reveals its dishonesty. Since 17 November, when Iraq allowed UNSCOM inspections to resume after briefly halting cooperation, there had been at least 427 inspections. The report identified problems with five. In one case, inspectors were made to wait 45 minuets before they were given access to a guest house that had previously been an office of a security organization. In a second incident, UNSCOM inspectors were not allowed to interview undergraduate students at Baghdad University' science department about their research. In the most widely cited incident, inspectors were refused admittance to the Baghdad headquarters of the ruling Baath Party. Thirty inspectors, headed by Australian Roger Hill, arrived without warning and demanded entry - too many under the terms of an agreement between UNSCOM and the Iraqi government. Four inspectors were eventually admitted.

Butler wrote in his report that UNSCOM had 'solid evidence' of 'proscribed materials' hidden there, including 'ballistic missile components'. The London Times on 17 December revealed that this 'solid' evidence was only the say-so of US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)- backed Iraqi 'dissidents' seeking to overthrow the Baath Party. UNSCOM inspectors also demanded the right to inspect two establishments on Fridays - the Muslim holy day - and insisted that no Iraqis accompany then. This breached an agreement that government officials accompany inspectors on Fridays if nobody is working at the site. Despite writing, 'In statistical terms, the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation', Butler concluded, 'the Commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council.' Russia and China called for Butler's dismissal. China's UN representative said, 'The leader of UNSCOM has played a dishonorable role in the crisis. The reports submitted by UNSCOM to the secretary general were unfounded and evasive of the facts.'

Spying

Whatever remaining credibility Butler had was shattered on 8 January, when UN officials, angry at Washington's manipulation of UNSCOM, leaked details of how the US and other countries spied on Iraq using UNSCOM as cover. The Washington Post revealed that from 1996, UNSCOM provided information to the US that could pinpoint the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein and reveal his security precautions. Until 1998, this was done using Israel-supplied hand-held devices capable of monitoring and recording radio communications. The recordings were analyzed in Israel, Britain and the US. In 1998, the 'US took control of the operation,' the Post reported, and installed a sophisticated 'black box' able to automatically send intercepted messages via a satellite relay in a nearby country to the National Security agency at Fort Meade (Maryland, USA).'

The 8 January London Times reported, 'US officials said that some of the intelligence was used in last month's four-day bombing campaign'. While Butler immediately denied that UNSCOM passed information to the US, the Washington Post reported that US officials confirmed the leaked details. Butler approved the installation of the 'black box', the newspaper reported. After the US took charge of the operation, 'Washington specified that only Butler and his deputy, Charles Duelfer, be given access to the intercepted material'.

Ritter, whom the Washington Post identified as the UNSCOM official who initiated the operation in 1996 with the approval of former UNSCOM head Rolf Ekeus, told the French newspaper Liberation on 8 January that UNSCOM had a 'special relationship' involving the sharing of intelligence with the spy agencies of five countries, including the US and Israel. Ritter told the 10 January Chicago Tribune that Butler gave him the order to install the black box last July, and that Washington had complete control of the device.

[buycitgo]

21. so which Endgame are you "quoting" there?

here's what I found:

http://www.lymenet.de/politics/endgame.htm

Ritter describes Saddam Hussein's rise to power, painting a damning portrait of a dictator who ruthlessly eliminated rivals as he fought his way to the top. Ritter explains how Saddam cleverly drew on tribal and family connections to consolidate power and then outmaneuver and often execute opponents.

.......

When the U.N. Security Council authorized inspections of Iraqs chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons facilities following the conclusion of the Gulf War, Saddam put in place a concealment program designed to preserve his weapons capabilities. It was this concealment mechanism that UNSC0M spent seven years trying to penetrate in its search for Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. Ritter takes us with him inside some of Iraq's most carefully guarded sites as he describes what it was like to conduct these inspections. He tells stories of dramatic face-offs by unarmed inspectors with hostile Iraqi guards and officials.

