• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Article from Scott Ritter

Re: Re: New Article from Scott Ritter

Ed said:
and his expertise is.............?
Click to expand...

Actually, to be fair to Scott, even though I really don't want to be, he was pretty much a very lone voice in the very early days of the Bush build-up to the Iraqi invasion. He was the first, if not the only, talking head that insisted that there 'were no weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq. He said, correctly it would seem, that Saddam's reluctance to allow UN inspectors unfettered access was because he wanted Iran to think he had weapons even though the inspectors would never find them. Not too long after his many appearances on many networks, it was 'discovered' that he was in possession of some rather lude, and illegal, material on the hard drive of his home computer. He publically stated, very shortly thereafter, that he was dropping out of the debate. This is the first I've heard of him sense that announcement.

Still, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. I don't believe a thing in this article but he has been dead-on balls-accurate in the past.
 
Re: Re: New Article from Scott Ritter

Ed said:
and his expertise is.............?
Click to expand...
Scott Ritter is a former marine and served as the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq up until 1998.
 
Re: Re: Re: New Article from Scott Ritter

Batman Jr. said:
Scott Ritter is a former marine and served as the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq up until 1998.
Click to expand...

So his expertise in strategy on a theater scale is nil, that is what you are saying, right? In essence, then, his article is akin to a long post on JREF by any of us since I did not really see his expertise in "weapons inspection" play much of a part. Or does his expertise in a nonrelated area give him a cachet? I mean, is he an authority figure because of his celebraty? So, given irrelevant expertise and public recognition, is there much of a difference between him writing this and, say, Paris Hilton? Or do boots on the ground in Iraq count for something? I get the impression that Scott is something of a publicity hound and does not have much voice here so he goes to .... el Jazeera....odd.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: New Article from Scott Ritter

Ed said:
So his expertise in strategy on a theater scale is nil, that is what you are saying, right? In essence, then, his article is akin to a long post on JREF by any of us since I did not really see his expertise in "weapons inspection" play much of a part. Or does his expertise in a nonrelated area give him a cachet? I mean, is he an authority figure because of his celebraty? So, given irrelevant expertise and public recognition, is there much of a difference between him writing this and, say, Paris Hilton? Or do boots on the ground in Iraq count for something? I get the impression that Scott is something of a publicity hound and does not have much voice here so he goes to .... el Jazeera....odd.
Click to expand...
Before obtaining his position as a weapons inspector, he was a military intelligence analyst.
 
While I certainly don’t agree with everything this article says, Scott has spent a lot of time in Iraq dealing with Iraqis. This gives him a lot of “cachet” as far as I’m concerned. If I was interested in Hollywood fashion I would listen to Paris Hilton.

I also recall him saying before the war that Iraq did not have WMDs. I thought it odd at the time that someone who aught to be pretty familiar with the situation would have an opinion so contrary to what we were hearing from the White House. He was right. This doesn’t make him right about everything, but it makes him someone who should at least be listened too.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: New Article from Scott Ritter

Ed said:
...

I get the impression that Scott is something of a publicity hound and does not have much voice here so he goes to .... el Jazeera....odd.
Click to expand...

You see, CNN and FOX have their own endless supply of retired ex-military types - the kind who say the "right" things.
 
So, Ed Kill rhe messenger?

citation:
Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After his 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq allowed.

Article from 2002:


The response?
"First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility..."

The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided," "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."



By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."

Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." "

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-02.htm

Wonder why he didn't goto mainstream American press? Hmmm....
Ahh the brave new world.
 
OT...Curtis Sliwa is now a commentator for MSNBC? This is the same slightly-lunatic founder of the Guardian Angels?

Interesting to note that an in-theater general said that insurgent attacks across Iraq were presently "down" to about 40 a day.

Of course, an attack might just be some guy spraying an AK at a passing convoy, but still....That's some hundreds of attacks per week. Doesn't bode well for stability.
 
Bikewer said:
OT...Curtis Sliwa is now a commentator for MSNBC? This is the same slightly-lunatic founder of the Guardian Angels?

