"HOD" <sh@att.net> wrote in message
news:w82dnU1gYPE-JZfdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...

"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p9yOb.2803$zT2.1185@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

"HOD" <sh@att.net> wrote in message
news:ls-dnSRX8MOdOZfd4p2dnA@comcast.com...

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <gltjr@cmhs.edu> wrote in message
news:537l00pmpfst1k2dvcligp2j2qp8q7t5ej@4ax.com...

On 17 Jan 2004 23:07:42 -0800,

"DemKooksOnParade" <DemsGoing@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:<ixfOb.73327$Rc4.254332@attbi_s54>...

Only if you wish to go to war. Scott Ritter explained this.

The

amount of so called WMDs was an estimate of how much could be

produced

You stupid Democrat jerk. They are not "so-called WMDs".

are

"WMDs",

PERIOD. Even if you Democrat posters aren't bright enough to

know

it,

there actually DO exist weapons in this world which are capable

of

mass

destruction. There are a WHOLE HOST of weapons, both chemical

and

biological, which are quite capable of bringing about mass

destruction.

So drop your stupid "so-called" modifier, you ignorant Democrat

dolt.

It amuses me how these guys still listen to that totally

discredited

idiot Scott Ritter.

Who gave us more accurate information about the risk posed by

Scott Ritter or George Bush?

President George Bush..... really not even close

Bush said there was. There wasn't.

Not even close.

refer to my "time-line lesson that I shared with your "butt-hole

buddy"....

Patience jackass, patience!... The hunt continues! :-))

You grasp of reality underwhelms.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:36:33 -0500, "HOD" <sh@att.net> wrote:

Scott Ritter

Here are the errors in what you have posted.

1. Ritter did not change what he said. IN 1998 he said that Saddam
could rebuild his weapons production in six months, and that was a big
danger. Ritter never said anything different. In 2002 Ritter said that
had Saddam done that we very likely would have detected it. That we
had not picked up even one indication of such resumption, it probably
had not occurred. That is not a change in his mind. It is telling it
like it was both times.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:36:33 -0500, "HOD" <sh@att.net> wrote:

Scott Ritter

Here are the errors in what you have posted.

1. Ritter did not change what he said. IN 1998 he said that Saddam
could rebuild his weapons production in six months, and that was a big
danger. Ritter never said anything different. In 2002 Ritter said that
had Saddam done that we very likely would have detected it. That we
had not picked up even one indication of such resumption, it probably
had not occurred. That is not a change in his mind. It is telling it
like it was both times.

2. The alleged cause of this nonexistant change is said to be money.
But of course Ritter told us the absolute truth before the war, we
know now. He was right, Bush did not tell us the truth. When people
say the truth it is odd to argue that they did so because they were
paid to do it. The entire logic of the bribe smear is absurd. You
don't need to pay a patriotic former Marine to tell the truth,
obviously. You can just let him do it and save money.

3. The alleged payoff (to get Ritter to tell us the truth) which
explains an alleged change in his views (there was no change in his
views) is also misstated. Ritter made a film and sought financing. He
got 400,000 from an Iraqi-American who agreed with Ritter that we were
not at grave risk from Iraq. Both Ritter and the Iraqi-american were
telling the truth about that. But of course that 400,000 did not go
into Ritter's pocket. It went for film production costs. To pay for
rental of lights, to pay for camera rentals, to pay for the work of
film technicians. To pay for insurance, for accountants, and so on.
Ritter was entitled to get twenty percent of the budget. I think that
came to 120,000. But the film did not make money so he got less than
that. But this film merely told the truth. To say Ritter had to be
bribed to tell us the truth is absurd. He made this film mainly to get
the word out and secondarily to make 120,000.

4. Telling the truth COST Ritter money, and lots of it. The argument
that he told the truth for money can not be true because telling the
truth was a financial disaster. Ritter, when he said that Saddam could
rearm in six months, was paid to be on Fox. In addition, he was a
conservative darling who could make a fortune on the lecture circuit.
He could make in a week that 120,000 just going to several
conservative functions. So he lost his Fox pay, lost the big lecture
circuit gigs as a result of no longer being on TV and in the eye of
those booking people for lectures.

