Since all intelligence indicated that WMDs were there and there are signs that weapons were moved just before the war, since Scott Ritter was on Saddam's payroll, since Scott Ritter also said that the US would never reach Baghdad and would lose the war, I will stick with the more credible source, George W. Bush.

there's no way the administration would be falling all over itself denying they were going to attack Iran if in fact they were going to attack Iran in a few months, especially in such an overt manner. We threatened Iraq in every way possible before we finally attacked them - we are un-threatening Iran very vocally. Bush's domestic support would crumble if he did this after saying over and over he wouldn't - at the very minimum there will be an unambiguous ultimatum first.

Where does Ritter claim to get his information from?

Scott Ritter is a paid-off shill who has no credibility at all. He couldn't find WMDs in Iraq when they were actually there, mainly because he didn't want to. Bush may have his shortcomings, but he's not quite as clapped out as Ritter - who is, really?

Dave

Before I could answer that I'd need to know whether Ritter is actually on Al Jazeera's payroll or merely an editorial contributor.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders...

Ritter knows this -- how? This and his quotes from the article it links to both read like a Papal ex cathedra pronouncement; "I know this because it is true."

And sorry, but it sounds to me too much like Dan Rather's protestations that his story must be true even if the evidence supporting it was forged.

Who in the administration would be nuts enough to tell Ritter anything?

Dave

Exactly, Dave.

Plus, Ritter has a strong motivation to claim this knowledge, to support his claims that he did a good job as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, and thus that the Bush administration's decision to go into Iraq was part of the same Machiavellian scheme as this putative attack on Iran.

It is really tragic to read the completely kneejerk reactions of nalle and drpat et al

There were no weapons, ritter didn't work for saddam, there were and are no hidden weapons and the whole issue is a red herring to distract Americans from actual IMPORTANT issues facing the world. All this threat to america and democracy stuff is hysterical nonsense.

please, come on, let's get serious...

Oh, Dave. You ask, "Who in the administration would be nuts enough to tell Ritter anything?"

Why do they have to tell Ritter a thing? All they have to do is scrape up some cash, pay off a journalist, and they get their misinformation out.

"Ritter has a strong motivation to claim this knowledge, to support his claims that he did a good job as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq" Why would Ritter need to support any claims to doing a good job in Iraq, haven't we fought a whole war that has just proven the claims he made before the war and disproven the claims that George Bush made before the war?

So, because you don't like what Mr. Ritter says, he must be an enemy of America? But a man who says "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." and sends more than a thousand Americans soldiers to die in a war he himself NEVER would have fought in, THAT is your hero? And how can he make this claim when the evidence of the UN Inspectors DID leave doubt of WMDs in Iraq? I was able to have doubt out on the West Coast of the US based strictly on news accounts, apparently by not reading the newspapers Bush was completely unfinformed of the UN Inspectors reports, no wonder he had no doubts, he never listened to anything he didn't want to hear.

"Since all intelligence indicated that WMDs were there" Read the Scott Ritter quote again, that IS intelligence and it indicated that WMDs were NOT there. Claiming there was overwhelming proof and agreement back then does not make it so, you may recall that many countries and many Americans were not at all convinced of WMDs in Iraq, and guess who was right? Those who believed a President couldn't POSSIBLY lie to them if it wasn't as important as a blow job in the white house? Or those who read the various reports at the time.

I'm sorry Ritter was right and Bush was wrong, but insulting Mr. Ritter still won't make Bush tell the truth about WMDs.

I have listed my reasons for taking Ritter's claims with a large grain of salt. If that is insulting to Ritter or to you, Big Time Patriot, I'm sorry you're so easily offended.

When we have President Bush stating publicly that his administration has no plans to attack Iran, and Mr. Ritter stating that he has sure knowledge that they do, it's entirely reasonable to ask where Ritter got that information, and to evaluate his potential reasons for believing as he does.

That is a rational response, alienboy, not a jerk of the knee. The reflex reaction is to automatically side with either statement without further examination or thought.

"He couldn't find WMDs in Iraq when they were actually there"

They were there? Where are they now?

drpat, a studied response is not a rational one. refusing to accept facts despite all the evidence is simply prejudice.

This is all old news so you are unlikely to let the facts get in the way of your dogma now. shame really.

a studied response is not a rational one. refusing to accept facts despite all the evidence is simply prejudice.

alienboy, where is the evidence for Ritter's assertion that the Bush "...has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005"?

Prior to the recent Iraq war, the only people in the world who were afraid of an attack on their soil by Iraq were...
not the Israelis...
not the Iranians...
not the Saudis...
not the Kuwatis...
answer - the Americans. Americans, already in a heightend state of fear after the horrifc 9/11 attacks, were taken advantage of by the Bush administration, by means of frightening the public to believe that the Iraqis were an imminent threat.

Does anyone remember this?

People are right to be skeptical about Ritter, though. Who's payroll is he on? Follow the money, the judge his credibility.

"When we have President Bush stating publicly that his administration has no plans to attack Iran, and Mr. Ritter stating that he has sure knowledge that they do, it's entirely reasonable to ask where Ritter got that information, and to evaluate his potential reasons for believing as he does."

It's also entirely reasonable to question whether a President who made the quotes earlier mentioned is telling the truth THIS TIME. A President who claims to be trying to reduce the deficit in half in 5 years, but doesn't count his own wars, his own desired permenant tax cuts OR his own plans for social security.

I guess I wasn't trying to contrast someone who has shown himself to be basically willing to lie to America for his personal gain with someone who has shown himself to tell the truth to America even if it is unpopular with some people... To quote a man who came in second in vote totals in one election and had the most Americans ever vote against him in his next election "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Bush has fooled us all once...

I didn't mean to say that you personally, DrPat, were calling Mr. Ritter an employee of Al Jazeera, I was replying in general to some of the other posts in the list, but in putting that paragraph after one in which I quoted you in particular I see that it might have been construed that way.

>>Prior to the recent Iraq war, the only people in the world who were afraid of an attack on their soil by Iraq were...<<

Come again?

>>not the Israelis...<<

Where every suicide bomber's family got $25K direct from Saddam.

>>not the Iranians...<<

Which had been invaded twice by Iraq and was fighting an ongoing border skirmish war with them.

>>not the Saudis...<<

Their stated target for invasion after the invasion of Kuwait.

>>not the Kuwatis...<<

Who had already been invaded by Iraq and plundered and raped as a nation and individuals.

No, none of them were at all worried about Iraq - oh, of course not.

>>answer - the Americans. Americans, already in a heightend state of fear after the horrifc 9/11 attacks, were taken advantage of by the Bush administration, by means of frightening the public to believe that the Iraqis were an imminent threat.<<

Actually, I don't think anyone considered a direct Iraqi attack on America an imminent threat. The concern was that Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing. Attacking America directly wasn't Iraq's style not to mention being too dumb for even Saddam to try.

Dave

it was obvious bush planned to go into iran before ritter claimed to have evidence. follow carefully US stonewalling of european diplomacy. NYTimes reported today bush lied in his speech in germany (NYT 2/24/05 p.A8) about iran signing a treaty not to enrich uranium, and of course the whole axis of evil statement. our foriegn policy is clearly on track to manufacture another war, similar to the strategies proposed by the neocon's New American Century.

i know this argument is more like religious conviction than rational analysis, but its difficult for me to understand the bush supporters in this particular conversation. ritter was right. all along. period. the administration has lied. repeatedly. if you wish to embrace the lies and hope neocon theocratic fascists make the world a better place for you thats fine, and it may be a good bet for white christian red staters, but please acknowledge your blind and maniacal love of the state instead of yelling deinal at a wall of truth...

this argument is more like religious conviction than rational analysis...

Yes.

the central issue, which remains unanswered, is where did Ritter's information come from?

Dave, maybe it was fed to him by Karl Rove (in the same way Dan Rather's fatal misstep was engineered by Rove.)

end sarcasm.

Scott Ritter's claims prior to the Bush's Iraq Invasion included: Iraq had less than 95% of the chemical and biological weapons that it had after Iraq War I. He stated that Iraq did not have nuclear capability. Ritter also claimed that Iraq's Military would be a push over for the US, but a guerrilla war would ensue. He has been more correct than the Bush Administration. In fact, Ritter has been correct 4 times and Bush Administration has been correct 0.

Ritter's Source: "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.""
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295

I believe Ritter, since he has consistently been right.

The Dalfour report said no evidence that Iraq made any WMDs since 1991. The WMDs did not get "moved" to another country.... they simply did not exist. There is no evidance to support the claim that they got "moved".

Ritter wasn't the only one to figure out that there was no WMDs there. I figured it out too. Amazing what a Google search and a thinking mind can do.

C'mon everybody, it's a well known fact that contemporary politicians lie. It0s part of what they perceive as politics.

Officials serve the process they work in, trying to do what's right. Without political influence, they have no reason to lie.

So, who would you believe, the politician or the civil servant or researcher?

Anybody who bases their world view and understanding on political thinking has got an inherent problem with facing the facts, by definition.

alienboy, if you change "lying" to "spinning to their greatest advantage" I'll go along with your statement.

I will reiterate: the headlines every single day scream out that the administration is doing everything it can to avoid the military option, I would guess mainly because it is simply not politically, economically or logistically practical as long as we are so deeply entrenched in Iraq (and Afghanistan, and ...)

Hmm... tricky question.

Scott Ritter.

Now, I'll have 'Haliburton links with Saddam' for 300, please.

