SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (141388)7/24/2004 10:05:38 PM
From: Sig  Respond to of 281500
 
Scott Ritters words.
<<<Thanks to his meticulous planning and foresight, Saddam's lieutenants are now running the Iraqi resistance, including the Islamist groups >>

He was going to prevent a war by buying off 200 plus politicians and businessmen with oil payoffs and by continuing to lie to the UN.
He was going to hit our troops in Kuwait with missiles, but they all fizzled except one that damaged an empty restaurant.
He was going to blow up the oil fields, docks and bridges but we quenched the fuses
He was going to stop us outside Baghdad with mine fields and burning trenches of oil.
He was going to destroy us in hand to hand combat in Baghdad.

Now if his trained lieutenants are running the show,we have no worries about them winning anything.

Sig



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (141388)7/24/2004 11:12:11 PM
From: quehubo  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
I have always suspected that Saddam trapped Ritter with some damning photos during his time in Iraq. This article only furthers the support of my suspicions.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (141388)7/25/2004 2:25:58 AM
From: dumbmoney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
There is no question that Ritter was on Saddam's payroll. That's been proven. The only question in my mind, is he still on Saddam's payroll?

Everything Ritter has said so far has checked out. His credibility on Iraq is unmatched. The warmongers credibility, on the other hand, is not so good. They've been proven wrong about everything. Do I need to make a list?