This theory that Ritter changed for money is the typical smear
conservatives constantly use.

And it is obviously false.

By Michael Crowley
Sept. 25, 2002, at 10:51 AM PT

If you've been paying any attention to the debate over invading Iraq,

probably familiar with Scott Ritter, the blustery former U.N. weapons
inspector who has spent the past few weeks vigorously denouncing the Bush
administration's rush to war. Ritter's ubiquity has been breathtaking.
Lately he has appeared on every major TV network and in a slew of major
newspapers arguing that, contrary to what you may have heard, Iraq

has no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein poses no real
threat to anyone.

In other words, he told the truth. Do we need to say a former Marine
has been bribed to tell us the truth? OF course not. It's a ludicrous
claim.

You may also be aware that Ritter didn't always feel this way. In the

he made his name as the macho leader of U.N. inspectors hunting for

hidden chemical, germ, and nuclear weapons programs. A hulking figure at

feet 4 inches and 200-plus pounds, Ritter was known for shouting down

officials during tense standoffs outside suspected weapons sites. When he
concluded in 1998 that neither the United States nor the United Nations

the stomach for disarming Iraq and resigned in disgust, he was a regular

television and at Capitol Hill hearings, urgently warning of the horrors
that would reward the world's wimpiness. Iraq is "not nearly disarmed,"

wrote in a 1998 New Republic article, asserting that Saddam likely

everything from nerve gas to anthrax, as well as his "entire nuclear

infrastructure." Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass
destruction programs "within a period of six months," he told a Senate
committee that year. As for Saddam, Ritter said he "remains an ugly

to his neighbors and to world peace."

"Not nearly disarmed" refers primarily to old weapons still around
made before 1991. As Ritter later pointed out the shelf-life of the
shells he referred to in that article is about ten years. Thus such
weapons left over from before the first gulf war still posed a risk
when he wrote that in 1998. They did not pose a risk in 2002. Ritter
stands by every word he wrote in 1998 and he has not said a thing
contrary to it. He did not change at all. This part concerns stuff now
rotted or small amounts of stuff.

Read what he said in 2002 and you will see that he did not change his
views one whit.

The rest of this paragraph about "could completely resurrect" is
correct. Ritter continues to believe it. But of course could restart
is not the same as has restarted.

Ritter told the truth in 1998, as he saw it, and the truth in 2002, as
he saw it. There was zero discrepancy between comments at the two
times. What Ritter told us was honest, and what President Bush told us
was false.

Ritter is a hero, Bush should be impeached.

That's the difference between telling us the truth about war and lying
about it.

Today Ritter sings a suspiciously different tune. He now contends that

was "fundamentally disarmed" in the 1990s.

He said 90 to 95 percent. Completely consistent with saying in 1998
that they had stuff to make a couple dozen shells, but could restart.

No change in the facts as he described them.

It turns out that when U.N.

inspections ended in 1998, Saddam "did not have the capability to
reconstitute" his death machine. Ritter now assures us that "Iraq is a
threat to no one."

Because old shells have gone stale with time. Ten year life time for
the ones we know he had. 1991 to 2001 is ten years. Before 1991 to
2002 is more than ten years.

And because Saddam did NOT restart his programs, contrary to what
Ritter worried about in 1998.

No discrepancy there at all. Ritter told the truth in 1998, told the
truth in 2002.

Earlier this month, he took the extraordinary step of

visiting Baghdad to address the Iraqi assembly, where he said that "in
regards to the current situation between the United States and Iraq, the
truth is on the side of Iraq."

And of course we know he was right. Iraq said they had no WMD. They
had no WMD.

Truth was on the side of Iraq. No doubt about that now except among
lunatics who refuse to believe the facts so obvious to almost every
one but them.

Ritter hasn't provided any explanation for his change of heart or cited

new evidence.

