[Boonie Rat]

Discussion of the premise of the article welcomed. Attacks on the source discouraged.

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[DB]

Why? Do you think source doesn't matter?

[Texas_Jarhead]

I stopped after Ritter's name was invoked.

[John W]

RE:The answer to Question # 4.How does Ritter's current position jive with this:

Resignation Letter of William S. Ritter, Jr.
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES

UNSCOM
UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMISSION

Richard Butler
Executive Chairman
United Nations Special Commission
New York, New York

Dear Mr. Butler,

26 August 1998

Since September 1991 I have dedicated my professional life to the furtherance of the mandate of the Special Commission as set forth in relevant Security Council resolutions. I believed in what the Special Commission stood for, and made many sacrifices, both personal and professional, required to perform my duties. In this I was no different from hundreds of my colleagues, who likewise dedicated themselves to carrying out a difficult but worthwhile task.

The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming Iraq. As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required by Security Council resolutions. As you know, UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today.

Unfortunately, the recent decisions by the Security Council to downplay the significance of the recent Iraqi decision to cease cooperation with Commission inspectors clearly indicates that the organization which created the Special Commission in its resolution 687 (1991) is no longer willing and/or capable of the implementation of its own law, in this case an enforceable resolution passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This abrogation of its most basic of responsibilities has made the Security Council a witting partner to an overall Iraqi strategy of weakening the Special Commission. The Secretary General and his Special Representative have allowed the grand office of the Secretary General to become a sounding board for Iraqi grievances, real or imagined. In fact, the Secretary General himself has proposed a "comprehensive review" of the UNSCOM-Iraqi relationship, an action that would result in having the investigators becoming the investigated, all at the behest of Iraq. Such an action, in addition to being a farce, would create a clear distraction from the critical disarmament issues related to Iraq and its compliance with Security Council resolutions.

Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years - through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to the hidden weapons, components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head. During the period of time that this effort has been underway, the Commission has uncovered indisputable proof of a systematic concealment mechanism, run by the Presidency of Iraq and protected by the Presidential security forces. This investigation has led the Commission to the door step of Iraq's hidden retained capability, and yet the Commission has been frustrated by Iraq's continued refusal to abide by its obligations under Security Council resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding of 23 February 1998 to allow inspections, the Security Council's refusal to effectively respond to Iraq's actions, and now the current decision by the Security Council and the Secretary General, backed at least implicitly by the United States, to seek a "diplomatic" alternative to inspection driven confrontation with Iraq, a decision which constitutes a surrender to the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations.

Inspections do work - too well, in fact, prompting Iraq to shut them down all together. Almost without exception, every one of the impressive gains made by UNSCOM over the years in disarming Iraq can be traced to the effectiveness of the inspection regime implemented by the Special Commission. The issue of immediate, unrestricted access is, in my opinion, the cornerstone of any viable inspection regime, and as such is an issue worth fighting for. Unfortunately, others do not share this opinion, including the Security Council and the United States. The Special Commission of today, hobbled as it is by unfettered Iraqi obstruction and non-existent Security Council enforcement of its own resolutions, is not the organization I joined almost seven years ago. I am, and will always be, fully supportive of the difficult mission that you, the Executive Chairman, and my colleagues at the Special Commission are tasked to accomplish. The refusal and/or inability on the part of the Security Council to exercise responsibility concerning the disarmament obligations of Iraq makes a mockery of the mission the staff of the Special Commission have been charged with implementing.

The illusion of arms control is more dangerous than no arms control at all. What is being propagated by the Security Council today in relation to the work of the Special Commission is such an illusion, one which in all good faith I cannot, and will not be a party to. I have no other option than to resign from my position here at the Commission effective immediately.

I want you to be assured that I hold both you and the staff of the Special Commission in the highest regard. I am aware of the immensely difficult task you have been charged with implementing. I only wish the world truly understood the heroic efforts you have undertaken, and the impossible conditions which you have been compelled to operate. I wish you and the staff the best in whatever the future holds.

