From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:46:48 MDT
On 15 Sep 2002 at 22:25, Hermit wrote:
>
> Oops - wrong picture... Try this one instead...
>
> [Joe Dees] Scott Ritter's been out of the loop for 4 years (as have
> all the ther UNSCOM inspectors); he's being used as a propaganda prop
> by Saddam, but he has a right to be used, if he so acquiesces, just as
> we have an obligation to see that he IS being used. [hr] CNN's Hatchet
> Job on Scott Ritter
>
> Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq
>
> Source: Toronto Star
> (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layou
> t/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1026145118423&call_page=TS_News&call_pag
> eid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News) Authors: Antonia Zerbisias
> azerbis@thestar.ca Dated: 2002-09-12
>
> To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
> unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
> public. -- Theodore Roosevelt
>
> OF COURSE it was just coincidental that, on Sunday, as CNN was
> discrediting former United Nations weapons' inspector Scott Ritter, it
> was running promos for the remake of Four Feathers, A.E.W. Mason's
> tale of the coward who would not go to war.
>
> Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in
> weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After his
> 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down
> Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations
> Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in
> protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq
> allowed.
>
> Ever since, he has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's
> failure to complete its mission a failure Ritter largely blames on
> Washington and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to
> avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that, if
> the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is building
> nukes, then the American people have a right to see it before they
> sacrifice their lives.
>
If Saddam does not allow the inspectors back in and the UN or the US do not force
the issue, the first evidence that the US citizenry may see - and the last that millions
might see - could very well be a mushroom cloud.
>
> So, naturally, CNN talking head Miles O'Brien on Sunday questioned
> Ritter on his loyalty.
>
> "As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel
> my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with the
> with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter. "It's the
> most patriotic thing I can do."
>
> Not in this climate. Not when there's the ironically named U.S.A.
> Patriot Act which abrogates civil rights. Not when those who criticize
> the administration are considered to be "with the terrorists." Not
> when the U.S. media let President George Bush's advisers who, with
> the exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, have never served
> their country as Ritter has gallop all over the airwaves.
>
> You couldn't flip a channel on Sunday without catching one of the Bush
> bunch, including wife Laura, Powell, vice-president Dick Cheney,
> Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security adviser
> Condoleeza Rice, promoting an attack on Iraq as if they were actors
> flogging their latest project on Leno and Letterman.
>
Oh, now that Colin Powell is on board, he's no longer a nice guy, ayy?
>
> Certainly, the line of questioning was no more tough. Nowhere was any
> of them asked seriously, if at all, about such trivia as the costs of
> a war, or what, if anything, is known about connections between Al
> Qaeda and Saddam, or what proof there is that Iraq has the ability to
> make and deliver nuclear weapons, or why that country as opposed to
> others, or what oil has to do with it, or how Cheney justifies his
> former business dealings with the regime he now so desperately wants
> to change ...
>
> Still the demonization of Ritter continued.
>
> First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just
> returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the
> war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott
> Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of
> people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter
> much credibility..."
>
> The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither
> of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what
> grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided,"
> "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."
>
> By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had
> "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."
>
> Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a
> sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But
> the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips interrogated
> him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq and all but calling him
> a quisling.
>
> "Ha! Excuse me; I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent
> seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass
> destruction. I believe I've done a lot about Saddam Hussein," he
> replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a
> threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not
> going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States. But
> at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts that
> Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United States
> worthy of war."
>
> Maybe today, in his speech to the United Nations, Bush will make that
> case.
>
> Maybe not.
>
> Whatever happens, the list of cowards and traitors here won't include
> Scott Ritter.
>
Actually, Bush DID make that case to a very persuasive degree, and more is coming
out concerning Saddam's nuclear ambitions and his attempts to quench them (like
with the no-dual-use aluminum rods?) when Blair releases his dossier later this
month.
I never said that ritter was disloyal; I merely said that he was out of the loop and
that he was being used as a propaganda tool by Saddam; both statements are
indisputably true.
>
> Additional articles by Antonia Zerbisias
> (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Rende
> r&c=Page&cid=968332188492&ce=Columnist&colid=969907624636)
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26609>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:58 MDT