Scott Ritter: Like W , KERRY KNEW! (of the WMD lies)

[robbedvoter]

Kerry, Too, Needs to Clear the Air

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vprit093662615feb09,0,359814.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

By Scott Ritter
Scott Ritter, former UN chief inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, is the author of "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America."

February 9, 2004
snip
The problem for Sen. Kerry, of course, is that he, too, is culpable in the massive breach of public trust that has come to light regarding Iraq, WMD and the rush to war.
Almost 30 years after his appearance before the Senate, Sen. Kerry was given the opportunity to make good on his promises that he had learned the lessons of Vietnam. During a visit to Washington in April 2000, when I lobbied senators and representatives for a full review of American policy regarding Iraq, I spoke with John Kerry about what I held to be the hyped-up intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. "Put it in writing," Kerry told me, "and send it to me so I can review what you're saying in detail."
I did just that, penning a comprehensive article for Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, on the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq." This article, published in June 2000, provided a detailed breakdown of Iraq's WMD capability and made a comprehensive case that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. I asked the Arms Control Association to send several copies to Sen. Kerry's office but, just to make sure, I sent him one myself. I never heard back from the senator.
snip
Despite receiving thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding that dissenting expert opinion, including my own, be aired at the hearing, Sen. Kerry apparently did nothing, allowing a sham hearing to conclude with the finding that there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Sen. Kerry followed up this performance in October 2002 by voting for the war in Iraq. Today he justifies that vote by noting that he only approved the "threat of war," and that the blame for Iraq rests with President George W. Bush, who failed to assemble adequate international support for the war. But this explanation rings hollow in the face of David Kay's findings that there are no WMD in Iraq. With the stated casus belli shown to be false
John Kerry needs to better explain his role not only in propelling our nation into a war that is rapidly devolving into a quagmire, but more importantly, his perpetuation of the falsehoods that got us there to begin with.
President Bush should rightly be held accountable for what increasingly appears to be deliberately misleading statements made by him and members of his administration regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. If such deception took place, then Bush no longer deserves the trust and confidence of the American people.
But John Kerry seems to share in this culpability, and if he wants to be the next president of the United States, he must first convince the American people that his actions somehow differ from those of the man he seeks to replace.More

[virtualobserver]

1. the Senate has been a courage-free environment...........

with the possible exception of Jeffords.

[revcarol]

50. And Byrd.

That giant defender of the Constitution!!

[BootinUp]

53. Byrd is one of my heroes

No one would stand with him this time.

[Ficus]

55. Russ Feingold

don't forget

[redqueen]

2. This should be shouted from the rooftops.

I hope Democrats notice this!

[bearfartinthewoods]

16. excuse me but until ritter "clears the air" about his arrest

in a parking lot while waiting for a little girl to come and watch him jack off, i will not be according him any credibility.

[robbedvoter]

24. Turd Blossom would be proud of this response.

Edwards still thinks the war in Iraq was justified by 9.11!!!!

"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

Earth to Edwards: OBL and Saddam are two different brown guys.

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. and this relates to the fact that ritter refuses to explain why he was

arrested in what way?

if he wasn't arrested for trying to entice young girls into sexual interaction, just why won't he explain just what was going on?

excuse me but i hold a minimum standard as to whom i trust for info and insight and being a pedophile doesn't fit in with that standard.

one of these days we are going to stop giving creeps a pass because they say what we want to hear. with his arrest record, there aren't a lot of employement opportunities for ritter. saying what will sell to the left is just about the only easy work he can get and that doesn't make him reliable in my book.

[redqueen]

35. He won't because that's the law

he's following it, while certain other parties are not. And not only are they breaking this law, you're also going around helping them, and not asking any of the serious questions you should be, such as:

why did this charge come so close to his outing of the bush admin lies?

why does the jduge in the case not bother finding out who's leaking this information?

Scott was cleared of any wrongdoing, and has followed the law every step of the way.

Aren't you curious as to why there is no interest into who is leaking information illegally?

[bearfartinthewoods]

42. i think you are wrong.

show me anything that says he cannot talk about the case.

and then tell me why any normal innocent person would not be screaming from the rooftops to tell the truth about this matter uneless the truth is that he's one of those god damned internet trolling creeps that we all have to warn our kids about.

you would have to kill me to keep me from defending my honor if i was innocent of such a charge.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maddezmom]

49. thanks for posting

that's my hometown, although haven't lived there in 24 yrs. As far as I'm concerned it's been cleared up.

[bearfartinthewoods]

79. i wonder if his current neighbors feel likewise?

[bearfartinthewoods]

54. the shame is on him

no one can be caught up in a sex sting unless they were cruise for young girls on the net.

the fact that his case has been sealed means that the legal authorities cannot speak about it. it doesn't mean he can't as witnessed by his comments above.

notice that he doesn't say "i didn't do it" he didn't say " i was not trolling teen chatrooms for young girls. i did not arrange to meet one in the burger king parking lot so she could watch me jack off."

a sting is a standard way to pick up perverts who troll internet chat room for kids. someone pretends to be a young girl or boy and waits to see who jumps for the bait. no one forced ritter to jump for the bait. he did that all on his own.

