The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 3rd, 2017 at 11:28 am
Senator Strom Thurmond in 1998: “Saddam Hussein had reason to fear Major Ritter’s expertise and perseverance.” According to this Scott Ritter interview, those fears were groundless:
By removing Saddam, we undid the glue that held Iraqi society together and the end result is the chaos and anarchy that we witness.
Quite a change, that, from Ritter’s opinion six years ago:
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.
Also from the above-linked interview, Ritter’s view on the patriotism of Gold Star mothers who support the war:
Waving a flag on the street corner does not make you patriotic or support the troops. I could train a monkey to do that job. You’re only a patriot if you’ve read the Constitution, and you live the Constitution, and I would say that Cindy Sheehan and those who support her, and those who speak out against this war are far more patriotic than any gold star mother or anybody else who stands on the street corner and encourages a war that’s based on a lie and can only result in the death and dismemberment of more American troops.
Remember that line the next time anyone on the left complains about their patriotism being questioned.
- That seems to becoming standard leftist rhetoric. Better for people to be murdered by their own government than by foreign terrorists.
Speaking of, it seems some people are finally concluding that Saddam was an awful guy and that it was worth getting rid of him. The article also mentions France’s close ties with the tyrant:
The big black book of horrors
WITH the trial of Saddam Hussein under way, those in the God-damn-America camp find themselves uncomfortably wedged. Should they justify their opposition to the war by downplaying Saddam’s crimes while sheeting home blame for the present turmoil to the US and its allies? Or do they opt for the defence of moral equivalence, conceding that Saddam was indeed a monster but those US presidents who once backed his regime, including George H.W. Bush, are the real monsters.The best riposte to this warped analysis is a scholarly and sober 700-page volume recently published in France, of all places.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 12 03 at 06:23 AM • permalink
- I actually agree with the glue observation. Saddam was the glue, but at huge expense. It turned the country into a nervous, unhealthy, even sick society.
One of the big problems the Saddam regime created was the idea that you are either top dog or dead meat. There is no place for losers in any power battle to spend their days in the peace and prosperity enjoyed by Western equivalents who lost contests for power (eg Al Gore, John Major etc).
These terrorist groups are indeed fighting for their lives – come out on top or get killed. No middle way.
The consequence of this: the current turmoil in Iraq would probably have happened sooner or later – even if Saddam had died peacefully in his bed. The death of Tito is probably the closest precedent – he kept a tight lid on simmering tensions, and once he died, it was 15+ years of mayhem. Our activities in Iraq now are bringing the problem forward so it is dealt with rather than waiting.
We can argue the toss about whether we should have dealt with the problem now or in 15 years or so when Saddam pegged it. But the problem wouldn’t have just evaporated, that is for sure.
One wonders what the Not In My Name crowd would have done in 15 years if Saddam died peacefully.
Posted by Flying Giraffe on 2005 12 03 at 07:44 AM • permalink
- Flying Giraffe,
One other point, how many Iraqis would’ve died in a successful attempt at overthrowing the Baathist bastards in charge of Iraq. Me, I think the toll would’ve been in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands.
And at the end of the day what would Iraq have looked like? Not something that you or me would recognize as a functioning democracy, that’s for sure.
Posted by David Crawford on 2005 12 03 at 08:08 AM • permalink
- David, I agree, it would have been a bloodbath.
Have a look at this:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/freethecpt
Relates to the peace activists taken hostage in the past week. Petition is signed by the usual moonbats.
These moonbats still don’t get it. They think the appeasers will get lighter treatment from the thugs. They still imagine the islamofacists are heroic in the mould of the French resistance in WW2.
I don’t wish harm on the hostages, but whether they get out alive or not, I hope others in their crowd get the right message.
If I were a coalition soldier I really wouldn’t feel too motivated to risk my life in a rescue – just not worth it. If any of them are killed in rescue, I think there will be blood on the hands of the CPT.
Posted by Flying Giraffe on 2005 12 03 at 08:41 AM • permalink
- So, how long before Ritter either moves abroad to pedo-frendly nations like Jacko, Gary Glitter, and Polanski all did, or will he just claim to have been set up like Roj Blake was in “Blake’s 7”?Posted by Cybrludite on 2005 12 03 at 08:42 AM • permalink
You’re only a patriot if you’ve read the Constitution, and you live the Constitution…
Sounds like a variation of the chickenhawk argument to me. I agree that US citizens need to understand the Constitution, but it’s not like you have to be a constitutional scholar to support America. A simple understanding, at the level of what I learned in my high school civics class, should suffice. IMHO, anyhoo.
