Scott Ritter Says U.S. Plans June Attack On Iran, ‘cooked’ Jan. 30 Iraqi Election

[Motley]

I don't like Ritter much, and am aware we need to "consider the source" with this. However, he was right about Iraq's WMD's..... way before our Goverment ever finally acknowledged what Ritter told us years ago

NEWS: Scott Ritter says US attack on Iran planned for June
Written by Mark Jensen

Saturday, 19 February 2005

On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS
By Mark Jensen

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans’ duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County.


http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/2/

[Cali/Yank]

I don't trust a word that man says. He's flipped every side of the coin since he resigned.

1998


WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.:
And the investigation has been going on for several years now, and this summer we were in the process of resuming these inspections, you know, in accordance with the agreement reached by Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein in accordance with the Security Council resolutions that said Iraq had to comply or face severe consequences, so we're trying to get back on task. We had some very specific information, which led us to believe we could go to locations where we would find aspects of this hidden weaponry, of these hidden components, and also uncover how Iraq actually went about hiding these weapons from the commission.

We had very specific information, and we believe that if we'd been allowed to accomplish this inspection, we could have achieved meaningful disarmament results.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

[lotimer]

Well I have the notion that we will atleast be bombing some specific targets (namely, nuclear facilities) sometime this summer or early fall. Ground invasion I would think is out of the question until atleast 2006 or so.

[Lou Cypher]

(please pardon the snips)


I don't like Ritter much, and am aware we need to "consider the source" with this. However, he was right about Iraq's WMD's..... way before our Goverment ever finally acknowledged what Ritter told us years ago


I've never met Ritter, so I don't know whether to "like" him, but he wasn't just in the ballpark on WMD. He was dead right all the way down the line.



Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.


Hey, that's a cool room! A few years ago I did sound there on a tour with...oops....back to the subject.



On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.


Does this sound vaguely familiar? Haven't these maroons learned anything from the Iraq situation? The result of the "historic" elections in Iraq, rigged or not, has brought about increased influence on the political spectrum in Iraq by the Shi'a Iranian black turban brigade. While I don't think Iraq will immediately descend into the grasp of the Mullahs, anyone familiar with the situation has to admit that the future Prime Minister of Iraq will be beholden to them to a significant degree.

If there's to be bombing, they'd better be god damn sure of what they're going after this time. If there are nuclear weapons systems confirmed in Iran, I've got no problem with blowing them the hell outta there. But it is foolish to assume that US bombing in Iran will rally organizations like the MEK (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm) to swarm to our side when we're still treating them as the terrorist entities that they are. Iran is not Iraq. And any ground campaign is going to be horrifically bloody. These guys do have a real military, unlike Hussein in '02. Can we beat their military? Yes. But the cost will be extremely high, I think.



The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.


If that's the case, it's another incredibly stupid move. Allawi didn't have a chance in hell to begin with, so if this is what was done, they likely did it to increase Chalabi's chances to dominate Jaafari in tomorrow's secret ballot vote (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050221-1338-iraq.html) which will decide which of the two will take the dominant post in Iraq. Sistani's list is already becoming fractured by this and although the Kurds will ultimately provide the tie-breaker, Talabani, their candidate, is running in a very distant third place.

Of the three, I really think that Jaafari is the best possible candidate of the three in the interests of all concerned, but still...he represents the Da'awa Party, which has always supported fundie Islamic rule of Iraq. Albeit not on the same level of Iran, but far closer than was the case under Hussein.



Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.


Well, Ritter and Hersh are certainly sticking their necks out on this one. Good read, Motley, and thanks for the post.

[Motley]

If people think Iraq is bad now, wait & see what happens if we start surgical strikes on Iran.

I don't know if Irans or Syrias formal army would head for Iraq. It is a possibility though. But certainly they will open the floodgates to anyone that wants to head into Iraq...and probably provide them with whatever they want as far as munitions.

[NYC]

You would have to have a plan for both fronts

[Cali/Yank]

(please pardon the snips)



I've never met Ritter, so I don't know whether to "like" him, but he wasn't just in the ballpark on WMD. He was dead right all the way down the line.

Scott Ritter 2002 interview (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html)

I'd like to say that I'm glad to see your misspersuaded posts again Lou.
I need some verification from you to satisfy my curiosity, that you are the malevolent, mad, man poster, lou, that I've grown attached to, if you don't mind. If you can answer this question it would prove to me that you are who you say you are... In what year did Sir Francis Drake sail the coast of the Pacific blue?



J/K....

Now onto the meat, and potatoes .. Dead, right on. WMD? Hardly, after in 98 saying that they were there,( when we all know they were gone in 94? wink wink) and *HE* had the information where they were.
400 thousand dollars, funneled from food for oil, to a proxy businessman that paid Scott to make a favorable film. Disgruntled x employee..poor Mr Ritter.
Dead on.


Sadr received 3% of the vote so now he is a very small voice in the counsel.
The shia received less than 50% and we have to rememberr that they don't want an Iranian style Mulla run country either. They fought against Iran in the Irag Iran war. I think it has come down to Iraqi Nationalism with rights for all Iraqi's. Even the Sunni's are now saying that they made a mistake by not voting..and more Sunni's than expected did vote.


Al Jazeera and Al Arabia, they relayed quite well stunning democratic imagery--the repeated shots of entire families voting together, from pregnant mothers with babies to grandparents in wheelchairs. The rulers of the Middle East will no doubt try to depict Iraq's democratic experiment as a vehicle of anti-Sunni Shiite extremism, but the U.S. government--parts of which (the State Department and the CIA) have a tendency to project the rulers' views onto their people--would be well advised to turn a deaf ear. Anyone who watched the satellite coverage knew those families were putting themselves into harm's way, as were even more the Sunni Arabs, who voted in greater numbers than many expected. Arab satellite television, which is Sunni-dominated except for the Lebanese Hezbollah's Al Manar service, has been playing a game--and Al Jazeera is more dedicated to this game than Al Arabia--of pretending that the insurgents in Iraq were the real Iraqis and that all Iraqis really in their hearts supported the insurgents. The savagery of the suicide bombers has undoubtedly complicated this good guy-bad guy scenario, but the easiest way out of this ethical pit has been to suggest that only the over-the-top holy warriors, like Abu Musab al Zarqawi, kill barbarically. Most insurgents, the good patriotic ones defending the fatherland and the fatherland's true faith, just kill American occupiers and their Iraqi lackeys--this has been, at least up to January 30, the reflexive Al Jazeera spin.

Arab satellite television has accordingly not liked to have long thoughtful discussions about Iraq's Shia Arabs and their near universal approval of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Not much really about Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the preeminent Shiite divine, who has usually encouraged cooperation with the Americans and always encouraged the advance of democracy. Not much either on the failure of Moktada al-Sadr, the rabble-rousing young cleric, to oppose violently the American presence in Iraq. (As long as Sadr could be depicted as an insurgent in the Sunni Arab media, he was a hero.)


