Remember these?

[turbocarrera]

Ritter recieved 400k from an American of Iraqi descent(Shakir Khafaji - to say he was paid off by Iraq is a joke) to help finance Ritter's documentary "Shifting Sands" which chronicles the history of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.

He never said Iraq was WMD free, he said the inspectors needed time to do their job. I have a hard time believing that someone with his level of dedication to the Marines and his country would abandon it all for such a paltry sum - he could make that in a month on the lecture circuit.

The fact remains that Iraq said they had abandoned all WMD programs and had destroyed their stockpiles, the inspectors said there was nothing there and agreed with Iraq's 12 000 page report, Bush came in, killed 100 000 people, and found nothing.

As much as I try to understand it, your position just doesn't hold water.

[fintstone]

Once again, Ritter was sure there were WMDs before he got paid..and was sure there were not afterward. He had not been an inspector in the interim and, as thus, had no new information. He had never been a filmmaker and to pay him $400k to learn to make a film is just silly. What makes you think he was such a great marine and had such a great level of dedication to his country?...and why did he abandon the Marine Corps if not for money? $400k is certainly not a paltry sum to a GI that never made over $80k a year in his like. The only reason he could make any money on the lecture circuit is his reversal of position on Iraq.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it probably is a duck.

Although the inspectors could not find significant amounts of WMD, they did find that Saddam never accounted for the WMD (as required) that he acknowleged having earlier

Heck, they just found WMD stockpiles in Albania that were lost for 30 years. The fact that we found no WMD in Iraq does not prove that there were none. I have not been able to find a '73 911S in a barn but that does not prove there are none. Just like the US soldiers....I cannot look in every barn.
As much as I try to understand it, your position seems to come to conclusions that are not supported by fact or logic.

[turbocarrera]

Time: In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

Ritter: I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Sound like he was sure to you?.. well, maybe to you

Scorsese wasn't always a filmmaker either..

12 years as a Marine Corps intelligence officer isn't dedication? He only leaves to head a team who's mission is to rid Iraq of WMD. Definitely no dedication there..

Since when do think Marines are so shallow? That if you dangle some cash in front of them they will commit treason at the first opportunity?

Yeah, why on earth would any institution hire someone to speak about the events that have led to what your leader has called "the greatest challenge in our nation's history".. I'm sure they'd much rather have Coulter.. with all her intelligence experience.

I wonder if having your country bombed to hell and back makes you lose track of stuff... hmmmm.. I wonder. Maybe when your country is bombed to smithereens things actually get, you know, destroyed...

Lost in Albania eh? Wow. How many weapons inspectors did they have in Albania? I bet you a gazillion dollars that there are ZERO WMD unaccounted for in any former communist republics. I'm good for it, really.

If you tell the whole world, "I know EXACTLY where to find HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of '73 911s'" and then you can't find one.. not even sport seats or a tranny? Well, you look pretty damn stupid, and the world tends to think you were lying in the first place.

Keep it coming 'stoner.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by turbocarrera

Scorsese wasn't always a filmmaker either..

I imagine that he didn't get his very first, no experience attempt in the industry fully funded. Yep, Any ex-marine that wants to make a little documentary (non-profit) gets $400k thrown at him...LOL

Originally posted by turbocarrera

12 years as a Marine Corps intelligence officer isn't dedication? He only leaves to head a team who's mission is to rid Iraq of WMD. Definitely no dedication there..

Since when do think Marines are so shallow? That if you dangle some cash in front of them they will commit treason at the first opportunity?

No, 12 years in the service does not impress me too awfully much. Clearly he could have stayed in the service and continued to serve his country instead of serving Saddam. As far as $400k being just "some cash"...lots of folks have betrayed their country for an awful lot less.

Originally posted by turbocarrera

Yeah, why on earth would any institution hire someone to speak about the events that have led to what your leader has called "the greatest challenge in our nation's history".. I'm sure they'd much rather have Coulter.. with all her intelligence experience.

It seems that they would hire someone with more current experience/knowledge than Ritter...unless of course, he changed his story and said what they wanted to hear....Then he suddenly was in demand to speak at the liberal event du jour.

Originally posted by turbocarrera

I wonder if having your country bombed to hell and back makes you lose track of stuff... hmmmm.. I wonder. Maybe when your country is bombed to smithereens things actually get, you know, destroyed...

Lost in Albania eh? Wow. How many weapons inspectors did they have in Albania? I bet you a gazillion dollars that there are ZERO WMD unaccounted for in any former communist republics. I'm good for it, really.

Of course Albania was not bombed...and they didn't even know where their WMD stockpiles were themselves. The WMDs were not even hidden and were lost in a very small country for 30 years! Imagine if, like Iraq, they had 12 years to hide them!

Iraq clearly and admittedly failed to provide documentation of the destruction of their WMD (as they had agreed to after the first gulf war) before being bombed...that is, of course, why they were ultimately bombed.

Originally posted by turbocarrera


Keep it coming 'stoner.

Please don't resort to namecalling.

[fintstone]

After Ritter's last inspection (but before his payoff)....

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

[turbocarrera]

Once again, Ritter has never said Iraq was WMD free, he said the inspectors should be allowed to do their job to try to avoid an unnecessary war.

Here's some other opinions on Saddams arsenal..

“He has not developed any significant capabilities with regards to weapons of mass destruction and he is unable to project conventional powers against his neighbors.” - Colin Powell (Jan, 2001)

“We are able to keep weapons of mass destruction from him and his military forces have not been rebuilt.” - Condoleeza Rice (Jun, 2001)

Blow 'em outta the water, Fintstone..

[fintstone]

Scott Ritter's testimony to Congress, 3 Sept 98…before he left the military to accept a high paying job working for Iraqi (Saddam's) interests.
quote:

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I cannot speak on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear disarmament issues in Iraq are their purview. But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers. And if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs.

After Ritter is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Iraq he comes out with the conclusion that there are no WMD there:

Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected in August 1995. We achieved our final breakthrough prior to his defection. I have the transcripts of the debriefs of the son-in-law, Hussein Kamal. Listen to what he said: "I ordered in 1993 that all remaining weapons be destroyed. Today in Iraq there are no weapons. We destroyed them all." How does Dick Cheney turn that statement into one saying Saddam Hussein's son-in-law spilled the beans about Iraq's weapons program? All he did was confirm our conclusion that in fact these weapons had been destroyed."

Ritter quit in 1998 during the the Clinton administration after claiming that Iraq had not disarmed and that he felt that Clinton was not nearly hard enough on Iraq. After 4 years of not going to Iraq or receiving any type of intelligence...suddeny he started claiming Iraq was disarmed. Of course his current liberally funded lecture circuit story is otherwise. I guess it is good to be a liberal and when things don't work out as you planned...all you have to do is change your story and all your supporters ignore your previous mistatements..Kerry is not the only flip-flop down artist in liberalland.

If Ritter resigned as an inspector in 1998, he has less knowledge of current intel than even I do. How do you suppose that he is any more knowlegeable about Iraq's weapons programs after he stopped being an inspector than when he was one? We know that on the day he resigned, he felt Saddam had an active program. The only thing that really changed was where his paycheck was coming from. Of course he done a good job, aided by the liberal press, revising what he said and wrote about at the time.

[turbocarrera]

I agree with you 100%, Ritter's a lying traitor.

What are your thoughts on Condi and Powell's pre 9/11 position?

[fintstone]

I guess it depends on what Powell meant by "significant." If that meant on par with Russia or the US...or with Libya and Israel. Unlike Ritter, Both Powell and Rice were privy to current Intel and were (hopefully) not on Iraq's payroll. US intel assessments significantly changed after the quotes you posted while our tolerance for risk decreased. Like all leaders, they must depend on the accuracy of the info they are provided. An attack in the US on civilians was unthinkable prior to 9/11....After Saddam clearly rejoyced at our losses in 911..."significant WMDs" with mature delivery systems were not the only thing to fear from rogue regimes. Obviously, less capable WMDs in the hands of ruthless terrorists could be quite effective. A reasonable person would assume that if Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have met the terms of his agreement after the first Gulf War before going to war with a superpower. Now we know he felt secure in the knowledge that he had paid off members of the Security Council to prevent such a war. Since he was used to dealing with Clinton, he did not count on the US having a president with courage and resolve to go it alone.

[turbocarrera]

I understand you now. The administration gets a pass but Ritter is a traitor.

Good day to you, sir.

[fintstone]

Either you did not read my posts entirely or you intentionally misrepresent my position.

I am not sure if making a propaganda film for Saddam would actually make Ritter a traitor...he speaks for himself in no official capacity...other than the staus that you and other anti-war folks give him. The same folks that call similar Marine Corp majors "brainwashed fools" when they speak in support of the war.

The point is...Ritter changed his mind without any new information...other than his increasing bank account.

The administration received new information for four years prior to our excursion into Iraq...that Ritter was not privy to (as a... LOL.. "filmaker") ...clearly a difference.

I do not expect that David Kay or any of the other inspectors illegally shared any classified intelligence with him after he lost his clearance. Especially since he was being highly paid for his work on a project that benefitted Saddam. Unless, of course he learned something new when he was in Iraq as a guest of Saddam.

He was paid through an intermediary..an Iraqi-American who is currently being investigated for the large amount of money he made through the "oil for food program."

Seems several prominent anti-war democrats were also given money by the same "oil for food" benefactor as Ritter had. I'll bet that didn't affect their position on the war either. LOL.

I would tend to agree with the administration's original position.....although prohibited WMD and delivery devices were indeed found in Iraq...stockpiles, in fact, have not been. Not finding them does not indicate that they did not/do not exist....only that they have not been located. We also cannot locate Bin Laden, so why is that a suprise?

Good day to you also.