St. Matthew wrote: "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own
country."

Rodney Dangerfield would have put it differently. He might have said,
"They love me over there, but here at home I get no respect."

Scott Ritter is a prophet of sorts, and if we had listened to him and
respected his intellect, knowledge and honesty, we could have avoided
the war in Iraq and its cost in lives and dollars.

In September 2002, Time magazine asked Ritter whose Iraq policy was
worse, Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's. Ritter's response:

"Bush, because of its ramifications. It threatens a war that probably
lacks any basis in law or substantive fact. It has a real chance of
putting thousands of American lives at risk and seeks to dictate
American will on the world."

Who is this Scott Ritter guy?

He's a former U.S. Marine Corps major and former United Nations
weapons inspector in Iraq. He's the answer to the question of whether
the Bushies knew before the war that Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction (WMD).

They knew, or could have known, and certainly should have known.

Before we attacked the Iraqi people, Ritter was often seen on
television as a laughable "expert." The Fox News talking heads treated
him as a lunatic. How could he be anything else when he disagreed with
George W. Bush?

And Ritter has a temper, so that added to the fun. It was a treat to
see him get all red faced and wonder when he'd explode.

It mattered not that Ritter was painfully honest and knew exactly what
he was talking about.

A search through newspaper and magazine articles leading up to the war
against Iraq leads me to these conclusions:

1) Bill Clinton was as concerned about Saddam Hussein as George W.
Bush is, but less eager to risk American lives to deal with him.
Unfortunately for all of us, the sexy impeachment fiasco pushed by the
Republicans diverted our attention, so most of us weren't paying
attention.

However, Ritter was far from happy with Clinton's support for the
inspectors, or lack of it. In September 1998, he told Newsweek, "I
heard somebody say it very effectively: '[Secretary of State]
Madeleine Albright blocked more inspections in 1997 than Saddam
Hussein did.' It's a funny quip, but unfortunately true."

2) The four days of intensive bombings ordered by Clinton at the end
of 1998 probably taught Saddam that his efforts to acquire weapons of
mass destruction weren't worth the cost. The economic sanctions
imposed by the United Nations at the end of the first Gulf War were
seriously crippling Iraq, and trying to acquire those weapons simply
added to Saddam's misery. He gave up but pretended not to. Saving face
is a big deal for dictators, as it is for all politicians (see:
"Johnson, Lyndon B."; or "Nixon, Richard M."; or "Bush, George W.")

Those bombings and rocket attacks, by the way, just about matched the
munitions thrown at Iraq during the Gulf War. Americans didn't pay
much attention, however, and the Republicans accused Clinton of
"wagging the dog," diverting attention from his political problems.

3) The "intelligence community" never said Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction. In all the articles I read, the CIA and other agencies
were very careful not to overstate the danger presented by Saddam.

For example, The Washington Post reported in November 2000, "The CIA
does not agree that Iraq possesses a crude nuclear weapon. 'We don't
believe they have the fissile material required for a nuclear weapon,'
said one senior U.S. official. ... 'Nor do we believe they currently
have the infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon.'"

4) In a related matter, Clinton was far more concerned about terrorist
attacks against the United States than he was about the threat of
Saddam. But he had a hard time selling his concern to others, even
though he tried. He originated an antiterrorist agency in government
in 1994 and increased its budget every year thereafter, from an
original $5.7 billion reported in 1995 to $11.1 billion in 2000.

I was unable to find any antiterrorist actions by Bush before the
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but that doesn't mean he didn't do
anything. It could be his efforts just didn't make the public prints,
or that I couldn't find the articles about them.

5) Scott Ritter took part in more than 30 inspections missions in
Iraq, and probably knew more about Iraq's WMD programs than anyone.
The Iraqis were very annoyed with him and accused him and other
inspectors of being spies. They were right; the inspectors were
pressed into spying. That was a distraction for them.


6) As a U.N. inspector, Ritter was constantly unhappy with the Iraqis
because they failed to destroy all their weapons. After the inspectors
were pulled out of Iraq in 1998, Ritter appeared to change his tune,
saying Iraq's weapons programs were no threat.

The difference, Ritter explained to the scoffers on TV, was that as an
inspector, he expected total compliance and didn't get it. Later, as
an outsider, he was able to say that even without total compliance
Iraq, was no threat.

"I've never given Iraq a clean bill of health," Ritter told Time in
September 2002. "I've said that no one has backed up any allegations
that Iraq has constituted weapons-of-mass-destruction capability with
anything that resembles substantive fact."