[redqueen]

58. What makes you think the seal doesn't restrict him?

Please provide a link which says it is legal for defendants to comment on cases wherein the records have been sealed.

I'm familiar with the methods of catching men who are sick in the head, thank you very much.

Please provide some actual information of your own, as I have done, rather than continue to spout ad hominems and baseless tawdry innuendo (a la Fox, nice). Thanks in advance.

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. NO...you are the one to make the assertion that he can't speak

bescause he is proscibed by law from doing so...YOU PROVE that statement.

the order says his records are sealed. it is NOT a gag order as is used to prevent both sides in an ONGOING court case from speaking.

personally, i think the idea of sealing records in a case of this nature is an abomination....but hey....that's just me...i think if someone has been arrested for trolling chat rooms it should be public knowledge. i want to know if people like that are in the neighborhood but right now, a pedophile has to actually succeed in contacting a kid for the purposes of sex before his neighbors can be alerted to protect their kids.

if you want to give him a pass...if you want to accord him trust, go right ahead. the charges are obviously NOT baseless as the evidence was sufficent for him to accept a less than INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES conclusion to the case. a person of honor and integrity does not allow baseless charges to be lodged against himself without rising to his own defense.

which pretty much sums up the whole situation. he, the one person who best knows what thoughts he held in his heart as he waited in the parking lot is NOT screamin his innocence from the rooftops.

if you choose to do for him what he is not willing to do for himself,

it is obviously his right. just as it is my right barf when i read the words "clear the air" and "breach of public trust " coming from ritter.

[redqueen]

82. This is sickening

You come on here and launch into this smear without posting ONE thing to back up your version.

Then you berate me for not understanding a technicality which, while you IMPLY you understand, you clearly aren't willing to clarify. :eyes:

You've got a lot of nerve, and very little credibility with me. Posting right wing crap like this is sickening, and doing it with not even the slightest hesitation regardless of the circumstances makes it even that much more shameful.


Figure this one out, k?

IF this is such a heinous, heinous crime, WHY WAS THE CHARGE DROPPED TO A MISDEMEANOR?! You obviously believe that the incident actually happened, and that there was some 'there' there, so why? Tell me, why would that happen?

[bearfartinthewoods]

91. WHY WAS THE CHARGE DROPPED TO A MISDEMEANOR?!

hmmmm...maybe because he was a famous REPUBLICAN arms inspector?

[redqueen]

93. As usual

no facts, just spin.

Go ahead and keep on with your quest for justice.

I hope you're happy with the perspectives you've chosen:

Scott Ritter - big deal!

Kerry backing up bush on his lies in the rush to war - not a big deal!

[bearfartinthewoods]

97. ritter has the facts...go pester him for them

i'm getting the idea that this is the first time you have ever heard of any of this? if so, it's not my job to bring you current.

if you have been on DU long enough to have been here when the story broke and read the discussions and the plethora of links and you still hold ritter as some sort of innocent then it is still not my problem.

hold him up as some sort of icon of honor and integrity and promote his worth. it is no skin off my nose.

my perspective is that a man of honor does not allow his honor to be sullied without response and i am indeed content with that perspective.

please scott...say it ain't so.......

[redqueen]

99. As I thought - Kerry backing up bush on his lies

no big deal.

:puke:

[bearfartinthewoods]

102. as i thought...pedophilia...no big deal.

[redqueen]

104. Newsflash: I'm not voting for Scott Ritter.

In other words, this whole Ritter issue is a red herring, in the big picture.

You, on the other hand, ARE voting for the patriot-act backing, pro-war-lie echoing, IWR voting Sen Kerry.

Next?

[bearfartinthewoods]

116. wrong again....

if i get the chance, i will be voting for the patriot-act backing, pro-war-lie echoing, IWR voting Sen Edwards.

gee....are you surprised that my objection to ritter has nothing to do with my choice for president?

gosh, you mean my position is based on principles and not political expediency?

such an odd thing eh???

[Red State Rebel]

110. BFIW is Correct

As a victim of molestation at the age of 9, I hold anyone who would do this sort of thing in very low regard. The fact that the records are sealed means the there is no access to the records and the police cannot comment on them. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Ritter wants to discuss them. He has never outright denied this happened, because it obviously did.

I did a google search and found this article. It indicates there was not just one incident, but two:

Ritter's Attorney Confirms Arrest
TV station claims tape shows ex-U.N. inspector caught in sex sting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 20, 2003
6:52 p.m. Eastern


By Sherrie Gossett

An attorney for Scott Ritter confirmed that the outspoken former U.N. weapons inspector, who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was arrested a year and a half ago.
Scott Ritter mug shot (courtesy WNYT-TV)

Norah Murphy said Ritter was arrested in the upstate New York town of Colonie in June 2001, but she would not respond to allegations that he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet. Ritter lives in the Albany, N.Y., suburb of Delmar.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The "girl," however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital.

Sources tell the Albany Times-Union that Ritter actually had two run-ins with police. The first occurred in April 2001, as the former Marine reportedly drove to a Colonie business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He was reportedly questioned by officers, and released without a charge.

Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of online sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.

[bearfartinthewoods]

123. that's twice when he was CAUGHT

we can only hope that he was caught every time he tried it, as unlikely as that may seem.

at the shelter we find many people who have been sexualized prematurely. it can have devastating effects on the victims. i have no sympathy for a 40 something year old man who needs the validation of encounters with children.

[mmonk]

69. I don't know if Ritter can comment on the arrest (legal reasons)

but he was factual concerning the Iraq situation. I have his book, Frontier Justice", and he does talk about Kerry in it.

[politick]

30. Amazing

you don't think it's a coiincidence that one of the country's most credibhle critics of this war happened to find himmself in a compromising position, at just the right time? I don't know if the allegations are true or not, but they certainly did a nice job of sending people running from Mr. Ritter. All you have to do is mention it, even RAISE the suspicion, and his name is tainted forever.

Is that really your best argument against what Ritter says?

[bearfartinthewoods]

57. this was NOT at "just the right time"

he was arrested many months before the arrest was leaked. the timing of the leak was in deed suspicious but that doesn't mean he's innocent.

and his name is tainted forever because he has refused or cannot put forth his innocence. would you shut up about a thing like this if you were innocent? would you allow yourself to be forever named a pedophile if it wasn't true?

scott ritter, this alleged honorable man, courageous enough to serve his country and stand up to bushco in regards to the war does not have the courage to defend his own honor and innocence?

s'cuse me but that dog don't hunt.

[Dhalgren]

65. You know, if you are trying to defend Kerry,

it is backfiring on you. This kind of sleazy mud-slinging makes me even less likely to support Kerry. Saddly disgusting.

[Forkboy]

86. Very disgusting

We were just told a day or so ago here that if we got to know Kerry supporters we'd be bound to like them.Guess not.

[bearfartinthewoods]

125. why in the hell is it so impossible to find ritter despicable

for reasons that aren't politically inspired????

i might begin to believe that this defense of him is just that...
politically inspired, but i'd be pretty disgusted if i thought people would defend him just to validate an attack on a candidate.

[bearfartinthewoods]

127. wrong again.....

you can pretend to dislike Edwards if you chose to pin my posts against ritter on a candidate.

what i find absolutely fascinating is how many people are willing to defend the pedophile.....freakin' amazing.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bearfartinthewoods]

135. cleared my ass.............

if you nean he was let off, that's obvious. but he wasn't cleared.

[maddezmom]

39. do you have links to this story? if not seems like a bad rumor

to discredit Scott Ritter.

[bearfartinthewoods]

128. google ritter albany arrest

of child molester...i can't believe so many people haven't heard of this???

sheeesh. boy will i be glad when the PTBs get the search function on line for the old DU!

[Ficus]

56. got a link to that

claim. Just would like to know a little more about it.

[Red State Rebel]

133. Here is an article about it......

I did a google search and found this article. It indicates there was not just one incident, but two:

Ritter's Attorney Confirms Arrest
TV station claims tape shows ex-U.N. inspector caught in sex sting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 20, 2003
6:52 p.m. Eastern


By Sherrie Gossett

An attorney for Scott Ritter confirmed that the outspoken former U.N. weapons inspector, who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was arrested a year and a half ago.
Scott Ritter mug shot (courtesy WNYT-TV)

Norah Murphy said Ritter was arrested in the upstate New York town of Colonie in June 2001, but she would not respond to allegations that he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet. Ritter lives in the Albany, N.Y., suburb of Delmar.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The "girl," however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital.

Sources tell the Albany Times-Union that Ritter actually had two run-ins with police. The first occurred in April 2001, as the former Marine reportedly drove to a Colonie business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He was reportedly questioned by officers, and released without a charge.

Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of online sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.

[Forkboy]

76. I'm suprised it took 16 posts for someone to trot this out

this party is fucking sad,it really is.

[redqueen]

83. Not the party

the closet-republican sickos, though, yes. Admittedly they are taking over, yes. $&#*($@)&#$ DLC. :puke:

[Forkboy]

87. If there were more like yourself

the Party would be fine by me,and something I could actually feel proud to be a part of. :toast:

[redqueen]

89. Thanks

and back atcha. :) Don't worry, the DLC is just as desparate as the GOP. I'm sure it scares them to death to see things like what Chavez is doing in Venezuela, and it's happening so close to our own backyard!

:toast:

[bearfartinthewoods]

131. oh......that's cute

ritter is okay by you but anyone who posts about his arrest is a sicko.......

i cannot believe what i'm reading....

[Red State Rebel]

134. I agree, defending a pedophile for political purposes is sad...

What ever happened to integrity? Do we believe anything anyone wants to say as long as it serves our purpose? If that is where the Democratic party is going it is indeed sad.

[Eloriel]

107. There's nothing to clear the air about -- not only did he not

stand trial, the records were sealed. There is no "there" there. Believe me, if there had have been, he'd be serving time by now.

[bearfartinthewoods]

132. yeah....righrt

el, if this happened to me, and i was innocent, no way would i cut a deal.

in a case like this, innocence would mean that there was NO trace back to my IP address from the conversation with the supposed child.

there would be NO telltale remnents of the proposition on my hard drive.

and i would NOT be at the agreeded upon place at the agreed upon time.


that's what being innocent would mean and no way in hell would i or aNY OTHER HONORABLE MAN allow such a charge against me to stand.

