"A Weapons Cache We'll Never See" by Scott Ritter NYTimes op/ed

[MoonAndSun]

a good op/ed by Scott

link: <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/25/opinion/25RITT.html>


snip>

Today, with the tremendous controversy over the administration's pre-war assertions, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the archive that produced Iraq's 12,500 pages of claims — none of which have yet been shown to be false — that comprise the most detailed record of Iraq's weapons programs.

Next month the Iraq Survey Group will give a formal briefing to American and British officials on the status of its investigations. President Bush has already hinted that the group will make a case that it has found evidence of prohibited weapons programs and of efforts to hide them from international inspectors. Such a case may have merit, but without being able to compare and contrast it to the Iraqi version of events, I'm not sure how convincing it will be to the American public, or to the rest of the world.



:dem:

[duid12]

1. pedophile

Does anyone really care what scott ritters has to say? I mean really, isn't there a better spokesperson than someone that trys to lure underaged girls to his place to watch him masturbate?

[radwriter0555]

3. Considering it never happened. Gossip & Rumor mongering is

the weapon of the GOP.

I care HIGHLY what ritter says. He was framed in the case of the teenage girl. We all know that.

He is an honorable and esteemable gentleman, who, unlike BUSH, ISN'T A LIAR.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCDemo]

6. Geez

Ya gotta learn that trashing someone's character does not diminish their message.

I'm sure you worship Ronald Reagan. He raped a woman. Does that change your opinion of him and his acheivements?

Didn't think so.

Go find a rock to slum under.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Has he been convicted anywhere but a court of public opinion?

Given all the cover ups and squashed investigations about many of our public servant's private picadillo's, I won't hold this against one of the few real experts in Iraqi WMD capability...even if he is a Republican.

Nice smear, though...

[Monte Carlo]

8. Anyone can make accusations, especially at convenient times...

... such as right before he was to give an important speech detailing Bush's fairytales about Saddam's capabilities. Nothing ever came of that accusation - it was a smear, plain and simple.

For a Dean supporter, you should know better.

[madfloridian]

11. Use of this term could be considered libel.

I am surprised this post is still here.

[MoonAndSun]

12. Where are your links to prove Scott is a pedophile???

well???????


I thought so.

:dem:

[liberalnurse]

14. I don't care if he "f*cked" the Popes colostomy.

He has a strong voice in the WMD's issue....the issue that claimed we were in immenant danger of harm!

Personalizing people you have nothing to do with....is a weakness.....often seen by tunnel vision republicans.

[TacticalPeek]

15. Whew! Them pedophile priests must have yanked your chain! LOL n/t

[joanski01]

2. I don't know what to say.

These people are unbelieveable! Fair elections in 2004, I don't think so.

[dennis4868]

9. BTW...

the charges against Ritter were dropped. If they had any good evidence against him he would have been indicted very quickly for the type of charges filed against him. CASE DROPPED = FORGOTTEN!

Ritter is a republican by the way....HE IS NOT A WHORE OR A PNCAN LOVER! Thank goodness for that.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. Stop Slandering...

Mr. Ritter!!!!! NOW!!!!!!

[jfxgillis]

13. Is this article also in another thread?

If so, I'd like to go there, because we're arguing about the wrong thing on this thread.

Ritter said: "SUCH A CASE MAY HAVE MERIT"

In other words, he's conceding Bush's claims (albiet equivocably) on the Op-ed pages of the New York Times.

That phrase I just quoted, people, is what the biggies in the Beltway are chattering about this morning, not some already adjudacated misdemeanor criminal charge.

[sandnsea]

16. Imminent threat

People are going to think I'm nuts I guess, but so be it.

Scott Ritter has always maintained Iraq had the capability of producing chem/bio weapons in relatively short order and that the inspections process was flawed in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons. This is not the same thing as intentions or actual activities to produce weapons. It is not the same thing as Iraq having weapons, as Bush claimed.

The Authorization put the inspections process back in motion. Bush derailed it. We can see by countries all over the world that this invasion was not to enforce UN resolutions, that's why they will not join in the occupation. Therefore, the invasion can only be legitimate to protect US security which requires the actual existence of weapons and imminent threat. THAT is what Bush never proved before the invasion and no amount of documents will prove it now. What Scott Ritter seems to be saying is David Kay can say anything he wants, but there's no longer any Iraqi documents to hold it up against to give merit to his claims. It will just be another mass of verbage that ultimately means nothing.

[jfxgillis]

17. Disagree

I think Ritter has had reliable word that more than documents have been found.

"Intentions" and "documents" will pale in significance once an actual weapon is produced, because that will support Bush's justifications EX POST FACTO, in the popular imagination. No matter how techically accurate your argument might be--and it's solid--most voters won't "hear" it.

I should add that I've DESPISED Ritter since his grandstanding before Congress in 1998. I did not trust him then, I did not trust him before the current crisis and I do not trust him now.