January 30 and the coming of Iraq's newly elected national assembly will make the past prejudice extremely difficult to maintain. A decent bet today would be that most of the Sunni Arabs who watched the Iraqi elections on satellite television probably both admire and feel ashamed of what happened. However much they may admire the Iraqis for defying the violence to vote in massive numbers, they are also probably ashamed that the Shia displayed such courage, while they in their own countries do not.

Good to see you smiling.

[Cali/Yank]

One more article about Scott... (http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter.htm)

[Ono]

Thanks for that link Cali. I feel the same way about Ritter.

[Motley]

One more article about Scott... (http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter.htm)


Ritter was on every talk show there is leading up to the war...screaming that there were no WMD's.

Who was right? Him or this administration?

[Lou Cypher]

I'd like to say that I'm glad to see your misspersuaded posts again Lou.
I need some verification from you to satisfy my curiosity, that you are the malevolent, mad, man poster, lou, that I've grown attached to, if you don't mind. If you can answer this question it would prove to me that you are who you say you are... In what year did Sir Francis Drake sail the coast of the Pacific blue?


He sailed the Atlantic.



J/K....

Now onto the meat, and potatoes .. Dead, right on. WMD? Hardly, after in 98 saying that they were there,( when we all know they were gone in 94? wink wink) and *HE* had the information where they were.
400 thousand dollars, funneled from food for oil, to a proxy businessman that paid Scott to make a favorable film. Disgruntled x employee..poor Mr Ritter.
Dead on.


Who'd you get that from, Rush? Hannity? Source, please.

Ritter nailed it in 2002. I'm sticking with that.



Sadr received 3% of the vote so now he is a very small voice in the counsel.


Moqtada al Sadr?

He didn't even run.



The shia received less than 50% and we have to rememberr that they don't want an Iranian style Mulla run country either. They fought against Iran in the Irag Iran war.


Utter lie. SCIRI and Da'wa were based in Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. Don't be an idiot.



I think it has come down to Iraqi Nationalism with rights for all Iraqi's. Even the Sunni's are now saying that they made a mistake by not voting..and more Sunni's than expected did vote.



Good to see you smiling.

Dig up some facts, poo-poo head.

Yep, it's me.

[Lou Cypher]

Thanks for that link Cali. I feel the same way about Ritter.


Compare the results of Duelfer's reports with what Ritter said when Bush said it was necessary to go to war.

That's the argument. Not what was said in '98.

[Lou Cypher]

The "secret ballot" vote is going on right now, kids.

Who's your pick? You have three choices for Prime Minister of Iraq.

1. Ahmed Chalabi
2. Ibrahim al-Jaafari
3. Jalal Talabani

My pick is #2.

[Lou Cypher]

In what year did Sir Francis Drake sail the coast of the Pacific blue?



Oops, I was wrong! 1573.
You win on that one.

[Lou Cypher]

Ritter, July 17, 2002

Tell me what he got wrong here and back it up.

SWEENEY: Scott Ritter, you are against any strike attack on Iraq for the reasons currently being given. Can you explain why?

RITTER: No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And of course that is the reason we have been given for going to war against Iraq -- because of the threat posed by these weapons. It has been nothing but rhetorically laced speculation, not hard facts, that have been presented by either the United States or Great Britain to back this up, and until they provide hard facts, there is no case for war.

SWEENEY: But didn't the United Nations present a report last year saying they believed there were weapons?

RITTER: No, the U.N. presented a report saying they could not account for everything.

SWEENEY: But it is hard to account if you cannot get into the country.

RITTER: That's right. Then why did the United States pick up the phone in December 1998 and order the inspectors out -- let's remember Saddam Hussein didn't kick the inspectors out. The U.S. ordered the inspectors out 48 hours before they initiated Operation Desert Fox -- military action that didn't have the support of the U.N. Security Council and which used information gathered by the inspectors, to target Iraq.

SWEENEY: So you are saying that even before this administration came into power, that they were gunning for Iraq?

RITTER: Removing Saddam Hussein has been the policy of every American president since George Herbert Walker Bush.

SWEENEY: Well let's not go over that in the very short time we have. Let's ask what you believe the weapons of mass destruction situation is in Iraq at the moment.

RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.

SWEENEY: And how do we know that hasn't been happening?

RITTER: We don't, but we cannot go to war on guesswork, hypothesis and speculation. We go to war on hardened fact. So Tony Blair says he has a dossier; present the dossier. George W. Bush and his administration say they know with certainty; show us how you know.

SWEENEY: How much access did you get to the weapons inspection sites?

RITTER: One-hundred percent. Every site we wanted to get to, we eventually got to. There was some obstruction, it wasn't pretty, but we got there.

SWEENEY: And after what period of time?

RITTER: It depends. A matter of hours sometimes, days sometimes, months, depending on the level of the international crisis. But remember we approached the weapons inspections the way that for instance a forensic crime scene investigator approaches a crime -- forensically. And we always uncovered every lie the Iraqis told us. They didn't get away with anything.

SWEENEY: But when you say you always uncovered every lie that Iraq told you, it means that Iraq didn't fully cooperate by any stretch of the imagination.

RITTER: I have never said that Iraq was fully co-operating and when I make an assessment about Iraq's disarmament level, it has nothing to do with what Iraq has declared. I do not trust them, I take nothing they say at face value, it is based upon on the hard work of weapons inspectors who have verified that Iraq has been disarmed through their own independent sources.

SWEENEY: So you don't believe that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction at the moment, or are you not sure?

RITTER: I would say it is a difficult case to make, based on my experience, and if you are going to make that case, back it up with fact.

SWEENEY: Is the current debate about the re-entry of weapons inspectors something you believe is directly linked to Washington's decision on whether or not to attack Iraq?

RITTER: I believe Washington D.C. is using the concept of inspections as a political foil to justify war. America doesn't want to inspectors to return. The best way to stop war is to get the inspectors back in. I believe it should be the policy of the United Nations to get the inspectors back in.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

What did he get wrong?

[Ponder]

Thanks for that link Cali. I feel the same way about Ritter.

Not to mention the so called "journalist", Dahr Jamail.

[Ono]

He does some Iraq reporting or something, I can't remember.

What about him?

[Ponder]

He does some Iraq reporting or something, I can't remember.

What about him?

He was mentioned in the first article of the thread as appearing with Ritter.

After reading many of his articles, my opinion is that he has zero credibility.

[Ono]

I see, I just looked back.

I haven't read but maybe one thing from Jamail, so I don't really know. I guess you've read enough to know.

[Cali/Yank]

According to insiders, mostly in the Chalabi camp, he reportedly has the support of about 80 members — a group said to represent independents, Kurds, women and those close to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Ok so trustworthy intell could be a little hard pressed for accuracy.
I haven't collected all the tidbits I've been hearing lately to post. Sadr is involved somehow but only with a margin of three%.



1) Ritter famously resigned from UNSCOM to protest (as he made clear)
the failure of the US to use military force against Iraq.

2) RITTER: The problem with disarming Iraq right now is that Iraq has
failed across the board. There are major questions in chemical. Iraq has a
VX program. VX is one of the most deadly substances on the face of the
Earth. And we've uncovered this. They refuse to even address the issue.

We have major problems with stocks of chemical weapons and chemical
agents that are unaccounted for. The entire biological program, which
(unintelligible) horrible weapons, is a black hole, as Richard Butler says.
Ballistic missiles -- there's absolute concern that they still retain the
capability to deliver chemical and biological weapons through ballistic
missiles that they haven't declared.


4) ABC. 'Good Morning America’ program, November 2, 1998:

Lisa McRee: What are they hiding?

SCOTT RITTER: They are hiding their retained capabilities in biological,
chemical, nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.

[Lou Cypher]

Cali,

You're still talking 1988, when Clinton was still president.

I notice that you haven't responded to what Ritter said in 2002, when Bush was preparing to go to war.

Shi'ite list names al-Jaafari for Iraqi PM job
Tue February 22, 2005 3:11 PM GMT+02:00

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's main Shi'ite alliance named Ibrahim al-Jaafari on Tuesday as its candidate for the job of prime minister in the new government, sources in the alliance said, meaning he will almost certainly get the post.

Jaafari, a religious Shi'ite and head of the Islamist Dawa Party, had faced competition from inside the alliance from former exile Ahmad Chalabi, once favoured by the Pentagon.

But Chalabi withdrew his candidacy on Tuesday and the alliance's 140 members unanimously approved Jaafari during a meeting in Baghdad, the sources said.

http://www.reuters.co.za/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp;:421b3026:20147e4aa4cc1f33?type= topNews&localeKey=en_ZA&storyID=7699384

[Mr. Drags]

i don't think there will be a military strike on Iran by June, but that doesn't mean that something won't happen by that time. I was engaged in a conversation with someone in the know yesterday (for obvious reasons I'm not mentioning any names or alluding to anyone in particular) but he's a person with access to a lot of information. Anyway, he suggested that he wouldn't be surprised if we "just woke up one day" and discovered the youth in Iran had run the mullahs out of town.

[Lou Cypher]

i don't think there will be a military strike on Iran by June, but that doesn't mean that something won't happen by that time. I was engaged in a conversation with someone in the know yesterday (for obvious reasons I'm not mentioning any names or alluding to anyone in particular) but he's a person with access to a lot of information. Anyway, he suggested that he wouldn't be surprised if we "just woke up one day" and discovered the youth in Iran had run the mullahs out of town.

Not THAT is certainly an appealing scenario.

[Mr. Drags]

Not THAT is certainly an appealing scenario.
isn't it though

[Bag Sniper]

A couple of things ...

As we can see here, just at a glimpse, Ritter says all things to all people ... he didn't know fuck about shit ... and as we all know now with the Oil-for-Food scandal the UN itself is a fuck hole of incompetence.

The *entire* world said sodom had WMD's .... and so did each and every one of you back then ... you just find it conveniently amusing to sit back and gloat and blame Bush for not finding the WMD's ... even Ritter says they had them ... but that putz flips and flops worse than John Fuckin Kerry .... if that's possible.

Insofar as Iran is concerned the moollahs know their days are numbered ... the people have been swelling in opposition for years .... the moosie fuckers are sitting on a smoldering powder keg and it won't take much to set it off.

You'll know it's imminent when you see a fast turn order come in to the Acme Virgin Factory for a very large order evenly divisable by 72 .....

[Screw Hollywood]

i don't think there will be a military strike on Iran by June, but that doesn't mean that something won't happen by that time. I was engaged in a conversation with someone in the know yesterday (for obvious reasons I'm not mentioning any names or alluding to anyone in particular) but he's a person with access to a lot of information. Anyway, he suggested that he wouldn't be surprised if we "just woke up one day" and discovered the youth in Iran had run the mullahs out of town.Look what's going on in Lebanon today. I'm telling you, no matter what you think about the Iraq operation, it was a strategically brilliant move inasmuch as it gave all the common people over there a glimpse at what could be.

[Bag Sniper]

Look what's going on in Lebanon today. I'm telling you, no matter what you think about the Iraq operation, it was a strategically brilliant move inasmuch as it gave all the common people over there a glimpse at what could be.

Well it's not just Lebanon but you bring up a great point .... look at the Palestinian's now that RUfat is feeding worms .... crap ... looks like some shit is finally getting off dead center and moving in the right direction there finally .... and then there's that reeeeal touchy subject the lefties don't want to talk about ... while they love bashing Dubya over the WMD's in Iraq they just hate to remember that Lybia was brought to it's senses without a shot being fired ...

All kinds of cool shit's happening ... funny how the bad asses start paying attention once we show up and bring our "no more bullshit" attitude along ...

[Regis]

Who contacted the ghost of Three's Company anyway?

[Ono]

That's John, Jon.

[Ponder]

Look what's going on in Lebanon today. I'm telling you, no matter what you think about the Iraq operation, it was a strategically brilliant move inasmuch as it gave all the common people over there a glimpse at what could be.

That's the same thing I read on an Egyptian blog this morning. He said that what has happened in Iraq is influencing events all over. He specifically noted the "unprecedented" demonstrations occurring in Egypt right now. :)

[Professor]

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

Portentious....or PREtentious? :p

[Lou Cypher]

A couple of things ...

As we can see here, just at a glimpse, Ritter says all things to all people ... he didn't know fuck about shit ... and as we all know now with the Oil-for-Food scandal the UN itself is a fuck hole of incompetence.


If you'll recall, Ritter was running the WMD search at one time. I think he knows a bit more about the subject than you, dorky-boy.



The *entire* world said sodom had WMD's .... and so did each and every one of you back then ...


That's a lie. Pure, simple, overt, revisionist lie.



you just find it conveniently amusing to sit back and gloat and blame Bush for not finding the WMD's ... even Ritter says they had them ... but that putz flips and flops worse than John Fuckin Kerry .... if that's possible.


He was right. In 2002 he nailed it. Why was he right?



Insofar as Iran is concerned the moollahs know their days are numbered ... the people have been swelling in opposition for years .... the moosie fuckers are sitting on a smoldering powder keg and it won't take much to set it off.

You'll know it's imminent when you see a fast turn order come in to the Acme Virgin Factory for a very large order evenly divisable by 72 .....

