Ritter dismisses Powell report (PERVERT ALERT)WITH POSTING BOARD

japantoday ^ | 2/6/2003 | japantoday

[The Great Satan]

"Colin Powell holds up a vial of dry powder anthrax and he makes allusions to the attack in the United States through the letters. That was U.S. government anthrax! It had nothing to do with Iraq," Ritter said.

You sure about that, Scottie?

[chiefqc]

He can't see to well, he has visions of little girls dancing in his head.

[The Great Satan]

"Iraq, anthrax, vial, dry powder — what connection do they have? None," he said.

Of course not. No connection. Powell was just grandstanding. Right, Scottie?

[Paul Atreides]

Scott must really have something bad in his past for them to be able to blackmail him this much.

[Always Right]

Wonder why Ritter has to go to Japan to speak out. Could be Japan doesn't quite look down at Pedophiles as in the US, where they are considered the scum of scum.

[Lynn]

Powell's mistake was not holding up a bag of sugar ala SecDec William Cohen (USWorthless) when making the comparison on what a particular amount of anthrax could do...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

$400,000 payoff from Iraq. That's what we do know. there's probably more.

[lilylangtree]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Scott Ritter one of the inspectors that quit doing inspections in Iraq in the mid-90's because the then inspectors alleged that the Iraqis were carrying secret equipment (like computers, etc) out the backdoor as the inspectors were coming in the front door. Plus, Hussein and his henchmen were not forthcoming with information. It seems I read something similar to that statement. Then why is Ritter defending Hussein and denouncing the US' propoposed actions?

[cyncooper]

My! Ritter sounds positively desperate to propagate his message. Is it normal for a former UN Inspector to refuse to pause and even consider what Colin Powell presented the other day?

As if we needed more evidence that something ain't quite as it should be regarding Ritter's PRO-Iraq stance. And it is PRO, not just giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt.

I hope and pray he is made to account for himself...and soon.

[cyncooper]

Then why is Ritter defending Hussein and denouncing the US' propoposed actions?

Why, indeed.

And we can guess. Oh, yes we can.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

We should send Ritter back over there to inspect. Seriously. I think inspections could work if given time. All we have to do is tell him that the Anthrax is hidden in the pants of underage girls, and the game is up.

[gaucho]

"Colin Powell holds up a vial of dry powder anthrax and he makes allusions to the attack in the United States through the letters. That was U.S. government anthrax! It had nothing to do with Iraq," Ritter said.

Maybe Ritter sent the Anthrax...

[Wil H]

"Colin Powell holds up a vial of dry powder anthrax and he makes allusions to the attack in the United States through the letters. That was U.S. government anthrax! It had nothing to do with Iraq," Ritter said.

What a MORON !

Does anyone think that was a vial of real anthrax? I bet it was talcum powder or flour. I'm sure Colin Powell has no wish to carry around lethal substances in his pocket for show and tell.

Ritter's conjecture that it was "US Anthrax" just shows what a whack job he is.

[cwb]

Yes...as I recall Iraq even accused him of being a CIA spy. He's done a complete 180 since 1998 when he actually accused the Clinton administration of thwarting his attempts...on 7 occassions, to do serious inspections of probable weapon sites. According to Ritter's own testimony, if I recall, he said that Iraq was capable of reconstituting their bio/chemical weapons program within 6 months...and their nuclear program within 3 years. He said Saddam was a threat. The guys obviously been turned.

[LiteKeeper]

"Who is that masked man?"

[showme_the_Glory]

He is a perverted traitor and should not be allowed back in this country. Let him stand with Saddam

[Redcloak]

Kinda of-topic, but, there are some particularly unsavory aspects of Japanese culture that Scottie would likely enjoy.

[tractorman]

What do Scott Ritter and K-Mart have in common?

They both have little kids pants half off.

[Tamzee]

This editorial discusses the $400,000... Scottie admitted this, no telling if he got other money that Saddam kept proof of and can reveal if Scottie doesn't back him up.
.
.
.
Scotty says Saddam very, very BAD...
Saddam gives Scotty half a million...
Scotty says Saddam very, very GOOD...

.
.
.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020918-239312.htm

EDITORIAL • September 18, 2002

The bizarre odyssey of Scott Ritter

If you're confused about which Scott Ritter statements you can now believe about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, you're not alone. The Ritter of today, who speaks before the Iraqi parliament denouncing President Bush's policies and asserting that Saddam poses no threat to American interests, used to be a tough-minded hawk when it came to Iraq.

When Mr. Ritter, a Gulf War veteran, resigned from the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) — the agency charged with ensuring Iraqi disarmament — in August 1998, he said his departure should serve as a "wake-up call" about the United Nation's abandonment of the goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In a blistering letter to UNSCOM chief Richard Butler, Mr. Ritter sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraqi mass-destruction weapons be destroyed. He also accused U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan of serving as a "sounding board" for Iraqi complaints aimed at impeding UNSCOM's work.

"Iraq is not disarming," Mr. Ritter said on Aug. 27, 1998. Baghdad's failure to do so "means that Iraq will, in effect, win the Gulf War."

In the weeks after these parting shots, he was severely criticized by the Clinton administration, in particular Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and publicly ridiculed by administration supporters on Capitol Hill like Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware.

But, when it comes to Iraqi disarmament, by far the most critical event of the past four years occurred in October 1998, when Saddam effectively forced UNSCOM out. Instead of taking military action to make Saddam back down, the Clinton administration effectively acquiesced to pressure applied on his behalf from Russia, France and China to put UNSCOM out of business and install a much weaker disarmament apparatus in its place. But the Iraqis have refused to permit the new inspection teams to enter the country.

The bottom line? With inspectors having been barred from Iraq for close to four years, Saddam has faced no constraints on his ability to continue with his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. That's arguably the most fundamental thing that's changed since Mr. Ritter quit UNSCOM. How then can Mr. Ritter credibly appear before the Iraqi parliament as he did on Sept. 8 and declare that Iraq "is not a threat to its neighbors," and that Iraq's unaccounted-for weapons materiel "does not constitute a viable weapons capability?"

Mr. Ritter's assertions have, quite understandably, left former colleagues such as Mr. Butler and former UNSCOM inspector David Kay scratching their heads. Both men have essentially said that either Mr. Ritter was lying when he resigned four years ago, or he is lying now. Messrs. Butler and Kay are too gentlemanly to say it, but Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported last Nov. 19 that Saddam welcomed Mr. Ritter to Baghdad in July 2000 in order to produce a "documentary" film called "Shifting Sands," which Mr. Ritter says is aimed at "de-demonizing" Iraq. The film was financed with $400,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real-estate developer from Michigan whom Mr. Ritter admits is "openly sympathetic" with Saddam's regime. Mr. Khafaji, the Standard reported, accompanied Mr. Ritter as he filmed the documentary.

Some people have reached the obvious conclusion that the money may have effected his opinion. But others who are familiar with Mr. Ritter believe that his ferocious anger at U.S. and U.N. pusillanimity in 1998 has somehow been converted in his mind to defending Saddam. Whatever the explanation for his currently unsupportable assertions, it is a sad turn of events for a once admirable Marine.