Interesting to note that an in-theater general said that insurgent attacks across Iraq were presently "down" to about 40 a day.

Of course, an attack might just be some guy spraying an AK at a passing convoy, but still....That's some hundreds of attacks per week. Doesn't bode well for stability.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't bode well for Detroit either, but they manage to get by with similar numbers. Jes' sayin'.
 
I suppose in most big-city gang areas, there might be similar numbers of assaults and even shootings on a daily basis. (200 or so homicides per year here)

But if we were having even a few bombings nationwide on a daily basis, I imagine there might be hell to pay for the leadership of the country.

Of course, we humans have an amazing capacity to "muddle through". The Brits got sufficiently blase' about the Blitz that folks have fond memories of the chummy times down in the shelters....
 
Jocko said:
Wouldn't bode well for Detroit either, but they manage to get by with similar numbers. Jes' sayin'.
Click to expand...
Ah, the department of Irrelevant Comparisons has weighed in. Here are some real numbers for Detroit. 400 some killings a year, many of them by people who know each other, is a lot different than 40 random bombings a day, many of them with multiple victims.


But since you're such an expert why don't you move to Baghdad for a year and let us know how serene it really is over there?
 
Re: Re: Re: New Article from Scott Ritter

Rob Lister said:
Actually, to be fair to Scott, even though I really don't want to be, he was pretty much a very lone voice in the very early days of the Bush build-up to the Iraqi invasion. He was the first, if not the only, talking head that insisted that there 'were no weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq. He said, correctly it would seem, that Saddam's reluctance to allow UN inspectors unfettered access was because he wanted Iran to think he had weapons even though the inspectors would never find them. Not too long after his many appearances on many networks, it was 'discovered' that he was in possession of some rather lude, and illegal, material on the hard drive of his home computer. He publically stated, very shortly thereafter, that he was dropping out of the debate. This is the first I've heard of him sense that announcement.

Still, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. I don't believe a thing in this article but he has been dead-on balls-accurate in the past.
Click to expand...

This 'lone voice' notion has been well and truly debunked. There were intelligence experts around the globe scratching their heads on justification for the march to war.

In Australia, there were at least two, Andrew Wilkie and another who's name I forget. England saw an expert suicide at the stress of not saying what was supposed to be said. CBS ran this http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Intelligence experts around the world were questioning the premise of the war.

How the WMD missing was 'managed'. http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52731

The problem is not that Scott Ritter is a lone voice, but that the many voices that have been raised are being ignored.
 
I posted recently on Sy Hersh's book, Chain of Command. He echoes many of the same ideas. He talks extensively about how "normal" (IE=vetted, analysed, and confirmed) intelligence was ignored or disregarded in favor of questionable items "stovepiped" to the inner circle. Telling them what they want to hear, in effect.

Seems that this process is continuing with Rumsfeld's pentagon-based intelligence gathering. According to various NPR commentators, virtually anywhere in the world can now be the "battlefield" in the War on Terror, and thus this sort of intelligence gathering can take place without oversight.
 
Bikewer said:
Seems that this process is continuing with Rumsfeld's pentagon-based intelligence gathering. According to various NPR commentators, virtually anywhere in the world can now be the "battlefield" in the War on Terror, and thus this sort of intelligence gathering can take place without oversight.
Click to expand...
It'll be getting oversight from Negroponte now, won't it? That should solve the problem. :)
 
Bikewer said:
I posted recently on Sy Hersh's book, Chain of Command. He echoes many of the same ideas. He talks extensively about how "normal" (IE=vetted, analysed, and confirmed) intelligence was ignored or disregarded in favor of questionable items "stovepiped" to the inner circle. Telling them what they want to hear, in effect.

Seems that this process is continuing with Rumsfeld's pentagon-based intelligence gathering. According to various NPR commentators, virtually anywhere in the world can now be the "battlefield" in the War on Terror, and thus this sort of intelligence gathering can take place without oversight.
Click to expand...


Sounds like any one of a number of analyses of the Bay of Pigs in organizational behavior classes.

Too bad they never seem to learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom