Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size


Lapland’s Mystery Moths Puzzle Science
The Key to 2014




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

“Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?”

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 11, 2008
AP photo / Bullit Marquez

A U.S. soldier checks the radiation level of a canister that was looted during the invasion from the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq. A Harris poll released July 21, 2006, found that 50 percent of U.S. respondents said they believed Iraq had nuclear arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003.

By Scott Ritter

(Page 3)

The problem with disbelieving was there were too many pieces of this puzzle that seemed to fit together. The timing of the threat coincided too neatly with my communication with the CPA about my plans while in Baghdad. People in the CPA certainly had the information if they decided to pass it on—I had telephoned and sent faxes and e-mails providing my dates of travel, where I wanted to stay and how I wanted to interact with the CPA. The ability of the U.S. intelligence community to monitor my e-mail communications with Mohammed was a given. And then there was the disturbing fact that, since the time that I had notified the CPA of my intent to travel to Iraq to write this story for Harper’s Magazine, I had been red-flagged by the United States government. On both occasions that I left the United States on assignment for Harper’s Magazine (once to London and Prague, the other to Amman), I had been pulled aside by U.S. immigration and customs officials upon my return for special treatment.

Apparently taking their cues from computer instructions, the customs officials involved were very interested in where I had traveled, whom I had met with, and any documents I might be carrying. When I asked a senior customs official in Washington’s Dulles Airport what the problem was, he simply shrugged. “I guess it’s just because you are who you are,” he said. A customs officer in New York’s JFK Airport, after looking at instructions sent to him on his computer, looked up to me. “You used to work for the U.S. government?” he asked. Prompted again by the computer, he called over a supervisor, who was very interested in documents I had in my possession concerning Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. In both cases, the only thing that seemed to save me from an even greater intrusion into my personal belongings was a letter from Lewis Lapham identifying me with Harper’s Magazine. The letter was carefully examined by customs officers and photocopied, and became the apparent subject of intense exchanges between the customs officers and whoever was on the other end of the computer. In both cases, my First Amendment rights prevailed over the concerns of the U.S. government, and I was allowed to proceed with my notes intact.

Mohammed’s dire warning aside, it seemed clear that my new assignment for Harper’s Magazine had caught the attention of someone in the U.S. government. What about my probing into the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue could prompt such extreme measures? What would make the U.S. government so afraid as to justify its attempt to intimidate a journalist—even an activist journalist such as myself—from carrying out his work? As a former weapons inspector with the United Nations, I was intimately familiar with the fraudulent case made by the Bush administration before the 2003 invasion, and had quite publicly challenged the president’s allegations. I do not believe the Bush administration would undertake any activity, directly or indirectly, beyond simply harassing me, because of my stance on pre-war WMD claims. However, knowing that I was going to Baghdad to meet with Iraqis who had firsthand knowledge of what had transpired since the invasion was another matter. What could I have learned that troubled them so? I will relay the story as I received it from Mohammed.

On a bright morning one day in late June 2003 Mohammed waited patiently on the side of a street in the Jadariyah district of Baghdad. As a former official in the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein, he had knowledge of programs and activities of interest to the Americans who now occupied the palaces of the former Iraqi president; these programs and activities included but were not limited to weapons of mass destruction. Mohammed had been summoned to a meeting with a special intelligence cell that reported not to David Kay’s Iraq Survey Group, but instead directly to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Shortly before 9 in the morning, a small convoy consisting of three unmarked Toyota Land Cruisers pulled up alongside Mohammed. Seated in the front passenger seat of the lead vehicle was a short, stocky blond woman named Stacey. One might not have guessed from her plain khaki cargo pants and simple white T-shirt that she was a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy. Stacey motioned for Mohammed to enter the vehicle, and the small convoy sped off.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Crossing the 14th of July Bridge, the convoy turned right, into the grounds of the Republican Palace. Through gates once manned by the most elite forces of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Special Republican Guard, the small convoy now negotiated checkpoints manned by the soldiers of Iraq’s new master, the United States. The Land Cruisers snaked past the main palace building itself, where four large bronze heads of Saddam sporting a Moghul helmet stared impassively above them (these statues were later removed under the orders of the then-head of the CPA, Paul Bremer). The SUVs moved north toward the far end of the former palace complex, now known as the Green Zone. In front of the former offices of the Iraqi National Security Committee, the convoy turned right, cutting through some administrative buildings before emerging on an embankment road running alongside the Tigris River. Heading south, the three vehicles came upon a villa complex surrounded by small decorative ponds, each pond connected with a small footbridge. On each island was an open barbecue pit, complete with accompanying stack of firewood, of the type favored by the former Iraqi president.  Disembarking from the Land Cruiser, Stacey led Mohammed to the main villa, where they were ushered in by security personnel wearing similar nondescript clothing.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By DA Gunny, December 18, 2009 at 7:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Interesting subject obviously, and I know from following your reporting back in the verification days and my own research over the years, the WMD issue was verified thoroughly by your team and all accounted for that was known.  I know of some government analysts and senior intelligence managers that did not buy into the WMD story due to their intelligence data and information at the time, and they were either removed from the senior positions and transferred out of the problem.  You told them so, and I am here to tell you that I admired your courageous stance on the WMD subject.  Semper FI

Report this

By cyrena, March 18, 2009 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing is right Bittner. We recognize right-wing propaganda smears when we see them, and I’m not even all that crazy about Scott Ritter. He actually admitted to voting for Dick Bush both times.

That still doesn’t put any truth to your lies….

Report this

By Scott Bittner, March 18, 2009 at 6:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Suskin posting has nothing to do with you or Ritter.  My thoughts are not disheveled or scattered as to our conversation.  If I had intended to speak with you I would have addressed you by your site moniker.

Report this

By cann4ing, March 17, 2009 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

You’re beginning to bore me, Bittner.  You smear Ritter.  I call you out on it, so you change the subject to Suskin?  Am I missing something here, or are your thought processes completely disjointed?

Report this

By Scott Bittner, March 17, 2009 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Heres a little intel on Suskin,
just so you dont take what he says as gospel:

Back in 2004, Powerline caught Suskin perpetrating a hoax with his hit book on Bush, using proven liar Ex Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil as a witness.

“Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O’Neill’s appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears to be a major error in Ron Suskin’s book, which casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskin and O’Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie’s email:

“In his appearance this evening on ‘60 Minutes,’ Ron Suskin, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

“Suskin claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited—and even showed—what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.’ He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS’s promotional news story also contained that claim).

“But that is not a Pentagon document. It’s from the Vice-President’s Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney’s attention before the 9/11 strikes…...

And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)”

What Mylroie says about the “Foreign Suitors” document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed “Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects” as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any “post-war” plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam. America, along with countless other nations, has taken stock of reserves and potential sellers for decades.

So Suskin (and apparently O’Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskin displayed it on 60 Minutes. “It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskin did.” Clearly a lie for monetary gain.

Report this

By Scott Bittner, March 17, 2009 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cann4ing,

You are about as complex as a cardboard box to me.  You suffer from painful hero worship over a flawed man. You continue to assert that I am part of a right wing smear campaign because I won’t “cite” “legitimate” resources such as, “youtube” and “democracy now”. Are you serious?

I pray to god that I never have to be subjected to legal council who relies on youtube and the myriad of slanted political articles, embedded in conjecture, as “evidence”. Truth be known I’m not even supposed to be talking about this right now.  I’m just so overwhelmingly irritated by the fact that America has one side of the story.  Why don’t you ask him why the assistant DA was terminated and the case was sealed.

Furthermore,I find it disturbing that a personal injury attorney sees fit to hover over this site, praising Ritter at every opportunity, and gaiting individuals into arguments about him.  Funny, that seems like a bigger sting than Ritters’ Burger King fiasco. Maybe you should be the one under the microscope…ever been to Delmar?  Stop your left wing conspiracy theories long enough to do a little research.  Having an intelligent conversation with you is analogous to swimming in oatmeal.

Report this

By cann4ing, March 16, 2009 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Bittner:  The name of this site is Truthdig.  The operative word is “Truth,” you dig?

You come on this site, repeat a right-wing smear—claiming that Scott Ritter took a bribe from the Iraqi government.  When asked to reference the source for your libelous accusation, you offer none!

You make the unsubstantiated claim that “America based their [sic.] decision on Iraq as a direct result of what Scott Ritter reported.”  When pressed, you offer no evidence whatsoever to substantiate that claim either. 

The U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003 based on a claims the Bush regime knew to be false. The Bush/Cheney cabal “knew” Iraq didn’t possess WMD; knew that there were no links between Saddam & either al Qaeda or 9/11 “before” the invasion.  Those unassailable facts are so well documented in books like Vincent Bugliosi’s “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” and the extensive sources cited therein that there is no room for academic discussion, let alone debate.

That fact alone demonstrates that your claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of what Ritter reported is patently false.  But the question does not stop there.  Ritter made public appearances in 2002 expressly debunking the WMD claims.  In his book, “Iraq Confidential” Scott Ritter lays out in detail the ongoing conflict between UNSCOM and the so-called U.S. intelligence community; how UNSCOM’s task of verifying Iraqi disarmament came into conflict with the consistent goal of the U.S. “intelligence community” (now there’s an oxymoron) whose task throughout was “regime change” and who was uninterested in disarmament verification precisely because verification would interfere with the goal of regime change.

Sorry, Bittner, but Truthdig is occupied by intelligent and educated people who understand a slimy piece of propaganda, like the one you posted here.  If you feel bullied by those who insist on facts and sources to back up unscrupulous claims then I am truly pleased.

Report this

By 1984, March 16, 2009 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Ask yourself this, if he realized wrongdoing from the onset” He did say that the case for the war was total baloney.

Report this

By Scott Bittner, March 16, 2009 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cann4ing,
You are a sad and angry little man aren’t you.  You descend upon a thread and attempt to bully others with your inept logic that you regurgitate from magazines and rag periodicals.  Ritter is no Martyr for a cause.  Ask yourself this, if he realized wrongdoing from the onset, why did it take him five years to go public with it?  This web site has seen fit to censor and filter what it chooses to post from me.  So as for your “citations of evidence” ask yourself why truthdig won’t print my aforementioned blogs.  They wouldn’t want their precious writer exposed now would they.  As for you, as a lawyer I would think that you would use your analytical and critical thinking skills before you speak.

Report this

By Scott Bittner, March 16, 2009 at 7:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Why did you wait some five years—that is until after Suskin came out with his devastating revelation that the White House forged a document trying to link Iraq to al Qaeda—before telling this story?” Question submitted by Cann4ing

Why indeed.  If Scott Ritter was morally compelled from the onset and concluded wrongdoing, why did he wait five years.  What could possibly prompt him to look the other way, all the while composing and drafting his WMD predictions about Iraq such as the following:


WMD Chief Investigator Scott Ritters’ initial statement:
Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq.

This beckons the following questions, “Why was Scott Ritter also tasked with investigating Saddams’ youth prisons?” and “Why does he still travel to Iraq when he know longer is tasked with his WMD investigative position?” and “Why is the CIA monitoring who pays for his trips to Iraq?”

Oh, and on a personal note, I hate Dick Cheney and I’m a registered independent….who proudly voted for Obama.  Truth is truth, no matter how evil or insidious.

Report this

By 1984, March 15, 2009 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

New UK Memos Support ‘Sexed Up’ Iraq Dossier Claim
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/13/uk-iraq-memos/

Blair aides DID know Britain was not in imminent danger of attack from Saddam, memo reveals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161537/Blair-aides-DID-know-Britain-imminent-danger-attack-Saddam-memo-reveals.html#comments

Report this

By cann4ing, March 15, 2009 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

Intel officer, Bittner?  What agency?  Were you one of the ones answering to Cheney?  Still waiting for your source, you lying piece of dung!  But of course, you have pointed to none because you operate in an evidence free environment.

Report this

By Scott Bittner, March 14, 2009 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can head,
Your brilliant exhortation has completely persuaded me to your line of thinking.  I hereby redact all inferences about Scott Ritter since nothing can assuage the pain of being outdone by your brilliant analysis of the situation…...NOT!

I am an Intel Officer by occupation and sadly I know the truth about your famed pedophile.  You can “Call me out”  if you want, but you won’t like what I have to say.

Report this

By cann4ing, March 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

To Scott Bittner, the unregistered commentator.  I note that you have not cited any source for your accusation that Scott Ritter accepted a bribe from Saddam’s regime.  Unless you can document it, I, and others who read it, will have to assume that your post is a libelous product of a right wing smear. 

Further, your suggestion that the cabal which occupied the White House in 2003 decided to go to war on the basis of Captain Ritter’s work is flat out wrong.  Long before we went to war, Ritter appeared on national television where he thoroughly debunked the WMD canard.

You are either ignorant of the facts or a vile propagandist, and I am, by this post, calling you out as such.

Report this

By ScottBittner, March 14, 2009 at 5:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

America based their decision on Iraq as a direct result of what Scott Ritter reported.  He accepted a bribe from Husseins’ prime minister for $400,000.00 the day after he resigned his position as Chief WMD Investigator.  He now allies himself with World Can’t Wait and Code Pink, spinoffs of the revolutionary communist party.  Based on Ritters lies, America turned on itself and looked foolish to the international community.  This is politics, don’t ascribe morals to something that would be better attributed to shameless bribery.

Report this

By sohbet odaları, September 28, 2008 at 3:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ThanK you my brother verry good

Report this

By sohbet, September 17, 2008 at 11:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If they had withdrawn the cornerstone of the argument they had made describing Iraqi’s WMD arsenal, the Administraton’s public case for war would have fallen apart. So, regardless of contravailing expert opinion as found in the classified version of the November 2002 NIE, they stuck to the war party line. I don’t think that this necessarily indicates that they had any concrete plan to plant nukes in Iraq. They had Plan B to fall back on - the assumption that they’d find something else there—anthrax, for instance (note that was the most concrete element in Bush’s speech)—that could be used to justify the invasion.

When, in April and May 2003, nothing like that was found, did they hatch desperate, half-baked plans? Well, that’s not hard to imagine. But, was it ever anything more than crazy talk by committed partisans? Before I can accept that there was a real PLAN, I need to see good, hard evidence of a workable conspiracy—with means, motive and opportunity—along with proof that something was actually done to carry it out. And, that I haven’t seen yet.

Report this

By floydw, August 30, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

There is a considerable amount of speculation concerning the motives and sources of influence that factored into Georgia’s decision to provoke Russia by instigating hostilities within South Ossetia; induced in part by Putin’s recent accusation that the provocation was encouraged, possibly even supported, or at a minimum not overtly discouraged or prohibited, by the Bush administration in an attempt to tip the balance-of-favor in the election toward Republicans. The idea that a rapid thawing of “frozen hostilities” would also magnetize the news cycle away from the allegations in Suskind’s book, dampening the influence, mitigating the impact and diluting criticism or other ramifications (e.g. impeachment proceedings) seems consistent with the Bush administration’s modus operandi? It seems to me that only when such factors are considered can one resolve what otherwise appears a dull-witted, irrational decision on the part of Georgia?

In light of Suskind’s revelations, Speaker Pelosi’s insistence that, in the absence of credible evidence of a crime, impeachment is “off the table” is exposed as absolute and ultimate hypocrisy; destroys her credibility; and justifies speculation concerning the motives, integrity and complicity of the Speaker and other members of congress (excluding Rep. Waxman, Rep. Kucinich and a few others).  If the Speaker is unable to execute the affairs, marshal and administer the resources, or considers herself insufficient to the demands of her office, she should step down immediately!  Congress must not be permitted to abdicate their responsibilities, without suffering the severest consequences democracy can administer.  It is becoming perfectly clear that the duopoly that has historically dominated our political culture has deteriorated into oligarchy, and that group is defined by incumbency.

The suggestion that there is insufficient time to conduct impeachment proceeding strikes me as patently pathetic, absolutely incongruous, even deliberately negligent of congressional responsibilities as delineated in the Constitution. What is the guiding principle operative here? Do the right thing only when you have time and it is politically convenient? How frequently we hear of administration stonewalling inquiries and requests for information in an attempt to “run out the clock” on responsibility and accountability for their grievous, immoral, and criminal behavior.  Is this a game? If this is a game, will someone please explain that to Gold Star families, wounded veterans and the remainder of our brothers and sisters overseas in harms way?  Are we willing to pursue bin Laden to the “gates of hell” but come January 2009, the whistle blows, Dick and W. go home, and everyone else moves one chair to the right and the music starts again?

Please forgive any redundancy between the substance of this post and those previous in this forum, I am just looking for a way to articulate my frustration, and add my voice to the chorus of concerned Americans of every stripe demanding rectification of the wrongs done, and being done, to our civil liberties, citizen soldiers, professional men and women of our armed forces, national character, national treasure, and our inspired and beloved Constitution of these United States of America.

God help us! But not if we refuse, neglect or lack the courage, insight and wisdom to help ourselves.

Report this

By alicecbrown, August 24, 2008 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

Scott is and has been right on target.  As he said at Wellesley in 2003, “I used to be the Golden Boy: a Republican, a physicist and a weapons inspector.  Now, when I don’t give them the lies they want, I can’t get arrested as far as the national media is concerned.”  Amen.
We as a nation are stupid, whether it is willful ignorance or as a result of the concentrated attacks of the Pravda-like media, jumping to the tune of their industrial giant owners, laying poison pills in so-called ‘OBJECTIVE” article.  The lying by omission that goes for news in the Boston Globe and New York Times, forget about Faux Fox news, never ceases to amaze me, and without a murmur from we, the sheep of the United States.
Thank God for Truthout and all the other blogs that help keep me sane, as I watch ‘black’ being turned into ‘white’ by the national media.

Report this

By Democrats also weaken the US, August 19, 2008 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As for the last paragraph of this piece, Congress will only act responsibly when tougher, independent types of any Party are elected. Perfect example is Ohio’s Paul Hackett, who sought to be the Democrats’ Senate candidate in 2006. A smart, bold war veteran, he would have inspired others in the US Senate to act out of conviction. His nascent political career was destroyed by NY Dem. Senator Chuck Schumer, the walking bowel-movement, who again damaged our country by pushing-through approval of Bush’s Atty. Gen. nominee Mukasey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/politics/14ohio.html?ex=1297573200&en=b43bc2c63e9bf9bd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Report this

By cann4ing, August 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

When I am wrong, Rus, I will be the first to admit it.  When you are wrong, Rus, which is basically standard fair for everything you post, you not only refuse to admit it but blame the other guy for not admitting that which is not true. 

No matter how many times you repeat your circular logic and seek to project onto others that which is the lack of insight of your tiny little mind, you are not going to change the facts; you are not going to turn facts into opinion and, contrary to your suggestion, the fallacy of your position (not mine) is so blatantly obvious that none, except the other TD neocons, like Marshall, have ever shared your position.

There is one point in which I will admit error—my even bothering to respond to your absurd drivel.  So after this I will make amends by doing a better job of ignoring everything you have to say.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

Step back, take a breath, quell the ego and read your own posts. Everything I stated can be found right there.
•  Cyrena: “it’s pretty obvious to anyone who actually pays attention.”—In other words “anyone” means they agree with you.
No rus, it means exactly what I said. It means ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY PAYS ATTENTION.

There’s no prerequisite for ‘agreeing’ with me at all, since PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION, don’t necessarily agree with me, or me with them. RATHER, if a critically (NON EMOTIONALLY) thinking person reads something that I or anyone else might write, and poses an opinion with information that supports his or her opinion, it’s not a matter of agreement or disagreement, since there are degrees to everything. So in reality, like the handful of other psychologically impaired people who post to this site, it’s really all about YOU, and YOUR opinion. And when you come across someone who might challenge it, or ask you to at least provide some relevant if only ‘circumstantial’ evidence for your opinion, you can’t do it, so you become frustrated, and then whomever asked you to do it becomes the bad guy.

And AGAIN, anyone actually paying attention can figure this out.

•  “…2. Cyrena: “You can’t find any legitimate fault with any of my own ideology”.—That is pure ego and it’s extremely ugly. You, Cyrena, are in the minority but you fail to see it because you spend your time on Web Sites where the majority agree with your radical and extremely dangerous views. I use the word myopic in describing you.

Here again rus, pure bullshit, and so you prove my point. I said that you could not find any LEGITIMATE fault with my own ideology, (which happens to be as far from RADICAL as it gets) and that’s where you stopped, but should have followed it out, because the rest of my statement was…

”so you take my own criticisms, which are obvious enough, and accuse *me* of having that same ideology.”

In other words, when I make criticisms of the current Dick Bush regime as being more RADICAL than any regime since the 18th Century, you claim it is *I* who is radical and dangerous.

You also assume this consistent arrogance and make these lies about HOW I SPEND MY TIME! You’ve ‘accused’ me of spending my time on Web Sites many times before, when first of all, YOU HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW THAT. (unless you’re stalking me). In reality, that is simply false, because while I do certainly *read* many other sources of information, I rarely if ever post to them. But more importantly, SO WHAT IF I DID? 

What is far more revealing is WHY this concerns you so much? Why would you be concerned about people ‘agreeing’ with me or not? And why is it so important for you and people like JBlack, to consistently claim that I’m in the ‘minority’? Whether I am or not, (and I don’t believe myself to be at all) what difference does it make, and why does it bring out such visceral hard-core hatred in you, to be directed at me? Why so very, very, PERSONAL Rus, on a very, very, public forum?

It goes completely beyond any comprehension on your part, that AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT with something that I write, is NOT what *I* am about, nor is it what my own idea of this public forum is about. I don’t read these articles and discuss them with others for the purposes of finding AGREEMENT with whatever my own interpretation happens to be. My opinion is my opinion on whatever the thing is. I find it very HELPFUL to hear other views, because generally speaking, there will always be others who can and will see things from a different view. Others may be able to provide ADDITIONAL and useful information, that wasn’t contained in the original work being commented upon.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 4:11 am Link to this comment

Part II

But, you’re all about FORCING your beliefs down somebody else’s throat, and then get pissed if they don’t find much validity to them. And, in your case at least, there’s NEVER any validity to anything you put forth. YOU rus, are the myopic one, having positioned yourself to defend the indefensible, which was an illegal attack by the Dick Bush regime on another sovereign country, WITHOUT international approval.

So yes, anyone who actually pays even 50% attention, knows that I have criticized the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that I criticized it even before it was launched, along with the other MILLIONS of people – WORLD WIDE- who did the same.


http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/15/on_third_anniversary_of_global_protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sqr2dz7kPo

http://www.etan.org/lh/misc/irakdemo1.html


So I suspect it is THAT rus, that has your panties in such a wad, because of my truth telling in this regard. But here’s the thing rus, I’m HARDLY in a ‘minority’ on that issue. At least one third of US citizens have been fully aware of this since day one, and the rest of the world has known it as well. By now, at least three quarters of Americans are well aware that they were lied to, and as the MINORITY, you’re still trying to find a way to deny it.

But, being the cowardly person that you are, you won’t fling this hateful language at any of the others who have made it clear that they TOO, know that they were lied to. You won’t even go this far with cann4ing, since he’s a guy, and has posted his credentials. All you can do is repeat the same impotent BS accusing HIM of *your* childish behavior, unwilling to admit that YOU are wrong, and have been proven wrong, over and over and over again.

But with ME, you’ll fling hateful language and call me all of the things that you are yourself, without knowing a single thing about me. You LIE and you SLANDER rus, just like any other impotent person needing a target or a whipping post because of your own inability to accept the truth, and admit when you’re wrong. Psychologically or otherwise emotionally impaired people do this. You’re just worst than most.

And this from YOU, PROVES IT, to anyone paying any attention
•  “You are foolish, extremely dangerous, and a self centered ugly American that believes the universe revolves around the United States. You are the type that start wars. 6. You ARE a racist and politicaly narrow minded bigot!! “You…..Are….Dangerous…. To…. Everyone!

~~~~
Real nice rus. You’ve just proved my point. You accuse me of making the point, (while I’m clearly NOT alone), that Iran is not now, and never has been, a threat to the US or it’s neighbors, UNLESS we attack THEM, (which has been Cheney’s plan since before the election that was stolen, along with our government) and then you claim that I’M the ‘type who starts wars’?

You’re not ‘ugly’ rus, you’re out of your fucking mind!

FIND ANOTHER WHIPPING POST rus. Your time has run out with me, and you are a danger to society at large. You should be institutionalized.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 17, 2008 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, Rus but repeating baseless accusations about me, Cyrena or any other poster does not lend an air of credibility to anything you have to say.  Why don’t you do us all a favor and go back to grade school where you belong.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 17, 2008 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:  Here is how absurd the discussion has become.

On a separate article, Marshall challenged my statement that the Bush regime had taken this nation to the brink of economic disaster, claiming I was an “alarmist.”

I then listed a series of economic “facts”—e.g. greatest gap between rich and poor since 1928, largest number of home foreclosures and bank failures since the Great Depression, that 18,000 Americans die each year for no other reason than that they can’t afford health insurance; that, for the first time since the Great Depression, a majority of Americans are experiencing negative savings—that is they spend more than they earn resulting in a depletion of whatever they had set aside as savings.

Now any thinking person would understand that these are “factual” claims that are either “accurate” or “inaccurate” as these factual claims all entail analysis of statistics—but not in the minds of Marshall & Rus.  Because these “facts” are inconvenient to the Fixed Noise party line, both made the nonsensical claim that I had merely stated “opinion.”  When I provided sources from multiple books, they claimed that the authors of books merely provide opinions and that the only sources for “facts” are government institutions.

Aside from the fact that one of my listed sources was the Center for Disease Control (a government agency), the posture taken by Marshall & Rus was so absurd, one scarcely knows where to begin in responding to it.  Suppose a man dies in Iraq today, but his death is not recorded by the U.S. or Iraqi governments.  Does this mean the man didn’t die?  If non-fiction books only provide opinions, why do publishing houses employ fact checkers?

The remarkable thing about Rus is that the guy is not just stupid but despicably dishonest.  He will deny he said something even when you quote his own words back to him, using the chiseling excuse that since I had utilized your anti-war credentials as a basis for demonstrating the absurdity of his charge that you think the U.S. is the center of the universe as a basis for claiming that he never said that you are an egocentric American who thinks the U.S. is the center of the universe.

Caught in his little charade, his only defense is to then ask “me” to admit that I am wrong, when, of course, I had accurately quoted him and it was “he” who was wrong, first in making the ridiculous charge that you believe the U.S. is the center of the universe and then by refusing to even admit that he made the charge.

(Note how Rus never answered your question to come up with the factual basis for his leveling that charge against you in the first instance.  Since the guy can’t distinguish fact from opinion, should that failure surprise anyone?)

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

Rus, is that an admission of error on your part or are you intentionally being obtuse?

Cyrena, isn’t it amusing that Rus is one of the very few at TD who will claim that people like you and I “hate America” because we disagree with waging wars of choice on other peoples of this planet for the benefit of Exxon-Mobil, KBR, Blackwater and the other war profiteers; he has continually defended Bush’s assertion that he has the right to tell people in other countries what type of government or economic system they must have, and then turns around and accuses “you” of being an egocentric American who believes that the U.S. is the center of the universe.

“Projection” anyone?

Report this

By cyrena, August 16, 2008 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

So rus, foget my anti-war ideology, and simply explain why *you* wrote this viscous and patently FALSE accusation to me, which is what Ernest called you on.

•  “You then wrote, of Cyrena, “You are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”

This is not the first time that you have accused me of being what I DO in fact abhor about a major mentality that my fellow Americans share. In fact, you do this CONSTANTLY. It’s your standard and lame MO, to accuse others of your own behavior, or to suggest that others maintain the same ideology that you do. This is a ‘template’ for people like you, and one that has been so practiced by the neocons (and their ilk) for so long now, that it’s pretty obvious to anyone who actually pays attention.

AND…it’s a lie. It’s a patent lie, slander, and unoriginal. You can’t find any legitimate fault with any of my own ideology, so you take my own criticisms, which are obvious enough, and accuse *me* of having that same ideology. Pissywise does the same thing. All of you trolls do it. And not just with me, but with anyone else likely to expose you. You make claims that are totally ridiculous and tell blatant lies with the hope that if you throw enough of it out there, people will be fooled.

So, you think you can make these kinds of statements, and nobody is going to call you on them. When they do, you twist it around even more, by zeroing in on some specific verbiage, and always out of context.

So, I ask you *again* to point to any specifics in anything that I’ve written, that would verify this accusation that you’ve leveled against me:

•  “You are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”


In other words rus7355, POINT OUT in whichever posts you choose, that I am an ugly ego-centrice American who believes the U.S. is the center of the Universe.

You’ll be looking long and hand, and fruitlessly rus, because you know damn well it’s a LIE. Your tricks are so unoriginal that even a grade-schooler can figure them out.

It’s a lie. You know it’s a lie. And there’s nothing you can produce to validate such a lie.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, August 16, 2008 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

By David, August 13 at 1:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Ended on January 20, 2000.  Congress has abandonded it’s role in government for it’s role as a lobbyist training camp.  The president and vice president have dictatorial power and most of the population can’t name the Speaker of the House.  This country is over.  The GOP has won.  America is no more.  Long live Amerika.
—————————————————————————-
Not yet, you pusillanimous defeatist! Obama for President!!!!

Freedom fights on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

Rus writes, “Petulant children stammer for excuses. Adults admit when they’re wrong.”

Since so many posters have demonstrated in so many different ways how you are flat out wrong about almost every word you have ever posted at Truthdig, I await your admission of error.  But sadly, one suspects that just as Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, awaiting an answer from his Soviet counterpart at the UN on the question of the presence of Russian-made missiles in Cuba, I suspect I will have to wait “until Hell freezes over” to hear your admission.

By the way, Rus, if you are interested on a recitation of the “facts” supporting the conclusion that what Bush has done to the economy resembles a train wreck—especially for the shrinking middle class, link to

http://meetthebloggers.org/?htm_source=rgemail

Report this

By cyrena, August 16, 2008 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

By Rus7355, August 15 at 3:11 am


•  “My many problems with Cyrena have nothing, whatsoever, to do with her being anti-war.”

~~~~

Since you’re such an expert at straw arguments, hair splitting, and word parsing rus, let’s examine this one.

First *WHAT* are those ‘many problems’ that you have with me? (sounds personal)

Second, *WHY* do you have ‘many problems’ with me? (again, sounds like a personal bias)

Explain THOSE things rus, and use specific FACTS, such as citations of things I’ve written, and use them in context. I’m sure that if you are forced to explain YOUR OWN ‘selected’ *problems* with me, we’ll all see it for what it is…YOUR OPINION, and your biased reaction, based on my exposure of the truths that you would rather not have exposed.

Yes, THAT would be the ‘very clear pattern’ that we’d all get to see.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

Rus, you are parsing words like a criminal defendant trying to escape a fraud count. 

You have read many, many posts by Cyrena that reveal her anti-war credentials.  You, on the other hand, have repeatedly defended the Bush regime for taking this nation to war on a lie.  You then wrote, of Cyrena, “You are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”  And when I called you on that remark, you claimed you never said it.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment

correction to my last post, Rus demonstrates an “inability” to separate fact from opinion.  For example, he claims that when I say that, for the first time since the Great Depression, a majority of Americans are experiencing a negative savings, Rus claimed that this was “opinion” even though it is a “factual” assertion which can either be shown to be true or false by mathematical calculation.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

Sad, Rus.  You claim to have a master’s degree but you not only demonstrate an ability to separate fact from an opinion but you even display an inability to recall what you wrote just one day ago.  One has to be concerned about what our educational institutions are producing if you are a reflection of what passes through them.

Report this

By samosamo, August 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

By Rus7355, August 14 at 4:11 am #

Hate to bust your bubble but the ego-centric mother fuckas puttin the USofCorporations at the center of the universe are many of the leaders(i hate that label, make it the ‘elected’ pricks) of our government and unremovable upper ranks of the military.(Actually neocons is a good generic label)
And believe it or not, there are a lot of americans that know what is being done to this country and would like to stop it so as to maybe do something unheard of like, be able to join in with the other countries on this small planet to address problems and try to work them out together instead of just blasting country after country to hell and gone just to keep that chip on its shoulder that sure as shootin someone is going to knock off our shoulder, unless our leaders don’t drive this country into the ground first.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

Rus posted on 8/14 at 4:11 a.m.

“You [Cyrena] are exactly what most people in the world complain about. An ugly ego-centric American who believe the U.S. is the center of the universe.”

Rus on 8/15 at 3:11 a.m. said:

“Your write: ‘[T]elling us that an anti-war protesting poster like Cyrena is ‘an ugly egocentric American who believe [sic.] the US is the center of the universe.’

“Again, you have never read such a posting from me.”

Report this

By leveymg, August 15, 2008 at 6:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why did Bush-Cheney persist in claiming that Saddam posed a nuclear threat, when the weight of informed opinion ridiculed that notion?  The answer is simple. They were fully invested in the idea of Iraqi nukes. If the Administration had withdrawn from it, the whole public case for going to war would have collapsed.

That fact can be clearly seen in a word-count of one of the most important pre-invasion speeches given by Bush at Cincinatti, OH in October 2002. In describing the alleged threat posed by Iraq, he used a variation of the term nuclear 20 times, chemical 13 times, biological 11 times, and weapons of mass destruction 7 times within that speech. See, http://www.sanjhb.com/writing/clarification.html .


President Bush used a form of the word nuclear 20 times in this October speech regarding Iraq. Recent intelligence and current events prove Iraq was not capable of nuclear weapons nor were they actively seeking nuclear materials. George mentioned, “Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem.” You don’t know exactly? Perhaps this is a problem you should solve before going to war? I’m sure that would be too complicated for Mr. Bush, hence the inclusion of my favorite line within his speech, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” What clear evidence of peril is he referring to? Clear evidence of peril is a very strong statement. It suggests that the U.S. faced an imminent devastating attack from Iraq. However, after several months of occupying Iraq there has been no evidence to verify that the U.S. faced peril. The inclusion of the mushroom cloud line is a blatant attempt to scare people. Intelligence reports in October of 2002 and now, both show this statement to be highly irresponsible and false.

In a deliberate rhetorical maneuver, he used the word chemical 13 times, biological 11 times, and weapons of mass destruction 7 times within his speech. As previously mentioned, to this date we have yet to find any chemical or biological weapons that could be considered weapons of mass destruction. President Bush claimed Iraq at one time possessed “30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.” This alleged stockpile has still not been accounted for, perhaps because it never existed. . .

. . . .

If they had withdrawn the cornerstone of the argument they had made describing Iraqi’s WMD arsenal, the Administraton’s public case for war would have fallen apart. So, regardless of contravailing expert opinion as found in the classified version of the November 2002 NIE, they stuck to the war party line. I don’t think that this necessarily indicates that they had any concrete plan to plant nukes in Iraq. They had Plan B to fall back on - the assumption that they’d find something else there—anthrax, for instance (note that was the most concrete element in Bush’s speech)—that could be used to justify the invasion.

When, in April and May 2003, nothing like that was found, did they hatch desperate, half-baked plans? Well, that’s not hard to imagine. But, was it ever anything more than crazy talk by committed partisans? Before I can accept that there was a real PLAN, I need to see good, hard evidence of a workable conspiracy—with means, motive and opportunity—along with proof that something was actually done to carry it out. And, that I haven’t seen yet.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 14, 2008 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

Oh, my.  Here comes the uneducated dupe, Rus, who buys into neocon propaganda and an agenda that which asserts hegemony of U.S. corporate global power, including the right to impose our will on other nations, by invasion if necessary, telling us that an anti-war protesting poster like Cyrena is “an ugly egocentric American who believe [sic.] the US is the center of the universe.”

Ever heard of the psychological concept of “projection,” Rus?

Report this

By leveymg, August 14, 2008 at 6:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why was Val outed? As I’ve explained before, Plame and Wilson were casualties in the battle that had been waging between elements within CIA Counter-Proliferation Division (CIA/CPD) and the circle around Cheney and Rummy (OVP-OSP) for control over WMD intelligence.

The Cheney faction wanted to make war on the “Axis of Evil” countries using WMDs as the justification, but first they had to destroy the legacy CIA counter-proliferation programs that were in place. The eye of the deadly whirlwind that took Kelly and others was this attempt by Cheney to dismantle the existing WMD control regime.

Through the ‘nineties, the centerpiece of the CIA’s program to deny Iraq, Iran, North Korea and some others a working bomb was a deception program using the AQ Khan network as cover. The newly installed Bush Administration lost little time in doing that. On June 1, 2001, Richard Armitage outed the Khan network in an interview with Rupert Murdoch’s Times newspaper. That blew the CIA’s cover, but allowed the Bushies to selectively reveal the fact that Khan had been peddling nuclear technology to the countries the Cheney circle wanted to attack. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x4659

Iraq was under an intensive UN inspection regime, and NoKo a considerably less intrusive one. The UN inspectors (and the CIA) knew where Iraq’s previous nuclear, chemical, and biological production facilities had been, and that they had been dismantled. But, the Cheney circle tried to make a plausible case that Saddam was “reconstituting” a new program using Khan designs received in the late 1980s. The problem was, Iraq lacked basic components and materials to make new centrifuges for enriching the stocks of uranium yellowcake under UN seal it already had on hand from the same era.

Richard Grenier, head of the CIA Iraq Task Force, testified during the Plame case that yellowcake uranium was not a real issue before the invasion. Aluminum tubes were.

In 2001, US intelligence picked up on a shipment of Chinese aluminum tubes, and intercepted them before they reached Iraq. A CIA/CPD team was dispatched to Jordan to inspect the goods. Among that group was Valerie Plame. The conclusion sent back to Washington was the tubes had an apparent dual-use as bodies for conventional short-range artillery rockets, allowed under the sanctions regime, and would not serve as sound evidence that Saddam was trying to build a bomb.

The CIA/CPD people dug in their heels that there was no real evidence Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear program, while all around them bent to the line being handed down from the White House. The outing of Plame by Cheney’s gang was meant to be both payback and a final deathblow to CIA/CPD, not just Brewster Jennings, a process of smashing US intelligence that had commenced with Armitage’s outing of AQ Khan.

That’s the reason the Administration couldn’t use nukes as an excuse to invade Iraq. But, out of blind ambition and avarice, they tried anyway.

By May 31, 2003, when the Iraq Survey Group interim report was circulated, it was obvious to everyone in Washington what had happened. Cheney had lied and undermined US intelligence to justify the invasion, committing treason in the process. Unearthing a Russian nuke in the desert would have just forced that ugly fact out into the public eye.

Report this

By 1984, August 14, 2008 at 12:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Since Saddam is still dead, why are they even talking about this? There was no yellowcake there, and it isn’t now. “

Since the truth is needed. We’re hearing pretty much the same bogus talk about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program. But the inpection people are there now and have been for a long time and this time too there is evidence of weapons program that we need to worry about. If you accept yesterdays lies you accept them today and tomorrow.

Why Iran Won’t Budge on Nukes (please read it all)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1829750,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-world

And don’t read nukes as = nuclear weapons as many would like you to. Do not allow yourselves to be deceived once again. Demand the truth, nothing less.

Report this

By cyrena, August 14, 2008 at 12:26 am Link to this comment

Part 1 of 2 reply to Jon,

I almost passed on the links you provided, as soon as I saw, nysun. I know that publication to be pure propaganda. But, just to maintain my academic integrity, I read it, and I see that nothing has changed.


•  “Here’s a story you may have missed over the long holiday weekend: 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium worth tens of millions of dollars were shipped out of Iraq to Canada. The material was transported in 37 military flights in 3,500 secure barrels, according to the Associated Press.”

A link to the associated press piece would have been helpful here. Otherwise, what they follow this with just leads me to see it as more propaganda..

“..there hasn’t been much of a fuss about this material because it had been discovered already by United Nations inspectors after the first Gulf War. But it took a second American war in Iraq to move the material out of the Middle East. For all the talk about America’s failure to discover Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, this is a big deal. We’ve reported on claims by top Israeli officials speaking on the record that Iraq smuggled its chemical weapons to Syria before America invaded in 2003.

~~~~

Basically, this is bullshit. This wants us to believe that the stuff has been sitting around since 1991, and KNOWN to the UN inspectors. That’s preposterous.

Then they give themselves a stawman ‘out’ by suggesting that even though the UN inspectors knew it was there in 1991, it didn’t show when the inspectors were literally ALL OVER Iraq between Sept 2002, and March 2003, when Bush told them to get out.

Just this much of the propaganda then suggests (or wants us to believe) that Saddam must have stashed it in Syria before the Inspectors gained full access in Sept 2002, and now…it’s SHOWN BACK UP IN IRAQ, in time for it to be moved to Canada over the 4th of July weekend?

Let’s go back over this. The UN inspectors knew it was there at the end of the first Gulf War. (according to this…I don’t believe it myself)

Then, we KNOW that the UN inspectors found NOTHING when they had full access to everything in Iraq during the 6 months prior to the US invasion.

We also KNOW that the US hasn’t found any WMD (including yellowcake) in the 5 plus years since the invasion/occupation, despite the fact that they were desperate enough to ‘plant’ something, and had been desperate enough to FORGE documents claiming that Saddam had attempted to acquire the stuff from Nigeria.

So, first it was supposedly there in 1991, and the UN inspectors knew about it. Then it wasn’t there in 2002-03 when the UN looked all over. The US was never able to find anything after they invaded.

Now it’s 2008, and we’re supposed to believe that it showed back up again, and was then transported to Canada?

Please!!

Report this

By cyrena, August 14, 2008 at 12:26 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

Then, as if we needed any more proof that this is just another excuse for covering for the lying Dick Bush regime, it goes on:

•  “..The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. Saddam Hussein had already invaded Kuwait, launched missiles into Israeli cities, and harbored a terrorist group, the PKK, hostile to America’s NATO ally, Turkey. To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam and the same corrupt United Nations that failed to stop the genocide in Darfur and was guilty of the oil-for-food scandal would have been too big a risk.”..

Just more of the same stuff that rus and rowman and other liars for the thugs like to indulge in, and it’s the same arrogant and presumptuous mentality that is now being directed at Iran. “They” already have so much oil, so ‘they’ don’t need nuclear power for peaceful means.

Who the hell is the US to determine who needs what? Iran has a rapidly growing population, and OIL is their main EXPORT, as their economy depends mostly on their SELLING their natural resources to other nations. And energy isn’t the ONLY thing that nuclear TECHNOLOGY is used for. WE use it for other things, (like medicine) so why wouldn’t Iraq, Iran, or any other nation state use it for similar and PEACEFUL purposes, knowing full well that OIL isn’t necessarily going to last forever?

And they’re stuck on the past. Saddam is dead, and the genocide in Darfur continues, NOT because the UN is corrupt, but because the US political influence under the Dick Bush regime has totally de-legitimized it.

Since Saddam is still dead, why are they even talking about this? There was no yellowcake there, and it isn’t now.

And, the ny sun is still just a right wing propaganda rag waging a disinformation, red herring, wag the dog campaign to confuse already misinformed people, who are desperate to find excuses for the barbaric destruction of another sovereign nation state, just to steal their natural resources, and maintain global hegemony via military force.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 13, 2008 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

The GOP have NOT won: BOTH PARTIES are united with Corps AGAINST the people of the USA; read :don’t cage dissent” in this paper; UNDERSTAND when Geraldo Rivera promoting his book “hispanic” on Jay Leno said: the immigrants won’t stop coming; “they” meaning Reps & Dem’s have NOT YET DECIDED whether the blacks or the browns will have the roofing jobs; doesn’t matter WHO is elected; the AGENDA has been going on for years: FIGURE THIS OUT! THIS is the reason for the “media” black out started by Clinton’s for such a time as this; READ independent news media or LISTEN to it; blacklistednews; truthout.com; join GROUPS such as paranoidtimes on Yahoo cuz if you are NOT paranoid, you are NOT paying attention!

Report this

By lester ness, August 13, 2008 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nothing will be done to punish Bush et al.  Too many Americans think “He goes to my church! He’s in my party! He’s on my team! He can do no wrong!  It’s the evil liberals who are lying!”

Anyway, lots of liberals are arab-haters, too, and don’t want to stop slaughtering Iraqis.

Report this

By Jon, August 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I know Bush lied and there wasn’t any WMDs in Iraq, but I remember a story back in June about over 500 tons of nuclear material called yellow cake being removed from Iraq this summer. My question is this, if Iraq didnot have any WMDs what were they doing with all of this material used to build nuclear weapons? Here is a link to one of teh articles about the removal of this material to Canada.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/iraqs-yellowcake/81328/

I also remember reading several different articles about Saddam sending WMDs to Syria. Here is a link to one of the more recent articles:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

Felicity,

I remember reading about those meters, (can’t recall where now) but at the time, I remember that the speculation was exactly what samosamo has presented. The oil theft, (from multiple sources) was astounding, but the bottom line was that as long as there were no meters, there was no accounting for the amount of oil being stolen, or who was stealing it. I’m sure the *other* bad guys were getting a fraction of it, and selling it on the black market. BUT, as long as it wasn’t more than a trickle against what the US was stealing, it still benefited Bremer, Wolfie, Cheney, all the rest…to just leave them broken.

What absolutely floored me at the time, (in reference to the protection of the oil) was a small news blurb in USA today, some weeks BEFORE the invasion on Iraq was actually launched. It was just a mention (and unrelated to anything else) that KBR, (formerly of Halliburton) was situated at the Kuwaiti-Iraqi boarder with their huge fleet of oil fire fighting equipment. They were prepared, (or so the insinuation goes) to respond to any actions by Saddam, that would have set those oil fields aflame. If memory serves, he’d done that before. Kinda like, “fine, you wanna steal or repossess my house? I’ll burn the sucker down first.” Since it takes one to know one, (Cheney, Saddam) they (KBR) were in place long before, to make sure that didn’t happen.

As for Bremer, I have a paper around here somewhere on his antics, and the rules and laws he put together for the CPA. I DIDN’T know about the flag though. (guess it didn’t stay up long enough, eh?)

I had to chuckle a here:

•  “Not only do we indirectly arm Iraqis who want us the hell out of their country, we also make concerted efforts to piss them off.”

Yep…that’s exactly what we do best…piss off the rest of the world, and in the case of arming the Iraqis, that was intentional as well. (which isn’t the least bit funny). Still, that’s always the plan. Divide and conquer, and divide and rule. Initiating a civil war or other civil conflict, (which is nearly a given in any society under attack from an outside force) and providing the participants with the weapons to fight (and kill) each other, is such an old tactic that I admit I don’t understand how it continues to work so effectively. Human nature I presume.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

•  “Yes, Cyrena, I did read the part about the threats.  I also read the part about Ritter traveling to Iraq in spite of those threats.  Your suggestion that he delayed these five years because of the threats is speculation.”

~~~

Indeed Ernest, I accept this, as you are absolutely correct that my suggestion is SPECULATION. I cannot deny it, and I really wasn’t trying to be flip or any of that. I was just indulging in a bit of empathy or assumption based on personal experience, and I admit that can lead to problems, unless one is clearly aware that it IS speculation, and one of many things to be considered. But, therein lies the paradox. Everything remains speculation until it can be absolutely proven, and it’s impossible to prove a negative.

In fact, I have had the very same questions for so many of my former colleagues in reference to 9/11. Like me, there must be several hundred former and current career aviation people, from across the spectrum, -  commercial, military, and government civilians, who know as well as I do, that what the public has been fed is a pack of lies, because they are impossibilities. Yet it’s been 7 years, and how many of them have come forward? A handful of pilots, mechanics, and other operations people. But, ONLY a handful, and they are 99% FORMER experts. In other words, they are no longer employed, and they don’t have access to any of the information that would prove, inconclusively, what they know, because what they know INDIVIDUALLY, is not enough. Were they to attempt to collaborate with others to share information, they would no longer be employed. Or worse, they would no longer be alive. If it sounds melodramatic, it’s probably because it is, and it Scott’s case, he’s got some ‘back up’ and a platform. In the case of the little people who either ‘know too much’, or are even SUSPECTED of ‘knowing something’ it’s a far more serious concern. (especially if they wanna keep breathing, let alone remain employed)

I remember that Scott Ritter has responded to other questions put to him in the past, here on this and other forums, so maybe he will in fact respond to your question here. For now, I’m hoping that he is feeling some vindication for much of the smearing, slander, etc that he has been subjected to over the years, for taking the risks that he has in getting as much as he has to the light of day.

Still, for the rest of us, it’s so difficult to be sure of anything we believe, and that really is the point; maintain chaos and instability of the masses by way of disinformation. Nobody knows what to believe or not believe. By the time the Nazis were well into their campaign, they had children spying on parents, and spouses spying on each other, and that’s the result of disrupting a society to the point of total control.

Report this

By David, August 13, 2008 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ended on January 20, 2000.  Congress has abandonded it’s role in government for it’s role as a lobbyist training camp.  The president and vice president have dictatorial power and most of the population can’t name the Speaker of the House.  This country is over.  The GOP has won.  America is no more.  Long live Amerika.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

From the Democratic underground.com link provided by leveymg:

“• 1998 - McCain was a co-sponsor of the Iraq Liberation Act that led to the creation of a false intelligence factory that replaced CIA Iraq reporting. He led charges in the Senate about Iraqi WMD programs that U.S. intelligence was reporting didn’t exist.

“• 2001-2003 - Using $100 million allocated by the Act cosponsored by McCain, Ahmed Chalabi’s I.N.C. generated the false intelligence about nonexistent mobile bioweapons labs cited as part of the case for the Iraq invasion. I.N.C. Chalabi’s group was paid $335,000 a month in the lead-up to the Iraq war to gather intelligence.

“• 2003 - McCain and four other Republican Senators made an appeal to Bush to “personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department” that stood in the way of even more funding for the I.N.C. McCain acted as a character witness for Chalabi, stating “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.”

Report this

By beaks, August 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

cann4ings: You defend Keith Olbermann, and rightfully so. He is one of the best truth seekers in the media. I actually did send this article to him and I feel like
he would put the info on his show if NBC doesn’t stop it. I feel like he has quite a lot of control, considering his news coverage and his special comments. Considering he writes on Daily Kos, he probably reads a lot of alternative sites and already knows about this. If enough of us write to him, it will increase the odds that he hears the story, as he is definitely our best chance.

Good idea to write to Scott Ritter.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 13, 2008 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

Beak & Cyrena:  I am no fan of the corporate media and the extent to which it acts as a propaganda shill for those in power, but the fact is that Olbermann was the first to have Suskind on; that Olbermann has repeatedly slammed the FBI’s case against Ivins.  We don’t know if Scott Ritter ever contacted Olbermann with the story, and we don’t know why Scott Ritter failed to bring this story out until now. 

Yes, Cyrena, I did read the part about the threats.  I also read the part about Ritter traveling to Iraq in spite of those threats.  Your suggestion that he delayed these five years because of the threats is speculation.

The only person who can tell us why he waiting five years before revealing this story is Scott Ritter.  I know he reads comments on his posts at TD, because he has responded to them in the past, and, I, for one, would like to hear it directly from him, especially since the events he refers to appear to have taken place prior to the 2004 election.  The information contained in this piece could have impacted that event.  (Note: I said “could.”  I am well aware of the massive fraud through computerized vote-flipping that suggests that it would not have made a difference regardless).

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 13, 2008 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

everyone now knows that Iraq was preplanned including the “training” which our Gov is well documented in; it consists of telling them WHAT to say; and then having them “practice” it before going on TV; also, Iran has been predesignated to be invaded; the USA got involved with Suddam to arm him, & help him overthrow the Gov in Iran to set up the “dictatorship” of the Shah of Iran; since HE was overthrown it has been a matter of time to come up with the “reason” to deceive the citizens of the USA as to WHY we are NOW going to go to war there. We are “led to believe” that there are “secret” things that citizens don’t need to know about; horse pucky; the only “shadowy secret things” that are extremely harmful to Americans are it’s leaders. If you think for 1 second that the “energy” crisis, the “housing” crisis, the “financial” crisis in the USA today were NOT preplanned with premeditated with a great deal of malice in their hearts towards the citizens of the USA you need to get a brain scan to see if you have one. We are People of Worth in an anti American citizen Gov & have been for a number of years, escalating for the past 30, getting worse & worse & worse; the REASON they keep saying things like “russia invaded Georgia just like the Nazi’s did; is because the WHOLE WORLD is talking Nazi; how Hitler did it, and how it is being carried out today in the USA; WAKE UP AMERICANS!

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

By felicity, August 13 at 9:28 am

“most of Iraq’s oil pipelines were not even equipped with working meters.  Earlier in the occupation Bremer had refused to install new ones.  I don’t have the imagination to figure out what that was all about, maybe someone else does. “

That should be easy, no meters, no accounting, no knowing how much oil has been stolen. The only way oil is not the main reason for invading Iraq is that the US hegemony wants the whole area to dominate and influence who gets what and how much of the oil meaning the control of china, india, maybe russia too but just about anyone needing oil for energy needs and plastics and etc. If the US dominates the region we control the oil and easier done with no meters to show HOW MUCH. Oh, and just like drilling here in america and off shore, the price of oil and gas will not come down because of drilling.

Report this

By felicity, August 13, 2008 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

Cyrena - “But the US troops and contractors weren’t guarding or securing anything other than the OIL…”

I wrote this tidbit down maybe a year ago because it blew my mind.  Until the middle of ‘06 most of Iraq’s oil pipelines were not even equipped with working meters.  Earlier in the occupation Bremer had refused to install new ones.  I don’t have the imagination to figure out what that was all about, maybe someone else does.