The politicians (including Al Gore, who warned of "imminent danger" in
1998) were hyping the Iraq threat, as were my fellow jackals of the
press -- especially columnists! -- but the various intelligence
agencies were far more prudent. To repeat, they often cautioned
against overrating the threat posed by Saddam.

We keep losing troops in Iraq, well over 500 now. God only knows how
many arms and legs were lost over there, how many pairs of eyes
destroyed. The total cost to each American taxpayer before it's over
has been estimated at around $3,000, and when you consider the
disability payments we'll be making for the next 50 years or so,
that's probably a low-ball guess.

That's quite a price for going after weapons that we had been told do
not, and did not, exist. It's too high a price for getting rid of
Saddam.

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no
WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing troops
and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save face?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no
WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing troops
and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save face?

So the author supports the immediate withdrawal from Iraq? That's one of
the stupidest things that I've heard. Did you happen to read the piece in
today's NY Times entitled "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict"?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a senior leader of al Qaeda running the terrorist
operation in Iraq) wrote the following in a plea for help to al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

"We can pack up and leave (Iraq) and look for another land, just like what
has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day
after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.

http://tinyurl.com/2crvc



Leaving now would mean allowing the terrorists to win.

In article .net,
says...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no
WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing troops
and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save face?

So the author supports the immediate withdrawal from Iraq? That's one of
the stupidest things that I've heard. Did you happen to read the piece in
today's NY Times entitled "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict"?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a senior leader of al Qaeda running the terrorist
operation in Iraq) wrote the following in a plea for help to al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

"We can pack up and leave (Iraq) and look for another land, just like what
has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day
after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.

http://tinyurl.com/2crvc

Leaving now would mean allowing the terrorists to win.

Which is exactly what Bush and his political handlers want to see
happen. It's the more politically expedient to be out of Iraq prior to
election time, you see.

It's becoming clearer by the day that this war was a nation-building
effort funded by American tax dollars. $250 Billion of 'em. Imagine
what 10% of that budget applied to our social infrastructure would do...

Eisenhower's fear is still valid after all these years.

jps

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajo...un/oreo?rd=436

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:31:50 -0800, jps wrote:

In article .net,
says...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no
WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing troops
and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save face?

So the author supports the immediate withdrawal from Iraq? That's one of
the stupidest things that I've heard. Did you happen to read the piece in
today's NY Times entitled "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict"?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a senior leader of al Qaeda running the terrorist
operation in Iraq) wrote the following in a plea for help to al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

"We can pack up and leave (Iraq) and look for another land, just like what
has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day
after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.

http://tinyurl.com/2crvc

Leaving now would mean allowing the terrorists to win.

Which is exactly what Bush and his political handlers want to see
happen. It's the more politically expedient to be out of Iraq prior to
election time, you see.

It's becoming clearer by the day that this war was a nation-building
effort funded by American tax dollars. $250 Billion of 'em. Imagine
what 10% of that budget applied to our social infrastructure would do...

Eisenhower's fear is still valid after all these years.

jps

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajo...un/oreo?rd=436

I've heard not one mention from anyone in the administration about our
bringing the troops home before the election. Of course, I don't read
or see everything. Could you post a reference to that, please?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:31:50 -0800, jps wrote:

In article .net,
says...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no
WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing troops
and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save face?

So the author supports the immediate withdrawal from Iraq? That's one of
the stupidest things that I've heard. Did you happen to read the piece in
today's NY Times entitled "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict"?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a senior leader of al Qaeda running the terrorist
operation in Iraq) wrote the following in a plea for help to al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

"We can pack up and leave (Iraq) and look for another land, just like what
has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day
after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.

http://tinyurl.com/2crvc

Leaving now would mean allowing the terrorists to win.

Which is exactly what Bush and his political handlers want to see
happen. It's the more politically expedient to be out of Iraq prior to
election time, you see.

It's becoming clearer by the day that this war was a nation-building
effort funded by American tax dollars. $250 Billion of 'em. Imagine
what 10% of that budget applied to our social infrastructure would do...

Eisenhower's fear is still valid after all these years.

jps

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajo...un/oreo?rd=436

I've heard not one mention from anyone in the administration about our
bringing the troops home before the election. Of course, I don't read
or see everything. Could you post a reference to that, please?

"Out" doesn't necessarily mean out as in home. It means that Bush could
claim the situation is resolved and we're going to participate as "peace
keepers" while the situation continues to stabilize.

