Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124538)	2/9/2004 5:23:56 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Great interview, thanks for linking it. Frankly, it confirms my view of Ritter as a blunt, intelligent and patriotic American. He has repeatedly said he didn't flip his story, for example here (a 1992 interview): Q. 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? A. I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! 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. I see nothing in the interview you linked that contradicts that statement, which he has said perhaps dozens of times in one form or another. Tenet is a survivor. And a CIA director. Public loyalty is part of his business. He isn't going to turn on Bush anymore than he would have turned on Clinton or Albright. Kay is a Republican. I don't doubt that he like many people thought that the war was a good thing. But even if he had or has doubts, I doubt he would express them publicly. To say that he is "dependent on no one in particular" is a little naive. However, please note that I am NOT accusing of him some nefarious behavior here. I do think he thinks what he said he thinks: that this war was a good idea whether there were WMDs or not. Look, I don't think that there was NO case for this war. At another time and in another way, it may have been a good idea. I just don't believe it was done in the right way at the right time--to repeat what I've said I don't know how many times before, the timing and the method was first and foremost politically motivated (politically, that is, in terms of the '02 elections, and then to get it out of the way for the '04 elections). So, for that matter is this transfer of power to the Iraqis: it isn't as though people in the Bush admin sat down and said, OK, what is the best way to transfer power to the Iraqis? No, I'm afraid I am cynical enough to believe that they sat down and said to themselves, how can we get a transfer of power (or what looks like a transfer) to the Iraqis ahead of the '04 elections to show some sort of progress, but in such a way that things don't blow up in our faces before the election occurs so that this issue is a positive for us? The whole idea of the caucuses as they structured it is so that they can still pretty much control whatever govt is in Iraq while attempting to confer the appearance of more legitimacy on it. I think that this spring offensive against Al Qaeda and big hunt for Osama that was just announced is the same thing. Some general just announced that they would find Osama in a year or less. If it was so easy, why haven't they done already? Or at least tried? I know, you could say, the time wasn't right. Or perhaps, the attempts on Musharref's life gives them a stronger ally that they lacked before. Frankly, if they had pushed rebuilding Afghanistan and hunting down Al Qaeda these past 2 years, we wouldn't be having this argument. And the image of the US in the world wouldn't be as tarnished as it is. I know, you keep saying that sanctions in Iraq were breaking down. But inspections in some form could have been continued if the US had framed it properly. It isn't as though the world trusted Saddam. Far from it. And we now know that the inspections worked.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124538)	2/9/2004 5:30:11 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, I couldn't see any changed story from that interview. He said then there were no weapons, just briefcases of stuff being moved around and attempts to maintain activities prohibited by the UN such as the Romanian purchase. They'd done 99% of the UNSCOM work and were being obstructed from doing the last bit. Looked at from Saddam's point of view and his supporters' point of view, the CIA was spying using UNSCOM and Scott Ritter supported that activity and the USA was out to get Saddam and maintain sanctions for no good reason. Even if they complied with UN requirements, they'd get to keep the sanctions. Forever and ever, Amen, or, more likely, until the Saudi oil ran out and some new sources were needed. It's all about the oil. As I've pointed out, the western oil industry profits were enormous and still are. Keeping such a huge supply of oil as the Iraqi fields off the market enables a hefty price boost for friends of the USA such as the Saudis [who seem peculiarly bent on supporting and conducting Islamic Jihad against the USA - and succeeded in the most spectacular attack ever]. Saddam had it figured out right at the beginning - he knew sanctions wouldn't be coming off, no matter what he did. Letting CIA spies crawl all over Iraq at a moment's notice wouldn't be contributing to Saddam's health or that of his supporters, so it's obvious that they would offer as much resistance as they could. Scott Ritter still looks okay to me. All I see so far is a smear campaign. Maybe he's a CIA superspy double double double agent, or working for Mossad, or NZ's very cunning SIS [snicker]. Is he a Jew? Or, more importantly, were his parents? What's wrong with Scott Ritter accepting $100,000 from Saddam or some Iraqi businessman to do a documentary? Everyone else seems to have been happy to accept stuff from Saddam. Oil for example under an oil for food programme. Lots of countries were happy to sell weapons and lots more besides. Mqurice