Endgame criticizes current U.S. policy toward Iraq, pointing out that the U.S. has squandered an international consensus and now find herself virtually isolated over her Iraq policy. Scott Ritter offers a way out of the Iraqi morass, proposing a bold and innovative solution to the current crisis. He argues that the U.S. should again take a leadership position on Iraq if we are to avoid facing a rearmed and emboldened Saddam on another battlefield in the future.

where'd you get the second quote, please?

when was it written?

perhaps he WAS in favor of military action at one point, but realizing the success of HARDLINER Clinton, who he CASTIGATED at the time of his stocking the inspector team with Spycreeps like David Kay, btw, who BOMBED THE CRAP out of Iraq himself (and, by most reliable accounts, destroying whatever was left of Saddam's meagre WMD cache), perhaps he changed his tune.

you provide no timeframe, no perspective, no links.

where'd you get YOUR Endgame quotes?

mine is above

[kcwayne]

23. You have not quoted any lies, you are showing a position change

When the Bush administration was railroading the inspection process, Scott stood alone and contradicted what the administration was saying. The propaganda started spewing forth from the right wing relentlessly, especially from Kay. They accused Scott of accepting money from Saddam, of being mentally unbalanced, of being a liar and an apologist, etc.

He stood firm in his knowledge, and now has been proven right. I don't expect to see apologies from Kay or any other of the right wing hacks that attacked him. I do expect to see more of the aspersions that you are presenting.

He did not speak as an apologist for Saddam, nor have I ever heard him do that. The fact that he changed his mind about a military overthrow being the best way to get rid of Saddam, if indeed he did do that, is not equivalent to lying.

Perhaps his thinking on this is more complex. Perhaps initially he was very militaristic, but his experience in Iraq as part of the inspection teams changed his course of thinking. What he said today was that the Iraqis are suffering (they are), and that MORE IMPORTANTLY (to him) the US Democratic process suffered. That is not lying, and is not equivalent to saying Saddam should not have been removed. Scott said the unilateral approach was flawed, and it is. We are in more danger from terrorism because of our actions, and the Iraqi people are facing a guaranteed civil war because of our ineptness in administration after removing Saddam.

What makes Scott a hero is that he stood up to the relentless onslaught of the right wing propaganda with the truth. I know that I mistrusted him and wondered what was going on with him. Propaganda works.

If he lied about something here, it is not apparent to me.

[ParanoidPat]

24. You can post that crap all you like but.....

.....it's important to add the when to those statements! :evilgrin:

Facts without context mean nothing. :) Nice try.

[SpiralHawk]

27. EC - You use a quote from 13 years ago to apply to today?

That is so twisted. Things change. Do you think you ChimpMeister still "thinks" all the same "things" he "thought" 13 years ago. Not likely.

A really lame argument. Carrys no weight.

Show me the WMDs or shut up and sit down.

[GregW]

28. Are you our designated debunker/disrupter today?

If so, welcome.

Or not.

[Red State Rebel]

33. Are you aware?

The person that financed Ritter's flip flop is on the list that was exposed the other day of people who were supposedly bribed with oil to back Saddam? I think he paid Ritter $65,000.00.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

40. oh how convenient for that for that new list to pop up on the heels of

Kay's report

[ParanoidPat]

42. Can't even get your own 'lie' straight!

It was $400,000.00 invested by an Iraqi American businessman in the production of a documentary titled "In Shifting Sands".

From the http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56950-2002Oct20?language=printer">Washington Post :evilgrin:

Fighting Words

Scott Ritter Says Iraq Is 'Not a Threat.' But His Critics See a Loose Cannon.

By Richard Leiby
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 21, 2002; Page C01

"Why would people think that I've somehow gone soft on Saddam?" Scott Ritter asks, just before he starts pummeling the couch. "Can't people understand that I love Americans more than I hate Saddam?" He flails on the cushions like a one-handed conga player.

Ritter, 41, is an ex-Marine who still looks the stereotype -- large and in charge. Parked this evening in a darkened C-SPAN studio near Capitol Hill, he is jazzed up on three cans of Diet Coke after doing a phone-in show about his peace mission last month to Baghdad. He's speaking out against war, he says, as a "good American patriot," trying to save U.S. forces from needless death in a politically motivated invasion of Iraq.

<snip>

As an intelligence officer during the Persian Gulf War, Capt. Ritter helped crush Hussein's army. For seven years as a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, he rooted out evidence of the dictator's deceit and his forbidden arsenal. When Ritter resigned in 1998, calling the inspection program a sham, he testified in Congress:

"Iraq is not disarmed. Iraq still poses a real and meaningful threat to its neighbors."

