Full Version: Is Scott Ritter a traitor?!?!
Scott Ritter over the weekend gave a speech before Iraq's Parliament.
Where he stated that; America was making a big mistake to attack Iraq,
America was acting out of pure fear, Iraq has no weapons of mass
destruction (like he would know), and that Iraq is not responsible for any
terrorism (again, how would he know).
Is Scott Ritter a traitor for his statements? Should he be charged with
aiding and abetting the enemy?
---
John H. - Photographer specializing in American Bald Eagle photos.
Prints of Bald Eagles online at: http://www.eaglestock.com/Prints_of_Bald_Eagles.htm
Free Beautiful Patriotic Eagle Screen Saver / Wallpaper at
http://www.eaglestock.com/patriot-eagle.htm
Or just visit my site and view the dozens of dramtic and scenic wildlife
photos http://www.eaglestock.com
Where he stated that; America was making a big mistake to attack Iraq,
America was acting out of pure fear, Iraq has no weapons of mass
destruction (like he would know), and that Iraq is not responsible for any
terrorism (again, how would he know).
Is Scott Ritter a traitor for his statements? Should he be charged with
aiding and abetting the enemy?
---
John H. - Photographer specializing in American Bald Eagle photos.
Prints of Bald Eagles online at: http://www.eaglestock.com/Prints_of_Bald_Eagles.htm
Free Beautiful Patriotic Eagle Screen Saver / Wallpaper at
http://www.eaglestock.com/patriot-eagle.htm
Or just visit my site and view the dozens of dramtic and scenic wildlife
photos http://www.eaglestock.com
Hey John.
There has been some speculation in the media regarding Scott Ritter's stance on inspections.
Apparently, he was originally a hard-nosed inspector who was frustrated with the lack of access Iraq was providing to the inspectors, with the Clinton administration's support of UNSCOM, and with his percieved inaccuracy of reported inspection results.
According to Salon.com, he challenged Schwarzkopf's tallies of destroyed SCUD missiles, believing the numbers were inflated.
But then in 1998, he abruptly resigned.
Some believe he was in some way compromised by the Iraqis and was forced to perform an about face regarding weapons inspections.
Whatever the case, Scott Ritter is a fence sitter, and he seems to fall off onto differing sides at random intervals.
On August 31, 1998, Ritter was interviewed by Elizabeth Farnsworth:
If this is how he felt in 1998, why did he change his mind?
Since he hasn't been an inspector since 1998, I doubt it comes from first-hand experience.
I think the media needs to let this guy's extended 15 minutes expire.
Mike
There has been some speculation in the media regarding Scott Ritter's stance on inspections.
Apparently, he was originally a hard-nosed inspector who was frustrated with the lack of access Iraq was providing to the inspectors, with the Clinton administration's support of UNSCOM, and with his percieved inaccuracy of reported inspection results.
According to Salon.com, he challenged Schwarzkopf's tallies of destroyed SCUD missiles, believing the numbers were inflated.
But then in 1998, he abruptly resigned.
Some believe he was in some way compromised by the Iraqis and was forced to perform an about face regarding weapons inspections.
Whatever the case, Scott Ritter is a fence sitter, and he seems to fall off onto differing sides at random intervals.
On August 31, 1998, Ritter was interviewed by Elizabeth Farnsworth:
QUOTE
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is it your contention that without a significant and realistic threat of military action, Iraq will not allow the investigations to begin again, beyond just the monitoring that's already going on?
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, in this I would only echo the words made by the Secretary-General and other personnel back in February, who said that you couldn't have had the February MOU without the real and credible threat of military force. That's an obvious statement. You can't expect to enforce the law unless you have the means to carry out the enforcement.
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is it your contention that without a significant and realistic threat of military action, Iraq will not allow the investigations to begin again, beyond just the monitoring that's already going on?
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, in this I would only echo the words made by the Secretary-General and other personnel back in February, who said that you couldn't have had the February MOU without the real and credible threat of military force. That's an obvious statement. You can't expect to enforce the law unless you have the means to carry out the enforcement.
If this is how he felt in 1998, why did he change his mind?
Since he hasn't been an inspector since 1998, I doubt it comes from first-hand experience.
I think the media needs to let this guy's extended 15 minutes expire.