[Snivi Yllom]

121. Ritter has more credibility than Kerry

plus...

Your accusation of Ritter jacking off is unfounded and unproven.

The record of Kerry jacking off all over the democrats who did not want this war is clear.

[jpgray]

3. The only candidate who believed there were no WMD was Kucinich

And I see Ritter's denouncing of Kerry is quite light on the facts. I need more than a paraphrase of "apparently" doing nothing. TO be able to make a judgment, I need both what Ritter sent Kerry, and what Kerry was receiving at the time from the CIA, etc. I also need a detailed report of the committee.

[info being]

71. Or you can just be safe and support Kucinich

We had a great DK turnout in WA this weekend.

[adamrsilva]

75. DK would have voted against the war regardless of whether

there were WMD.

[redqueen]

78. You're probably right

He'd have been among a very select few with the brains to figure out that even with stockpiles, that Saddam had no way to use them on us.

[Democrats unite]

4. Apparently we have more than one lying bastard in Washington!

[IndianaGreen]

5. "Sen. Kerry apparently did nothing"

Well, he did vote for IWR, and he did support the war when it began, and he did cheered when Saddam's statue was toppled by Chalabi's people (who had been driven to Baghdad from Northern Iraq just for the photo op).

Kerry did not criticize the war until things began to go sour for us with the Iraqi people.

[jpgray]

7. The operant word being "apparently"

This article is very light on the facts, very heavy on conjecture. Something one would hope Ritter would avoid. :)

[blm]

8. That's untrue. Kerry was critical of Bush and his rush to war, throughout.

Whether you admit it or not.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Really? How do you classify Kerry's "safer" with Saddam gone statement?

Or his congratulatory press release when our troops took Baghdad, after shelling the Palestine Hotel (killing a journalist in the process) and having A-10s strafe the city with depleted uranium munitions.

[blm]

44. That's true whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Saddam WAS a target for Bin Laden and it was a matter of time before Bin Laden overthrew or assassinated him.

That would have put Bin Laden in control of all Iraq's resources and weapons, which we believed he had still from the stockpiles that Poppy Bush had supplied him throughout the 80s. (Iraqgate, anyone?)

[IndianaGreen]

45. That's a crock!

The Saudi royal family has always been bin Laden's target. Your assertions about Iraq are totally baseless.

Who is writing Kerry's talking points nowadays, Ed Wood?

[blm]

52. You are wrong. Bin Laden targeted Saddam and hated his secularism

that refused to allow Islamic fundamentalists to gain foothold in Iraq.

This is established fact whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Shanty Oilish]

124. Saudi royal family

Yes, bin Laden wants to rule SA, couldn't care less about Iraq except as a source of means. The Saudi royal family is politically hanging by threads, someone's going to dislodge them and soon. The Arab world wouldn't stand for anyone but a religious fundamentalist ruling SA, and he stood a good chance of succeeding. Maybe still does.

[Snivi Yllom]

109. Critical of Bush like....

(Cameras on)
You are wrong!
You are wrong!
You are wrong!
You are wrong!
You are wrong!
You are wrong!
(Cameras off)
Ok, I'll vote to give you a blank check.

[corporatewhore]

60. he did not criticize until dean started getting popularity

[blm]

6. Scott Ritter is the one who testified to Kerry that there WERE WMDs in 98.

He knows his testimony. There were no weapons inspectors in Iraq until AFTER the IWR.

If Ritter is going to point fingers, he should acknowledge that some of the blame is his 98 testimony that he presented to John Kerry.

[Democrats unite]

9. How do you want to present the testimony to Kerry

That the majority of the world said this is wrong! SHould we start by making Kerry visit all the grave sites?

[jpgray]

11. The majority of the world believed Saddam had WMD in some form

The disagreement concerned the "cooked" intelligence, and the way we went to war without exhausting diplomatic efforts.

[redqueen]

14. 'in some form'

This is parsing at its worst. There was no threat, and Kerry should have known it and stood up and said so.

[jpgray]

19. Now you're parsing. Hans Blix, every candidate other than Dennis believed

they believed that Saddam probably still retained WMD. You are doing the revisionist history, by trying to say everyone knew he had nothing. That simply wasn't the case.

[Terwilliger]

51. Then they should pay the price for helping to start a war that was

improper and unjustified


I mean, is ANYBODY responsible? Do the 25,000 Iraqis that dies since March get their day in court? Do they get to ask anybody why they were killed?

John Kerry DID know the intelligence. In fact, the intelligence told EVERYONE that Saddam was not the immediate threat everyone sai he was. He wasn't even a marginal threat. Colin said he had no delivery systems. All the other intel suggested he was trapped where he was and didn't even pose a threat to his neighbors.

Is John Kerry dumb? I mean...all that experience and he voted for war anyway, based on "what he knew"? Isn't he responsible for that?

Is ANYBODY responsible? Or is John Kerry helping Bush get off the hook by trying to "put it all behind us" and "get over it"??

