View Full Version : Capt Scott Ritter – Friend or Foe ?
I’m a little confused as to where Mr. Ritter has placed his allegiance.
He’s a Marine and took the oath but presently he appears to be on the Iraqi payroll.
He has clearly been speaking out of both sides of his mouth, if you look at his address to the UN 4 years ago when Sodom kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and look at his latest presentation, there are major contradictions.
He appears to have lied at least once here; my guess is it’s most likely his latest ramblings.
I’m not too impressed with this "EX" Marine.
Semper Fi,
Bob Neener
USMC0311
09-19-02, 12:22 PM
Hell Bob not all Marines are Great, Only the Corps is.
If there wasen't a law against it.... I know we all would put a round in the maggot :yes:
He may be what most say he is--or he may just be of the courage of his own convictions and not recognizable in a sea of yes-men/suckups--time will tell...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=135069&messageid=1031666067
NamGrunt68
09-19-02, 01:52 PM
Well, if'n what I've heard about him is true, the sumb!tch ought to turn in his Eagle, Anchor and Globe !!! And yer right bro, I have met MANY "EX" Marines that I wouldn't trust in a sh!t house wid a muzzle on !!! That saying " Once a Marine, always a Marine" is just not true in all cases......nuff said !!!!
You look at some of the post in some other clubs and sometimes this one that some o these "New and Improved" Politically correct Marines are making........"Remember Lcpl Race"...I think his name wuz........now thar's a piece o werk fer ya !!!!! Marine my azz !!
Sparrowhawk
09-19-02, 02:47 PM
He's head keeps getting bigGER and <b>BIGGER</b>each time he speaks. He is so full of himself that he is now demanding to be heard before Congress declares War on Iraq. Guess he wants more spending money; the $40.000 they gave him already must be all gone.
He seems to forget, there was no smoking gun before Desert Storm only questionable documents and sources. It wasn't until after the war that we found out Iraq was well prepared to use biological weapons. Ritter says, but there is no proof right now. Duhhh!!
Just lots of empty shipping cartons flowing down the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers. LOL
Just what did Ritter do during the Gulf War, what was his MOS and what did he actually do?
Met a few officers like him in Nam, got a lot of Marines killed because they didn't believe the enemy was there, just cause we could smell and hear them. They wanted confirmation before we opened fire.
No use in calling in artillery or Naval or air strikes. Let's go in and see for ourselves. And when a large force moved through the area, well nothing was found. Guess we stepped on their fingers as we walked over their tunnels and buried weapons.
Stupid is as stupid does and that is Ritter in my eyes. He forgets its not about Ritter is about American lives. We can't afford to listen to a modern day Jane Fonda, and that's how I see him today.
Sparrowhawk
09-19-02, 07:50 PM
Naji Sabri, iraq'i foreign Minister just praised Ritter at the UN General Assemby for supporting Iraq's reason why inspectors were not allowed to remain in Iraq and for calling Bush a liar.
It seems like Ritter has a habit of going against those who have more knowledge of a situation than he does.
During his 12 years in the U.S. military, Ritter was a Scud missile tracker with the intelligence staff of Gulf War commanding Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf.
During the Gulf War, Scott Ritter, then a junior military intelligence analyst, picked a fight with his boss. He filed one report after another challenging Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's claims about the number of destroyed Iraqi Scud missiles. We cannot confirm these kills, Ritter reported, much to Schwarzkopf's bewilderment. Despite pressure from the top, Ritter, a Marine captain from a military family, held his ground, challenging his superiors and the establishment (boy this sounds familiar, as to the type of officer that had not seen battle up front and personal, who wanted us to go back and obtain the weapons the gooks were carying to help support the body counts).
Now, it seems that Scott Ritter has made some strange new bedfellows in the pro-Iraqi community and among critics of the U.N. sanctions who would like to see those sanctions lifted.
Barndog
09-20-02, 04:37 AM
I beg your pardon, Marines. Capt Ritter has been doing nothing but standing up and calling the chickenhawk war-mongers just that - for the liars they are. The $40,000 you mention was for a book - that outlined the lies that the military is telling (remember the Gulf of Tonkin was PROVEN to be nothing but one big lie to escalate Vietnam?)
Folks, before you judge and crucify, maybe you should listen to ALL the facts, and turn off that professional hairdo Paula Zahn.
CNN, FOX and the rest are trying nothing more than to crucify Captain Ritter because they have nothing better to do. Why? Cause he makes all their stories EMPTY with BS. And that makes ratings go down, which causes them to LOSE MONEY!!!!!