Mike
Personally i think Saddam has gotten to scott ritter. that is my only explanation. He flip floped soo fast, maybe Saddam has his family in a basement somewhere, or a gun to his head off camera?
all i know is he is WRONG< attack today.!!!
all i know is he is WRONG< attack today.!!!
I would definately support that mentality if anyone can provdei any proof.
Scott Ritter must be mentally unstable. He was a vehement supporter of the US' current position on Iraq until he was rebuked by Richard Butler. Ritter wanted Butler's authority, but was flatly refused. He resigned and flip-flopped publicly after being given the boot. He is unstable. Not a traitor.
he admitted foxnews to recieving 400,000 dollars from an iraqi official, for a "private business deal" ... he is a regular benidict arnold.
QUOTE(ScreeminDeemin @ Oct 2 2002, 12:46 AM)
he admitted foxnews to recieving 400,000 dollars from an iraqi official, for a "private business deal" ... he is a regular benidict arnold.
I saw every interview he did on Fox.
He said he received $400,000 to make a documentary, not a private business deal. From what I can find, the contributing party was not an Iraqi official.
Ritter said that his salary from that was $80,000, of which he had to put $28,000 back in to the over-budget movie.
I'm doubting that Ritter would destroy his career for a quick $52,000. It's really not that much money when you consider he was likely paid well.
Mike
i must have misunderstood sorry... i wasnt into politics then but everyone made it sound like he was positive that saddam was hiding weapons and it was a very scary situation, then it all changed around the time he got those monies.
well goodnight, see you all tomorrow.
well goodnight, see you all tomorrow.
Hey, no need to apologize.
I'm just a new junkie with a knack for numbers and way too much free time.
Mike
I'm just a new junkie with a knack for numbers and way too much free time.
Mike
All numbers aside. He is a traitor at best.
You don't do that.
You don't publically disagree with your leader in the land of enemies
You get behind him publically, and PRIVATELY disagree.
I wonder what the Iraqi's must be thinking.
Probably the same thing the Cubans thought when Jimmy Carter visted a few months ago.
--cheers
You don't do that.
You don't publically disagree with your leader in the land of enemies
You get behind him publically, and PRIVATELY disagree.
I wonder what the Iraqi's must be thinking.
Probably the same thing the Cubans thought when Jimmy Carter visted a few months ago.
--cheers
I 've seen his interviews at well. There's nothing traitorous about voicing your disagreement with the president, no matter where you are.
I agree that his is not a traitor.
He certainly suffers from bad judgement.
Unless he actually gave Iraq classified information, the Constitution protects his right to speak.
I don't think he gave Iraq classified information. I believe he has been out of the "Intellegence Loop" for quite some time now, not to say he was ever in it at a significant level from the beginning.
Mike
He certainly suffers from bad judgement.
Unless he actually gave Iraq classified information, the Constitution protects his right to speak.
I don't think he gave Iraq classified information. I believe he has been out of the "Intellegence Loop" for quite some time now, not to say he was ever in it at a significant level from the beginning.
Mike
I would have to say that the very fact that his loyalty and patriotism, and/or sanity is being questioned does not bode well for the level of objectivity with which this question is being asked. As I understand it, Mr. Ritter's objections stem more from the haste and timing of this actions, as well as the concept of acting unilateraly. What's so terrible about that? When Saddam sent that letter to the UN stating unrestricted access to weapons inspectors, mr. Ritter's response was that this is the rope by which Saddam will hang himself. He went on to state that if we do inspections now, and there is even the slightest attempt to have the inspections thwarted, then there is an iron-clad reason that would be aceptable to the world community in which to go and use military force to get the job done.
I don't think he's insane, delusional, or a traitor. I think he means what he says, nothing more, nothing less, and to impugne the man's motive's on the basis that one is in strong disagreement with his views, is hardly the act of anyone who believes in the freedom of speech and thought.
I don't think he's insane, delusional, or a traitor. I think he means what he says, nothing more, nothing less, and to impugne the man's motive's on the basis that one is in strong disagreement with his views, is hardly the act of anyone who believes in the freedom of speech and thought.
