I Met Scott Ritter Today

I had the opportunity to meet Scott Ritter today and speak to him at some length about his views ... He was speaking in Massachusetts at a conference for adult educators. I was invited to attend the speech by a member of MCAE (Massachusetts Commission of Adult Educators).

Ritter was standing outside the conference hall before his speech. Being the typical shy DU'er, I went up to him and thanked him on behalf of DU for all the good work he was doing ... I asked him if he had ever heard or participated in DU? He said he's not big on the internet but his wife "visits" the democraticUnderground all the time ... he said he didn't know her screen name.

Ritter's speech left a large audience of educators with their jaws wide open. He was great. He was not left; he was not right; he was powerful and armed with facts ... The following is based on the notes I took during his speech and on an hour I spent with Scott, a local journalist and two or three other people after his speech ended ...

Ritter began his speech by talking about what it meant to be a "good American" ... he said that the American public is both fearful and uninformed. He said that the current Iraq policy is being driven by ideology (more on this later). The most dangerous weapon used by this administration has been fear. Even the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is used to instill fear ... far more people die from car accidents than die from WMD's ... there's no sense of proportion ...

He said that to truly be a "good citizen", Americans must do a better job learning what's in the Constitution ... The Patriot Act is a direct "frontal assault" on the Constitution and it sailed through the Congress with virtually no debate.

And as for Iraq, some of the allegations against Saddam's regime are true ... there are, indeed, mass graves and there were horrible human rights abuses ... but this was never the justification for war ... the primary reason provided to justify the war was Saddam's failure to comply with the U.N. resolution that said he had to destroy his WMD's ...

If you dig deep enough in Iraq, you will certainly find at least some evidence of WMD's, but you'll find more botulinin toxins in Boston than you ever would in Iraq ...

Many people say they support the troops in Iraq ... Stop and think about what we're doing over there ... Think about what makes a good war memorial ... when will we be satisified? Would it be a good war memorial if we had 200 dead? How about 1,000? or 10,000? When will it be enough? The Pentagon knows all too well that we can never win in Iraq because we went there on a lie ...

Powell's presentation of "evidence" to the U.N. couldn't pass the easiest cross-examination ... Powell held up a white vial suggesting that Saddam was producing "dry powder anthrax" ... he knew this was a lie and was totally unsupported by any evidence produced by inspections ... The last batch of "liquid anthrax" (less dangerous) was produced in 1991 and has a maximum shelf-life of only 3 years ... and we blew up the factory that was producing this liquid anthrax in 1996 ... so even if he had continued to produce it, there was no way he still had a supply or any production capabilities by 2002 or 2003 ...

Powell then spoke about remotely piloted vehicles that allegedly could disperse this "agent of death" dry powder anthrax (that did not exist) ... we saw the state of that program during our inspections ... Saddam's technology was not anywhere close to toy aircraft that you could readily buy in a toy store ...

Powell also presented ominous photos of a chemical storage depot with a wet ring around the bunker and a decontamination vehicle nearby ... Chemical weapons would have had to leave a very clear marker or "footprint" ... after we invaded Iraq, it was determined that the bunker was stocked with explosives that had the exact same lot numbers as the ones we reported at that same site during our inspections ... and the wet wring and the decontamination vehicle? the truck parked outside the bunker was the same firetruck we described in our report ... it was being used to water down the dust to prevent the dust from destroying the fusing systems on the explosives ... No chemical weapons, or traces of chemical weapons, were found on this site after the invasion ...

There was never a threat to this country from Iraq ... the invasion was pushed by a group of ideologues (wt2 - he mentions PNAC in his book) and was promoted without the "informed consent" of the American people. Your senator, Senator Kerry voted for the IWR to "give the President the tools he needed to lead the U.N." ... Senator Kennedy correctly understood that the evidence was a pack of lies.

What we need to do is to turn this whole thing over to the U.N. and support the troops by bringing them home now. I condemn Bush, Congress for their IWR vote, the media for not disclosing the truth and the American people for being so poorly informed on the issues. The only way we can extract ourselves from the mess we're in is to have a more educated people who know the Constitution. What we're seeing now is an oligarchy consolidating its power.

Question from audience: Can we simply "walk away" from Iraq now? Could the U.N. fill the void?

Ritter: My #1 priority is not the Iraqi people but rather the well-being of our troops. We must protect the lives of our troops by bringing them home. Most of you don't go to sleep panicked because you have not heard from a loved one who is serving in Iraq ... you wake up and it consumes your every waking moment ... if you don't get a call, you worry about whether something horrible has happened ... when the phone rings, you worry about whether this will bring the bad news ... If we want the U.N. to play a role, we must remove the
"America Only" presence ... until we do, no other nation will send in troops in a meaningful way ...

Question from audience: McCain said that he supports what we're doing in Iraq because it goes way beyond Iraq by showing that America is strong after we were attacked on 9/11 ... he sees it as a necessary component in the war on terrorism ... what are your thoughts about that ??

Ritter: Almost every country in the world opposes what we're doing in Iraq ... our presence in Iraq is doing nothing but making the U.S. a more likely target for terrorism ... we are not safer now ... we are less safe ... McCain doesn't know what he's talking about ...