[bloom]

67. Thank you

I agree.

[Dhalgren]

68. Exactly what you said!

Well put, Ter. Someone, somewhere has to stand up and be accountable to the Iraqis, the world, and ourown jingoistic citizens.

[Forkboy]

80. The contortions to defend Kerry are sickening

Apparently,like Bush,the buck stops anywhere but near him.

[tobius]

94. right

reminds me of twister. That goes to the heart of my uneasiness about Kerry.
The more you dig into his positions the more ammo you get for just about any stance he takes,whether you want to protest or support it.

"I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside."
                               Rep. Morris K. Udall (D-AZ)

[redqueen]

95. And he's winning primaries by a wide margin

GRRRRRRRRrrrrreat!

:mad:

[KoKo]

143. You didn't watch the Senate hearings jpgray. Or, you would know there

were doubts, but it was rammed through.

[Democrats unite]

15. Let's keep the facts straight here shall we.

The majority of the world protested this from the very beginning! I refuse to by into revisionist history! I get enough of that from Bush!

[jpgray]

18. What were they protesting? Don't let the facts bother you

Was the rallying call "there are no WMD"! No. Even Hans Blix was not confident that Iraq had destroyed all its weapons. Could a case be made that W was overstating the case for war? Sure, and both that and the diplomatic mess and the rank imperialism is what pissed people off, NOT the contention that Saddam had 0 WMD.

[redqueen]

21. Imminent threat, friend -- from the 'stockpiles', remember?

That is they key... the threat. NOT the very existence of any amounts of WMD's whatsoever, but the THREAT.

Kucinich correctly said there was none.

What did Kerry say? Edwards?

[jpgray]

25. Now you're forgetting the entire history of the war lead-up

Bush's whole rationale was Saddam's WMD + terrorists = Ohmygoshlookout!

He made some ridiculous claims regarding nuclear weapons and remote delivery systems (rickety wooden models), but the case hinged on Saddam somehow supplying Al Qaeda with WMD. Go back over his and Powell's and Cheney's speeches, and you'll see that connection. "Threat" is therefore apparent in Bushworld even without significant WMD stockpiles. Of course Bush lied to everyone, but he couldn't be proven wrong, because there WAS no proof Saddam had wrecked everything as Blix repeatedly asserted. One could say that it was unlikely Saddam had much left, but no one with authority could say that he had NOTHING. Kucinich made the right call.

Pursuant to that, he claimed that this further justified war because it violated UN resolutions. "Threat" doesn't enter into that either. That he flouted diplomatic avenues and pushed up the intelligence in ridiculous ways is why Kerry should have NOT voted for IWR. One can't expect more from Kerry than from every other candidate, Senator, or from experts around the world. They all believed Saddam had some WMD.

[redqueen]

64. Parse and spin, repeat

No link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

"Threat" was what sold the American public, whether or not you want to admit it.

Kucinich didn't just make a lucky guess, you know. Colin and Condoleezza said as recently as March of 02 that Saddam had no WMD's and no way to make any.

'some WMD' indeed. :eyes:

[jpgray]

98. Your response indicates you didn't read my post

:(

[redqueen]

101. That's odd

I thought I addressed your points directly. :shrug:

[Dhalgren]

72. After your post

I have just realized that Kerry is not a viable candidate for president. I had always detested his vote and was dismayed over his lack of seeming to "get it", but until now, I had never realized what a serious co-conspirator, Kerry was in all this mess. It's really like an epiffany. I will not be able to vote for George W Kerry in Nov.

[goodhue]

No proof of WMD

Was among rallying calls at protests I attended. While DK may have been alone amoung presidential candidates he was not alone in the sharing the conviction that there was no basis for WMD assertions.

[jpgray]

33. Some people saw through the bullshit and guessed what was happening

But that doesn't mean that everyone who thought Saddam had WMD was ignorant or out of the loop. There were plenty of people on all sides who didn't doubt he had retained some of those weapons.

[bloom]

70. Even the CIA said the war as it was proposed

would lead to instability.

[Democrats unite]

84. Well they must have been rallying for a Damn good reason.

Whre are the WMD'S?

[Terwilliger]

129. actually, many at the marches were convinced that there were no WMD's

obviously, all they had to work with were the assurances of their own government, and they STILL knew there were no weapons

They knew...not because they had first-hand knowledge...but because they knew it was illogical to assume that Saddam had WMD's given how badly Bush wanted to go to war.

I knew on 12/12/2000 that Bush was a lying sonofabitch....why didn't the Dems? Was Ralph right?

[KoKo]

144. Yes, Terwilliger, and do you remember how DU'ers proved it by getting

all the fake info about Niger "yellow cake" and the rest by scouring the internet and reading all the "International Media" rather than relying on our own media? And, Robert Byrd's speeches on the Senate floor?

But, it was the evidence that came out that proved it to me and I marched in protests here in NC and did candlelight vigils all of it,because I knew....and those with me knew and millions of other Americans who attented the large protests on both coasts knew.

Why did we know and the Senate Intelligence Committe didn't. Kerry went along because he was going to run for President and couldn't do it as an "anti-war" Viet Nam protestor even though he served honorably. He couldn't take the chance.

It was a "principle thing." And, that's why many of us have to "cough the guy down" with a swallow of sugar water if we have to vote for him in November.

[BootinUp]

20. This question was handled pretty abley by Zbigniew Brzezinski

on CNN yesterday. He pointed out that the rest of the world doesn't have the intelligence capabilities we do and that the Governments were accepting our statements in large part on the question of WMD's.

Its amazing to me how the UN inspectors reports were twisted all up too. They didn't find anything substantial and Blix refuted the U.S. interpretations on many occasions.

Finally, when Bush began the final march to the war, claiming that all Saddaam had to do was give up the weapons etc. I don't remember any Senators saying anything to slow the process in that final month. They all went along at that point, polls showed 45% for war and 55% against before the first bombs were dropped, but there was incredible silence from the Democrats.

[jpgray]

22. I agree

Your characterization of the state of the intelligence is accurate. But I do not admit that Kerry was actively complicit in fooling everyone like W, because this article is heavy on conjecture and light on facts.

[BootinUp]

26. The point I would make

is the Democrats did have incredibly weak leadership, and that it does reflect on our senior leadership and how they will deal with crisis in the future. I was incredible pissed that Bush was allowed to get away with the claim that Sadaam was not cooperating. I think he was cooperating (because of the threat of war). And I think we could have gotten plenty of International support to keep the pressure on him.

[jpgray]

27. Yeah, I agree with that too. :-(

But I regard the main problem as Bush, and I'm willing to support our imperfect guy to get that perfectly terrible asshole out.

[BootinUp]

29. I'll be there in November

right now I'm fighting for a change in our party's leadership.

[redqueen]

36. I'm willing to support the candidate who stands up best next to bush

'hey, i believed the lies too!' doesn't work well enough for me.

[jpgray]

38. Okay (nt)

[KoKo]

145. Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Carl Levin tried to stop it and slow it down

when they knew they couldn't stop it!

[Terwilliger]

48. Sounds just like what George W. Bush might say!!

:shrug:

[redqueen]

62. Funny, isn't it?

Or I guess I mean ironic, since calling the absolutely indescribably ludicrous behavior of bush and his enablers 'funny' is to forget the price paid by our soldiers and the Iraqi people as a result of that behavior.

[stopbush]

92. Did you happen to see Brzezinski on Wolfie yesterday?

Zbiggy had this pointed out to him by Wolfie, ie: that "most of the world" believed SH had weapons.

Z's answer was interesting, to say the least: most of the world has no intelligence network to speak of. They were going on the good word of the USA. If the USA said SH had WMD, they believed it. But now that the WMD lie has been exposed, our nation's credibility is - in Z's words - "nil." In the future, "the majority of the world" will demand absolute, concrete proof from the USA before they believe anything we say.

The "majority of the world" sword cuts both ways.

[gate of the sun]

137. cooked as in "media Propaganda"

that's the cooked intelligience that led people to believe there were WMD not hard facts...it's a crock of shit.It was CNN and Faux News etc.

[KoKo]

142. If the "majority of the world believed it" then why didn't they support us

Why do we have a coalition of the "unwilling?"

[blm]

34. Try sticking to the facts that were known and presented in SWORN testimony

In Iraqgate we learned that Poppy Bush had supplied chemical and bio weapons to Saddam by the tons. In 98, Ritter testified that weapons were still there in Iraq and Saddam had the capabilities. Since there were no inspections in Iraq until IWR, what testimony and facts are you supposed to believe?

The iWR got inspectors back in. Bush didn't have to go to war. Blame Bush for not implementing IWR as written.

[robbedvoter]

28. OK. I won't vote for Ritter. But I won't vote Kerry either.

I don't care what Ritter did wrong. he brought some facts - he informed kerry. kerry chose to believe the W's liars.
He wouldn't even vote the Byrd/Kennedy bills knowing what he knew.
Kerry + W vs Constitution, Clark, Byrd, Welstone, Kennedy (IWR)
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/2/1/84318/48694

[joshcryer]

111. "Some of the blame"? How about NONE of the blame?

When the information changes, facts change. Ritter reports what information we have and what facts we have; Ritter reported that it was in fact false that Iraq had WMDs, and John Kerry apparently ignored that even though Ritter freaking talked to him IN PERSON about this particular issue.

Yeah right. NONE of the blame is on Ritter. NONE AT ALL.

[Andy_Stephenson]

115. ooops

never mind

[edzontar]

10. This is the big issue for me re: Kerry.

His IWR vote is a blot on his record, and demonstartes his willingness to seel out on the major moral issue of the day.

[mojogeorgo]

17. Kerry won't defend us if it could affect his "electability"

"His IWR vote is a blot on his record, and demonstartes his willingness to seel out on the major moral issue of the day."

I agree. He sold us out. He didn't "have our back". What possible evidence do we have that he ever will stand up for us, if it could affect his popularity and reelection chances.

It's amazing how many people keep parroting the idea that Kerry is the most electable. The media got that idea to take on, then they kept repeating it. Then they asked people who they thought was more "electable" and people started responding "Kerry." It's like the media taught them some course content, and then quizzed them on it. Congruatulations, people, you learned what the media taught you.