Don't forget your meds.

[Bag Sniper]

Log off Louie .... and start paying more attention to your left hand ... it's lonely ....

[Cali/Yank]

Ritter ran it, and stated that they did have them. That was the reason he resigned because he didn't believe the United States and the UN were being aggressive enough. then after resigning 5 to 8 months after he switched sides after getting 400,000 dollars donated to him. His word is useless.

[Bag Sniper]

Ritter ran it, and stated that they did have them. That was the reason he resigned because he didn't believe the United States and the UN were being aggressive enough. then after resigning 5 to 8 months after he switched sides after getting 400,000 dollars donated to him. His word is usless.


I wonder if the $400K was in cash or oil vouchers ..... but you're absolutely right ... that happened .... Ritter, like the other "inspectors", is worthless.

[Screw Hollywood]

I wonder if the $400K was in cash or oil vouchers ..... but you're absolutely right ... that happened .... Ritter, like the other "inspectors", is worthless.
What's the bet Mr Ritter has a new book in the pipeline?

[Bag Sniper]

What's the bet Mr Ritter has a new book in the pipeline?

If he did it would have been out by now .... this is years and years old history ...

[involved]

Ritter was right before and either someone is yanking his chain or he has the goods,that would mean Cheneys statement that Israel may bomb Iran moot or is it joint? :rolleyes:
I don't like Ritter much, and am aware we need to "consider the source" with this. However, he was right about Iraq's WMD's..... way before our Goverment ever finally acknowledged what Ritter told us years ago

NEWS: Scott Ritter says US attack on Iran planned for June
Written by Mark Jensen

Saturday, 19 February 2005

On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS
By Mark Jensen

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans’ duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County.


http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/2/

[involved]

Bush talked about a mushroom cloud? he wanted regime change, his words are useless too.
Ritter ran it, and stated that they did have them. That was the reason he resigned because he didn't believe the United States and the UN were being aggressive enough. then after resigning 5 to 8 months after he switched sides after getting 400,000 dollars donated to him. His word is useless.

[Lou Cypher]

Log off Louie .... and start paying more attention to your left hand ... it's lonely ....

Truth sure is scary, isn't it?

You can't face it, coward.

[Cali/Yank]

Bush talked about a mushroom cloud? he wanted regime change, his words are useless too.



Document 16: The White House, "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat," October 7, 2002. Unclassified.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov

This speech, given by President Bush at the Cincinnati Museum Center, presents his administration's view concerning the threat from Iraq. It discusses Iraqi chemical, biological, ballistic missile, and nuclear programs - as well as concerns about possible Iraqi connections to international terrorist groups. With respect to how close Iraq is to developing a nuclear weapon, Bush notes that "we don't know exactly, and that's the problem." He went on to state that "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

Document 39: Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, October 2, 2003. Unclassified.

Source: http://cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

In the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces failed to uncover production facilities for, or stocks of, weapons of mass destruction. To improve the chances of success, an Iraq Survey Group was established under the direction of Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Operations. Dr. David Kay, who served as a U.N. weapon inspector for several years after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was appointed as a special advisor to the group, and would direct the group's operations in Iraq.

Kay's October 2 presentation to the Congressional committees provides an unclassified summary of the group's interim report. Kay told the attending members that the ISG had not yet found stocks of weapons, but was not at a point where it could be determined definitively that such weapons stocks did not exist or that they existed before the war but had been relocated.

Kay also noted a number of factors that had hindered the ISG's search - including the compartmentalization of Iraqi WMD programs, deliberate dispersion and destruction of material and documentation related to those programs, post-war looting, and a "far from permissive environment" for search activities.

In addition, Kay summarized some of the Survey Group's discoveries, which included: a clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses controlled by the Iraqi Intelligence Services containing equipment suitable for CBW research; reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientists home; documents and equipment hidden in scientists' homes that could be used for resuming uranium enrichment activities; and a continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD missiles.

Document 42: Transcript of David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2004

Source: http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/ pdf/Iraq/kaytestimony.pdf

David Kay appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee shortly after he resigned as special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group. Kay states, referring to the expectation that there would be substantial stocks of, and production lines for, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, that "we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." He also notes that other foreign intelligence agencies, including the French and the German, also had believed that Iraq possessed such stocks and production lines. In addition, he discusses the issue of whether political pressure had any impact on the content of the October 2002 national intelligence estimate (Document 15). Kay also notes that "based on the work of the Iraq Survey Group … Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. He goes on to note the discovery of hundreds of instances of activities prohibited by U.N. Resolution 687.


The only thing these reports continue to do, is persuade each side that they are right. Again, it is in the interest of National security of OUR free Unions, to eliminate the threat from a secretive, underground conspiracy ran by an enemy that has been our enemy since 1991.

[Truthsayer]

Scott Ritter was right about Iraq, he is right now. Moron Bush will use his political capitol to attack another innocent country. Keep in mind the Iran is not Iraq, they are prepared for the NeoCons and I believe there Nukes are already prepared for a retaliatory strike in Europe and Israel. If America starts in on Iran you better bring a boat load of body bags, you are going to need them.

[involved]

Believe what you wish or what ever is written,there are not too many in this Country that bought any of that crap,sorry,the administration behaved like they were cooking it all up and with their relentless aggression to meet their objectives,there was no stopping them,the Bush administration took advantage of all of you,using the traumatic stress of 911 as a guise.Colin Powell embarassed himself at the UN,sad because he is a great statesman,a great American .This war was Strategic. Wolfowitz,Perle,Cheney and the rest of that bunch have been planning regime change in Iraq for over a decade.Sometimes you have to do your own math and come to your own conclusions.Saddam was metaphorically on his kness,you should have used that power more wisley,if you had been smart,Saddam would be holding free elections today.Saddam perfers life,rather than certain peril.The Bush administration should have been fired.
Document 16: The White House, "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat," October 7, 2002. Unclassified.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov

This speech, given by President Bush at the Cincinnati Museum Center, presents his administration's view concerning the threat from Iraq. It discusses Iraqi chemical, biological, ballistic missile, and nuclear programs - as well as concerns about possible Iraqi connections to international terrorist groups. With respect to how close Iraq is to developing a nuclear weapon, Bush notes that "we don't know exactly, and that's the problem." He went on to state that "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

Document 39: Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, October 2, 2003. Unclassified.

Source: http://cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

In the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces failed to uncover production facilities for, or stocks of, weapons of mass destruction. To improve the chances of success, an Iraq Survey Group was established under the direction of Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Operations. Dr. David Kay, who served as a U.N. weapon inspector for several years after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was appointed as a special advisor to the group, and would direct the group's operations in Iraq.

Kay's October 2 presentation to the Congressional committees provides an unclassified summary of the group's interim report. Kay told the attending members that the ISG had not yet found stocks of weapons, but was not at a point where it could be determined definitively that such weapons stocks did not exist or that they existed before the war but had been relocated.

Kay also noted a number of factors that had hindered the ISG's search - including the compartmentalization of Iraqi WMD programs, deliberate dispersion and destruction of material and documentation related to those programs, post-war looting, and a "far from permissive environment" for search activities.

In addition, Kay summarized some of the Survey Group's discoveries, which included: a clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses controlled by the Iraqi Intelligence Services containing equipment suitable for CBW research; reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientists home; documents and equipment hidden in scientists' homes that could be used for resuming uranium enrichment activities; and a continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD missiles.

Document 42: Transcript of David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2004

Source: http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/ pdf/Iraq/kaytestimony.pdf

David Kay appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee shortly after he resigned as special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group. Kay states, referring to the expectation that there would be substantial stocks of, and production lines for, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, that "we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." He also notes that other foreign intelligence agencies, including the French and the German, also had believed that Iraq possessed such stocks and production lines. In addition, he discusses the issue of whether political pressure had any impact on the content of the October 2002 national intelligence estimate (Document 15). Kay also notes that "based on the work of the Iraq Survey Group … Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. He goes on to note the discovery of hundreds of instances of activities prohibited by U.N. Resolution 687.


The only thing these reports continue to do, is persuade each side that they are right. Again, it is in the interest of National security of OUR free Unions, to eliminate the threat from a secretive, underground conspiracy ran by an enemy that has been our enemy since 1991.

[Ponder]

Saddam was metaphorically on his kness,you should have used that power more wisley,if you had been smart,Saddam would be holding free elections today.Saddam perfers life,rather than certain peril.The Bush administration should have been fired.

For someone "on his knees", he sure felt confident in defying all those resolutions.

Saddam knew the U.S. was coming. They flat out told him so. Several other countries offered him a haven for exile. If he preferred life, he would have fled. What the man craves is power. There would have never been free elections in Iraq under Saddam. It would have meant the end of that power.

[involved]

Well I guess we didn't see him on the same television screen because he sure looked beat from where I was sitting,even Saddam was not so delusional that he entertained thoughts of Not being ousted by the most powerful military in the world,he had tasted America's fury before,what was that, two hundred thousand killed ?,Saddam likely he hoped the global community could apply pressure,we did not apply enough,actually I'm surprised Saddam had time to brush his teeth,it happened so fast,and there was no evidence to suggest he had wmd,but there was plenty of conjecture or as Bush referred "mistakes made" .This war wasn't about wmd's this was about oil and China rising.
For someone "on his knees", he sure felt confident in defying all those resolutions.

Saddam knew the U.S. was coming. They flat out told him so. Several other countries offered him a haven for exile. If he preferred life, he would have fled. What the man craves is power. There would have never been free elections in Iraq under Saddam. It would have meant the end of that power.

[OldGit]

Not to mention the so called "journalist", Dahr Jamail.

Aha - but you quote a blog as evidence here:

http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?t=449

[Bman]

Stay tuned..that June date is fast approaching

Meanwhile,


The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr

by Jude Wanniski


Memo To: Republican Senators
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: With Tony Blair’s Support

Buried down in today’s New York Times report on President Bush reaffirming his unqualified support for John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador is the reason why almost all of you are ready to vote for his confirmation.


“Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr. Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security Council.”

Why the big rush? My reliable sources tell me it is because there is a timetable that makes it urgent for Bolton to be ready for action in June in order to cripple the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as part of the plan to bomb the Iranian nuclear-power plant at Bushehr. That’s because Bushehr, under construction with Russian supervision, will soon be ready to receive the Russian fissionable material enabling it to produce power. In 1981, remember Republican Senators, Israel bombed the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Baghdad just before it was to be fueled by its French contractors. Once fueled, bombing is out of the question because of the radiation that would be emitted, with clouds traveling who knows where.

Of course you must know by now that at the time the Israelis blew up Osiraq, the situation was quite different. We were in the midst of the Cold War, the United States was supporting Iraq in its war against Iran, and the Russians were supporting Iran. So when the billion-dollar Osiraq plant went up in smoke (with the help of the neo-cons who were already occupying the Pentagon in that first year of the Reagan administration), there was no reaction from Russia because the Israelis were essentially bombing us!! We also know by now that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program at the time, but only began its (unsuccessful) clandestine effort after Osiraq.

The same is now true of Iran. If a month or two from now you are advised by President Bush that it is necessary to take out Bushehr to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you would have to wonder if the neo-cons and their Likud allies in Tel Aviv aren’t simply threatening World War III on a faulty premise. Wouldn’t you? The situation now is quite different, with Bushehr a Russian project in Iran.

On a recent, quite incredible FoxNews special, Lieut. General Thomas McInerney said we are already moving aircraft carriers into positions from which we could strike. He was then asked: “If you had to put a percentage on it, the chances that the US will eventually have to take military actions against Iran, what would you put it at?” to which McInerney replied casually: “Well, I would put one percent of using ground forces, boots on the ground in Iran, I would put up 50 percent on a blockade and I would put up fifty to sixty percent on precision air strikes on their nuclear development sites.” He also observed casually that Iran wouldn’t dare take on the United States. Perhaps the 60 million Iranians would greet our bombers with garlands and sweets. Do you see what I mean? FoxNews, as you may know, is commonly known as "The War Channel," for similar work it did in promoting the war against Iraq.

Is Iran this kind of threat to anyone? As far as I can tell, ladies and gentlemen of the GOP Senate, the answer is “absolutely not,” at least as long as they remain members in good standing of the NPT, which means they will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect intrusively and constantly, as they have been doing. It has been the mission of John Bolton and his underling, Stephen Rademaker, to “reform” the United Nations in a way that dissolves the NPT and the need for the IAEA, not only to pave the way for the bombing of Bushehr, but also to get out from under the NPT provisions that require all the nuclear-weapon powers to make progress toward making the world a nuclear-free zone.

If you wish to really understand what’s going on, instead of getting briefed by the same people who briefed you prior to the invasion of Iraq, please read Dr. Gordon Prather’s commentaries on the crisis just around the corner. First, on WorldNetDaily.com, he writes Strengthen the NPT – Or Else, in which he walks us through the misinformation that Bolton, Rademaker and the neo-cons have been spreading on Iran’s alleged violations of its treaty obligations. Dr. Prather, who by the way came to Washington under the patronage of Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and is no left-wing liberal, also penned a second column today for Antiwar.com, Bush-Blairs Nutty U.N. Proposal, which you have to read to realize how “nutty” it is.