My question: Eisenhower warned us as he was leaving office to "beware of the military-industrial complex" ... you stated that the reason Iraq is happening is because of ideological reasons ... do you think the primary motivation is ideological or commercial ??

Ritter: I think it's ideological ... I think it goes way beyond just making profits for the military-industrial complex ... i think they want to run up massive deficits ... i think it's ideological because part of their domestic agenda is to destroy Federal programs by making sure there's no money to fund them ... this isn't to say that there isn't a defense department, corporate agenda here ... there is ... but I think the motivation is much greater than that ...

At the book signing after the speech I asked Scott three additional questions ...

My question: Some have cited the U.S. government's slow reaction to the hijacked airliners as evidence that Bush was integrally involved with 9/11 and allowed it to succeed ... do you think evidence such as the failure to scramble military aircraft indicates that the military was ordered to stand down and let 9/11 happen?

Ritter: I think Bush was responsible for letting 9/11 happen ... i think he had extensive information that a terrorist attack was imminent ... and he did nothing to protect the U.S. ... i do not think, however, that he had prior knowledge of or any involvement in the specific events of 9/11 ...

My question: Do you think that the Bush family's close ties to the bin Laden family has had a major influence on the policies of this adminstration?

Ritter: In one word, "absolutely" ...

My question: Which presidential candidate most closely reflects your thinking on the issues?

Ritter: It's going to take much more than a Howard Dean or anybody else to solve this problem ... It will take the Congress and the American people to change the direction we're going in ... it will take much more than a new President ...

and good questions!

your report of the speech and questions.If only there could be thousands of such voices that could be heard. All things are possible though and perhaps this will happen eventually. Thanks very much!

impression that Ritter has a very clear view of the big picture, & that he's straight-talking & courageous, as well.

about just how partisan and how "label focussed" we've become ...

we all love to call ourselves progressives ... some like to label themselves as "very far left" of center ...

one of the things i thought about on my drive home from Ritter's speech is whether this does a disservice to our cause ... perhaps we would be more effective labelling ourselves as pro-American ... perhaps we should wave the Constitution in a "Byrd-like manner" and tell those we're trying to influence that we are "Patriots" ...

i worry that our self-labelling alienates those we are trying to educate and convince ... never once did Ritter uses the term "left" or "right" ... well, actually, he did refer to those in power as neo-cons ... anyway, the point is that he was very powerful and very effective and came across not as a "leftie" but as someone who wanted to take his country back from those who were not being true to America's soul ...

n/t

easily become a whole discussion in itself.

On the one hand, it's a kind of conceit that might encourage someone to label himself as "very far left" of center, esp. on a liberal anonymous website.

On the other hand, to RUN AWAY from the label "left," principally to avoid alienating mainstream Americans who've been indoctrinated to detest left-ism without even really understanding why -- this can be viewed in 2 ways. It may confer tactical benefits in "marketing" candidates or policies. But it's kind of cowardly, to kneel to social pressure to say that you're NOT something, when you really ARE that something.

To be "left" is to oppose the established order on the grounds that it results in unjust concentration of wealth & power. It isn't neccesary to have that orientation, to make the points Ritter is making. HOWEVER, if you DID have that orientation, you'd be more likely to appreciate Ritter's views, because they are damning for the established order. And one could have good reason for having a leftist orientation, even if Iraq had never happened.

So I think the 2 things (Iraq & left-ism) are quite separate, but not entirely so. I wouldn't feel comfortable denying my leftist views, just to appear more soothing & acceptable to mainstream Americans - though of course, there might be a tactical advantage in doing so.

I wouldn't feel comfortable denying my leftist views, just to appear more soothing & acceptable to mainstream Americans

nor would I !!!

at no point would i suggest that you do anything but clearly present your views to other americans ... it seems to me the point of discussing your views with them would be to educate them and convince them to act on those views ...

my intent was not to suggest a "camouflaging" of your ideas but rather to not label them in a way that might make you less effective ... for too long, the powers that be have been able to paint the left as unpatriotic ... for too long, it is the warhawks who "care about the troops" and the left who disdains them ...

that's not the way it really is at all ... frankly, i think the left shows far more compassion for the troops ... many of us want to bring them home now ... many of us know that injured troops are waiting 6 months or more for necessary surgery ... many of us watch as the right guts (and cuts) veteran programs ...

my point was that we should not let the right claim the high ground of patriotism ... better yet, we should label what they are doing as un-American ... we are the true Americans ... those of us who see the Constitution being trampled on by the Patriot Act ... they even label it the "Patriot Act" so that anyone who opposes it is unpatriotic by definition ... nice PR !!

my emphasis is not on deception but rather on keeping the focus on how what we endorse is in keeping with traditional American values and it is the right that violates the soul of America ... i was suggesting that perhaps our ideas would be "given a better listen" if we highlighted that we are concerned about the loss of traditional American values without labelling them as "leftist" views ...

it's not about changing your views ... it's about being more effective in having people open their minds to those views ... standing on the foundations of this country is more likely to get you a good listen than labelling yourself as a lefty ... and it's not just about packaging either ... it's tying your ideas back to ideas that many in the country already support ...

I wrote him a gushing email some time back, thanking him for taking on the risks of being a visible & knowledgeable critic of our Iraq policies. If my husband or I saw him, we'd be hard-pressed to not run up & hug the man!!
~Mich

It's almost like being there. I'm reading Franken's book and Ritter's book is next in my stack. Your post is like a primer.

Always respected the clench-jawed, determined Ritter ever since he remarked on the humanity of the Iraqis. There is something fundamentally good and decent about him, no matter how much they attempt to discredit him and dirty his name.

And what do you know, he is one of those nasty military guys---had only Kerry or Clark, who coast on their military credentials, demonstrated a quarter of his courage and an eigth of his "patriotism".

I got to see Ritter speak in Atlanta well before the war to a packed house. He was great. One of our New American Heroes (along with Joe Wilson, Ray McGovern and I hope many others to come).

Eloriel

Scott Ritter knows what he's talking about. I sure as hell trust him a lot more than the fascists who are orchestrating the Iraqi war and the aftermath. Great questions, BTW!

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

after his speech, Ritter spoke about the fact that many in the Bush administration took shots at him (he didn't say whether they were legitimate or not) but they have never been able to refute a single piece of evidence he's presented about Iraq ...

everything he had said prior to the invasion about WMD's has turned out to be true ...

stay focussed on the politics ... no value to helping the right smear a true american patriot (whether the allegations were true or not !!) ...

this is just another attempt

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

And I agree with WT2, cheap shot. Are you here to bray the right's talking points and character assasinations?

but it is difficult to talk to others and try to move them to our side because of the reaction they have when hearing Ritters name. His "issues" over shadow and virtually eliminate his effectiveness outside of the choir.

At least now you can throw Ze Zex-Maniac-Gropink Gobbernur of Cullyfornia in their face. No big deal, right?

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

:eyes: Very well:

i·ro·ny n. (pl. i·ro·nies)

1) The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2) An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3) A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).

An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
Dramatic irony.
Socratic irony.


----------------------------------------------------------------

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

know what he's talking about regarding weapons in Iraq. The two are unrelated. For example, a serial killer could be a specialist in architecture. The fact that he is a serial killer doesn't mean he can't design a building.

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

take a number?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

btw, back in the old days, i had the same sig !!

speaks VOLUMES in todays world...in light of the Patriot Acts I & II and John Ahscroft being let loose like a wild animal to trample on our civil liberties.

I guess I missed some reaction to my post about Ritter? All those deleted posts....geez. I suppose they were about his arrest....his being set up by the FBI? Was it about the SEALED COURT DOCUMENTS from his court case? Sorry, he was set up and the timing of the release of that story was another republican convenient story. At the time, Ritter was making the talk show rounds speaking out AGAINST the administration and low and behold...that story was released. Just amazin' ain't it? sheesh. I don't believe a word of it. It was a set up. JMCPO

I just finished Ritter's book. I would have liked to know why he isn't making more television appearances, especially in view of the 60 Minutes II and Nightline stories about the Aministration's lies? I wonder, is he not getting the invitations, and if not, why not?

those reports about the teenager he set up a meeting with over the internet. After that you didn't see much of him anymore.

I wouldn't call Ritter discredited, but a person whose actions have caused talking head shows to not want him as a guest.

was to "discredit" him. I personally think the charges were irrelevant.

do you have a resource link?

Here is just one link. There are many available.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m264375.asp?0dm=c18mn

Opening paragraph...

ALBANY, NY, Jan. 21 - The June 2001 arrest of former U.N. weapons inspector and Delmar resident Scott Ritter has made many headlines this week. Ritter faced misdemeanor charges for trying to solicit an underage girl for sexual acts. But the effects of his arrest ripple far beyond it.

have any links, but I'm sure many DUers saw the reports. They had "mugshots" shown with the reports. I personally do not think this is relevant to what he has to say. I think it was a cheap shot to leak this info to the press when it had nothing to do with anything he was commenting on. A person can have a personal problem and still have accurate information regarding their field of expertise. Even if the reports are true, it doesn't mean he is unqualified to comment on the Iraq situation.

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

n/t

Ritter was a hugh liability--it wasn't as if he lacked conservative credentials and standing in arguing his case and revealing the truth. It was destroying the case for war and based on past attempts to thwart legal elections and an array of blatant power grabs, only the easily duped would not consider the strong possibility of entrapment.

Yet you fell for it and turned the entire thread into that issue, hence the irony- you're the perfect example of how they discredited Ritter and sabotaged his message.
It's painful it is so obvious.

now you ought to write it up essay-like, and send it to Truthout.
I think there is a fellow there that appreciates Ritter's voice these days.
:thumbsup:

dp

:hi: I like how Scott is just a wealth of knowledge
and the way he presents himself "An American"

i.e. Don't ever vote for a republican!

than many realize. The preservation of the UN was at stake at that time, and its importance was emphasized throughout that debate by Dems like Kerry and Clinton.

a kick for the night crowd ...

:kick: