Scott Ritter Takes Aim At Bush, Clinton, CIA, Cindy Sheehan & You

[kpete]

American patriot
Iraq War critic Scott Ritter takes aim at Bush, Clinton, the CIA, Cindy Sheehan—and you
by David Rolland

What Ritter has to say about Ms. Cindy Sheehan will likely upset some folks, but challenging people on subjects some consider sacred is a good thing. It’s an eye opener.
via:http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/20/2037/

As for Iran, Ritter raises what worries me the most and it isn’t going nuclear. It’s regime change.

That’s why when I speak of Iran, I say be careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen. The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change.

And here in this interview with CityBeat, Ritter discusses—rather passionately and at great length—Iraq, Iran, the U.S.’s quest for “global domination,” the lost cause that is peace movement, the U.S. Constitution and the “failed” citizenship of the American people.

interview here:
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

[mike_c]

1. we might not always agree with every one of Ritter's conclusions...

...but he arrives at them honestly, and his positions are well considered. He has every right to criticize the antiwar movement, and he makes a number of good points. Dismissing his criticisms out of hand because he doesn't spare any sacred bovines would be a serious mistake, IMO.

[HereSince1628]

2. Personally last weeks diatribe by Ritter sounded a lot like sour grapes

The series of protestations had the smell of "you need me as a leader so that there is a REAL anti-war movement."

[porphyrian]

3. Maybe it will shame some into action.

Maybe he'll just get a bunch of people telling him to go fuck himself.

[Roland99]

4. Now there's someone with an eye on the ball. Iraq was NEVER about WMDs

and Iran isn't about nukes.

[Peace Patriot]

11. I agree, Roland99. It is the single most brilliant comment on the Bush

war that I have read anywhere. Anyone who thinks with that kind of focus and precision--and who can cut through all the bullcrap in a single slice like that--needs to be listened to.

His criticisms of the peace movement--and even of Cindy Sheehan (which wasn't a criticism really, just an observation*)--are well-intended and incisive, in my opinion, and should be taken seriously, but his criticism of Americans in general ("consumers" not "citizens") doesn't go deep enough. I'm much more inclined to think that Americans in general are like the "frogs" in the proverbial "boiling frogs slowly in a pot" story. Pity the frogs! Pity their disempowerment and demoralization--and the brainwashing and disinformation they have have been hit with, 24/7--as they slowly boil to death of Bushism. I don't feel Ritter's contempt. (Re: Iraq--"They can't even find it on a map!"). I think Americans, in general, are the most inadvertent imperialists that ever existed. We never intended to be an empire--most of us. But the country is so big, so wealthy, and such a power--a hijacking by fascists was almost inevitable. If we had solved the problem of big military budgets back when we could have, after Vietnam--what are these huge budgets FOR, except to start wars of choice?--we might have prevented this, but we just weren't mature enough as a democracy, in the 1960's-80s, to see it coming. Anyway, I'm for EMPOWERING Americans--especially on these Bushite voting machines (talk about a coup!)--not heaping contempt on them. Don't forget, FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT of the American people OPPOSED the war on Iraq, way back before the invasion, in Feb. '03, after Powell's speech to the U.N. Americans are not as stupid and uninformed as some people like to believe. They weren't fooled!

But they ARE disempowered--and, above all, disenfranchised. On this matter, Ritter's thinking is shallow--but he is excellent on everything else, especially on what's going down with the Bush junta, Iraq and Iran.

-----

*(He says she isn't sacrificing--it was her son who was sacrificing. It's kind of a bucket of ice water on Cindy Sheehan worship, which is probably good. He also makes a jab at the peace movement's focus on "personalities", the tendency of peace activists to get side-tracked (he mentions abortion), and lack of a plan and organization. All true. And it wouldn't surprise me if Cindy herself agreed with much of it. I would argue that the peace movement, which I truly believe represents the great majority of Americans, has had one hell of a problem being HEARD, what with the war profiteering corporate news monopolies acting as the propaganda arm of the junta, and too many corrupt, collusive Democratic Party leaders. This near "Iron Curtain" over real war news, and over the real opinions of Americans about Bush's war, parallels the "Iron Curtain" they placed over our fraudulent, non-transparent election system--designed by Bushite corporations and Bushite Congressmen, to elect Bushites, behind a veil of secrecy. Both the peace movement AND the voters have been done in. And Cindy Sheehan is about the only person who was able to penetrate that dark wall of disinformation. I don't think Ritter is "sour grapes." I think he is just frustrated--and maybe he doesn't fully understand how disenfranchised we are, and what that does to people.) (Just think for a moment what it was like to live behind the original "Iron Curtain.")

-----

One further thought: He is absolutely right about Clinton Iraq policy. Clinton helped soften Iraq up for the kill. Hard to know how conscious Clinton may have been of setting Iraq up. Not sure about that. But that's what his ACTIONS amounted to. Bush bombed and invaded a completely crippled country--and who did the cripping?

[Roland99]

13. Inadvertent Imperialists....nice

And, re: Clinton, is it possible he didn't want to seem weak on using the military and took some of the PNAC ideology to deflect criticisms?

[reprehensor]

5. I highly recommend "Iraq Confidential"

It's a paradigm shifter.

This is from the Epilogue;

"The notion of the war in Iraq resulting from an intelligence failure is very convenient for all parties involved. The intelligence community can simply say that intelligence is a tricky business, and sometimes you get it wrong. This, of course, provides a convenient excuse for the politicians, and compliant media, to contend that they were simply acting in the public interest based upon the information they were given...

...In the end, to accept the concept of Iraq as an intelligence failure, one must first accept the premise that the USA was implementing, as its primary objective for Iraq, the Security Council's resolutions on disarmament. This argument is simpy not sustainable. The behavior of the United States government and its intelligence agencies during my time as an inspector was not that of a government that was serious about disarmament. Support for UNSCOM's mission was, at best, tailored to the political imperatives at any given time. There was a total willingness to compromise the integrity of UNSCOM (and with it the whole notion of multilateral disarmament) for short-term tactical advantages in the battle between the US and Iraqi regimes. Towards the end of the inspections era, elements of the US government actively sought to make UNSCOM's job more difficult by cutting it off from intelligence sources. Disarmament was simply not the USA's principal policy objective in Iraq after 1991. Regime change was.

The CIA was designated as the principal implementer of this policy. Therefore, when one looks at the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent removal of power of the government of Saddam Hussein, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the CIA accomplished its mission. Iraq was, in fact, a great intelligence victory, insofar as the CIA, through its manipulation of the work of the UN weapons inspectors and the distortion of fact about Iraq's WMD programs, maintained the public perception of an armed and defiant Iraq in the face of plausible and plentiful evidence to the contrary. We now know that both the US and UK intelligence services had, by July 2002, agreed to 'fix the intelligence around policy'. But the fact remains that, at least as far as the CIA is concerned, the issue of 'fixing intelligence around policy' predates July 2002, reaching as far back as 1992 when the decision was made to doctor the intelligence about Iraqi SCUD missile accounting, asserting the existence of missiles in the face of UNSCOM inspection results which demonstrated that there were none.

As an American, I find it very disturbing that the intelligence services of my country would resort to lies and deceit when addressing an issue of such fundamental importance to the security of the USA. Intelligence, to me, has always been about the facts. When intelligence is skewed to fit policy, then the entire system of trust that is fundamental in a free and democratic society is put at risk. Iraq, and the role of the CIA in selling the war with Iraq, is a manifestation of such a breach of trust."

[mike_c]

6. Ritter's inside knowledge of how the U.S. gov't manipulated...

...the sanctions, the inspections, and the case for invasion is a gold mine of information.

[debbierlus]

7. Much of it is right on point -

However, this part I do NOT agree with:

You have Cindy Sheehan running around, a symbol of the peace movement. A symbol of what? Who is she? Who nominated her to be the spokesperson? She did one brave thing. I’m all for what Cindy Sheehan did last August. But people say, “She sacrificed so much.” She didn’t sacrifice anything. Her son sacrificed his life. In order for Cindy Sheehan to have sacrificed anything, she would have to have given up her son to the military. The last time I checked, he was an adult. He signed a contract. He went into the military. He went off to war, and he died. And, yes, it’s a tragedy that he died, and it’s a bigger tragedy that he died in a war that I believe is an illegal war of aggression. There should not have been a war to begin with. But Cindy Sheehan didn’t sacrifice a damn thing; her son did. He made the ultimate sacrifice in service to this country. That’s a tragedy that he died.