There is also today on the Antiwar.com website today an overview of this looming crisis that I highly recommend, as it was highly recommended to me by Dr. Prather, The Iran Crisis in Global Context. If you and your staffs do take my suggestions seriously and go to these links, I think you may have greater doubts about the Bolton nomination than you have now. If you have any doubts about Dr. Prather, check with your colleague, Senator Domenici, who was instrumental in getting Prather an appointment as the Army’s chief scientist during the Reagan administration.

This isn’t too much to ask, is it? For good measure, I’d hope those of you who are reading this memo to the GOP Senators and are among their constituents would urge them to take a second look before they send Bolton to the United Nations. His mission is not to clean up the so-called “Oil-for-Food Scandal” or promote UNICEF gift cards. It is to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran after undermining the work of IAEA and the need for the NPT.

May 16, 2005

Jude Wanniski [send him mail] runs the financial/political advisory service Wanniski.com.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski80.html

[Alli]

:rolleyes: Werent' we also going to 'bomb syria' in February?

If June 30th comes and goes...with no suprises can we please lay a rest to these?

[Bman]

:rolleyes: Werent' we also going to 'bomb syria' in February?

If June 30th comes and goes...with no suprises can we please lay a rest to these?


I don't recall seeing the Syria stuff.. at least not from Ritter...


I would say that if the month of June passes, and we have not bombed Iran at that point, then it would be safe to lay to rest the rumor that we're going to bomb Iran in June

:)

Bman

[knightroar]

I'll agree with Bman, if we don't bomb Iran in June, I won't support any more rumors that we are going to bomb Iran in June. :)

happy now Alli?

[Alli]

I'll agree with Bman, if we don't bomb Iran in June, I won't support any more rumors that we are going to bomb Iran in June. :)

happy now Alli?
:happy_01: Yay!!

BMan, I'll look up the Syria link for you later, I don't recall who said they would be bombed, don't think it was Ritter??

[Bman]

:happy_01: Yay!!

BMan, I'll look up the Syria link for you later, I don't recall who said they would be bombed, don't think it was Ritter??


Don't even bother

I agree that the rumor that the US was going to bomb Syria in February was meritless

hehe

Bman

[jimb]

Scott Ritter has a history of trying to benifit from the Iraq problem.

[born2kill]

Scott Ritter has a history of trying to benifit from the Iraq problem.


Elaborate please?

Scott Ritter has a first person account of existence/non-existence of Iraq's WMD programs.

He told us before the war Iraq didn't have them. And he was cruxified, he was brandished a liar, and accused of being on Saddam's dole.

Still correct and free, I understand.

[jimb]

During his inspections there were reports going to the news services that there were items which were listed that could be related to making MDWs in Iraq. Then news came out from Iraq that due to numbers and names on these items which were from some nations that would put them into a bad position if exposed to the world, therefore each of the previous reports were denied.
Ritter has been fiquired to be not more than a coverup agent and an aid to the U N .

[Hobbes]

During his inspections there were reports going to the news services that there were items which were listed that could be related to making MDWs in Iraq. Then news came out from Iraq that due to numbers and names on these items which were from some nations that would put them into a bad position if exposed to the world, therefore each of the previous reports were denied.
Ritter has been fiquired to be not more than a coverup agent and an aid to the U N .

Let's see if you actually know anything about what Ritter did in Iraq. Multiple choice. Did he supervise

a) Nuclear weapons program inspections

b) Chemical weapons program inspections or

c) Biological weapons program inspections.

Unlimited time. Look it up. You might actually learn something.

[Ponder]

Aha - but you quote a blog as evidence here:

http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?t=449

I never saw this post, but of course I have an answer. :)

The bloggers I quote never purport to be 'journalists'.

[Bomb Islam]

Ritter was on every talk show there is leading up to the war...screaming that there were no WMD's.

Who was right? Him or this administration?


Doesn't change the fact that Ritter is a lying scumbag. Why would you sully your own credibility by cut-and-pasting a Ritter piece?

[Bman]

Doesn't change the fact that Ritter is a lying scumbag. Why would you sully your own credibility by cut-and-pasting a Ritter piece?


It pains me to point this out, but A LIE IS SOMETHING THAT ISN'T TRUE


How can a guy be a "lying scumbag", when he's telling the truth???


Bman

[Ono]

Let's see if you actually know anything about what Ritter did in Iraq. Multiple choice. Did he supervise

a) Nuclear weapons program inspections

b) Chemical weapons program inspections or

c) Biological weapons program inspections.

Unlimited time. Look it up. You might actually learn something.

Also, by his own admission, Ritter accepted $400,000 in funding from an Iraqi-American businessman named Shakir al-Khafaji. Ritter used the money to visit Baghdad and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American manipulation).

Shakir al-Khafaji is openly sympathetic to Saddam and regularly sponsored anti-American conferences in Baghdad. Al-Khafaji seems to have gotten his money's worth.

The documentary was so anti-U.S., says one of Ritter's former U.N. colleagues, that Iraqi officials were passing out copies of it on CD-ROM at a recent international conference.

AND.......let's not forget his proclivity for underage girls. Not a man I would put any trust in.

[THX1138]

I'll agree with Bman, if we don't bomb Iran in June, I won't support any more rumors that we are going to bomb Iran in June. :)

happy now Alli?

Wouldn't you rather say that Bush mishandled the rumor and by his bungling prevented the rumor from becoming a reality?

[jimb]

Ritter was as I said an opportunist of who worked with the corrupt U N to make inspection reports to the U N
of which would be anti war and anti USA . Ritter discredited himself with these reports and publicity for himself. The Oil for Food program was a scam for the U N to get more money from Saddam and his people.
Ritter did try to gain fame for his participation of the delusions he attempted to create about the inspections in Iraq. The Penagon reported over 600 violations of Saddam were in their hands of which someday maybe released to the public.

[Truthsayer]

Ritter is one of the few white men in public policy I beleive. If he says the US has plans to bomb Iraq, he is more than likely correct. Look he said Saddam had no WMD's and he was right. The US lost 25,000 American because of the lies that Bush sewed. Now the Neocons want to make Iran blink, I am sure they want to hit Iran, but remember Iran is not Iraq, they have not been sanctioned and weakened for 10 years. A lot of American will be killed there if they start some stuff!

[jimb]

Ritter is one white man that wants to make fiction movies. Oh he has already tried that.

[Truthsayer]

Ritter is one white man that wants to make fiction movies. Oh he has already tried that.

Yeah I know, it was really fiction when after 2 years of occupation in Iraq, Nukes, Gas, Anthrax have still not been found, thanks for clearing that up for us all. :add09:

[CHE]

(please pardon the snips) Does this sound vaguely familiar? Haven't these maroons learned anything from the Iraq situation? The result of the "historic" elections in Iraq, rigged or not, has brought about increased influence on the political spectrum in Iraq by the Shi'a Iranian black turban brigade. While I don't think Iraq will immediately descend into the grasp of the Mullahs, anyone familiar with the situation has to admit that the future Prime Minister of Iraq will be beholden to them to a significant degree.

