RITTER V RITTER

Scott Ritter last month:

[B]y 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq’s industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.

Scott Ritter in 1999 (extract from Ritter’s Endgame):

In 1995 Unit 2001 conducted tests on live human subjects taken from the Abu Ghraib prison, using BW and binary CW agent. Around fifty prisoners were chosen for these experiments, which took place at a remote testing ground in western Iraq. The purpose of these experiments was to test the toxicity of available agent to ensure that the biological agent remained viable. As a result, all the prisoners died.

Scott Ritter last month:

[T]he whole world knew [in 1995] … that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.

Scott Ritter in 2002:

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never!

Scott Ritter in 1999:

I have grown convinced that there has been a total breakdown in the willingness of the international community to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is well on the road to getting his sanctions lifted and keeping his weapons in the bargain.

Scott Ritter last month:

[W]e … allowed ourselves during the decade of the 1990s to be pre-programmed into accepting at face value without question anything that was negative about Saddam Hussein’s regime, and this made selling the war on Iraq on the basis of a lie the easiest task ever faced by the Bush Administration.

Scott Ritter in 1999:

A resurgent Iraq, reinvigorated economically and politically by standing up successfully to the United States and the United Nations, will be a very dangerous Iraq …

Scott Ritter last month:

One of the reasons why we didn’t move to Baghdad in 1991 to take out Saddam was that there was wide recognition that if you get rid of Saddam and you don’t have a good idea of what’s going to take his place, that Iraq will devolve into chaos and anarchy. Well, we’ve done just that. We got rid of Saddam, and we have no clue what was going to take his place.

Scott Ritter in 1999:

No matter how difficult stopping Saddam Hussein is today, it will become more and more difficult, and extract a higher and higher price, the longer he is left to rebuild his arsenal.

Scott Ritter last month:

I’m a big proponent of bringing the troops home as soon as possible.

Scott Ritter in 1999:

[Iraq] sooner or later will have to be confronted by American military might.

Scott Ritter last month:

[I]f we wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, then we should have had a debate, discussion, and dialogue about the real reasons and not make up some artificial WMD.

Scott Ritter in 1999 (extract from Ritter’s Endgame):

Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of precursor chemicals used in manufacturing the VX nerve agent, as well as precursor chemicals used in manufacturing GA, GF, and GB nerve agent. All four agents were produced by Iraq in binary form …

The equipment for the two chemical agent production lines that remain unaccounted for could be transported in fifteen to twenty trucks. This type of mobility plays to the strength of the SSO-run concealment mechanism, and makes targeting—by weapons inspectors as well as the US military—extremely difficult …

Iraq has probably retained several Al-Hussein warheads filled with a dry BW agent, probably anthrax.

And so on, and on, and on. Seymour Hersh, whose interview with Ritter produced last month’s quotes, failed to ask a single question about Ritter’s earlier views. Luckily, we’ll get to ask the, ahem, straight talking former marine officer ourselves when he visits Sydney later this month.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/31/2005 at 10:50 AM
    1. Ah, the Janus-headed Mr. Ritter. I wonder if he unwinds at the end of a busy day creating disinformation by chasing himself around the block?

      Posted by paco on 2005 10 31 at 12:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. And, of course, his words today will be waved about by amnesiacs in the ‘growing’ ‘anti-war’ ‘movement.’

      His words from yesterday, like the words of American politicians who talked tough throughout the 90’s about regime change in Iraq, have gone straight down the memory hole.

      Gramsci and Orwell must be spinning fast enough in their graves to generate electricity.

      Posted by cosmo on 2005 10 31 at 12:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. Seymour Hersh, whose interview with Ritter produced last month’s quotes, failed to ask a single question about Ritter’s earlier views.

      That’s because Hersh is a propagandist, not a journalist.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 10 31 at 12:44 PM • permalink

 

    1. Scott Ritter June 2001

      ALBANY, New York (CNN)—Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and U.N. weapons inspector who has been an outspoken critic of a possible war with Iraq, was arrested in 2001 and charged with a misdemeanor after allegedly communicating with an undercover officer posing as a 16-year-old girl, a source close to the investigation has told CNN.