Speaking of which, Bremer was a real case study. In 2004 he OK’d a newly designed Iraqi flag, blue and white which just happen to be the colors the state of Israel flies.  The finished ‘product’ flew one day before it was unceremoniously torn down and ripped to shreds by Iraqis.

Not only do we indirectly arm Iraqis who want us the hell out of their country, we also make concerted efforts to piss them off.

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

By beaks, August 13 at 8:24 am

And what better way than to play up to those dumbed down people who have been led to look at it as a Southern Cal vs UCLA, Texas vs Oklahoma Mich. vs Mich. State type rivalries. Perfect description of how to control the pure black and white, yes-no, democrat/republican or with us or against us view of the world. Lower the IQs much more and there would not be enough mental wards to accomodate all the guests.

Report this

By leveymg, August 13, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The claim being made by the White House was that Saddam had “reconstituted his WMD programs”. In order to verify that claim, which was the casus belli for the invasion of Iraq, coalition forces would have had to unearth evidence of recent (post-1991) operational facilities for manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Recall that at the conclusion of the Gulf War, as part of terms imposed by the Americans, Saddam ordered the Iraqi WMD program dismantled. That resulted in Saddam’s “bonfire of the vanities”, a mass destruction of equipment used to manufacture WMDs. This was observed and duly reported back to Washington, but kept classified because the details would have revealed the extent to which the Reagan-Bush Administrations had provided the WMD production infrastructure used by Iraq in its 1981-88 war against Iran.

After the defeat of George H.W. Bush in the election of 1992, rumours of Saddam’s WMD program reemerged from several sources in the Middle East. This became a rallying cry to push the Clinton Administration to more actively intervene in Iraq, which continued providing support to the Palestinians, and as a way to undermine Clinton’s peace talks. This culminated in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The main co-sponsors in the Senate were Joe Lieberman and John McCain. The Act set aside up to $90 million for Iraqi regime change pursued by a group of exile groups led by Ahmed Chalabi’s INC, and handed an intelligence gathering role to those same groups.  See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/360

Back in the mid-1990s, the UN inspectors were perplexed as to why they were still receiving intelligence about such Iraqi programs, but could not find operating manufacturing plants or facilities. Some speculated that maybe Saddam had built mobile biowarfare labs, which were moved around, and thus avoided detection. The US even built “replica” biowarfare labs at Ft. Detrick, MD to demonstrate that anthrax could be produced in a trailer. The CIA/DIA/SAIC contractor in charge of that project was a South African named Steve Hatfill.

In 1997, a US weapons inspector met with an Iraqi exile group leader at his apartment in Paris. During that visit, the American brought up the theory that Saddam was making anthrax in mobile biowarfare labs. Some months later, an Iraqi defector emerged in Germany, claiming he had been part of Saddam’s WMD program that had built underground laboratories and, you guessed it, anthrax production trailers. He was dubbed “Curveball” by his German hosts, passed on to the CIA, and the rest is history.

By the way, the American and the Iraqi who met in Paris were named, Scott Ritter and Ahmed Chalabi. See, Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, “The Manipulator”, (June 7, 2004), http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/07/040607/fa_fact1

Report this

By beaks, August 13, 2008 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

Misdt: You say:  “Now of course you may ask what I mean by “un-American”… well, maybe it’s that I don’t like that red-blue trench warfare that you guys seem to be engaged in.”

Our press creates these phony paradigms, period. They created a really stupid one, here. It’s really just black and white, altho they try to add THEIR shades of gray. You’re right, it’s now an institution for identifying how Americans feel. It has nothing to do with the truth. The agenda is to create and solidify a determined division among us.

It’s just another example of our propaganda press as we lost a free press a long time ago.

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

By Purple Girl, August 13 at 7:52 am

I believe Nemesis is here and though it will not happen in any foreseeable way, revenge will be extracted. And now with the russia/georgia debacle and a brand new spector of nuclear exchange….crap.

Report this

By samosamo, August 13, 2008 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

By misdt, August 13 at 1:29 am

There are enough neocons than there EVER needs to be and I appreciate your claim against being one, but trying to put ritter as an over-eager w hater, well at this point I don’t see a such thing, more pressure than ever needs to be applied to this traitorous fool since the complicit pelosi traitorously removed impeachment from the table.
It is very sad that the world will get to see w & dick and their cabal escape any accountability for their crimes and the probable realization if the transfer of power takes place 1/20/2009 that the corporations and the ‘elites’ that run them will still control congress and the president. So it’s not over yet.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, August 13, 2008 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

If any public servant has Knowledge (evidence0 regarding this admins, it’s Corp and foreign sponsors criminal activities they must come forward NOW- or be Prosecuted as Accomplices.
If Pelosi has any intentiona of not being implicated as such she should come out and expalin that the reason they have held off relates to ‘chian of commnand’ ei Impeach Bush, Cheney takes control, Impeach Cheney, Bush Pardons-so both must be Prosecuted concurrently, same goes for Rice.Which then leave pelosi in charge- Would they want theDems to appear to be doing this to regain the WH? Could have implications in Nov. Or is Pelosi One of them too? Highly Likely.
I suggest if she want to be cleared of this appearance of improprietity she and the others explain they are waiting for Jan 20th to finally convict the Whole group of Conspirators- top to bottom without the benefit of “pardons”
If those Dems in Congress think they can sail back into office on Obama’s coattail without any backlash from US- they are as delusional as the Neo Cons (esp McCains shadow handlers)
These are crimes which Capitol punishment should still be an option!Get out the stack of Recycled paper plates, the silver platters are far too good and too scarce to come from our homes!
“REVENGE, A DISH BEST SERVED COLD!”

Report this

By 1984, August 13, 2008 at 8:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Secretive military unit sought to solve political WMD concerns prior to securing Iraq, intelligence sources say

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Secretive_military_unit_sought_to_solve_0105.html

Thank you Scott Ritter for continuing to speak the truth!

Report this

By ernieson, August 13, 2008 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Depleted uranium, cluster bombs, anthrax, bunker busters, napalm, agent orange, dioxin, landmines etc?
Who produces them and uses them? We know the answer to that question. Who is the pot that calls the kettle black?

Report this

By Jim Rant, August 13, 2008 at 6:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ritters rhetorical question fails to also ask where Bin Laden is and why Bush sluffs off any suggestion of him. WMD is a 100% lie. Bin Laden is a 100% lie. 911 was 100% rigged just like Bushs 2 terms as a puppet for the Zeocons who are fully in control of America even more then they ever have been in the past.
Ironically this total el diablo idiot Bush has the gall to lecture China on human rights abuse when he has just ordered the killing and maiming of millions of innocents in Iraq while borrowing 5 billion a month from them?
He uses the Olympics as a captive world stage audience to look like his bloody hands are clean and not filthy dirty from all the death and destruction he has caused?
Bush then looks like a fking idiot lecturing Russia?
We know Bush and Bush or any GOP Lincolnite only pick on much smaller 3rd world nations they know they can get away with destroying. This of course began back in 1860 with the brainwashed neocon Marxist original King Abe who is Bushs alltime hero who arrogantly preemptively attacked the much smaller peaceful real America in the south and after 4 yrs of death and destruction was used as the European catalyst for the 2oth century devastation that ended with 250 million Euro deaths overall.
We have to wonder about another carpetbagger from Austria named Hitler too who gave gold stars to all his prisoners and transported them to safe camps where not a single Allied bomb dropped and unquestionably all of them would have suffered a real holocaust with the millions of fire bombs had they not been moved even though many dided from hunger and disease and had to be cremated to stop the spread of contagions.
We know 1948 was special yr for planet earth and we know the world has not quire the same since although we know slavery was their original tool in get their foot in the door here and the rest is GOP history.
And wouldnt you know it that the most senile neocon county in America was confused by Chad intentionally to get the puppet idiot tyrant installed. Its been pure hell the past 8 yrs but thats where all this came from.

Report this

By Paul, August 13, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That there are anecdotes going around like this is hardly surprising.  The Bush administration, the US Gov’t, tells lies?  Really?  Next you are going to tell me they rain down destruction and death on innocents without blinking an eye.

I am thinking this current US administration does not believe in a creator or a judgment day as their prospects are looking a little dim for salvation…

Report this

By SamSnedegar, August 13, 2008 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

DOCTOR Ritter?

are you making fun of his making fun of someone else who got a doctorate from some university currying favor for some reason?

by the way, I think Ritter was a spy for the CIA the whole time he worked for the UN as a supposed inspector, and I’m not criticizing his doing that, just his keeping it secret. I’d suppose that Saddam KNEW that half of the Americans on the UNSCOM staff were spies, and like I, suspected that ALL of them were, and if they were not, would criticize them for not being.

But then I have a LOT of credibility problems with Ritter, who makes beaucoup bucks out of being a scold while he hides the truth with all the rest of the big buck writers—-except for Palast.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 2:31 am Link to this comment

Felicity,

I get your point, (and others)  about the ‘weapons’ that were supposedly noted on entrance to Iraq, and how they were left unguarded and all. And of course Rus7355 is still trying desperately to apologize for GWB, by endlessly going back to what was –maybe/possibly/probably/we don’t know for sure, going on in Iraq in 1998, or the 12 of 15 years prior. In other words, he’ll do ANYTHING to make a WMD connection to Iraq in 2003, to save Dick Bush’s hiney.

And, I run into this daily, when I hear the standard excuse that…Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in. (of course he gave them a hard time back and forth, and didn’t appear to be entirely forthcoming, even when he did allow them in).

But, here’s the thing…Beginning as early as September, 2002, Saddam was appropriately bullied enough to stop all of the crap, and allow those inspectors FULL ACCESS to everything in Iraq, and he coughed up all of the documents as well. And, we have to remember that the inspectors were still there, and that Hans Blix, (as well as El Baradei) were about to sign off on Iraq, to the effect that there were NO WMD there, when GW told them to GET OUT…for their own safety. (KBR was already there, and the troops were enroute). Now I’ll try to dig up the references for that, because they should still be accessible on line, even though my own research on this was wiped out in the crash.

My only point here though, is that while there may indeed have been some ‘weapons’ in Iraq, my conclusion (after going through the stuff from the IAEA) was that none of that stuff was WMD. That’s not to say that Saddam never had some of these things, and I don’t know what he did with the stuff, or when. But if the inspectors and the IAEA can be believed, they did NOT find anything of the kind, in the 6 months leading up to the invasion, and Dick Bush well knew it, just as they well know that Iran isn’t making any nuclear weapons either.

So, he didn’t have any at the time, and it had probably been a really long time since he had. The wars with Iran, the wars with the US and Kuwait, and all of the sanctions, had left a broken military in Iraq. So broken that they didn’t even attempt to repel us or fight back, and we know that they knew we were coming.