That is indeed possible, but I think many people are overlooking another possibility. The Iranian government is not popular among its constituents. Reading papers from even some of the less hospitable sources in the Middle East, there do seem to be a lot of people over there wondering why the Iraqis can vote but they can't. The Iranian people are watching Iraq very closely. Having a few well-established moderate Persians involved in what could "ideally" turn out to be an Islamic inspired democracy may lend it credibility and have the Iranians saying, "See? It can work." These people may ultimately have more influence on Iran than vice-versa. Far more influence than any Kurd or Suni, for whatever it turns out to be worth.

[Ono]

I wonder is Ritter wrote this in his column at Al Jazeera?

[Bag Sniper]

Ritter is one of the few white men in public policy I beleive. If he says the US has plans to bomb Iraq, he is more than likely correct. Look he said Saddam had no WMD's and he was right. The US lost 25,000 American because of the lies that Bush sewed. Now the Neocons want to make Iran blink, I am sure they want to hit Iran, but remember Iran is not Iraq, they have not been sanctioned and weakened for 10 years. A lot of American will be killed there if they start some stuff!

Oh yeah ... you back splintered broke down field hand jimmy cracked cown mutha fucka ... you said the same shit about Afghanistan and Iraq ....

Jump down
Turn around
Pick a bale o' cotton

Jump down
Turn around
Pick a bale o' hay ..

(Theme song to trutnigga's new TV serial "Soooooooooooooul Shit")

[Truthsayer]

Oh yeah ... you back splintered broke down field hand jimmy cracked cown mutha fucka ... you said the same shit about Afghanistan and Iraq ....

Jump down
Turn around
Pick a bale o' cotton

Jump down
Turn around
Pick a bale o' hay ..

(Theme song to trutnigga's new TV serial "Soooooooooooooul Shit")

25500 Dead American and counting, and I noticed there are fewer Devil Whites signing up to go to Iraq to get killed, isn't it about time you defend your country Sniper! :add09:

[oxy]

25500 Dead American and counting, and I noticed there are fewer Devil Whites signing up to go to Iraq to get killed, isn't it about time you defend your country Sniper! :add09:


Still waiting for this link on your 25500 number dontspeakabitofTruthsayer.

[Truthsayer]

Still waiting for this link on your 25500 number dontspeakabitofTruthsayer.

My sources are on the ground, counting the dead! :)

[Hobbes]

Also, by his own admission, Ritter accepted $400,000 in funding from an Iraqi-American businessman named Shakir al-Khafaji. Ritter used the money to visit Baghdad and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American manipulation).

Shakir al-Khafaji is openly sympathetic to Saddam and regularly sponsored anti-American conferences in Baghdad. Al-Khafaji seems to have gotten his money's worth.

The documentary was so anti-U.S., says one of Ritter's former U.N. colleagues, that Iraqi officials were passing out copies of it on CD-ROM at a recent international conference.

AND.......let's not forget his proclivity for underage girls. Not a man I would put any trust in.

Every documentary has some source of funding. That doesn't make then all biased per se. I have not seen it, but if it includes the information he has said publicly then I believe it to have been factual. The inspections died when the CIA started using them as an intelligence-gathering tool; and it was the US that unilaterally ended them; not Saddam.

I know nothing of Ritter and underage girls. Is there a credible source for this?

[Bman]

I know nothing of Ritter and underage girls. Is there a credible source for this?


Ritter was busted in what he calls a "setup" for agreeing to meet with an underage girl that he met on the internet

He was charged with some misdemeanor crime, which was later dropped..

Ritter claims to this day that it was a sting designed to discredit him..

Given what the Bush Administration did to Joseph Plame (and his wife), and the work of their henchmen, the "Swift Vote Veterans for Truth", its pretty easy to believe Ritter's account of what happened

Bman

[Hobbes]

Ritter was busted in what he calls a "setup" for agreeing to meet with an underage girl that he met on the internet

He was charged with some misdemeanor crime, which was later dropped..

Ritter claims to this day that it was a sting designed to discredit him..

Given what the Bush Administration did to Joseph Plame (and his wife), and the work of their henchmen, the "Swift Vote Veterans for Truth", its pretty easy to believe Ritter's account of what happened

Bman

That, or he's a pervert on the side. If it's true, it makes him something of a despicable person, but hardly an incorrigible liar. I don't think it makes any difference at all.

[Bman]

That, or he's a pervert on the side. If it's true, it makes him something of a despicable person, but hardly an incorrigible liar. I don't think it makes any difference at all.


correct, as usual

It is alleged that Thomas Jefferson slept with one of his slaves.. but does that mean the Declaration of Independence should be discarded??

I think not

Regardless of Ritter's alleged perversions, the dude is a patriot.. one of the few people in a government office that was willing to tell the truth, no matter what

Bman

[Mudshark]

If there is an attack on Iran, Tony Blair had better run for the hills. I saw him on TV before the UK election categorically stating "We will not attack Iran".

[Bman]

Turns out Ritter might have been right about Bush "cooking" the Iraqi election

Not that surprising




Copyright 2005 Newspaper Publishing PLC
The Independent (London)

July 18, 2005, Monday


AMERICANS ACCUSED OF INTERFERING IN IRAQ ELECTION

BY PATRICK COCKBURN


President George Bush authorised covert intervention in Iraq's January elections by using behind-the-scenes operatives in an effort to engineer an Iraqi government allied to the US and not dominated by Shia parties, claims an article in The New Yorker today.

Seymour Hersh, the American investigative journalist, said the White House secretly tried to influence the elections by undertaking operations 'off the books'. This was after the President had been frustrated in his support for a CIA operation to fund political candidates anywhere in the world who were seeking to spread democracy.

In practice, this would have allowed the CIA to give financial aid to the candidacy of Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, appointed by the US in June 2004. The plan was dropped because of the opposition of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader.

The US was compelled to agree to an open election in Iraq after it became apparent in the autumn of 2003 that direct rule by Paul Bremer, the US viceroy in Iraq, had provoked a vicious and rising guerrilla war. In conflict with the Sunni Arabs, Washington could not afford also to alienate the Shias or their religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The Shia leaders wanted an election because their community, long politically marginalised in Iraq, makes up 60 per cent of the population.

But since the Gulf War in 1991 the US had been worried about allowing Shia parties or parties friendly with Iran to take power. This was a prime reason why the US did not overthrow Saddam Hussein after defeating his army in Kuwait.

Washington was happy with its choice of Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia businessman whose Iraqi National Accord group had long been supported by the CIA, as interim prime minister. It wanted him to do well enough in the election to stay as prime minister. The Kurds, suspicious of the Shia parties, would also have preferred Mr Allawi to stay in power.