QUOTE(David Charles Macdonald @ Oct 8 2002, 07:01 AM)
I would have to say that the very fact that his loyalty and patriotism, and/or sanity is being questioned does not bode well for the level of objectivity with which this question is being asked. As I understand it, Mr. Ritter's objections stem more from the haste and timing of this actions, as well as the concept of acting unilateraly. What's so terrible about that? When Saddam sent that letter to the UN stating unrestricted access to weapons inspectors, mr. Ritter's response was that this is the rope by which Saddam will hang himself. He went on to state that if we do inspections now, and there is even the slightest attempt to have the inspections thwarted, then there is an iron-clad reason that would be aceptable to the world community in which to go and use military force to get the job done.
I don't think he's insane, delusional, or a traitor. I think he means what he says, nothing more, nothing less, and to impugne the man's motive's on the basis that one is in strong disagreement with his views, is hardly the act of anyone who believes in the freedom of speech and thought.
I don't think he's insane, delusional, or a traitor. I think he means what he says, nothing more, nothing less, and to impugne the man's motive's on the basis that one is in strong disagreement with his views, is hardly the act of anyone who believes in the freedom of speech and thought.
I make that judgement. The man apparently changed his view on Iraq after recieving quite a large sum of cash from an Iraqi supporter. Still going to sit there and make that kind of statement?
Darcaine
There are those that sit on the fence and listen to reasonable debate from either side and THEN decide which way to fall.
There are those who have already fallen off and cant be bothered to climb back onto the fence and listen.
There are those who NEVER got onto the fence to listen.
Pity.
There are those who have already fallen off and cant be bothered to climb back onto the fence and listen.
There are those who NEVER got onto the fence to listen.
Pity.
Darcaine- Please provide PROOF that Ritter took this money from an "Iraqi supporter" (and by the way supporter of what?)
Jaime
Jaime
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 8 2002, 08:33 AM)
Darcaine- Please provide PROOF that Ritter took this money from an "Iraqi supporter" (and by the way supporter of what?)
Jaime
Jaime
OMG you didn't know that? He admitted it right on Fox news. You in a cave?
Darcaine
QUOTE(Alan Wood @ Oct 8 2002, 07:40 AM)
There are those that sit on the fence and listen to reasonable debate from either side and THEN decide which way to fall.
There are those who have already fallen off and cant be bothered to climb back onto the fence and listen.
There are those who NEVER got onto the fence to listen.
Pity.
There are those who have already fallen off and cant be bothered to climb back onto the fence and listen.
There are those who NEVER got onto the fence to listen.
Pity.
And poor Alan fell off the fence hit his head and is STILL trying to climb that fence.
Darcaine
LOL..had too bro
Darcaine - If you are referring to the interview Mr. Ritter gave to Bill O'Reilly, I disagree with your interpretation.
Mike better described this interview in his October 2, post in this thread (which we watched together):
So, what I'm looking for is proof to the contrary. Thanks.
Jaime
Mike better described this interview in his October 2, post in this thread (which we watched together):
QUOTE
He said he received $400,000 to make a documentary, not a private business deal. From what I can find, the contributing party was not an Iraqi official.
Ritter said that his salary from that was $80,000, of which he had to put $28,000 back in to the over-budget movie.
Ritter said that his salary from that was $80,000, of which he had to put $28,000 back in to the over-budget movie.
So, what I'm looking for is proof to the contrary. Thanks.
Jaime
Speaking out against our government in a global forum is one of the greatest freedoms we have. The face of America that the world sees is the one that is ready to attack anyone we feel we need to. Scott Ritter is doing a good job of letting the world know that this is not the stance of all Americans.
Darcaine, read the thread before you post.
Darcaine, read the thread before you post.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 8 2002, 05:53 PM)
Darcaine - If you are referring to the interview Mr. Ritter gave to Bill O'Reilly, I disagree with your interpretation.
Mike better described this interview in his October 2, post in this thread (which we watched together):
So, what I'm looking for is proof to the contrary. Thanks.
Jaime
Mike better described this interview in his October 2, post in this thread (which we watched together):
QUOTE
He said he received $400,000 to make a documentary, not a private business deal. From what I can find, the contributing party was not an Iraqi official.
Ritter said that his salary from that was $80,000, of which he had to put $28,000 back in to the over-budget movie.
Ritter said that his salary from that was $80,000, of which he had to put $28,000 back in to the over-budget movie.
So, what I'm looking for is proof to the contrary. Thanks.
Jaime
Did I say Iraqi official? Don't you think it ironic the money changed hands and then the perspective changed?
Interesting....