But this is the problem with the anti-war movement—they lionize people for artificial reasons. They give them artificial standing. There’s no depth to it. There’s no direction. Where does the peace movement want to go? Cindy Sheehan, in her own response to my article , spoke of defending a woman’s reproductive rights. You know what, Cindy? Go do that. But don’t call yourself the peace movement when you do that. Because when you do that, all you do is basically take the energy that’s necessary to have a genuine peace movement, to have a true impact, and you allow that to basically just be spread and wasted. It’s wasted energy. There is no peace movement. There is no peace movement. It’s a bunch of people who claim they’re part of a peace movement, but there is no peace movement.

She didn't sacrifice anything?

To lose a child is the biggest sacrifice a mother can make.

Yes. He was an adult. But, he was her son. The child she nutured to live a happy life, and give to the world.

Her beautiful son, her creation (not possessive or egocentric, but through her birth, love, support) was destroyed by the ugliest of men for the ugliest of purposes.

Scott is a very bright, very perceptive man. But, military service is not the hallmark for being able to lead a peace movement. Committment, love, sacrifice, courage...all of which Cindy possesses.

[Sperk]

9. No she didn't sacrifice her son....it's much worse. Her son was murdered.

n/t

[katty]

8. excellent pts, framing Iran, perception management...so obvious

[smacky44]

10. I think Mr. Ritter largely gets it right or at least I agree with him on

most issues. i will defend Clinton on one point. Those sanctions that, indeed, caused the loss of so many lives in Iraq were first instituted under Daddy Bush after Desert Storm. Clinton was responsible for not pushing Congress to influence the UN to lift those sanctions but considering the climate surrounding Clinton and impeachment and how the Republicans were after him from day one of his Presidency, removing Iraq sanctions was something far from his power. But I also blame him for not pushing to lift the sanction on Cuba too.

Here is where I really agree with Mr. Ritter:

"I’ll say ignorance. How many Americans have read the Constitution and know the Constitution, live the Constitution, breathe the Constitution, define their existence as Americans by the Constitution? Very few. And so what happens is, Americans have no concept of what citizenship is, what it is they’re supposed to serve. Many Americans have become so addicted to a lifestyle that I say they’re better consumers than they are citizens. And it’s these consumers who have wrapped themselves in a cocoon of comfort and who have basically abrogated their responsibilities of citizenship to the government, and as long as the government keeps them waddling down the path to prosperity, they don’t want to rock the boat. And they will go out and attack those who do rock the boat—those who challenge authority.

If you read the Constitution, you’ll be struck by the first words: “We the people of the United States.” And yet it sickens me where Americans will say, in the name of security, they will give up their constitutional rights. Warrantless wiretapping—it’s against the law! This is the sort of issue that should bring Americans streaming into the streets, saying, “Not on my watch.” If your definition of patriotism is blind subservience to governmental authority, then you’ve just defined those Germans who supported Hitler, the Italians who supported Mussolini."

[mike_c]

12. you make Clinton's role sound passive, as though he doesn't...

...share responsibility, but Clinton actively manipulated the inspections, and Clinton was just as guilty as Bush of NOT pursuing an honest disarmament policy. The Iraq war would never have happened if Clinton had permitted the lifting of sanctions and the return of Iraq to international partnership. I'm sorry, but Bill Clinton and George Bush BOTH share responsibility for the blood of Iraqis and Americans, IMO.

[benEzra]

22. This part needs to be shouted from the rooftops...

If you read the Constitution, you’ll be struck by the first words: “We the people of the United States.” And yet it sickens me where Americans will say, in the name of security, they will give up their constitutional rights. Warrantless wiretapping—it’s against the law! This is the sort of issue that should bring Americans streaming into the streets, saying, “Not on my watch.” If your definition of patriotism is blind subservience to governmental authority, then you’ve just defined those Germans who supported Hitler, the Italians who supported Mussolini."

That point needs to be heard and taken to heart by everyone in America.

[OneBlueSky]

14. self-reflection and examining your own assumptions is a good thing . . .

therefore . . . recommended . . .

[Peace Patriot]

15. Yeah, that was my point about Scott and the peace movement. His

criticism is a little jarring, but worth thinking about. Actually, I blame the war profiteering corporate news monopolies more than a I blame peace activists for a) focusing on a "personality" (Cindy), as if SHE is the whole story, and b) IGNORING the great majority of Americans' hunger for peace that is strongly evident in ALL public opinion polls, starting way back before the invasion.