You guys don't find it alarming that NOBODY from the military that Ritter served with aren't stepping up to refute Capt Ritter? The Chief arms inspector Butler, stands beside him, but you don't see too many interviews with him do you? That may be because the media and the government don't have the case too. Might be because he's right, and they're afraid to admit it. (sounds familiar doesn't it)
p.s. I happened to watch Capt Ritter tongue tie Bill O'Riley last week. The 'No-Spin Zone' got stuck in it's own hole. I thought it was quite funny. O'Riley looks like a moron when he can't cut people off like he does all the rest off the time the arrogant f$ck.
Just be more aware of whats going on. This is a Marine. Not some ass that never wore the uniform in the first place.
(Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Lott, and the list goes on and on.....)
At least Captain Ritter didn't ('have other priorities other than military service'... a direct quote from your VP on one of his 4 Vietnam deferrments)
Semper FI
Barndog
NamGrunt68
09-20-02, 08:22 AM
Bro, is there a url or some more documents that you or someone else could post here so I could read more....I sure as phuc don't want to jump the gun and diss a Marine bro that shouldn't be dissed !!! I don't ever watch that TV show...maybe there is a text interview of it somewhur.....if I owe him an apology, I'll be the first one to step up to the plate and give it to him.....If I don't owe him one, I'll be the first one to stand by mah first post !!! I shouldn't o jumped the gun maybe !!
USMC0311
09-20-02, 08:32 AM
A Marine is a Marine is a Marine ..and some Marines that were Marines were not GOOD Marines and JUST Because YOU ARE or Were A Marine Doesn't mean YOU are a GOOD Marine. I LOVE THE MARINE CORPS. I am PROUD to CALL MOST MARINES Brother and Sister, BUT facts IS facts. I've seen MANY ass-holes that don't deserve to be called MARINE. MY Mind, Heart and Soul Belongs to the CORPS. and I do NOT respect ANYONE who tarnishes or disrespects the Values of The Marine Corps.
Semper Fidelis TO THE CORPS!!!
CPL BEVERAGE
09-20-02, 09:01 AM
Hay Marines I have no idea who You are talking about, but would like to be filled in. I guess I should watch more CNN.:D
My above post on Ritter references several posts from another board re the Ritter Frenzy presently in progress...
The initial posts on Ritter's interviews, etc. are still there, as well as a couple more I have posted since that time.
I remain open to the eventual outcome on his positions and the media's attacks on him, as well as the jumping on the bandwagon in general.
Admittedly, few come forward to do anything other than condem him--here's one of the few (no pun) to come forward.
"11 September
MILINET: 2nd Resp "Ex-Arms Inspector Says Attack on Iraq 'Not Justified '"
====================================
Although Ritter has been branded as a Saddam 'apologist,' consider the following statement from Mr. Ritter's 3 May 2000 Congressional testimony:
"Prior to the Gulf War, the United Sates spent a lot of time preparing the American people for the prospect of sending its young servicemen and women abroad to fight in a war. And they did so by demonizing Saddam Hussein, a man who, frankly speaking, is very easy to demonize. He is a brutal dictator. He has a long record of human rights violations. Demonizing Saddam Hussein is not a problem. Dealing with Saddam Hussein from the perspective of fact seems to be a problem. While Saddam Hussein is a horrible leader, a brutal dictator, and is clearly repressing the innocent people of Iraq, he is not the Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler. Saddam Hussein in his government in Baghdad is not capable of world or regional domination."
Mr. Ritter's perspective on Saddam Hussein is based upon years of military experience combined with firsthand knowledge of that brutal regime: as a US Marine and as a UN inspector, he has 'been there, done that.' His objection to US military actions against Iraq - in 1998, and again today - were based not upon any sympathy for Saddam, but rather based upon the fundamental hypocrisy and lack of vision that has characterized our policy on Iraq since the close of the Gulf War. Operation Desert Fox (1998) had nothing to do with bringing Iraq into line with international norms; in fact, Desert Fox effectively killed the arms inspection program.
The current administration demonizes Saddam because it is politically expedient to do so. Iraq is not 'Public Enemy No. 1,' but they make a very convenient target when you take a moment to consider who our real enemies are: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Attacking any one of these 'big three' supporters of terrorism is politically out of the question, however. Hence Iraq.