Still, that’s not to say that those weapons, (which I suspect are/were conventional weapons) should NOT have been secured. Obviously they should have. But the US troops and contractors weren’t guarding or securing anything other than the OIL, and the OIL MINISTRY, and anything connected to OIL. We know that the museums and the extensive culture centers were looted immediately, and Paul Bremer and his gang of thieves didn’t give a rats ass about securing anything else.

Would they have paid more attention if they actually thought all of those weapons were WMD? Humm, since that’s the ‘reason’ we went over there, one would think so. (or hope so). That tells me they weren’t looking for any WMD. Guess they believed the UN inspectors as well.

Report this

By misdt, August 13, 2008 at 2:29 am Link to this comment

dear samosamo,
A neocon I am not; it is maybe because I have an “un-American” view and at that coming from across the Atlantic that triggered your putting me into that box.  Mr Ritter’s story has the big disadvantage of total deniability.  Using it as a basis for impeachment seems silly.  That is all I meant to say.
Now of course you may ask what I mean by “un-American”... well, maybe it’s that I don’t like that red-blue trench warfare that you guys seem to be engaged in.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 2:06 am Link to this comment

By leveymg, August 12 at 3:02 pm

•  “Not saying that Ritter is making this up, or that Dave didn’t say such a thing to Mohamed, but frankly, I just can’t believe that this was an organized effort to plant nuclear materials in Iraq.”

You can’t believe it, eh leveymg? You guys are exactly the type that scare me. Guess you don’t believe the Downing Street Memo either, where the shrub suggested painting an airplane in the UN colors with the hope that Saddam would shoot at it, thereby giving HIM a reason to attack Iraq. So then, you probably don’t believe Sy Hersh either, about the suggestion from Cheney to put some US guys in boats and have us shoot at our own from other speedboats painted up like the ones the Iranians use, so we could blame it on them to start a full out bombing exercise. And you’re probably not even curious about those B52 bombs that traveled from Minot to Barksdale, and just happened to be nuclearized, (mistake?) and that the people involved in that transfer mostly happened to turn up mysteriously dead after that incident, or that one of the bombs is still unaccounted for. And you probably believe the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 too.

And you obviously don’t know how totally crazy Dick Bush is.

I understand not necessarily believing these ‘stories’ or other incidents in isolation, or even if it was say 5 years ago, (another reason for Scott to wait). But unless you’ve been in a coma the past 7 years, there isn’t much excuse for your disbelief.

********

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 13, 2008 at 1:42 am Link to this comment

The Gov has a pattern of “back"dating things ie the “Colombia Trade Agreement” after Bill C. brought $800,000 for Hillary’s campaign; “suddenly” they claimed bipartisan agreement signed in 2006; all fraud; fed means fraud; congress means cesspool of corruption & the Pentagon are parasites deceiving at every conceivable level & were behind the assassination of JFK when he said he was going to clean up corruption on Capital Hill, esp the Pentagon stealing so much taxpayers $; the FBI was told to claim the forensic evidence of the bullet came from Oswald’s box of bullets; THAT was false & came to light in 2006 when FBI told them the forensic was faulty & to release or retry prisoners; Schwartzenegger then presented a bill that was made into law claiming that the forensic was possible. It is ALL LIES; as is the “we are broke” crap; Gov’s meet with Bush & others to handle each state; all the media is made up or monitered to avoid people learning the truth; it is TIME the walrus said to speak of many things; every single person who objects to what is going on with the media, with the lies, deception & deceit & treachery, with the wars & the lies behind it, need to simply quit paying taxes; you have the legal right to do so; in fact, taxes on the people are illegal; then the PEOPLE need to REJECT the Gov which is also LEGAL to do so; I have; I told them they are lawless therefore we are without leaders because we are a nation of law & they have been operating outside of it for a number of years; to prevent chaos, however, we do “pretend” that our calling, emailing, etc will effect the outcome in the same PRETENSE that THEY pretend they are a “democracy”;

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 1:36 am Link to this comment

By cann4ing, August 12 at 7:46 pm
•  “But then I have a question that you should answer for all who read your posts at TD.  Why did you wait some five years—that is until after Suskin came out with his devastating revelation that the White House forged a document trying to link Iraq to al Qaeda—before telling this story?”

Dear Ernest,
First, you know that I’m NOT being a smart ass when I say this, nor am I presumptuous enough to answer for Dr. Ritter, though beaks did pretty much explain it diplomatically enough.

Still, I have to answer this from my own perspective, knowing that you won’t take offense.

Did ya read the part about how they were gonna kill him? And all of those other Iraqis that were initially willing to meet with him?

I mean, I know that’s easy enough to sort of set aside, especially with guys. I swear I’m finally convinced that it HAS to do with gender genetics in the American culture. Even Scott comes off as a little naïve when he admits to be outspokenly critical of the regime’s made up cause for war, and yet doesn’t believe that the US admin would care enough to hassle him to such an extent, just being a journalist and all.

What do you guys THINK about? He’s walking around with all of this information that these thugs would do ANYTHING to prevent exposure to, and they KNOW HE’S FIGURED IT OUT, and all he needs are the documents to PROVE it.

So meantime, they not only prevent him from getting to the sources, (which he was smart enough to get around, but it was still risky) but they manage to black list him all over the place, to the degree and extent that he’s likely NOT to be believed, without some further and INDEPENDENT corroboration. (Beak already said that MSM wouldn’t touch it, but that was after you posed the question).

So, I really do ‘get it’, why he would have waited on this. I’m in the same boat, but I have enough sense to be appropriately paranoid. That deal with him at customs and immigrations? Hell, I wouldn’t even think about trying that. Been there, done it…and they would rendition my ass quicker than you could bat an eye. I’m even scared to use my new passport, because of that stupid chip they put ‘em now. A colleague suggested that I could put it in the microwave to de-activate it. Yeah right, that’s ALL I need. If I ever *am* forced to use the thing, it would be the same thing as turning myself into a gigantic ‘X”. They probably wouldn’t even bother with the ‘Oh gee, you used to work for blah, blah, blah. And, you had this XYZ security clearance, and on and on. Yep. And, I don’t anymore. And, they could disappear me a whole lot easier than they could disappear him.

Still, they were perfectly willing to hook it up. THAT would be enough to keep anybody on the ‘silent side’ for an extended period of time. Hell, I don’t know why he hasn’t had a couple of nervous breakdowns by now. (Glad you haven’t though Scott – your work is much appreciated).

Thanks and stay safe.

You too cann4ing. wink

Report this

By beaks, August 12, 2008 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

can4ings, you asked Scott Ritter to send the story to Keith Olberman.
We can do that. My guess is that Scott has sent his story to all the major media, but they won’t touch it. The mainstream media is complicit in all that the Bush/Cheney administration does. They lie in their reporting or lie by ommission of stories completely. They’ve killed the anthrax story when there is evidence each day making the suicide sound more like a lie and also making the whole story a lie. New evidence shows that over 100 people had the same access to the anthrax that Ivins did and genetic evidence shows that at least 15 other labs had identical anthrax. The Bushies needed to end the story, they needed a guilty one, and he can never testify because he’s dead. Case closed. Not quite. It’s alive and well, but you’ll never read about it or hear about it on tv or cable news. The same with Ritter’s story. If enough people write letters to the editor or Keith, perhaps it’ll be a story. Remember, they were going to kill Ritter. People are afraid to talk or they get paid sooo much to lie in the media. Greed and fear control our media. Most of you know this. Those who say no way, well, it doesn’t matter because it’s still true and you, too, live in a country that has been stolen, as
Samosamo said earlier. Stolen by treasonous war criminals and murderers who have robbed our tax dollars for themselves. They have bamboozled you to keep them in power. The rest of us are working for the truth to reach all of us, including you Bush fans. Someday, when the truth is painfully clear, you might wish you’d read more and learned the truth. McCain is lying to you. Do you know that the oil and gas in little Georgia that Russia attacked because the U.S. pushed Saakashvili to attack first, is oil owned partially by Hess Oil Corp that gave McCain $300,000 in campaign donations?
If anyone is interested in what is really happening with Russia, PLEASE read this. Dan Froomkin is one writer at the New York Times you can trust.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/08/12/BL2008081201518_pf.html

Send it to Keith along with the Ritter story, it’s a good idea.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, August 12, 2008 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment

Dr Ritter,

Where are your views of the 2001 anthrax attack? Do you think it was Ivins acting alone or do you think there was a plot to justify invading Iraq run out of Cheney’s “shop”? Does the FBI story have credibility with you?

Report this

By cann4ing, August 12, 2008 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

It’s odd, Captain Ritter, but I always thought of you as a former marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector—never as a journalist.  But I guess this piece demonstrates that you are indeed a journalist.  (I previously concluded from reading Iraq Confidential that you are a very good writer).

But then I have a question that you should answer for all who read your posts at TD.  Why did you wait some five years—that is until after Suskin came out with his devastating revelation that the White House forged a document trying to link Iraq to al Qaeda—before telling this story?

Why don’t you pass it on to Keith Olbermann at MSNBC so that it can be conveyed to a larger audience?

Report this

By beaks, August 12, 2008 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

samosamo, i agree with every word. I wrote something similar, but my comment didn’t show up. Glad you wrote this most important comment.

Report this

By samosamo, August 12, 2008 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

misdt,
You are right about the hearsay and on the impeachment. Every member of the current administration and including ms pelosi, would have to be impeached just to insure that w would not ‘pardon’ their’s and his blantantly treasonous and criminal actions of which there are plenty enough to even get them all sent to the Hague for proper treatment. I would guess that let them out of office IF they allow a tranfer of power on January 20, 2009 and then go after them. I don’t believe impeachment would work but there should be no statute of limitations for accountability for these people.
And as for the ‘author’ being ‘just another over-eager Bush hater.’ you can carry your neocon ass back to cato or heritage institutes to come up with some more of your great and glorious plans that have done this country and the world so much good in the last 8 years and I will even add clinton’s terms and poppy’s one term even back to the nixon days when all these think tanks came into being with the express purpose of subverting this country and gaining control of it for the criminal plans plotted and hatched out just for a very few people to pull off the biggest grand theft in history with a hole heap of murder, perjury, treason and international crimes all over just to enrich a few worthless people at everyone else’s expense. Or even go back to the probable creation of them all the bilderberger group.
Scott Ritter is trying to undo what damage the conservative corporate media has done to the people of this country for many decades by turning them into apathetic, ignorant, selfish vegetables that as they are ever so slowly beginning to wake up and see the ruin wrought by the people they were tricked into believing would help and do the most good for them,(these ‘officals’ are still trying to convinence them of those lies) they are confronted with ‘What can we do?’. And people like Scott Ritter, Chalmers Johnson, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal and others are trying to inform these veggies of the whys and hows of what to do because the biggest evil for this republic’s democracy, the 5 or 6 conservative corporate media owners, ain’t gonna tell them, or you or me, they are just going to give us the usual disinformation, no information or the fluff and foo foo news they want to the have. The next issue would be for them to find this information because it is mostly on the internet and in books which lord above, they would have to indulge themselves by actually reading a book in a lot of cases.