I wonder how many people -- on both sides of the question -- had their minds made up before even reading the post? That's an object lesson in itself.

>>Now, I'll have 'Haliburton links with Saddam' for 300, please.<<

As one of the largest oil service companies in the world Haliburton, of course, has links with EVERYONE who tries to pull oil out of the ground. And guess what, it means nothing at all.

dave

If you look past the headlines every single day screaming out "that the administration is doing everything it can to avoid the military option" you'll find that the source is the administration, which kind of puts a ding in the credibility.

Non-adminstration sources, like Hersh, have evidence of a different reality.

I'm confident that the administration is planning an attack on Iran. It may not be an invasion, but rather some "shock and awe" from 30,000 feet and missile batteries.

And it may not come to fruition for some reason or other, but I think it is naive to believe it is not being planned.

Whatever your current thinking, it's worth reading (or re-reading) the Hersh article (opens in new window).

I think most interested people read Hersh when it came out.

As has been stated many times before, there is "planning" of every kind going on for almost every imaginable scenario, it's the only way to not be caught off guard. And a surgical air strike, or secret commando operations are very different things than an invasion.

I believe the greatest concern is that any overt military action will rally nationalism in an environment where there is strong, if diffuse, opposition to the anachronistic government in power.

>>I'm confident that the administration is planning an attack on Iran. It may not be an invasion, but rather some "shock and awe" from 30,000 feet and missile batteries.<<

We already have SOG units operating inside Iran, so in a sense we're already attacking them.

That said, I feel little sympathy for Iran. They're reprehensible bastards, one step from the Taliban, and they need to be brought into line.

I'm up for anything short of an actual war if that's what it takes to get them to wake up and smell the reform.

Dave

"Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing." Well, we know they weren't working with Al Qaeda, they had a few meetings but there is no evidence of collaboration. What is the name of the OTHER terrorist group that Iraq was working with to attack America?

Also, some of you keep denying Scott Ritter could be telling the truth because you don't believe there is one American patriot who would be willing to spill the beans on another half-assed invasion plan? Maybe there is someone who supports the troops MORE than they support George Bush having to be honest with America?

Could be..

If you don't care who told Robert Novak the name of an undercover CIA agent, why are you so determined not to listen to this information without a certified testimonial statement?

All the signs that were there before the Irag war are now showing up for an Iran war, the same people are in power, they have mostly denied any failure in their previous judgements, why do you have trouble believing they will make exactly the same judgement now? Nobody in Europe or the Middle East (except for possibly Israel) is asking for an invasion of Iran, (exactly the same as before Iraq).

If there is a war with Iran, will Republicans be claiming next year,
"It was unanimous, all the countries were with us, we had to do it."? Pay attention NOW to what support there is for a war with Iran and whether anybody except the administration (the same people who sold us WMDs in Iraq) claims to have any proof of immediate threats?

BTP:""Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing." Well, we know they weren't working with Al Qaeda, they had a few meetings but there is no evidence of collaboration. What is the name of the OTHER terrorist group that Iraq was working with to attack America? "

Well, they were working with Hesbollah to attack Israel, we know that. That those 'few meetings' with Al Quaeda included hosting a training camp, substantial amounts of money changing hands and shelter and medical care for Al Quaeda leaders. So there's plenty of reason to expect them to be willing to sell WMDs to Al Quaeda. And frankly, who realistically believes Saddam wouldn't sell WMDs to anyone at all who wanted to attack the US?

Dave

You said "Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing."
"Well, they were working with Hesbollah to attack Israel, we know that." That is NOT being involved in attacking America.

You said, "those 'few meetings' with Al Quaeda included hosting a training camp, substantial amounts of money changing hands and shelter and medical care for Al Quaeda leaders." My understanding is that the training camps were in the area of Iraq out of Saddams control, that he was prevented from controlling partly through our "no fly zone" (I'm not saying that was our intent, just a sad byproduct of the whole mess). Who gave money to whom? I'm not too sure about that, did bin Laden give money to Saddam or vice versa? How much is substantial amounts of money? Thousands, millions?

But this is the one that cracked me up, you said: "And frankly, who realistically believes Saddam wouldn't sell WMDs to anyone at all who wanted to attack the US?"

That sounds pretty threatening, except that Saddam DID NOT HAVE ANY WMDs. You could have said, "frankly who realistically believes that if Saddam could fly and he had small pox germs handy, he wouldn't personally have dropped blankets infected with Small Pox on American cities." It would be just as true of an argument.

Actually, here is something to think about. If the US started dropping bombs on Iran, there would be one strategic reply that comes to mind for Iran.

What would happen if Iran sent several hundred thousand troops over the border into Iraq? Our soldiers would be pinched right in the middle if the insurgents also decided that was a ripe time to go all out. What a freaking mess that would be...

anoyne read Teeth of the Tiger - Tom Clancy?