Scott Ritter knows his facts, and because he is not beholden to the current administration he can speak freely. He speaks the truth on Iraq, and he does not speak alone. I am ready to shoot at whomever my government orders me to, but as a thinking citizen I make a distinction between the true enemies of my country (Saudi, Syria, and the theocrats in Iran) and mere targets of opportunity.
JW"
*****
Like I say, the fat lady ain't sung on this one yet.
Dick
mark king
09-20-02, 09:49 AM
Ritter is a D!CK !!!! HE NEEDS TO BE SITTING NEXT TO SADDAM
WHEN WE TAKE HIM OUT.
MARK KING CPL
AAV PLT 2/2
GULF WAR -91
Here’s a link that will help explain some of what is being discussed here.
This link overviews Ritter’s book “Endgame” http://www.lymenet.de/politics/endgame.htm
I’ll be posting more later.
Barndog,
Based on the lengthily discussion that you and I had a few weeks back, in a thread started by Thedrifter in SGT Pap’s Place (Reflections on the Wall and Iraq)
I understand that you are against going into Iraq, and you are entitled to your opinion, I took an oath to protect that right in 1964, I drew and lost blood to protect that right in 1965 & 66.
In one of your posts in that thread, you referenced Capt Ritter, I did not comment because I did not know enough about him.
So I did a little checking and I can’t suggest anything more than, his statement to the UN back in 99’ when he was kicked out of Iraq, and his statement of late contradict each other.
One is clearly an extreme contradiction of the other.
I happen to agree more with Hawk here on this issue, and this is my opinion. I’ll find and post the data to back up my concerns here. I suggest that you do the same.
As gunnyg just stated, the press is climbing all over Ritter, even Dan Rather has questioned his actions and that’s unusual for what is considered mostly a liberal network.
I see Ritter as just plain against going into Iraq, much like you, and grasping for anything that will turn the tide of war.
Unfortunately, this approach is not a popular one, and could undermine the troops involved so it will be attacked by the majority who disagree.
It’s going to happen, the fate of Iraq was set into stone on 91101, I personally see it as my duty to support the troops who are going to have to go in there and do the dirty work. It will not be another Vietnam and that was my main point in our previous exchange.
More on Ritter shortly, there's a Fat Lady here someplace Gunny - I’ll Be Back
Semper Fi,
Bob Neener
Sparrowhawk
09-20-02, 10:30 AM
Evidence before his eyes.
I praised Ritter back in 98 when he resigned because we all knew
That the Clinton administration was trying to avoid a confrontation with Iraq, so they were not pushing for inspections as called for by the UN Security Resolution.
But since then for some reason, Ritter has taken the Iraqi side in many ways. Possibly because he has been shunned by the Bush administration. After all he was a Clinton appointee.
Ritter recently went to Iraq, September 9, 2002. While in Iraq, criticized the U.S.' threat of military action against Baghdad during his <B> speech to the Iraqi National Assembly</b>.
RITTER has stated, "No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. "
That's absolutely true; there has been no smoking gun. Just a gun whose parts have been shipped to Iraq from various sources along with the ammunition to shot it, but Iraq has not put it together that we know of.
Ritter says prove that the guns together, but Saddam is smarter than that.
Now, I don't like O'Riley he's more arrogant and has a bigger head than Ritter, but Ritter said he believed the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) report, then turned around and attacked the report as being only "rhetorical... It's all speculative. "
Ritter wants a smoking gun, before he believes. And then, I believe he would want to make sure its real incoming and if the Iraqi’s say they were just shooting over our heads he would believe that.
Iraq is part of Arab terrorism directed at the US. We either deal with Saddam today or tomorrow when he becomes more of a treat to the United States by his support and armament of terrorist.
Iraq has offensive biological and chemical weapons, he's used them since the Gulf War against his own people and Iraq is working to develop a nuclear capability. We know that, where and how they are stored we don't know.
Didn't we learn anything from 9-11. That terrorist will use different means of delivering those weapons of mass destruction where ever they please.
<hr>
Here’s a link to a recent simple story. I find it ironic that Ritter went to Iraq with Saddam's approval on September 9, 2002.
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=2I1VN3IXK1WYECRBAELC FFA?type=worldnews&StoryID=1428945
A simple story, but Ritter defends Iraq as if he takes their word for the truth, while at the same time saying he doesn't believe a word they say at other times. The training camp can be used for the purpose the Iraqi defector (at the risk of his life) says it was used for.
Who can tell from going to the site as Ritter did that its only used for hostage, airplane hijacking prevention. Now, what Arab terrorist would hijack an Iraqi plane when Saddam will gladly pay for their air fair to his country free, then provide a safe haven for them?
Ritter is blind as many stories have revealed and what’s funny is that the liberal CNN news reporters have not taken his side.
Why? I don't understand but perhaps even CNN has common sense when it comes to a pattern of lies and half-truths that come out of Baghdad. Ritter can't see that because he's so interested in selling himself, his film documentary filmed in Iraq two years ago.
When America's enemies began to praise you, as Iraq has Ritter, then something is seriously wrong.
Sparrowhawk
09-20-02, 10:33 AM
<b>THE WASHINGTON TIMES</B> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The bizarre odyssey of Scott Ritter <br />
House Editorial
NamGrunt68
09-20-02, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by USMC0311
A Marine is a Marine is a Marine ..and some Marines that were Marines were not GOOD Marines and JUST Because YOU ARE or Were A Marine Doesn't mean YOU are a GOOD Marine. I LOVE THE MARINE CORPS. I am PROUD to CALL MOST MARINES Brother and Sister, BUT facts IS facts. I've seen MANY ass-holes that don't deserve to be called MARINE. MY Mind, Heart and Soul Belongs to the CORPS. and I do NOT respect ANYONE who tarnishes or disrespects the Values of The Marine Corps.
Semper Fidelis TO THE CORPS!!!
Damn JoeT....you been takin a "Mavis Beacon" course on
"How to Speak For Another Grunt in Marine Corps English".....
Yeh.....what u said !!
I have read all the above Posts and I ain't ready to step up to the plate yet !!! And I FOR ONE, think we ought to go over there and clean dat Towelheads Azz up fer him.........I don't give a sh!t how we do it, but it needs to be done FAST !! Just my 2 centavo's
USMC0311
09-20-02, 10:58 AM
Hell Yah Dane..I may be outa shape, But I sure as hell Can Shoot a weapon.. I'm For kickin there ass and gettin it over with ...I still got the fortitude to "DO IT"
Semper Fi, Bro
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter in the center of the storm. He believes Iraq is incapable of producing weapons of mass destruction.
Earlier this week, I said Mr. Ritter was avoiding The Factor. I was obviously wrong, because here he is.
Well, we appreciate you coming in, Mr. Ritter.
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thank you.
O'REILLY: Now, I want to do an interview with you that's different from the interviews, the hundreds of them, that you've done in the last six months. I want to walk through a number of items very specifically, all right? No theory, no opinion, just fact.
Earlier this week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies issued a report. You're familiar with this organization, right?
RITTER: Yes, I am.
O'REILLY: Is it true that they don't have an ideology, no axe to grind?
RITTER: That's what people say about it.
O'REILLY: All right. Do you believe that?
RITTER: No.
O'REILLY: All right. You believe they're what?
RITTER: I believe that they are staffed by people who have prior affiliations with governments and organizations, and they bring these affiliations into them, and that is part of their psyche.
O'REILLY: Do you believe that they're telling the truth in their study?
RITTER: Oh, I don't believe anything in their study is false. I believe every word in their study.
O'REILLY: Oh, so you believe the study. OK.
RITTER: Sure.
O'REILLY: Good, good, I'm glad to hear you say that.
RITTER: Especially the way they couch all of their...
O'REILLY: OK, fine.
RITTER: ... all of their, all their phraseology.
O'REILLY: As long as you believe the study...
RITTER: The problem...
O'REILLY: ... has credibility in your eyes...
RITTER: Sure.
O'REILLY: ... we can continue along this road.
The study says that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if it obtained radioactive material. Do you believe that?
RITTER: Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if it obtained...
O'REILLY: Radioactive material.
RITTER: Well, it's not radio -- I guess fissile material, should be.
O'REILLY: OK. Do you believe that to be true?
RITTER: I've said that in the past.
O'REILLY: OK. All right. Then that's pretty scary, is it not?
RITTER: It's frightening.
O'REILLY: OK, good.
The study goes on to say that Iraq at this point has a stockpile of biological weapons, including anthrax. Do you believe that?
RITTER: There's nothing in that report that substantiates that statement.
O'REILLY: But do you believe it?
RITTER: I have no way of knowing.
O'REILLY: All right. So you don't know one way or the other. This report says they do have anthrax...
RITTER: And I believe that report didn't provide any basis for that statement.
O'REILLY: OK, I'm just saying, this is what the report said. I didn't do the report.
RITTER: No, fine.
