|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2002 : 03:34:41 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, S. He contradicted nothing. Now you're saying that he's right and Cheney's wrong because he's right about what happened while he was still on the UN payroll.
You're not paying attention again, Solly. I've already shown that he's not made a 180. He's singing the same song. He said it again last night on MSNBC. 90-95% destroyed. Get the inspectors back in. That's what he said in 98 and that's what he's saying now. That's all it takes is for the U.S. to quit playing games.
You have said more than once that I'm wrong and you're right because you were there. He was there. He was Marine intelligence, then he worked for the UN in Iraq. Your logic means that he's correct.
quote:
Ritter is not credible because he is now directly contradicting reports he submitted to the chief UN inspector.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 04:21:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
what in the hell Bush was thinking when he decided to blatantly piss off yet another country.
Bush thinks?
IMO he's mentaly retarded. I have a cousin who actually is mentaly impaired and I think he is smarted then P. Bush.
Rather than ask, what the hell was Bush thinking. You should ask, what the hell was the American public thinking when they 'voted' for him.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 06:31:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're not paying attention again, Solly. I've already shown that he's not made a 180. He's singing the same song
--I paid careful attention when the chief UN inspector said that Ritter had reversed himself. I take Richard Butler as a more credible source of info than you.
You attempted to cover up for the embarrassing and very telling contradictions Ritter has spouted. You have not succeeded. You invoke the same doublespeak and fuzzy logic fundies use when explaining obvious contradictions in the bible.
Ritter's boss, and the recipient of wirtten reports from him, says he was singing a different tune in 1998. No goofy rationalization is going to explain away that glaring inconsistancy. The only person you've convinced with your 'explaination' is yourself.
quote:
He said it again last night on MSNBC. 90-95% destroyed
--Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it anymore valid.
But that's fine, for the sake of argument, I'll even conceded that 90% of his WMD program was destroyed. Now we just need to bomb the other 10% into dust.
Regardless of the amount of capability, Saddam is a criminal. He is allowed NO, NONE, NADA, NIL weapons of mass destruction. International mandate has barred him from even pursuing WMD at all. So for there to have been a 90% to begin with, Saddam has violated his surrender and is open to reprisal.
We go back to the asinine theory of getting most, but not all WMD out of Iraq. Let's do a simple substitution of child porn for WMD. Is the guy next door any less a pervert for getting rid of 90% of his kiddie porn collection, but keeping 10%? Is the law really being enforced then? no.
Ritter is also now running on without any current knowledge. His speculation carries no more weight than your uninformed one. He can prattle on about 6 years ago as if his knowledge is of any use today, but it's not. The only bit of info you can extrapolate from Ritter's info that is of any current value is trend analysis. The intel itself is woefully outdated.
Trend analysis based on his own numbers does nothing to deny Iraq has WMD. In fact it had at least 5-10% of it's original capability according to Ritter. That shows the trend of Saddam not complying with the terms of his surrender by having them AT ALL. That's a showstopper by itself.
But I watched Ritter's interviews too. I listened to him say on the first interview that Iraq has NO WMD. He was quite specific. This completely contradicts his later assertion that the UN left with 5-10% still there. Not to mention that that is again info more than half a decade old.
On one day he argues that Iraq has NO WMD. The very next day he claims that there was a WMD program, and he left with a portion of it still in place in Iraq. You don't have to go back to '98 UN reports to find glaring contradictions in Ritter's story.
It appears he just wanted to be on TV. He'll tell anyone that will air him a story. Doesn't matter if the story changes daily.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 06:39:00 [Permalink]
|
NO NO NO NO NO.
90-95% accounted for does not mean that ten percent of the earth's nuclear weapons exist in Iraq. Unaccounted for means just that.
To put it simply for you, the unicorns that people claim to exist have not been found. They are unaccounted for. That does not mean that they exist.
If it's important to find these mythical (play the drum roll) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION then get some credible weapons inspectors back in there.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/13/2002 07:09:09 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 11:58:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It appears he just wanted to be on TV. He'll tell anyone that will air him a story. Doesn't matter if the story changes daily.
Another interesting fact is that Scott Ritter received $400,000 to make a documentary on this whole issue from an admitted friend of Saddam Hussein.
Curiouser and curiouser...
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond.
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 09/13/2002 11:59:18 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 12:12:19 [Permalink]
|
First of all, are you saying that this documentary was incorrect in some way? I mean, I don't even know what it is, but I'm asking.
Second of all, where did you get this information? Who is this friend? Bush I?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2002 : 09:42:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First of all, are you saying that this documentary was incorrect in some way?
I have no idea. Never seen it or heard about it until the other night.
quote:
Second of all, where did you get this information? Who is this friend? Bush I?
From an interview with Scott Ritter by that pompous idiot Bill O'Reilly:
quote:
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.
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2002 : 12:38:30 [Permalink]
|
Thanks. I wonder what "friend" means in this sense and whether or not it was objective.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2002 : 15:05:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Thanks. I wonder what "friend" means in this sense and whether or not it was objective.
Whatever it means, Scott Ritter certainly didn't deny it [that he was a friend of Saddam].
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2002 : 15:41:22 [Permalink]
|
No. That doesn't mean that he is any more than an acquaintance, nor does it mean that the documentary was in any way false.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 11:08:48 [Permalink]
|
Tonight (9/16) on C-SPAN at 8:00 pm ET
Former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter will read the text of a speech he delivered last week to the Iraqi Parliament and will be answering questions.
Find out more at www.c-span.org
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 11:18:35 [Permalink]
|
Today, in USAToday, are several passages quoted from two seperate former Chief UN Inspectors in Iraq. Editorials section. Both not only comment on the ineffectiveness of the inspections, but point out that Saddam has never complied to begin with.
Ritter? Keep clinging to that one piece of driftwood in the ocean, Gorgo. Not even the UN believed it's inspections succeeded. Now Saddam has had over half a decade, completely unfettered, to progress.
Unconditional return?
If the US Air Force suddenly opened up the Groom Lake facility and gave tours, would you believe that the Gov't has ceased all secret weapons development? Or would you think just maybe they hid it elsewhere, or better?
Not that it matters, since Saddam has not obeyed the UN for the past 11 years, so there is no evidence that he will now.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