This all reminds me of that. And if you read that as I did - I'm sorry. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much trying to describe the action of tanks fighting. Boring. The first half of the book was good though.

I'm not sure it's possible to respond to you last post, BTP, since it essentially consists of unsupported denial of established facts, but here are a couple of points.

If Saddam supported terrorism in Israel why is it unreasonable to expect him to support it against the US?

The Al Quaeda training camp in northern Iraq was apparently built and protected by Iraqi soldiers - no flying required.

Do remember that we all thought he had WMDs, and whether he actually did or not doesn't matter. If we thought he had them and it was reasonable based on past actions to assume he'd pass them on to terrorists, it was reasonable to assume he was a threat.

Dave

The very last thing this country needs is another ill-conceived and poorly executed war.

"Do remember that we all thought he had WMDs, and whether he actually did or not doesn't matter."

I think you are having a little confusion between what you believed and what "we all thought"... If you believe that the entire world believed Iraq had WMDs (apparently Scott Ritter is surely not one of "we"), well, there is a word for it, one that Mr. Bush sometimes likes to use, its "revisionist history". All I can say is that there were doubts about George Bush's reasoning and proof BEFORE THE WAR. Did you not notice any "No Iraq War" signs anywhere in the United States? What do you think that "we all were thinking"?

Well, I'm done with this for now, but I will tell you this now. SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IRAN MAY NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR THREAT WORTH STARTING A WAR OVER. Got it? Print this out and tuck it aside and after the Iran war starts, pull it out and look it over before you start saying "we all thought this" or "we all thought that".

88% of the US population thought Saddam had WMDs - that's 'everyone' enough for me. And that included all sorts of experts and a majority of people in both parties, etc. This is old news. Don't act as if it's some sort of revisionism. Surely you remember.

As for the 'no war in iraq' people. Most of them though Saddam had WMDs too, they just didn't want to go to war in Iraq on principle.

Iran is a different deal. I don't think we should go to war there uinless circumstances change radically. But something does need to be done to neutralize any atomic threat from Iran, and it does seem pretty clear they're set on having a bomb come hell of high water.

Dave

< irony>
Iran is, of course, a lot more of a nuclear threat than North Korea.
< /irony>

I think Iran is acting very rationally from their perspective.

They can see that countries that actually have nukes get tippy-toed around instead of threatened by George "Bring 'Em on" Bush.

Dave...

>>>>Now, I'll have 'Haliburton links with Saddam' for 300, please.<<

As one of the largest oil service companies in the world Haliburton, of course, has links with EVERYONE who tries to pull oil out of the ground. And guess what, it means nothing at all.<<<<


Erm... but Haliburton had links with Saddam *during* the sanctions, and its subsiduaries helped Saddam skirt them. Indeed, Cheney has been less-than-honest about this going on while he was at the company. If it means "nothing at all" then why won't he be honest about it?

I think what people are missing here is that America HAS plans to attack Iran means little or nothing. America HAS contingency plans to attack Russia or any other country. Its JUST a plan of action, its not set in stone, besides that it would be an AIR Attack on IRAN designed to take out the supposed Nuclear sites, its not an Invasion force.
Secondly, if Scott Ritter were really on Saddams payroll, don't you think Bush would have him strung up in Git. Bay out of reach of the Media?
Heres one to think on:

Whom are you most Likely to Believe?
A)Reagan whom Called them Freedom Fighters,
B)Bush Jr. whom Called them Terrorists.
C)None of the Above

The Correct answer is 'C'

Saddam was a toothless tiger but Bush wanted to tie up the Iraqi oil to let prices soar. That's pretty obvious now. We thought the Neocons were just inept bunglers, but this was their plan all along.
It's easy to verify from U. N. and U. S. gov't documents that more WMD was destroyed in Iraq by the U. N. inspectors than by either the U. S. invasion and/or bombing raids. Now the real WMD's in Iraq are the Depleted Uranium weapons dropped by the U. S. on the poor people of this abused country!!!! Our own soldiers will suffer terrible diseases in years to come from these hideous weapons!!!!

Amazing. In 2005, after years of occupation and a scouring of the country without a shred of evidence supporting the administration's claims (I'm not talking about the significantly altered claims made afterwards to try and make us forget what the claims actually were), so many people were still willing to believe George Bush over a decorated marine who had actually spent time REALLY working against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and who was, after all, dead-on about the outcome.

It makes me wonder whether our need to engage in idolotrous adulation of a human being has become so severe that we will continue to fabricate fake pasts for monsters whom we will elect under the illusion that they will protect us from reality. Reality, alas, doesn't care whether or not we want to know it. It has a way of getting our attention or killing us.

It's noteworthy that the media has boycotted Scott Ritter.

He doesn't get around much anymore.

What does that say about the media?