Hersh quotes a UN official as saying: 'The American embassy's aim was to make sure that Allawi remained as prime minister, and they tried to do it through manipulation of the system ... [But] the Shias rigged the election in the south as much as ballots were rigged for Allawi.'

Mr Allawi clearly had money to spend during the election and it was assumed, though without any proof in Iraq, that this ultimately came from the US.

[Bman]

and of course the White House replies, "YES.. we created those plans, but we didn't implement them"

Of course not.. LOL


Copyright 2005 The Washington Post

The Washington Post

July 18, 2005 Monday


U.S. Says It Did Not Carry Out Plans to Back Iraqis in Election

Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer




President Bush authorized covert plans last year to support the election campaigns of Iraqis with close ties to the White House, but government and intelligence officials said yesterday the plan was scrapped before the January vote.

Some officials with knowledge of the original proposal said the Bush administration backed down after congressional objections, but others cited concerns within the intelligence community that the effort was likely to backfire.

The White House would not comment on classified matters or confirm whether such a plan existed. But National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones acknowledged in a statement that before the vote, "there were concerns about efforts by outsiders to influence the outcome of the Iraqi elections, including money flowing from Iran."

Jones said that raised concerns "about whether there would be a level playing field for the election. This situation posed difficult dilemmas about what action, if any, the U.S. should take in response. In the final analysis, the president determined and the United States government adopted a policy that we would not try to influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office."

Jones would not say whether any political parties had benefited from covert support. The State Department openly gave money to help parties organize for what the White House called Iraq's first free and democratic election.

An article in the upcoming issue of the New Yorker magazine reports that despite congressional objections, the White House went ahead with the plan to bolster the campaign of Ayad Allawi, who had been installed by the United States as Iraq's interim prime minister in 2004 and who worked closely with the CIA during his years as an Iraqi exile. Allawi, a secular Shiite, did better than expected in the election but not strongly enough to retain his leadership role.

Several details in the article, including the assertion that the program was carried out by former CIA officers and relied on funding not controlled by Congress, were disputed by officials within the White House, State Department and Congress.

Although the president does not need congressional authority for a covert operation, any such plan would require congressional funding controlled by the House and Senate intelligence committees. Officials said it would be unusual for the White House to go ahead with such a plan without that money.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.,) the House intelligence committee's senior Democrat, would not discuss classified information. But she said in a statement that "Congress was consulted about the Administration's posture in the Iraqi election. I was personally consulted. But if the administration did what is alleged, that would be a violation of the covert action requirements, and that would be deeply troubling."

Asked about the New Yorker article yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), a Republican member of the Senate intelligence committee, also declined to discuss details: "All I can say is that the administration has tried everything to try to bring about a successful conclusion over there."

Other officials would not comment for the record. But privately, there was wide agreement that the plan, first reported by Time magazine in October 2004, had been approved to counter the heavy organizational and financial support that religious Shiite parties were receiving from Iran.

"I don't believe we actually did provide covert support in the end, but the gray area may have been did we ever consider it?" said one intelligence official who would discuss the classified proposal only on the condition of anonymity. "Early on, the administration had approved a policy and then, talking to the working level, they saw there was little chance of success and that it was more likely to backfire."

One week before Iraqis went to the polls on Jan. 30, the United Nations' top election official, Carina Perelli, criticized U.S. military forces for distributing material urging Iraqis to vote. Perelli and other U.N. officials said they were concerned the military involvement was compromising efforts to convince Iraqis that they were directing their own elections. Perelli said at the time that she and the top U.N. election official in Iraq had been "asking, begging military commanders" to stop handing out the material.

A U.S. official who was heavily involved in preparing for the vote said U.S. officials ultimately offered a variety of less organized Iraqi parties support in the form of "cell phones, printing billboards and pamphlets and poster bills advertising the electoral choices. That is what we eventually opted for, and the truth is, the effort ended up not helping the parties that we wanted to help most."

Larry Diamond of Stanford University, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation, said he urged the White House a year before the vote to "set up a transparent election fund to help not just Allawi, but a lot of parties that weren't being helped by the Iranians."

Diamond, whose book, "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq," was recently published, said he did not know how the administration handled the issue in the end.

"But I don't think we can simply take the administration's word for it. I think we need an independent congressional investigation to find out what really happened," he said.

Diamond said that details revealed in the New Yorker article would likely cause "significant damage to us and our credibility in Iraq. I also think it will do damage to Allawi because it will further the impression of Allawi as a U.S. agent and a U.S. pawn." Allawi was not reachable to comment, and much of the new Iraqi leadership was in Iran for a state visit.

[LANMaster]

Ritter was dead wrong about his June prediction.

Funny how y'all can just let him off the hook because it doesn't jive with your agendas.

[zapcomix]

Ritter is a treasonous putz, pure and simple.

[Bman]

Ritter was dead wrong about his June prediction.

Funny how y'all can just let him off the hook because it doesn't jive with your agendas.


Ritter was wrong about the June bombing campaign.. but if you read through this thread entirely, that may be due to the fact that Bolton's confirmation to the UN got delayed

It appears now that the US has accepted Iran as a nuclear power

Bman

[shadow_wolf]

Bump.....Some old words ring true?

[Bman]

No Iran attack.

That's been my take and that is still my take

China won't let it happen, for reasons I've laid out


The satellite shot a few days ago was probably the warning..

[shadow_wolf]

No Iran attack.

That's been my take and that is still my take

China won't let it happen, for reasons I've laid out


The satellite shot a few days ago was probably the warning..

Yup, that was more than likely a bow shot, but we'll see.

[Shipwrx]

Bingo
No Iran attack.

That's been my take and that is still my take

China won't let it happen, for reasons I've laid out


The satellite shot a few days ago was probably the warning..

[Bman]

You can't really blame China.. the US would be equally concerned if someone was threatening to hit Saudi Arabia

[Shipwrx]

You can't really blame China.. the US would be equally concerned if someone was threatening to hit Saudi Arabia

My view exactly.

And yes a warning shot is more than likely the explanation for it's test now.

Subtle, and yet to the point.

I wonder just how dependant our Waring strategies are upon Satellite information gathering?

Example: Could the US have maintained thier air superiority etc. enforce the No fly zone and what not over Iraq with all Satellite communications down much less listening and surveilance etc.

Granted we have the airborne command centers and what not ... But how reliant are they without the satellites.. to relay and gather etc.

[Veltliner]

Anyone hear about the supposed incident where Israeli nuclear warplanes were forced to return to Israel after an interception by US Air forces?

[shadow_wolf]

Anyone hear about the supposed incident where Israeli nuclear warplanes were forced to return to Israel after an interception by US Air forces?

When was this?