O'REILLY: I believe they're depending on scientists who've come out of there. But they say they have anthrax.
They also say that Iraq emerged from the war with Iran with the largest and most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Middle East. Is that true?
RITTER: I don't know, if you compare and contrast with the Israeli chemical capability, maybe not. But...
O'REILLY: All right. But they do have a formidable...
RITTER: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) very advanced...
O'REILLY: ... chemical...
RITTER: They've had -- as of 1990, 1991, yes.
O'REILLY: OK. Do you think they got rid of it?
RITTER: We destroyed it.
O'REILLY: You destroyed some of it.
RITTER: We destroyed most of it.
O'REILLY: All right. So -- but do you think they built it back up in the last three years?
RITTER: Have no way of knowing.
O'REILLY: All right. Possible?
RITTER: Sure, I testified to the U.S. Senate within six months of the inspectors removed from Iraq, Iraq could reconstitute significant aspects of its programs.
O'REILLY: OK. So they got mustard gas...
RITTER: They could.
O'REILLY: ... they got Sarin...
RITTER: Could.
O'REILLY: Yes, possibly.
RITTER: Possibly.
O'REILLY: Probably?
RITTER: Don't know. No, actually probably no, because if they had it -- see, these are things -- you don't produce weapons of mass destruction by pulling them out of a black hat like a white rabbit in a magic show.
O'REILLY: Right.
RITTER: There is infrastructure that is required.
O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
RITTER: Iraq would have to reconstitute this infrastructure, and as a 12-year veteran of intelligence services who knows what the capabilities are, we would detect this.
O'REILLY: All right. But we say that they have. The United States says this I'm using, I'm trying to get out of the United States here...
RITTER: But we don't put any evidence to back it up. We say, but no evidence.
O'REILLY: Well, OK, but intelligence information is basically -- you don't say, Lenny got it, we have a mole over there who's calling us up. Come on, you know the game, they're not going to identify who's giving them the information.
RITTER: No, but I also know that, you know, I mean, you sat there and criticized the prime minister of Canada, the prime minister of Germany, for not siding with us.
O'REILLY: Correct.
RITTER: And saying, you know, Hey, guys, get on board.
O'REILLY: Correct.
RITTER: What they're saying is, Let's get some facts.
Now, we have classified relationships with both Canada and Germany. We have the means of sharing classified intelligence...
O'REILLY: Not top-secret information.
RITTER: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: No, no.
RITTER: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: No.
RITTER: I know that for a fact.
O'REILLY: If it's top-secret information, it's there to protect informants. Now, they have told, and I know this to be fact, Gerhard Schroeder and Chretien that their informants have told them this. But they're simply not believing it.
RITTER: But what I'm saying is...
O'REILLY: But let's, let's continue...
RITTER: ... why are we -- why -- Well...
O'REILLY: ... along this line, because this is a much more interesting discussion than theory. I don't want theory.
Ballistic missiles, this study says that they have a force of about a dozen 650 kilometer range missiles. You believe that?
RITTER: No. Absolutely not.
O'REILLY: OK, so you don't believe that at all.
RITTER: No, because I ran the...
O'REILLY: You think you're...
RITTER: ... ballistic missile effort in Iraq...
O'REILLY: OK. You don't think they have...
RITTER: ... and I know what I've done.
O'REILLY: ... any ballistic missiles.
RITTER: No.
O'REILLY: All right. Do you believe that they have the capability to meet with an al Qaeda representative in Damascus, say, or any other capability, and hand over dangerous materials to them? Do you believe Iraq has the capability to do that?
RITTER: The capability?
O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), could they do that?
RITTER: If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...
O'REILLY: Right.
RITTER: ... and if Iraq wanted to hand it over to an al Qaeda terrorist...
O'REILLY: Right.
RITTER: ... do they have the capability...
O'REILLY: Right.
RITTER: ... of meeting with a -- Sure, hypothetically, sure.
O'REILLY: OK. Good.
Now, the Czechs, and we had the Czech ambassador on here, swear that the top, top espionage guy in Iraq met with Mohammed Atta in Prague, they swear it happened. Do you believe that?
RITTER: I'll go with the FBI.
O'REILLY: The FBI now backtracks and said what the Czechs say is true.
RITTER: Well, that I'm not -- Look, if the FBI says the meeting took place, I'm -- you know, who...
O'REILLY: OK.
RITTER: I don't know...
O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
RITTER: ... I wasn't there.