      Now we know how he unwinds after the end of a busy day.

      Posted by ErnieG on 2005 10 31 at 01:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, yes!

      Who wants to form a contingent to attend his talk in Sydney on November 28? I am so there!

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 10 31 at 01:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Scott Ritter in 1999:  Receives income as a weapons inspector.

      Scott Ritter in 2005:  Is flush with money from mostly unstated sources.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 31 at 01:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. I forget, wasn’t somebody financing Ritter’s “documentary” a few years ago supposedly on the Oil-For-Food recipients list?

      Ah, yes, Wikipedia to the rescue:

      In addition, Ritter’s documentary was financed in part by Detroit businessman Shakir al Khafaji. Al-Khafaji, who gave Ritter $400,000 to produce his film, has admitted that Saddam’s regime awarded him oil vouchers worth more than one million dollars under the scandal-ridden Oil-for-Food programme run by the UN.

      Posted by PW on 2005 10 31 at 02:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. I am told that one never refers to a Marine not on active duty as a “former Marine.” Once a Marine, always a Marine, as they say. I believe that if make an exception in Mr. Ritter’s case, no Marine would object.

      Posted by ErnieG on 2005 10 31 at 03:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. My mistake. I was thinking of the term ex-Marine.

      Posted by ErnieG on 2005 10 31 at 03:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Are there Burger King’s in OZ? Scottie needs some place to entertain his younger distaff fans.

      Posted by Cracker Barrel Philosopher on 2005 10 31 at 05:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. Even the Marine Corps needs to take a dump now and then.  Hence, Scott Ritter.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 10 31 at 05:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hook him up to a wind turbine.  His vacillating could generate megawatts.

      Posted by anthony_r on 2005 10 31 at 06:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ritter changed his mind about the issue of invading and occupying Iraq, so what he says today simply must be untrue. Ad hominem tu quoque.

      Posted by DBO on 2005 10 31 at 07:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. Scott Ritter WAS a Marine. He has debased the Corps with his professional and personal actions and no longer deserves the title US Marine! Those of us who served in the USMC are proud of our country, proud of our service and proud to have worn the Globe and Anchor. He is none of the above.

      Semper Fi

      Posted by Abu Qa’Qa on 2005 10 31 at 07:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. Gawd, either you really are a moron, dbo, or you just play one on blogs. The point isn’t so much that he’s changed his mind, but that he’s whitewashing his own history. Or how else would you explain comments such as (quoting from the post):

      [W]e … allowed ourselves during the decade of the 1990s to be pre-programmed into accepting at face value without question anything that was negative about Saddam Hussein’s regime…

      …when he in fact was one of the major reasons that everybody was convinced that Hussein either had WMD or was close to developing them? He was a UN weapons inspector, fer chrissakes.

      But hey, at least you’re consistent. Lefties applauding other lefties’ selective amnesia, absolutely no surprise there.

      Posted by PW on 2005 10 31 at 07:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. PW, it’s common practice for the right (and often enough the left as well) to attack an individual’s credibility in order to later dismiss his/her argument. This is happening with Ritter and others ad nauseum. To suggest that a given argument is wrong because its proponent has been inconsistent in the past is a fallacy. Simple.

      Posted by DBO on 2005 10 31 at 08:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. I wonder if he unwinds at the end of a busy day creating disinformation by chasing himself around the block?

      Only if there’s a 12-year-old girl running away from both of him.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 31 at 08:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. dirtbikeoption—but to observe that he has himself lied about what he said in the past is always useful…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 31 at 08:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tim Blair for the rotating chair at Media Watch.

      This is the kind of stuff they should be doing!

      Posted by JamesP on 2005 10 31 at 08:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. And the filthy lucre, PW, don’t forget the filthy lucre.  Scott Ritter had a price tag.

      Posted by Sortelli on 2005 10 31 at 09:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Evil Pundit—Dress as Catholic High School Girls when you go…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 31 at 09:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. DBO, Ritter has the perfect right to change his opinion about the merits of the war whenever he feels like it. The problem is that he made factual assertions about WMD which he has been furiously backtracking from or denying ever since. If he had any honesty, he would recall that he strongly (almost hysterically) argued for the continued existence of Iraqi WMD only a few years ago, and remind his moonbat supporters that the US/UK governments were honestly mistaken about WMD – not lying.

      The more interesting thing from my perspective is how his personal misdeeds always get brought up. I hereby coin Mandrake’s Law #1: Within the first half-dozen posts on a thread discussing Scott Ritter, someone will mention his predilection for underage girls.

      Now, Ritter is a genuine chickenhawk, and I don’t condone him one little bit. But it is strange that you rarely get this sort of issue brought up on left-wing blogs. Is this because:
      a) the left is more gentlemanly and doesn’t stoop to personal vilification of a sexual nature, or
      b) the left has less ammunition since there aren’t as many perverts and deviants on the right?
      Discuss. 😉

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 10 31 at 09:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. #22 personal vilification of a sexual nature

      if he’s bonking a consenting adult, someone else’s wife or a bloke, who cares.

      if he’s chasing underage skirt, that’s illegal, and makes him fair game.

      simple

      Posted by kae on 2005 10 31 at 10:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. In September 2002, the noble. Mr. Ritter said this in Time Magazine:

      It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I’m not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.

      If a few kids have to suffer to gain peace, no problem.  How in the world do you sleep at night, scumbag?

      Posted by JimC on 2005 10 31 at 10:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m actually comforted by how little credibility Ritter seems to have.  In a world where Joe Wilson can be a proven liar and still be trusted by people (who, ironically, are obsessed with “lying”), it’s almost a miracle that there aren’t more people riding on Scott Ritter’s coat tails.

      But it is strange that you rarely get this sort of issue brought up on left-wing blogs.

      Yeah, try to count the posts discussing anything about Bill Bennett and see how long it takes for them to mention gambling.

      Sure, Ritter’s sexcapades are just an ad homeniem attack against him, but hey.  The guy’s a slimeball.  I’m not going to cry about all the millstones he puts around his neck.

      Posted by Sortelli on 2005 10 31 at 11:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. To suggest that a given argument is wrong because its proponent has been inconsistent in the past is a fallacy. Simple.

      DBO, credibiity of an information source is critical.  Since Ritter has consistently backtracked and whitewashed his original UN reports (as Lionel and others have pointed out), his credibiity is greatly reduced…if not erased completely.

      That you consider Ritter to be “inconsistent” is mind boggling.  I’d describe him as “unscrupulous” or “unstable”, myself.

      And it’s not that anyone is “suggesting” that Ritters’ “argument is wrong”.  People are stating either he lied when he was a UN weapons inspector, or he is lying now, since his position on Iraq has changed directions by 180 degrees since 2001.  That he received a huge chunk of money from a shady source since 2001 points at the probability that Ritter is lying now.

      But what if Ritter did lie while a UN weapons inspector?  If so, note that if Ritter did lie back then, his testimony directly supported one aspect of justification for the Iraqi invasion.  In which case, Ritter is directly responsible for many deaths in Iraq…no?  By your logic, anyhow.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 11 01 at 01:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. PS:

      DBO, I should clarify that I don’t mean “your logic”, as in you personally.  No, I refer to the logic from many lefties, which may or may not include you.  My apologies.

      And the logic that I referred to?  Simple:

      BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 11 01 at 01:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. PPS:

      Now that I think upon it, I have a new slogan for the left, suitable for chanting, if they are truly for peace in Iraq, as is their claim:

      RITTER LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 11 01 at 01:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Lionel — I dunno about you exotic Commonwealth types, but the deviates do skew left over here, it seems, not only the NAMBLA types but fine upstanding citizens like Kennedy, Clinton and Condit.  Ever Peckerhead Bob Packwood was a classic RINO (Republican In Name Only) with the one of the highest ratings in Congress from liberal and women’s groups.

      Simple fact is, groups like NOW and the defunct Hollywood Women’s Political Caucus knew about Packwood and Clinton long before their peckerdillos became public knowledge, and defended them because… they were saying the right things.  Major “feminist” groups that placed women in jeopardy, knowingly, from these dirtbags in exchange for political gain.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 11 01 at 01:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. #29

      the deviates do skew left over here
      What about the televangelists, J Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, and the list goes on – these arent RINOs.

      Posted by IanMc on 2005 11 01 at 03:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. There’s a left-wing website that specialises in “outing” gay Republicans and smearing them as “hypocrites”. I think that counts as vilification of a sexual nature.

      Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 11 01 at 03:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Lee Harvey Oswald holds the gold medal for being the most infamous former US Marine.

      Ritter looks to be running a close second at this stage.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 11 01 at 06:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Ritter is damaged goods.
      Many of our talking points revolve around rules. We are approaching the point where there are no rules, only winners and losers.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2005 11 01 at 06:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. Janus headed?Two faced? More like Linda Blair…

      Posted by crash on 2005 11 01 at 07:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. Its a funny thing but I had been thinking about Scott Ritter this afternoon before I read your post. There have been four nights of rioting in the Paris suburb of Clichy and the current interior minister Sarkozy has been criticised by most of the mediafor being heavy handed in his use of the police and using the word “racaille” (rabble) to refer to the rioters. A former interior minister, Chevenement, was interviewed and said that Neighbourhood Policing methods should have been used and describing people as “rabble” was out of order. Now if any politician in France is linked to a word it is Chevenement and the word “sauvageon” which has a horticultural meaning but is used to indicate “savage” ,”yobbo” etc.
      He used this term on the occasion of similar riots in Lyon a few years ago. Needless to say no reference to this was made during the interview; it would have been off message.
      Just the same with Ritter in the immediate ante war period. I saw him several times on TV and not one reference to the contents of his resignation letter.

      Posted by Gordon_Walker on 2005 11 01 at 12:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. ’and right now I’m waging peace.’

      ‘You see I have a revenue based model for my findings and right now, and for the foreseeable future, the pro Saddam income potential is enormous. This is always subject to review but it seems unlikely to change until we either withdraw or a Dem is elected. If you put a timetable on that I can see my findings of no weapons increasing thru 2Q08 but potentially declining during and after 4Q08. Check back with me then.’

      Posted by IcallMasICM on 2005 11 01 at 01:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Get the FUCK off of my obstacle course, Pyle!”
      — Full Metal Jacket

      Posted by mojo on 2005 11 01 at 02:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. People are stating either he lied when he was a UN weapons inspector, or he is lying now, since his position on Iraq has changed directions by 180 degrees since 2001.  That he received a huge chunk of money from a shady source since 2001 points at the probability that Ritter is lying now.

      Furthermore, we’re supposed to believe that Ritter was completely wrong back when he had the kind of access to information that mid-level intelligence agencies can only dream about, but several years after he ceased having any kinds of useful contacts and access, he’s a paragon of credible analysis. Come again?

      I’m afraid that “the less you know, the more credible you are” only works on gullible lefties, as evidenced by the one on this thread.

      Incidentally, I agree with Lionel Mandrake that there’s really no need to bring up Ritter’s pedophilia, err, troubles. There’s plenty enough other mud sticking to him.

      Posted by PW on 2005 11 01 at 04:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. Incidentally, I agree with Lionel Mandrake that there’s really no need to bring up Ritter’s pedophilia, err, troubles. There’s plenty enough other mud sticking to him.

      I disagree; that particular bit of news is as likely the basis of his “conversion” as financial dealings.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 11 01 at 07:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. IanMC—you mean proud Democratic-son gay man Roy Cohn? That guy?

      Televangelists? I’ve heard of Falwell taking up with hookers, which, while sleazy and hypocritical, is not non-consensual sex, a la Packwood and Clinton…

      And was there ever any shred of evidence about Hoover, or is that just too good an image to pass up?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 11 01 at 09:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m afraid that “the less you know, the more credible you are” only works on gullible lefties, as evidenced by the one on this thread.

      I believe that saying “gullible lefties” is redundant, much like saying “the red haired man had red hair”.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 11 02 at 06:20 AM • permalink

 

  1. And regards #39—PW has the right of it.  Ritter was never charged with a crime in that case.  It’s pure gossip.  And your counterpoint is pure speculation without any basis, Rob.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 11 02 at 06:22 AM • permalink