A friend sent me this funny comparison about Scott Ritter:
Life Imitates 'Saturday Night Live'
Fox News Channel's David Asman, interviewing weapons inspector turned Saddam apologist Scott Ritter, Sept. 12, 2002:
Asman: Let me read to you a couple of quotes. I'm sure you've heard it before, but these are from four years ago, when you sounded about Saddam Hussein not very much different from the way President Bush did today at the U.N. This one is from this week--August 30, 1998--"Six months is a very reasonable time scale for Iraq to resume weapons capabilities." The second two are from Good Morning America also in August of '98. First, "Iraq's job is to avoid bringing the world's attention to the fact they've retained these weapons," and then, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." Sounds like Saddam Hussein is very dangerous and could mount a chemical strike right now.
Ritter: And what point are you trying to make?
Asman: Do you disagree with that in any way, shape or form?
Ritter: I don't disagree with anything I've ever said. Why in God's name would I disagree with something I've said?
___________________________________
In a spoof of 60 Minutes, Harry Shearer as Mike Wallace interviewing Martin Short as Nathan Thurm on "Saturday Night Live," Nov. 17, 1984:
Shearer: Pardon me for saying this, but you seem defensive.
Short: I'm not being defensive! You're the one who's being defensive! Why is always the other person who's being defensive? Have you ever asked yourself that? Why don't you ask yourself that?
Shearer: [holds out paper] This is an affadavit.
Short: I know that!
Shearer: Well, let me finish. This is an affidavit from a woman who has severe nerve damage, on her upper thigh, from sitting on one of your defective whoopie cushions. Here, read it.
Short: You read it!
Shearer: Well, I have read it.
Short: So, why do I have to read it?
Shearer: Well, it does pertain to your company.
Short: I know that! Why wouldn't I know that? It's my company, I'm quite aware of that! [looks at the camera] Is it me? It's him, right?
____________________________
The full Ritter interview, with unintelligible parts because the transcribers for the Teleprompter weren't fast enough: foxnews.com
To which, my comment: As silly as the hairsplitting can be, I kinda get what Ritter seems to be about. He thinks:
1) Inspections can do the job, without bloodshed. And should be used.
2) Putting American lives at risk should not be done on 'maybes' and 'we think he mights' even if he is a cruel b*st*rd.
3) The US fouled the inspections deal by using it as a front for espionage, and Hussein's response, stopping the inspections, is understandable.
4) If we're asking Americans to risk their lives to eliminate an *ssh*le because he's an *ssh*le, tell it to those risking their lives. Don't sell it on 'maybes' that provoke fear to provoke the 'fight back' response. And don't sell it using mistruths about why Saddaam kicked out the inspectors because that's a false set-up.
5) If Americans still want to take down the b*st*rd, fine. But let America reach that decision as an informed choice, not a disinformed choice built on half-truths and fear-inducing speculation.
Certainly, I'm adding words to what Ritter said, but it seems to me this is what he means.
Perhaps he's (and/or I am) guilty of naivete. But I don't see anything unAmerican in his record of service or his words. And the seeming contradictions really aren't there. He admits what 'might be', while giving clear reasons about some possibilities being absurd (powdered anthrax).
I don't think he's saying we should not do a pre-emptive strike. It seems he's saying he believes we can achieve the same goal without warfare, but if we want to use warfare, make the case honestly.
Which sounds reasonable to me. |
