Posted on 01/17/2003 7:18:50 AM PST by latrans
Last night Scott Ritter appeared on the Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox. She hit him with a quote that he made a decade ago. It seems his opinions on Iraq have changed since then. Scott exploded with a diatribe that was almost unintelligible. Obviously Greta had hit a hot button. He then went on to spit venom at Greta's two other guests. Greta had to shut him up twice. As I watched this character, I formed an opinion about him that had not occurred to me before. This guy is bipolar. Of course I am not a shrink (but I play one on the internet), but I do have a bipolar family member, so I have observed some characteristic behavior. Ritter's explosive behavior, and his changing opinions remind me of a manic depressive.
Okay, so your mind is made up - nuke Iraq. Fine. I don't have any kids who'll be fighting, but still, I'm not so cavalier about going to war as you are.
There are many inconsistancies in this looming war with Iraq and not all of them are Scott Ritter, but I don't expect Bushbots to admit that.
Is Iraq being cooperative? No. Does that justify war? No.
Was yesterday's discovery a smoking gun? No.
Would a discovery of signs of chemical/nuclear production be a different story? Yes.
Is it smart for Bush to continue to move war preparations forward? Yes, it demonstrates that Bush is not Clinton and perhaps, this won't have to come to war.
Definately!
Excellent analysis!
Def...def...definately!
Definately bipolar!
Excellent shrink. Definately!
Excellent
Does anyone who can spell definitely agree with this?
I'm so happy cause today I've found my friends
They're in my head
I'm so ugly, but that's ok, cause so are you
Broke our mirrors
Sunday morning is every day for all I care
And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze cause I've found God
Hey, hey, yeah
I'm so lonely, that's ok I shaved my head
And I'm not sad
And just maybe I'm to blame for all I've heard
But I'm not sure
I'm so excited, I can't wait to meet you there
And I don't care
I'm so horny, that's ok my will is good
Hey, hey, yeah
I like it, I'm not gonna crack
I miss you, I'm not gonna crack
I love you, I'm not gonna crack
I kill you, I'm not gonna crack
Inspections are only back on track because Bush forced the had of the UN to back up their silly treaties.
Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement to end the Persian Gulf War. Iraq traded in the possibility of the US going on to Baghdad for compliance with the cease fire agreement, which included at least 16 UN resolutions regarding disarmament and so forth. Iraq has violated every single one of them and the warheads found the other day also constitute a breach. Under the cease fire agreement, resumption of hostilities should already be going.
Scott Ritter is not arguing any facts whatsoever. He just claims there is "no smoking gun", which in fact there is (see above paragraph).
Oh, so anyone who disagrees with YOU is automatically a Bushbot?
The onus is not on America to find the "smoking gun." The UN, US, and Iraq all agreed at the end of the Gulf War that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Under the terms of surrender, Saddam was to disarm and provide proof to the UN that he has done that.
Inspectors are there to make sure he keeps his word.
Saddam says he has destroyed them. When pressed for proof of that destruction, he doesn't provide it.
Ten years later and the world is still waiting proof that he has destroyed them. Until that proof is given in entirety, then Iraq and the world have a problem.
KC_Conspirator is right. Inspections are only back on track because Bush forced the hand of the UN to back up their silly treaties.
Every time I have heard Scott Ritter pressed on why he has seemingly flip-flopped, he offers no explanation, no reason. He just starts yelling at the hosts... and accusing them of questioning his patriotism. Or, he goes off on some tangent about how he was a marine.
Scott Ritter himself stated in 1998 that Iraq had not disarmed. Now, in 2002 he says that Iraq is nothing but a paper tiger. When pressed he says that he is not privy to intelligence, hasn't spoken to anyone who has been in Iraq, or to anyone in intelligence. Yet, he just knows.
If he knows, then he should tell us how he knows. He hasn't (from the times I have seen him). In response to those types of questions, he just gets highly agitated and abusive.
Until he tells me why he has changed his mind, I will go with his 1998 statements.
Maybe, but at least FReepers would have a lot less evidence that he is a psycho-nut-case since his opinion would now at least be reality-based.
Nope. Once a sellout traitor, always a sellout traitor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.