What change? He said in 1998 they had some old stuff. He was wrong,
but that was an honest mistake. He said in 2002 it would no longer
likely be lethal. Correct. 2002 is more than ten years beyond 1991. No
change.

He said that they had some stuff to make o few dozen shells. He was
wrong. THey had nothing. But that is not enough to pose a big risk to
us. It's not militarily significant. And again a lot of that would be
rotten by now too. No change in what he said then and now. Now we are
not at risk, then they had some small supplies. Not inconsistent at
all.

That leaves us to consider ulterior motives. One popular

theory, recently advanced by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, holds
that Ritter has essentially been bought off. By his own admission, Ritter
accepted $400,000 in funding two years ago from an Iraqi-American
businessman named Shakir al-Khafaji. Ritter used the money to visit

and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons
inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American
manipulation). As Hayes has reported, al-Khafaji is openly sympathetic to
Saddam and regularly sponsors anti-American conferences in Baghdad.
Al-Khafaji seems to have gotten his money's worth: The documentary was so
anti-U.S., says one of Ritter's former U.N. colleagues, that Iraqi

were passing out copies of it on CD-ROM at a recent international
conference.

It's implausible since telling us the truth cost Ritter more than he
could make from the film. He had a contract to get 120,000. The
400,000 was for costs of production. Not to pay Ritter. 400,000 had to
be paid back plus profit, Ritter couldn't just keep it. And
displeasing Fox lead them to fire him, so he did not get his fees for
appearing on Fox and he did not get the lecture fees from that. He
could get 120,000 in a week as a conservative darling on Fox.

So it's just a smear.
And obviously false.

What's more, Ritter's conversion apparently began before he ever met
al-Khafaji. In 1999 he published Endgame, a book that railed against the
Clinton administration, labeled the sanctions against Iraq "evil," and
suggested that the international community could do business with Saddam.

was only after Endgame was published that Ritter says he was approached

al-Khafaji. It's possible that Ritter took money from al-Khafaji, or some
other ally or agent of Saddam, before writing Endgame. But there's no
evidence of that.

It's odd that an ex-marine who has risked his life in Iraq for our
good would have to be paid to just tell us the truth.

Ritter told the truth.

You don't have to smear him as a traitor to expain the simple fact
that he told the truth.

The odd thing which requires explanation is why President Bush did NOT
tell us the truth.

Truth telling requires no weird theories.

But lying needs some explanation.

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <gltjr@cmhs.edu> wrote in message
news:n8al001rp64rcla2u33f81fa5nkpace1e2@4ax.com...

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:19:37 -0500, "HOD" <sh@att.net> wrote:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." <gltjr@cmhs.edu> wrote in message
news:537l00pmpfst1k2dvcligp2j2qp8q7t5ej@4ax.com...

On 17 Jan 2004 23:07:42 -0800,

"DemKooksOnParade" <DemsGoing@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:<ixfOb.73327$Rc4.254332@attbi_s54>...

Only if you wish to go to war. Scott Ritter explained this.

amount of so called WMDs was an estimate of how much could be

produced

You stupid Democrat jerk. They are not "so-called WMDs". They

"WMDs",

PERIOD. Even if you Democrat posters aren't bright enough to

it,

there actually DO exist weapons in this world which are capable

mass

destruction. There are a WHOLE HOST of weapons, both chemical

biological, which are quite capable of bringing about mass

destruction.

So drop your stupid "so-called" modifier, you ignorant Democrat

dolt.

It amuses me how these guys still listen to that totally

idiot Scott Ritter.

Who gave us more accurate information about the risk posed by Iraq,
Scott Ritter or George Bush?

President George Bush..... really not even close

Pitt: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

Ritter: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration
make it appear. There's no doubt that Iraq hasn't fully complied with
its disarmament obligations as set forth by the UN security council in
its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been
fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the
factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons,
and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these
factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these
factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the UN, which would
supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy -
unilaterally, without UN supervision - a great deal of this equipment.
We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this
destruction took place without documentation, which means the question
of verification gets messy very quickly.

..........


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003



Ritter was honest, Bush lied.