The news organizations, IF they were doing their job, would have been POINTING OUT this great discrepancy between U.S. public opinion and Bush policy all along, and would have HELPED US PREVENT this terrible war by providing ACCURATE information about Iraq WMDs and Iraq/9/11, and about world opinion (very much against the invasion, including major allies). Hundreds of thousands of Americans actively protested the war (we forget!), nearly 60% of the country was against it--yet the corporate news monopolies acted as propagandists for Bush's war, instead of journalists. Scott blames the CIA (the Tenet bend-over--there WERE dissenting voices, but they were footnoted and squashed), but I blame the New York Times, the Washington Post and their brethren. The information was out there. The UN weapons inspectors and major allies didn't buy Iraq as a threat. It was OBVIOUS that the Bush junta was trumping it up. Nearly 60% of the American people knew it was crap. And we had this war shoved down our throats anyway. How? By means of a constant stream of war propaganda--including lies and deceit--from our "newspapers of record."

I think Scott underestimates the role of these corporate news monopolies, both in creating an "Iron Curtain" over the real news, AND in keeping these Bush S.O.B.'s in power (their black-holing of the story of Bushite corporations getting control of our voting system, with "trade secret" vote tabulation software during the 2002-2004 period). The Bush junta could not have done what it did to us on the war--and on the election--without news media complicity. It was not difficult to see that Rumsfeld, Cheney & Co. were intent on cooking intelligence. And it was not difficult to see that rightwing Bushite corporations would use their "trade secret" vote tabulation to "re-elect" Bush. The non-transparency of the 2004 election was egregious. It was a no-brainer. Totally, totally ignored by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies who, in fact, FALSIFIED their own exit polls, late on election night, to make them FIT the results of Diebold/ES&S's secret vote tabulation formulae!

I understand Scott's frustration. Why isn't the country in an uproar? Well, think about those old black grandmothers standing out in the rain for ten hours on election day, trying to vote. And then think about "trade secret" vote tabulation. And then think about the New York Times' blazing lies about Iraq WMDs, day after day. I'm talking about huge DEMORALIZATION. IF all the institutions of a democratic society fail you--the executive branch, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the news organizations, the opposition party and the voting system--in a cascade of quite deliberately caused failures that are driving an illegal war-- what CAN you do? If NO ONE in power is listening, if NO ONE in power gives a fuck, what CAN you do?

I think Cindy Sheehan deserves laurel wreaths for standing up in the midst of this unified and horrible, fascist, warmongering establishment, and crying foul. She alone was able to start mobilizing something--after the 2004 election theft, which flattened so many--with her own sorrow as the motivator. And I personally don't fault her at all for addressing other issues as well--for instance, the Bushites' assault on women's rights--because the two things, the war and the assault on women, are deeply connected. Poverty, and the major looting that this junta is guilty of, are also war-related. This is a SYSTEM of powermongering, warmongering and abuse of every kind. It is fascism. And it is simply NOT SUFFICIENT to oppose only ONE of its outrages--the war on Iraq.

Scott is focused on that--on the war--because of his extensive experience as a weapons inspector in Iraq. But he is more at sea than Cindy Sheehan is, in his desire for an organized peace movement. She GOT something organized. She DID something that involved a goodly number of like-minded people in active protest. That she is not "General Sheehan," who can orchestrate a sustained, well-organized, mass movement that brings the war to a halt is not really a fair criticism of her. I think Scott is also more at sea than *I* am, in his casting about for the causes of the American people's inability to stop that war NOW. I think the cause of that is very specific, and it's name is Diebold and ES&S.

[EFerrari]

17. The gent who wrote "Overthrow" is on Amy Goodman's show today.

He's a good speaker.

Edit: Stephen Kinzer.

[mdmc]

16. he is a smart guy

[saracat]

18. Odd. It says the firedoglake link can't be found!

[kpete]

19. try:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/20/scott-riitter-overdue-i-told-you-so/#comments

[glitch]

20. I never met anyone in my whole life that I agreed with 100% of the time.

Not even myself.
I don't require absolute agreement with my sources of information. Scott Ritter is not perfect, but he's definitely a good source, IMO.

[cascadiance]

21. DAMN, he was in town this week here in San Diego!?!

I really'd like to see a lecture by him in person. We both went to the same American dependent school out in Turkey. Had he been a year older, I probably would have known him there then, as we both would have been in middle school about the same time then! I'd really like to have a chat with him about old times, amongst MANY other things!

[mdmc]

23. i've seen him a couple time

good speaker