Sincerely,

(signed)
Willam S. Ritter, Jr.

[steve50]

bump

[Gumption]

Hornberger: Yes. Also, former Marine and former UN Inspector Scott Ritter is openly challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

How come "they" only use Ritter's opinion, and only his recent opinions at that, when there are more than one former UN Inspector voicing opinions on the Iraqi threat? Maybe because he's the only ONE "challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States" and the rest support the "administration's thesis"?

[carenot]

Thanks for posting this article.

Ping for exodus.

[wattsmag2]

Discouraged or not, when they use Scott Ritter to back up their arguments, they are using a traitor.

[11B3]

And just why is Lew Rockwell a sacred cow? Is it because the LP (and the source in particular) is even further to the left than Daschle regarding national security and generally in alignment with Tariq Aziz?

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Ron Paul is one of the few honest and clear-thinking politicians left. I admire him for that and he will be the only politician I will be supporting with contributions at this time.

I don't care if anyone on this forum disagrees but it is my view, and I happen to be right, that W is doing more to take apart our country and our nation than 5 consecutive terms of Clinton could have done. Not that Clinton wouldn't have tried to do what W is about to attempt now. It's only that there would have been more dissent if Clinton tried it.

[CIB-173RDABN]

If Iraq was the only target, perhaps this article would have a point.

The threat to the United States (and the western world) is the entire middle east. Afghaistan was step one. Iraq is step two. If the other countries in the region do not get the message, then one of them will be step three.

We are at war.

During WWII, our troops had to fight in a lot of differnt countries before reaching Germany. That is going to be the case now.

So the entire argument as presented makes as much sense as if someone would have written an argument against landing in France during D Day, after all we were not at war with France.

[faintpraise]

Bump for informative Q & A.

[First_Salute]

The Congress has the power to authorize warfare, not the President; yet a formal declaration of war never was, and has never been, required by the Constitution.

Presently, the Congress has authorized both the preparations for warfare, as well as warfare, for a variety of military situations in which is, or may be, the United States.

The United States has been at war against Iraq since the beginning of the Gulf War; Great Britain and the United States have shouldered the burden to enforce the conditional 1991 cease-fire.

Because the World of Fascist Islam "from Malaysia to Morocco," has formally attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, and did so with prior knowledge of such attacks by several of the Islamic States (and some socialist states), the United States will for some time be at war against the ever-changing conspirators of those states among themselves and with the powers of world socialism, because that axis of a terrorism needs to be killed as matter of defending ourselves from such killers of life and liberty.

The present front lines in Iraq, held by the allies, Great Britain and the United States, are expected to change, according to Tony Blair and George Bush in their recent announcements; the immediate reasons for this, can be found in such announcements.

The present front lines against the axis of terrorism may also be expected to change.

The United States is not yet prepared for these challenges.

This is a world war against the Axis of terrorism, and the tasks will require both clever and conventional methods of warfare; and the United States has not yet the conventional strength.

[mhking]

Discussion of the premise of the article welcomed.

The premise is based on supporting the questions. The questions are all leading in that regard.

Paul worded the questions (poorly if you ask me), and the answers fell right into the trap.

[Ragin1]

Good post Boonie. I just put it on the hardrive. The most interesting threads have a knack of dissappearing.

[tallhappy]

You've been here a long time which is why I expect you're given leeway in posting this garbage -- the fourth or fifth post of this I've seen.

Posting Ron Paul's nonsense mutiple times a day doesn't make any more coherent.

[JCG]

Paul and Hornberger are off the reservation with this BS dialogue.

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because
we know it cannot retaliate - which just confirms that there is no
real threat?

Iraq (or any other vicious raghead country working with terrorists) can retaliate and we have a huge hole and 3,000 dead in NYC to
prove it.

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

Hitler was a big man on the world stage with small weapons; Hussein is a small man with (potentially or actually) big weapons. The similarity is in the mentality -- natural born killers.

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not
initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

We don't know whether Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack or
not and to say that he could not initiate aggression against us in
plainly nonsensical.

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared
war and - not coincidentally - we have not since then had a
clear-cut victory?

Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[evad]

Discussion of the premise of the article welcomed.

Twisted logic eminating from a basic false premise.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

Hornberger: I suggest that we form a "Suicide Brigade" for all men over 40 who support sending American GI's into foreign wars. Their mission would be to blow themselves up on enemy targets, thereby bringing the war to a quicker conclusion. They've already lived their lives anyway, and their suicides would be helping to save the lives of younger American soldiers. My prediction: Not one single "hard-charger" will volunteer, but I would oppose drafting them into "service."

How do you reconcile the above quote with your own admonition not to engage in ad hominem attacks?:

Attacks on the source discouraged.

You even underlined that part in your original article. Thomas Sowell once defined a bigot as someone who reserves rights for himself that he will not extend to others. Seems like cheap-shots and ad hominem attacks are your bigotry...

[Lizard_King]

The leading nature of the questions really undercuts the points they may otherwise have made...

The reason this sounds so smooth is that it ignores many contextual issues, imho. For example, if we were dealing with America under President Jefferson in the 19th century, then these constitutional arguments would hold a lot more water. In post Civil War America, the constitution is, for better or worse, a formality at best. The fact is our government does fight wars that are not in the interest of self defense, whether they set up a situation that allows for congressional "approval" (a la Wilson in WWI) or simply bypass the process altogether (Kennedy, LBJ, etc).

Also, I DO think the source matters, especially when Scott Ritter's bizarre situation is in play.

The long and short of it now is that those that are interested in defending the constitution had better pick their battles a lot more wisely than those in the foreign policy forum, because there is a century+ worth of precedent for ignoring the constitution or abusing it in the foreign policy forum. In foreign policy, the real question is whether our unconstitutional, not-for-self-defense acts will be to our benefit in terms of long term goals (Korea), if they will just be a difficult conflict fought poorly (Vietnam), or if, indeed, we are involving ourselves in a conflict where it does not really matter who won (Gulf War...I think Saddam attacked Israel in a pr move to please the masses, and given the precedent we had set for cold, rational dealings with him in the past, he would have been much easier to deal with than the bloody Saudis. But Bush I, for better or worse, saw an opportunity to show the world we were going to clean up the "mess" we helped create, and somehow we were thrust in the position of defending people that despise us against an erstwhile ally).

The de jure test for recognition of a government was an invention of Wilson's, back in the day, and one selectively applied as a pr measure ever since then. I honestly don't care who they are ruled by so long as he sells us oil at a reasonable price and keeps them from crashing airplanes into our buildings. Has Saudi Arabia more definitely failed to be in line with our interests? Yes. But I think we have an opportunity to get rid of a really complex situation in Iraq right now, and then phase III should involve the rest of the Arab world.

Now, Saddam has no reason to work with the US again. Indeed, we have set things up, between Bush I and Clinton, so that we have little choice but to flatten him, and then work on Saudi Arabia.

I apologize for any lack of fluidity in these statements, as I am still a little rattled in the head after an afternoon at the shooting range.

[stylin19a]

Uh-oh Re: #4....This from the IEAE web site - 9/15/2002

Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions Relating to Iraq For nearly four years,the Agency has not been in a position to implement its mandate in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 and related resolutions. Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq, we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq's nuclear activities. I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the Agency can draw any conclusion or provide any assurance regarding Iraq's compliance with its obligations under these resolutions. In May and July of this year, I participated in two rounds of talks between the United Nations Secretary General and Iraq. I do hope that Iraq will be in a position soon to accept the return of inspectors and that the resumption of inspections will take place without delay. This is clearly in the interests of both the international community and Iraq itself. The Agency remains prepared to resume its verification activities in Iraq under the relevant Security Council resolutions at short notice.

What else is not accurate with this ? So much for the premise.