Also from that Ritter interview:
Well it’s curious that we suddenly went to war to depose a brutal dictator. That wasn’t the case being made. And if you call yourself an American citizen and if you understand the importance of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, you can not accept any notion of the ends justifying the means.
That puzzled me, so I did a quick review of the US Constitution on what it says about war:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. ”
A few Amendments discuss personal rights in time of war, but that’s all that the Constitution says on the general subject of war.
So Ritter is referring to…..what? The “rule of law” in the Constitution says that any rules of law are made by Congress. There’s nothing explicit in the Constitution on the rules of law, similar to what might be seen in the Geneva Convention. So what “rules of law” is Ritter referring to? So much for reading and living the Constitution to be a patriot. By his own standards, a patriot he ain’t.
Congress did approve the war, and set some rules (and continue to monitor the situation, and try to change things, which is their duty, I just wish they were less stupid about it), so I suppose that his reasoning is part of his “BUSH LIED!” screed, in some odd fashion. Not that his interview is anymore intelligent further on.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 03 at 11:29 AM • permalink
- Ritter must be referring to the US Constitution in effect in the Alternaverse United States described in Howard Zinn’s works of “history”…
Seriously, variations on “unconstitutional” must be the new anti-war buzzwords on the left. No need to have any meaningful content behind it, just use the buzzword and everybody will magically recognize the rightness of your position. In short, they act as though the entire population is made up of impressionable 18-year old college freshmen who will swallow any kind of nonsense as long as the speaker uses polysyllabic words.
- Yeah, PW, I think that you’re right. In some ways, this reminds me of religious fanatics who hold up whatever holy book they claim to follow, and say that they are right because the Bible/Koran/whatever says so.
And, not so oddly, that’s not the first analogy comparing leftwing moonbats to religious fanatics I’ve seen.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 03 at 12:29 PM • permalink
- There’s a difference between glue and a tub of cement around your ankles…Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 12 03 at 01:55 PM • permalink
So, how long before Ritter either moves abroad to pedo-frendly nations like Jacko, Gary Glitter, and Polanski all did
Gary Glitter seriously miscalculated, and is now facing a possible death sentence. No-one tell Ritter, maybe he’ll make the same mistake.
- jic, that article says nothing about a death sentence, just a mximum of a 12 year prison term. Where do you get that from?Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 03 at 04:03 PM • permalink
- JeffS, towards the end of the article there is comment on child-rape, which sex with a 12 year old is considered. The maximum penatly for that is death by firing squad.Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 12 03 at 04:52 PM • permalink
- Increasingly, words are stripped of their actual meanings, becoming vaguer and more emotive than content-driven. “Patriotism” and “constitutional,” and “rule-of-law” seem to be taking that track. Their current meanings are shading into “what’s good for the world,” “like international charters,” and “subject to restraint by their moral superiors,” respectively.
This is what often happens to words over time, in any language (Cf “awful,” “gentleman”). But it does not have to pass without notice or opposition. On each of those words, lefties pressed for definitions will have to give something different than the usual meaning of the words.
The left draws its persuasive power from using alternative meanings of important words.
Keep pressing them for what they mean. Let ‘em talk, don’t shut ‘em down. But always press them to clarify.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot on 2005 12 03 at 07:55 PM • permalink
- Looks as if Scott doesn’t think much of the absolute moral authority of Gold Star mothers.
I an torn concerning Mr. Ritter, though. Did he turn his coat because of a half million bucks, or did Saddam have photos of him and 12 year old girls? What’s the price tag on his betrayal? I’d be disappointed that a former Marine could be turned by any monetary amount – gotta be the girls, huh?
Hmmm, that doesn’t sound any better, does it?
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2005 12 03 at 10:06 PM • permalink
- Thanks, Nilknarf. I missed that tidbit.
Death by firing squad for child rape? Works for me.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 12 04 at 01:09 AM • permalink
- Scott Ritter is the glue holding together a mass of contradictions in the cause of his own financial advancement. He tells us he has ‘nothing to lose’ – except that the war goes well and dries up his engagements, I guess.
He told us in Aust. this week his motivation is the oath he took to serve the USA faithfully. He didn’t need to take an oath to serve fascism, but he’s doing that anyway.
The guy could talk under wet concrete, you’ve got to hand it to him. Pity about the false loyalty.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Do you think Cindy Sheehan has?