O'REILLY: Right, right, right, right. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) put the puzzle together now.
You admit that a lot of the things in this study are true. You admit that he could give weapons to al Qaeda if he wanted to, and you admit that the Czechs may be accurate. All of those things you have said.
Now, here's the end point. He violated the Gulf War treaty, everybody knows that, you know that, I know that, correct?
RITTER: Sure, Saddam was not in -- the Iraqi government...
O'REILLY: Right, he violated the treaty...
RITTER: ... is not in compliance.
O'REILLY: ... that 299 Americans died to forge.
RITTER: The war that I fought in, let's remember that, OK?
O'REILLY: Correct, correct, yes, you were a Marine.
RITTER: Darn right I was.
O'REILLY: Yeah. And that's why I'm just stunned that you don't want to forcibly remove this guy who's basically thumbed his nose at the United States and said, Yes, I'm not going to abide by this treaty, I'm not going to abide by it. If I were you, I'd be outraged.
RITTER: Well, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- what makes you think I'm not outraged?
O'REILLY: Because you're saying that we should not go in and forcibly remove him, that's why?
RITTER: Look, you can't -- there's no linkage between the two. Saddam is...
O'REILLY: Saddam has violated the treaty...
RITTER: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
O'REILLY: ... if he violates a treaty, then we have a right to go in and remove him...
RITTER: You mean, go to war?
O'REILLY: Absolutely. He violated the treaty of the war we fought.
O'REILLY – Ritter interview continued on next post
RITTER: Well, OK. Can I ask you to consider two documents? A, the Constitution of the United States of America. And in the Constitution it clearly states that when the United States enters into international agreements, those international agreements have the weight of law in the United States.
One such international agreement is the United Nations charter, of which we are signatories, and which we helped forge and frame this document.
O'REILLY: OK, what does this have to do with the discussion?
RITTER: Because the United Nations charter clearly sets forth those conditions under which nations may go to war, and it prohibits any nation seeking out to remove another nation...
O'REILLY: Did the United Nations OK the Gulf War? Did they?
RITTER: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. Did they violate, did Saddam Hussein violate the treaty there?
RITTER: Excuse me, the Gulf War...
O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
RITTER: ... was about the liberation of Kuwait, not the...
O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), no, no, the Gulf War...
RITTER: ... removal of Saddam Hussein.
O'REILLY: ... was against Iraq.
RITTER: No, it was about the liberation of Kuwait, plain and simple.
O'REILLY: The United Nations said the war was legitimate and legal to fight against Saddam Hussein...
RITTER: No, to liberate Kuwait. It's very specific.
O'REILLY: Did not -- it did not say that we didn't -- we couldn't defeat Saddam Hussein to throw him out. He has violated that treaty. We are legally entitled to go back.
Last question. You have got...
RITTER: Well, first, I disagree with that statement.
O'REILLY: All right, you disagree, fine.
RITTER: And someone who's fought in that war...
O'REILLY: You can disagree, we'll let the audience decide.
RITTER: Well, let's just be clear. The reason why we didn't even think about going to Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War is, we had no mandate. The mandate as set forth by the council. The war was about the liberation of Kuwait, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. Let's be very clear about that.
O'REILLY: There wasn't clear wording said we have to remove him, but we were entitled to do that if we felt he was a continuing threat, which he obviously has been.
RITTER: No, the international community...
O'REILLY: Obviously has been.
RITTER: ... is entitled to remove...
O'REILLY: All right, whatever.
RITTER: ... remain seized of the issue.
O'REILLY: Last question, and this is a very important question. You've been criticized for taking $400,000 from a guy who's friendly with Saddam Hussein to make a film. Should you have done that?
RITTER: You're damn right I should have.
O'REILLY: And why is that?
RITTER: Because the film is the most objective, independent analysis of the weapons inspection process. If the American public saw this film, it would answer many of the questions they have about, A, what was accomplished by the inspectors? And B, why inspectors aren't in Iraq today.
O'REILLY: OK. But you know how it looks.
RITTER: I don't care how it looks. I care about the information. I care about what I know. Frankly speaking, people can spin a situation any way they want to.
O'REILLY: Sure they can.
RITTER: You're the anti-spin meister.
O'REILLY: I am.
RITTER: OK, I am about telling the truth. I am about assiduously adhering to the facts.
O'REILLY: All right.
RITTER: I made a movie that's the best movie out there. It's not an Iraqi movie...
O'REILLY: But it was financed by a...
RITTER: By an American citizen.
O'REILLY: ... who is friendly with Saddam Hussein. How much of the $400,000 did you pay yourself in salary?
RITTER: Twenty percent.
O'REILLY: OK, so you paid yourself $80,000.
RITTER: Of which $38,000 was poured back into the film, because the budget for the film was $400,000, and the film actually went to $458,000.
O'REILLY: All right.
RITTER: And I still carry a considerable debt.
O'REILLY: Mr. Ritter, I...
RITTER: If you think I made money on this film, think again.
O'REILLY: OK. We appreciate your candor in coming in here and taking the fire.
RITTER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: All right. And we'll let the audience decide.
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2002 Fox News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, Inc.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Semper Fi,
Bob Neener
Sparrowhawk
09-20-02, 11:58 AM
Are right. I just feel like we need to take first strike priority on this.
The Middle East Arab is still foaming at the mouth wanting to bring another great destruction to America soil. Many of the Middle East leaders have met to discuss and plan this. Our intelligence community knows this.
I don't know who's idea has it been that we need to wait until they fire upon us before we take action.
We have yet to avenge 9-11. We are far from payback and the only thing I see as anywhere near payback is to see the Middle East up in flames.
From Yemen, to Saudi Arabia, up Kuwait, to Iraq, counter-clockwise to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon (Can’t forget the Marines that died there), down into Jordan, and finish off with Libya.
Then I would stop and p iss into the Nile and ask Egypt is they have any questions.
Sparrowhawk
09-20-02, 12:16 PM
Two disturbing issues coem out of the O'reilly , Ritter conversation, Ritter moving toward blamind Israel for iraq's woes...
<hr>
O'REILLY: ... we can continue along this road.
The study says that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if it obtained radioactive material. Do you believe that?
RITTER: Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if it obtained...
O'REILLY: Radioactive material.
RITTER: Well, it's not radio -- I guess fissile material, should be.
O'REILLY: OK. Do you believe that to be true?
RITTER: I've said that in the past.
<hr>
O'REILLY: I believe they're depending on scientists who've come out of there. But they say they have anthrax.
They also say that Iraq emerged from the war with Iran with the largest and most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Middle East. Is that true?
RITTER: I don't know, if you compare and contrast with the Israeli chemical capability, maybe not. But...
<hr>
<hr>
<b> here is where I see the self serving problem, because no one has any interest in the Iraq propaganda documentary film Ritter made.</b>
<hr>
<hr>
Originally posted by badbob
......
O'REILLY: Last question, and this is a very important question. You've been criticized for taking $400,000 from a guy who's friendly with Saddam Hussein to make a film. Should you have done that?
RITTER: You're damn right I should have.
O'REILLY: And why is that?
RITTER: Because the film is the most objective, independent analysis of the weapons inspection process. If the American public saw this film, it would answer many of the questions they have about, A, what was accomplished by the inspectors? And B, why inspectors aren't in Iraq today.
O'REILLY: OK. But you know how it looks.
RITTER: I don't care how it looks. I care about the information. I care about what I know. Frankly speaking, people can spin a situation any way they want to.
O'REILLY: Sure they can.
RITTER: You're the anti-spin meister.
O'REILLY: I am.
RITTER: OK, I am about telling the truth. I am about assiduously adhering to the facts.
O'REILLY: All right.
RITTER: I made a movie that's the best movie out there. It's not an Iraqi movie...
O'REILLY: But it was financed by a...
RITTER: By an American citizen.
O'REILLY: ... who is friendly with Saddam Hussein. How much of the $400,000 did you pay yourself in salary?
RITTER: Twenty percent.
O'REILLY: OK, so you paid yourself $80,000.
RITTER: Of which $38,000 was poured back into the film, because the budget for the film was $400,000, and the film actually went to $458,000.......
O'REILLY: All right. And we'll let the audience decide.
Semper Fi,
Bob Neener
Barndog
09-21-02, 05:55 AM
Ritter DOES blame Israel in part - why? Because they've violated more UN sanctions than were ever put upon Iraq in the first place.
Also - O'Riley edits his transcripts too, folks - there was alot more discourse than what you see posted here - not suprizing.
The Weekly Standard - A very Right-Wing paper pushing the far-right agenda from a more-than-obvious slant.
You're right Bob 110% - I took that same oath you did. And I was prepared to defend it the entire time of my enlistment - all 15 years (including National Guards). I've stated before, and I'll state it again: not afraid of the heat, not afraid of the flack on the return volley.
My point being : I'm not here to criticize or crucify anyone - especially a Marine. The politicians who never put any uniform on in the first place - are of the same breed that lied about 'Nam. Some are the same ones that lied about the Gulf War the FIRST time. The Iraqi 'propoganda film - really lays out how ineffective and irrelevant the UN really is - that's part of why they aren't saying much. It also shows what infastructure we 90%+ destroyed. Ritter never ONCE says they are completely disarmed. NEVER. But the capacity to re-arm thru rebuilding of the infastructure we completely destroyed is about, zero to nada. Not impossible though.
My major problem is: they lied about Nam, they lied about the Gulf War. We lost too many good Americans in both.
The politicans will be making cubic bucks $$$$ off the dead backs of Americans - that's just plain fvcking sick. To send people to die, so the Carlysle group can profit (both Bush's, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gen. White, Perle, and the list grows and grows) - see
now I ask you.... YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
I need more facts, before this war turns into 'Operation Just Because Daddy Didn't Finish the Job the First Time'
So far, I ain't seen it.
Cut and paste from interviews all ya want. Show me the facts.
I'm sticking by Captain Ritter.
Meanwhile - we've got 2 milllion Americans out of work since Dubya took office, bankrupsy goin nuts, Corporations ripping everydays folks off left and right of their retirements, and tellin them 'too bad, you lose'.... (I heard soemone say 'theres a class of (rich) people in this country that is entirely too wealthy to be prosecuted') - the stock market has lost 2600 points in under 20 months - if you had any IRA retirement - it's probally worth about 30-40% LESS of what it was. The National Debt clock is spinning like mad - and almost out of control. the 9/11 hearings showing some FBI agent pulled a major boner (and that aint the only one I'm afraid... I'm waiting patiently on this one).
National debt approaching $500 Billion - so, what me worry about another $50 Billion to eliminate Iraq?
Semper FI
Barndog
Barndog,
You and I have got this issue surround, and It’s clear that we are at opposite ends.
I believe that is in person, you and I could have a pretty darn good discussion, but on the forum, I can't say anything that hasn't already been said so I think I’ll just leave it go at that.
Semper Fi Bro,
Bob
Sparrowhawk
09-21-02, 11:52 AM
May have his own agenda for doing Saddam in, but even Ritter said that was not what we were in Iraq to do. We should have gone after Saddam, done him in and then said, OooophS!
As far as those other problems,
<b."Meanwhile - we've got 2 million Americans out of work since Dubya took office, bankrupsy goin nuts, Corporations ripping everydays folks off left and right of their retirements, and tellin them 'too bad, you lose'.... (I heard soemone say 'theres a class of (rich) people in this country that is entirely too wealthy to be prosecuted') - the stock market has lost 2600 points in under 20 months - if you had any IRA retirement - it's probally worth about 30-40% LESS of what it was. The National Debt clock is spinning like mad - and almost out of control. the 9/11 hearings showing some FBI agent pulled a major boner (and that aint the only one I'm afraid... I'm waiting patiently on this one).
National debt approaching $500 Billion - so, what me worry about another $50 Billion to eliminate Iraq? "</b>
<hr>
Those were there for a long time, they surfaced in this administration, and I hope your not blaming George for it. He was not on fire watch at that time. He was also not my first choice for president but he is now our president and I believe at this point in History he does have America's best interest in mind, even above politics.
Had Clinton done his job, we wouldn't have had 9-11. He was too scared to go to Viet Nam, and he was too scared to go after Saddam when the Iraqi leader failed to meet UN regulations.
As far as Israel not keeping the ones assigned to that nation by the UN, read them and you will see that they were drafted by Arab nations bend on removing Israel from the Middle East.
Comply with them and Israel would have ceased to exist years ago.
At this point in History we need to be on the offensive, and go after terrorist where ever they are, and if a nation will not help us rid them of the terrorist in their midst we need to tell the world we are going in after them no matter what. To do otherwise, we cannot afford to do.
Perhaps some of my reasoning in this dialog is based on my own anti-terrorist background when I was on the police force. I wrote about 8-10 different articles on international terrorism at that time, and I saw the warning then, <b>warned our department about foreign nationals operating terrorist cell groups in America.</b> but I saw them only as a present danger to our nation at that time. Yep someone was asleep in our intelligence department and its been there for a long time. Now if we don’t take the offensive we become an easy target. We cannot afford to be victims again, and a worst time for America is still flowing in the wind and it maybe too late for us to do anything about it.