Amid the rising tattoo of Bush administration war drums, Ritter took off for Baghdad, singing a different tune. "The truth of the matter is that Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction," he said in an address to the Iraqi National Assembly -- the first by an American and widely seen as a propaganda coup for Hussein. "Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbors."

Ritter admits to no inconsistency, saying, "I don't see where I've deviated one iota."

His September trip was assisted, in part, by a wealthy Iraqi American businessman who opposes U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq and who also invested $400,000 in a documentary Ritter researched there two years ago. In the film, which has not been commercially released, Ritter condemns the sanctions, calling American policy toward Iraq immoral.

Ritter's voice ices over when anyone suggests he could be bought. His muscles tense. He's piled up debt, he says, maxing out three credit cards to bring the truth to the American people.

<more>

This was not a very flattering piece at the time but with 20/20 hindsight he was right! The allegations you mention were in fact investigated and the money invested was spent on the documentary as well as an awful lot of Scott's own money. To date, he has taken a loss on the production.

It's not a "flip-flop" to say he (Saddam) had weapons when he did and that he was no longer a threat after the weapons had been accounted for and destroyed by the UN. :)

[gonefishing]

12. I want to scream!

Did you see Arlen Specter's response to the WMD question. He said we should look to the future and stop looking to blame. He went on to say there are other administrations (democratic) that could be blamed.

<SCREAM ON>

The previous administration did not stand in front of America and the world making the case to go to war on false/bad intelligence.

</SCREAM OFF>

The focus on the blame should not be why we went to war. It should be on who took us to war!

[Cleita]

14. I SCREAM TOO!!

I hate these disgusting murderous people.

[Cat Atomic]

25. Move forward into what, exactly? More preventive wars?

Not when we've got administration officials cherry picking intelligence, or even manufacturing it.

[leesa]

49. Same argument for no investigation of 9-11. Forget about it, don't

blame anyone but mythical Muslims.

[earthside]

16. Ritter Inspires

Scott Ritter on CSPAN and CNN today inspired me to send a letter-to-the-editor:

Rocky Mountain News
Letter-to-the-Editor
January 30, 2004

Editor:

The caption above the front page photograph of David Kay in the January 29 Rocky Mountain News read: “We were all wrong.” But Mr. Kay’s statement is incorrect. “We” didn’t get it all wrong.

It must be remembered that United Nations weapons inspectors, on the ground in Iraq, by March 2003 were conducting aerial surveillance with U-2 aircraft and no-notice inspections. Hans Blix reported that they had found “No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage.” And even earlier in February, chief inspector of the International Nuclear Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei reported: " We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq."

All of us were made aware even then what the truth was in Iraq.
And the many people around the globe and in this country who wanted to give the inspectors the time to continue their work didn’t get it wrong at all.

Only one person got it wrong when it counted most. George W. Bush, in spite of the truth staring him in the face, ordered the unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation that has meant a death sentence for many American, British, Italian, and Spanish soldiers, and thousands of innocent Iraqis.

If our republic is to flourish, we have to hold leaders who deceive us accountable and remove them from office. Let’s not get that wrong on election day.

DC

Read an long version of what this letter is all about at: http://www.earthside.com/remember.html

[Nomad559]

19. Video of Scott Ritter

For those that missed It, I recorded and posted the Video here

[Cat Atomic]

44. Wow. Just wow.

Thanks so much for posting that video, Nomad. Transcripts never do justice.

[Judi Lynn]

30. Thank you, kcwayne.

Some of us have been truly hungry for news of that great man.

Go, Scott.

Glad to know he's back in motion for his country. Hope he lives to a very healthy old age.

[buycitgo]

32. here is the xscript of ritter on CNN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1071284

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. buycitgo...thank you so much

:loveya:

[Judi Lynn]

35. Absolutely thank you for that transcript! Tremendous. n/t

[0007]

41. The transcript was much appreicated - thank you

[Snappy]

46. An American

Now we see what the Neo Fascists do.
The Neo Fascists are anti-American scum, who should be placed on trial for treason.

Scott Ritter is a true American and I thank him for his service to us.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

47. This was absolutely brilliant.

Devastating. And incredibly concise, the whole message in very few words. No one has stated it this well on TV since the whole propaganda war began.