Kerry is still seen as elecable because he has gotten a free ride from the media--so far. Once we are in the general election, is that free ride really likely to continue? Or are we going to start seeing things like this...

http://www.wideopenwest.com/~bmg/WorstEnemy.pdf

[KC21304]

13. Scott Ritter needs to examine his own statements

regarding this subject. Although he was right on the vote for war he surely contributed to the reasoning that Saddam had WMDs. I think he also may want to clear the air. He has never been able to do that as far as I am concerned.

[Laughing Mirror]

41. Scott Ritter said Saddam had no WMDs

He said it over and over again before the war. Where were you?

[KC21304]

59. I was right here listening to Scott Ritter

trying to explain his 180 degree turn on the WMD story and he never did make any sense. He cannot claim not to have contributed to the ratcheting up of claims of WMDs in Iraq. Let him explain why he thought what he did in 98 and even into 2000, and then in 2002 decided it was all bullshit. It was bullshit in 1998 and later and he was fooled just like many were in 2002. He and Kerry were saying the same thing in 2002 as far as I can recall. Let the inspectors do their job and go to the UN.

[Laughing Mirror]

73. so was I, and I heard him say this

The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders. When speaking of international law as set forth by the United Nations Charter it is impossible to come up with any scenario today that would justify military action against Iraq based upon its current behaviour.
...
The truth of the matter is that Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction, either in terms of having retained prohibited capability from the past or by seeking to re-acquire such capability today.

Former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter re-read an address delivered to the Iraqi Parliament on September 8, 2002.

http://c-span.org/iraq/ritter.asp

[robbedvoter]

23. Apparently, KERRY KNEW - not LBN - just been locked!

I can't post there so here's why I put it there: It is NOT an opinion - it's a fact - an earth shattering one: Kerry deliberately shunned the truth - just like W!
No wonder he wanted Tenet to take the fall!
You vote for this guy, W gets off the war responsibility scott free!

here's another guy testifying to Congress BEFORE the Senate vote:

Kerry + W vs Constitution, Clark, Byrd, Welstone, Kennedy (IWR)
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/2/1/84318/48694
Wellstone heeded his advice. Kerry NOT.

[redqueen]

37. "You vote for this guy, W gets off the war responsibility scott free!"

Bingo.

Oh, the humanity. :(

[KC21304]

61. Have you been watching any TV lately ?

Do you think Bush is getting off ? I think Kerry can give it to him better than anyone because he knows exactly what was said leading up to the vote. That is my opinion of course, but it already seems to be the opinion of 50% of the Dems who will be voting and I'm sure that will go up so we will see.

[redqueen]

63. Yes, bush is getting off

All the blame will fall on the intelligence agencies. Kerry will side with bush saying 'you gave us bad intel' and that will be that.

Kerry will then weakly charge that bush did the right thing, only in the wrong way.

It's going to be sickening.

And I doubt most Dems voting know half of this. Most just listen to speeches and go from there.

[BootinUp]

81. Sure, Kerry can use the F-word again, that worked

The truth is Kerry has been horribly weak on this issue.

[xultar]

40. OOPS! n/t

[Skip Intro]

43. Kerry as nom. takes bush's Iraq LIES off the table - we need someone else

We need someone who will hold bush accountable and demand justice. Kerry is too tainted by this. He has YET (to my knowledge) admit invading Iraq was wrong. Same with Edwards.

This will be an issue, maybe the issue.

Could this be why the media seems to want to hold down or destroy completely anti-invasion candidates? A back-door way of letting the moron off the hook for killing and maiming tens of thousands for his lies by forcing upon us a nominee incapable of making this an issue?

To win, to hold the bush regime accountable, we need someone else as our nominee.

[HoosierClarkie]

66. I second that.

For those who believe the polls that say the War in Iraq is not a priority for voters, need to think again. Just because we do not hear about the fallen soldiers and Iraqi citizens from the media, doesn't mean it is not happening and it is not going to get worse. If we pick Kerry, the media is going to make the war a priority again and that issue will be taken off the table because Kerry and Bush were the same on this issue. People will get angry again with nothing to do about it. Oh, and the patriot act and no child left behind.

Unfortunately it will be too late. That is what the media is betting on. We will all be looking back and thinking about what could've been.

Then when nations around the world are still furious with us we will be wishing we had someone who could negotiate peace treaties.
:cry:

[CWebster]

47. What's that got to do with anything?

All the American people are required to do is accept the latest soundbite at face value---X is "more electible" or more "dignified and presidential" without peeping behind the carefully constructed empty image. And should anyone threaten the power structure the media mouthpiece will construct a negative soundbite to dispense with those who would utter truth to power" X is "too angry". Y solicits young girls on internet chatrooms.

[info being]

74. Looks like the Dems are getting fooled once again

Sigh...I had hoped it would be different this year. Nothing ever changes...Kerry talks a mean game NOW, but nobody cares about his actuall record and what he is likely to actually do.

The media says "Kerry" and people get in line. We are being set up.

[Laughing Mirror]

85. right you are

Nothing ever changes, and it can't. This vile so-called election system we have set up. Until that changes, nothing will.

[mzmolly]

88. OMG. And some would call this "leadership"? I am sick.

:puke:

[oasis]

96. "Mr. President, do not rush to war"---J. F. Kerry (eom)

[Forkboy]

100. Even though I'm handing you the keys to a really fast car...

[oasis]

113. Oh, that's right, our armed services are under the command of Sen.Kerry.

My bad. :eyes:

[mzmolly]

126. No but Bush was beholden to our failed Democrats who enabled

his waging of a worthless murderous senseless unilateral war.

[oasis]

136. please read bigtree's post # 130.

[ibegurpard]

90. So what?

He's electable or haven't you heard?

[YNGW]

103. Ouch!

nc

[Eloriel]

105. You GO, Scott Ritter!

Of COURSE Kerry knew. And if he didn't -- or says he didn't -- he's too incompetent to be in the Senate, let alone the White House.

[Tinoire]

106. Not good for Kerry. Not good at all & worse than disappointing. n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

108. Thank you Scott..at least he does not conveniently forget the facts

I am going to re-read this a dozen times.

[joshcryer]

112. Scott speaking the truth, yet again.

Love that guy.

[jpgray]

114. This thread is drowning in the desire to hang Kerry--you want the facts?

For the documents in question, as well as my own analysis of this, check out this thread.

[revcarol]

117. Kerry has been exposed as the pusillanimous panderer for votes that he is.

If he didn't know, he's dumber than a post, but the evidence says HE KNEW.

Anyone remember the WillPitt/Scott Ritter book that talked about all the chemical weapons becoming inert?

KERRY KNEW.

[jpgray]

118. What irony. No facts are provided, yet you lap it up

Isn't this what you accuse Kerry of doing?

[Snivi Yllom]

119. It's crazy, it's down the memory hole here, but it's 2004 not 1984.

The memory of the Ritter Pitt book "War On Iraq" has been completely wiped. Unbelievable!

Ritter who was good is now bad.
Ritter who was on our side is now the enemy and discredited.

And I clearly associate the DNC with Big Brother right now regarding this upside down switcheroo.

[jpgray]

120. Have you read Ritter's article? The one he gave to Kerry?

Somehow I doubt it.

[quaker bill]

122. Of course he knew.

There was plenty of evidence to back up the assertion that there were no weapons. Hell, we stopped finding them well before Desert Fox in 1998. That didn't stop Kerry from believing that Saddam was a threat. He kept right on arguing that Saddam was a threat and that we needed a policy that would be "real about our resolve" well before Bush took office.

Kerry was on board with regime change in Iraq years before Bush* ever brought it up.

He knew of Scott Ritter's testimony and disregarded it.

[bigtree]

130. This reminds me of the circular arguments presented on this board

(my impression of the dialogue)

Ritter: You voted to go to war.

Kerry: I didn't authorize the president to unilateraly invade and occupy Iraq. I expected the president to honor the restraint mandated in the resolution. I expected the president to exhaust all possible diplomatic means and work in concert with the Security Council to enforce U.N. Res.1441. We were able to get inspectors on the ground (Hans Blix). President Bush forced them out by pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his rush to war.

Ritter: But you voted to go to war. Why did you vote for the war in Iraq?

Kerry: The resolution didn't authorize what the president ultimately did.

Ritter: But you didn't return my letters and my phone calls. I told you that the WMD evidence was phony.

Kerry: With all due respect, you weren't in the briefings. The same evidence that the skeptical international body accepted as valid was presented to us by the Secretary of State and others that Saddam possessed massive amounts of chemical and biological weaponry and was in the process of restarting its nuclear program.

Ritter: But I wrote an article for Arms Control Today. I sent one to you. Why didn't you read my article? I wrote that there was no imminent threat.

Kerry: I took all of what I had available and I concluded that there was enough material presented to warrant working with the U.N. Security Council to further pressure Saddam to come clean and allow inspectors back in. Without inspectors on the ground we're just speculating. Inspectors (Hans Blix) could verify. I voted to get the U.N. inspectors allowed back in backed up by the threat of U.S. force.

Ritter: But why did you vote for the war in Iraq?

[Myra]

138. This is damn damning stuff.

I dunno how anyone can support Kerry, a standard issue pol
who talks out of both sides of his mouth. A rich elitist who
can't fathom why the minimum wage should be raised. A man
who betrayed us all by voting for the patriot act.

Now this filthy rich man wants to buy something one of the
few things he doesn't have: the presidency.

Meet the new boss; same as the old boss...

[ngGale]

139. I always believed Scott Ritter and the...

rest of the free world. Knew the war would turn out exactly as it has. Kerry with the Vietnam background should have know if I did, and who the heck am I? Everyday person listening to the same info.
So, they say they had more info than us but less the president. Whatever...

[Myra]

140. We MUST get Clark to expose this. Kerry was complicit with Bush in

attacking Iraq based on lies.

This *must* be a campaign issue...now.

[stickdog]

141. There may be another book deal for Will Pitt in this story.

Yeeeaaaaahhhhhh!

[KoKo]

146. ROFL........probably the truth. And it would be an interesting one! n/t