The point is, Karl Rove is groping for a way that this administration
could lay claim to resolution in Iraq, even if it means their government
ends up ill-formed.

The Chickenhawk's war didn't pan out as they'd have liked. Now it's
back and fill time so they don't get thrown out of power. Can't finish
something you started if you aren't running the show...

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:31:50 -0800, jps wrote:

In article .net,
says...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no
WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing
troops
and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save
face?

So the author supports the immediate withdrawal from Iraq? That's
one of
the stupidest things that I've heard. Did you happen to read the
piece in
today's NY Times entitled "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq
Conflict"?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a senior leader of al Qaeda running the
terrorist
operation in Iraq) wrote the following in a plea for help to al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

"We can pack up and leave (Iraq) and look for another land, just like
what
has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger
day
after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.

http://tinyurl.com/2crvc

Leaving now would mean allowing the terrorists to win.

Which is exactly what Bush and his political handlers want to see
happen. It's the more politically expedient to be out of Iraq prior to
election time, you see.

It's becoming clearer by the day that this war was a nation-building
effort funded by American tax dollars. $250 Billion of 'em. Imagine
what 10% of that budget applied to our social infrastructure would
do...

Eisenhower's fear is still valid after all these years.

jps

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajo...un/oreo?rd=436

I've heard not one mention from anyone in the administration about our
bringing the troops home before the election. Of course, I don't read
or see everything. Could you post a reference to that, please?

"Out" doesn't necessarily mean out as in home. It means that Bush could
claim the situation is resolved and we're going to participate as "peace
keepers" while the situation continues to stabilize.

The point is, Karl Rove is groping for a way that this administration
could lay claim to resolution in Iraq, even if it means their government
ends up ill-formed.

The Chickenhawk's war didn't pan out as they'd have liked.

The plan is going precisely as they had liked. Soon, Iraqi's will be
policing the cities...and we'll have troops in several permanent bases
around the country...right on the doorsteps of Iran, Syria, and Saudi
Arabia.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:40:20 -0800, jps wrote:

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:31:50 -0800, jps wrote:

In article .net,
says...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

But the real mystery of Iraq is why we're still there. There are no
WMDs; Saddam is in custody. Why, now, are we still sacrificing troops
and dollars on a guerilla war that will never be won?

What is today's price for funding a president's effort to save face?

So the author supports the immediate withdrawal from Iraq? That's one of
the stupidest things that I've heard. Did you happen to read the piece in
today's NY Times entitled "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict"?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a senior leader of al Qaeda running the terrorist
operation in Iraq) wrote the following in a plea for help to al Qaeda
leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

"We can pack up and leave (Iraq) and look for another land, just like what
has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day
after day, and its intelligence information increases.

"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says.

http://tinyurl.com/2crvc

Leaving now would mean allowing the terrorists to win.

Which is exactly what Bush and his political handlers want to see
happen. It's the more politically expedient to be out of Iraq prior to
election time, you see.

It's becoming clearer by the day that this war was a nation-building
effort funded by American tax dollars. $250 Billion of 'em. Imagine
what 10% of that budget applied to our social infrastructure would do...

Eisenhower's fear is still valid after all these years.

jps

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajo...un/oreo?rd=436

I've heard not one mention from anyone in the administration about our
bringing the troops home before the election. Of course, I don't read
or see everything. Could you post a reference to that, please?

"Out" doesn't necessarily mean out as in home. It means that Bush could
claim the situation is resolved and we're going to participate as "peace
keepers" while the situation continues to stabilize.

The point is, Karl Rove is groping for a way that this administration
could lay claim to resolution in Iraq, even if it means their government
ends up ill-formed.

The Chickenhawk's war didn't pan out as they'd have liked. Now it's
back and fill time so they don't get thrown out of power. Can't finish
something you started if you aren't running the show...

jps

So "pack up and leave", "leaving now", and "out of Iraq" all mean that
we *stay* in Iraq?

In an earlier post, Doug (DSK), with a lot of support from other left
leaning folks, wrote, "No, not much different, except that Bush
ordered men under his control into combat so that his father's and his
Vice President's companies could roll up tremendous profits. And he
deliberately mis stated his reasons and the backing intel for it."

Turning any authority over to the Iraqis and/or leaving Iraq would not
seem the way to maximize profits for his dad's and his VP's companies.

Are you guys making any effort to keep a minimum level of consistency
in your totally ridiculous claims?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!