Darcaine
QUOTE(Roy @ Oct 8 2002, 06:35 PM)
Speaking out against our government in a global forum is one of the greatest freedoms we have. The face of America that the world sees is the one that is ready to attack anyone we feel we need to. Scott Ritter is doing a good job of letting the world know that this is not the stance of all Americans.
Darcaine, read the thread before you post.
Darcaine, read the thread before you post.
Nothing wrong with speaking your mind. We just need to know the motives behind the switch in story. I find it puzzling the media is making him the poster boy of the anti-war movement and hasn't even taken the time to research this guys story. Very interesting indeed. I'm surprised the conspiracy nut cases haven't jumped on this.
Darcaine
This comes down to that good old "Is the media liberal or conservative" topic. Why haven't the conservative media types jumped all over this? Is it because there's nothing there?
Our media makes a HUGH scandal out of a president getting a BJ from an intern. You would think that if there was something to worry about here it would by a mound by now but were looking at a mole hill.
The money he would've gotten is just not enough for something like this. Do you think they threatend his family and this has caused him to jump the fence? Why can't his words be sincere?
Our media makes a HUGH scandal out of a president getting a BJ from an intern. You would think that if there was something to worry about here it would by a mound by now but were looking at a mole hill.
The money he would've gotten is just not enough for something like this. Do you think they threatend his family and this has caused him to jump the fence? Why can't his words be sincere?
QUOTE(Roy @ Oct 9 2002, 03:04 PM)
This comes down to that good old "Is the media liberal or conservative" topic. Why haven't the conservative media types jumped all over this? Is it because there's nothing there?
Our media makes a HUGH scandal out of a president getting a BJ from an intern. You would think that if there was something to worry about here it would by a mound by now but were looking at a mole hill.
The money he would've gotten is just not enough for something like this. Do you think they threatend his family and this has caused him to jump the fence? Why can't his words be sincere?
Our media makes a HUGH scandal out of a president getting a BJ from an intern. You would think that if there was something to worry about here it would by a mound by now but were looking at a mole hill.
The money he would've gotten is just not enough for something like this. Do you think they threatend his family and this has caused him to jump the fence? Why can't his words be sincere?
To be honest I really didn't care Clinton got a BJ. What offended me more than that was how friggin ugly she was! You would think the President of the United States could do better than that. Well..that and the perjury of course.
And what does this have to do with Scott Ritter??? 
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 9 2002, 05:53 PM)
And what does this have to do with Scott Ritter???
Not a damn thing.
Scott Ritter has absolutely NO credibility. He entirely too compromised to be of any worth.Darcaine
Look; war is ugly and worthless. The taking of innocent lives, or the crippling and maiming of people...
Nevertheless, allowing a person such as Scott Ritter to be the spokes person for the anti-war movement is like giving Adolph Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize.
Scott Ritter is a compromised individual, he has excepted money from a regime which starves, murders and gases their own people (how many people went hungry, and Scott took their food money), and it has come to everyone's attention that he likes little girls.. surfs the Internet Chat rooms looking for someone's child to..? yeah, the guy sounds reputable to me, sure...
No war, sure.. but not because some diddler says so.!
** If we do go to war with Iraq and remove Saddam, we may just end up with another Israel / Palestine problem on our hands... Kurdish politicians have already voiced their desire to have an independent Kurdistan.
So where will it end..? What are we getting ourselves financially involved in..? What will be the repercussions from terrorists..?
...and really President Bush, what are you trying to prove to your daddy.? "That you can finish off what he didn't..?"
Nevertheless, allowing a person such as Scott Ritter to be the spokes person for the anti-war movement is like giving Adolph Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize.
Scott Ritter is a compromised individual, he has excepted money from a regime which starves, murders and gases their own people (how many people went hungry, and Scott took their food money), and it has come to everyone's attention that he likes little girls.. surfs the Internet Chat rooms looking for someone's child to..? yeah, the guy sounds reputable to me, sure...
No war, sure.. but not because some diddler says so.!
** If we do go to war with Iraq and remove Saddam, we may just end up with another Israel / Palestine problem on our hands... Kurdish politicians have already voiced their desire to have an independent Kurdistan.
So where will it end..? What are we getting ourselves financially involved in..? What will be the repercussions from terrorists..?
...and really President Bush, what are you trying to prove to your daddy.? "That you can finish off what he didn't..?"
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.