Report this

By it's time, August 12, 2008 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When I read some of these comments, I feel so hopeless.
Can’t you see we live in a country with leaders that are some of the most dangerous to ever walk the earth. They would kill Scott Ritter, one of our finest Americans ever. If you don’t get it, you have to wake up and start to get it.

We need to call, write and go to a senator or congressman’s office daily and MAKE them read these stories. They are either being threatened to keep quiet, just as Ritter was, or are complicit. We need to at least start the impeachment proceedings or DEMAND that a special prosecuter is appointed (and not a crook) to begin taking witness accounts so that Bush can’t pardon all the murderers. You can’t just write comments in these blogs, especially the ones that simply call people names. This is real.
Whether or not you believe this story doesn’t change the fact that it is true and YOU are going to suffer when these evil people continue to be killers to hide the evil they’ve committed. NOTHING is funny at all about this article.

Report this

By leveymg, August 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why would Dave explain his motives?

Why not just give Mohamed $10 million in $100 bills and a plane ticket to Tashkent, and send him shopping for a lose nuke? Even better, bribe some Iraqi General to play the role of the cut-out. The General, playing the head of Ba’ath Dead-Ender Legion, sends Mohamed on a secret mission to buy Soviet plutonium. Then, after Mohamed has come back into Iraq, shoot the General, and arrest Mohamed. Case solved - hero’s welcome home.

Not saying that Ritter is making this up, or that Dave didn’t say such a thing to Mohamed, but frankly, I just can’t believe that this was an organized effort to plant nuclear materials in Iraq.

There’s a character in Apocalypse Now who is “wound just a little bit too tight”. There are a number of them. Paul sounds like one of them.

Report this

By Chick Dante, August 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Assume that we have a government that committed great war crimes and tried, unsuccessfully, to cover it up by planting false evidence after the fact of Saddam’s connections to al Qaeda and to Niger (Suskind’s book) or eliciting false testimony from scared Iraqi scientists, like Mohammad (Ritter’s report) plus others we have yet to learn about (because the principals are dead, most likely), how is it that the Congress does nothing despite the President’s low approval ratings for the last four years? Is it reasonable to assume that failing to plant evidence, the Bush administration has planted something else that has deterred the Congress from doing its job and reaping the political benefits of saving the nation from the monster in the White House?

Where are the whistleblowers who will tell us what that “something else” is? Are there congressional staffers willing to come forward to tell us of NSA wiretaps and threats associated with them?

This story is not yet half told.

Report this

By jobart, August 12, 2008 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By felicity, August 12 at 10:35 am #


“In March ‘03 American troops marching north to Baghdad passed huge arsenals packed with weapons of all kinds.  They were told to leave the arsenals alone because nuclear materials were stored along with the conventional weapons and the nuclear stuff might go off if disturbed. Our military also left the arsenals unguarded”.
_________________________
Don’t forget, because I never will, the “discovery” early on, (when we first started the “search” for WMDs) of a VERY large amount of C4 plastique explosives in a VERY large storage facility.  Our “guys” kept on looking and left the explosives unprotected as they proceeded to “march on” in the “search”. When someone told them to go bsck to the storage facility…“voila!” it was all gone.  EIDs made in Iran, indeed !!! Just more evidence that there was, and is, a plan to do what we did and continue to do.  Make a war and keep it going while we/USofA rapes the resources of the Iraqi people and destroys the its infrastructure. And, oh yeah, the U.S treasury and its taxpayers.  Almost forgot that little diddy.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, August 12, 2008 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

covet…....lie…....kill…....steal

the Bushitters plan to take over the whole mideast with all its oil; why keep talking about the lies when the truth is far more important?

Report this

By rowman, August 12, 2008 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

*Yawn.
How long are you going to milk this tired story?

We know that this government screwed us all. What else is new.

Obama is about to take office and screw us Democrat style and the cycle will continue.

There are plenty of current events to write on. This one is like the old moldy cheese and you’re asking me to cut off the mold and recycle it. Ill pass.

Its old Scott and if you want your 15min to continue, you need to find something more relevant.

Report this

By Big B, August 12, 2008 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

Did you ever see something so funny like this weekend when king George went on TV to decry the russian invasion of Georgia as a “disproportionate response” to the Georgians attempt to re-capture their disputed territory? Do you suppose he even remembers invading two nations that had little(Afghanistan) or nothing(Iraq) to do with 911? Laying waste to their cities and infrastructure?
Killing hundreds of thousands? No, wait! the best part is yet to come. Barack and the rest of the Dimmo leadership didn’t call him on it! The same gutless wonders that refuse to investigate this sleazy little man won’t even say an unkind word about his hippocritical remarks concerning Russia’s treatment of Georgia. If Barack and the Dimmos want to win this election, they need to call for a full independent investigation of ALL the dealings of the shrub administration. Fire accusations indescriminatly at all the bushies between now and November. The guilty need to be flogged right out on the capitol steps, the bastinado needs applied “liberally”. We need to cleanse ourselves from our 20 years of wallowing in this neocon cesspool. However the irony of this situation is that it would never have happened had the Dimmos shown some balls, the same kind of balls it’s going to take them to fix this mess.
Does anybody think that the likes of Pelosi, Reed, Clinton and Obama have the tools and the talent to deal with the upcoming shitstorm that the bushies will leave behind? They should have spent the last two years proving they had the meddle to lead. Instead they spent that time copitulating to the most disasterous president in US history.
Kinda makes you beem with confidence, doesn’t it?

Report this

By felicity, August 12, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

In March ‘03 American troops marching north to Baghdad passed huge arsenals packed with weapons of all kinds.  They were told to leave the arsenals alone because nuclear materials were stored along with the conventional weapons and the nuclear stuff might go off if disturbed. Our military also left the arsenals unguarded.

Through ensuing months and maybe until today, Iraqis have used the weapons against each other and against our military and other American personnel.

Couldn’t a case be made that leaving those arsenals unguarded we indirectly have armed and are arming those who would kill us?  Did the military brass know there were no hidden nuclear materials?  Or did the Bush Administration lie to its own military by telling them that there were?

There is so much about the entire Iraq operation that only an impeachment hearing could uncover, that a Congress that does not hold one is itself guilty of committing a crime.

Report this

By srelf, August 12, 2008 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

We all know that the state has the power to get rid of anyone that is a serious threat. There is still enough of a constitution left to make those state functionaries worry about getting away with it. Nevertheless, I can imagine that people like Mr. Ritter have to have great courage to keep working against those who would use their power to their own ends. We, the people, have to be ready at all times to back them up.
Impeachment is certainly justified as Elizabeth Holtzman and John Dean have said. Vincent Bugliosi, the LA prosecuter, has written a well-regarded book on trying Bush for murder once he leaves office.

Report this

By David Model, August 12, 2008 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

It is quite apparent that George Bush and his cronies have no compunctions about saving their a**es. They have engaged in cover-ups, threats, punishments and lies to promote their agenda which was established long before 9/11.  Valarie Plame is a salient example of how far this administration is willing to go to cover up their lies.  Exposing a CIA agent is a capital offence and Libby took the hit for those above him in the adminstration and was rewarded with a pardon.  It is clear that the Bush Administration is not only guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” but also that they operate in an immoral universe.

http://www.stateofdarkness.com

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, August 12, 2008 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

There was a film titled, “Minority Report” in which in a future time people can be arrested for just thinking about a crime.  The action taken against Saddam Hussein was not that far away from the theme of this film——Hussein had evil thoughts as recountered numerous times by Bush and Rice.  Nations who start wars always have their own rationale whether it be true or not.  In international politics the important thing is not how you play the game, but whether you win or lose!!!

Report this

By SVANDUSEN, August 12, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am not familiar enough with the Constitution and the statutory and procedural descendants thereof to know whether or not impeachment proceedings can be implemented or continued against officials whose terms have expired.  I certainly hope they can.  At the very least, it is imperative that the new Congress (hopefully controlled by progressively thinking Democrats) be relentless in investigating the staggering body of deception and criminality perpetrated by the Bush administrations.

The public desperately needs to be informed about the truth in these matters and to see that those who practice this sort of arrogant abuse of power be held accountable.

Report this

By nrobi, August 12, 2008 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

All of the events surrounding the WMD inspection and reportage have at least been a farce and at most have been the basis for criminal investigations to start taking place. How in the world, did a drunkard and a cocaine abuser get to be president?  He went along with a group of men and women, for whom power was the overriding factor. Men and women for whom the ultimate aphrodisiac was the control of the free world in its current state.
One should not that this president was not elected the first time by a majority of the electorate, it was 5 people who got to vote twice in that election.
Namely those on the Supreme Court, who voted to stop the recount of votes in Florida and declare the shrub the winner on of the most contested election in the history of the United States. One look at the historical record, will tell you or any thinking person that there is no doubt that the Supreme Court decided the outcome of that election.
This put into place a group of men and women, now known as the neo-cons, in the halls of power that have debased the oaths they took to uphold and protect the very Constitution and Bill of Rights that they deemed the most perfect and complete system of governance in the world.
Shredding the Constitution has been the watchword of this administration, there is nothing that is written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that has not been completely disregarded and held in contempt by those of the neo-conservative brand.
In the meantime, these men and women, went about securing the “democratic ideal,” at the end of a weapon. And should they remeain in office, even these last 5 months, will take us into another war, this time, fabricated evidence of which will show the empirical leanings of a country that wishes to be left alone, Iran.
Mr. Ritter, has shown time and again that this administration is completely and utterly opposed to the Constitution and is lawless to the nth degree.
There is nothing they will not do to enhance their chances of returning to power, along with the hegemonic ideals that are the bedrock of their founding documents.
I, truly believe that should Mr. Ritter, have gone ahead with the planned trip to Iraq for the purpose of verifying the stories of those sources that are named in this article, he would have been assassinated and his reputation tarnished by false accusations that would have included giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.
There is nothing in this article that does not surprise me in that this administration, has lied and cheated its way into power with the commensurate lack of morals and understanding of our form of government.
In the meantime, I for one, am glad that Mr. Ritter has exposed the failings of this administration in regards to the “weapons of mass destruction,” ruse that was used to take this country to war.  Rock on Mr. Ritter.

Report this

By misdt, August 12, 2008 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

Maybe…but asking for impeachment? On the basis of what is more or less hearsay?
Sorry, those conclusions diminish the possible veracity of the gist of the article and leads one to believe that the author is just another over-eager Bush hater. Pity though…

Report this

By hippy pam, August 12, 2008 at 5:26 am Link to this comment

What Else Did We Expect From A cheerleader turned president named “bullsh*t”??????????

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.