Exclusive: Scott Ritter on John Kerry’s Iraq Plan

[kerrygoddess]

Exclusive: Scott Ritter on John Kerry’s Iraq Plan
April 28th, 2006 @ 2:48 pm

Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of meeting Scott Ritter, who has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq since before it started. Ritter is in Los Angeles to promote his book, Iraq Confidential. He came to my daughter’s high school to speak to students about the war in Iraq and getting involved in the future of their nation.

I had the opportunity to speak with Scott Ritter before the event. Scott Ritter had been tough on John Kerry’s vote on the Iraq War Resolution before the 2004 election, in an OP/ED in the Boston Globe on August 5, 2004, Ritter said:

Kerry needs to publicly reexamine the reasoning for his vote for war and articulate a clear strategy for Iraq that includes not only a plan for reengagement with the international community but also disengagement of American soldiers.

As John Kerry has done exactly what Ritter had suggested in his August ‘04 OP/ED, I was curious to find out what Ritter’s thoughts were on Kerry’s recent Iraq proposal. So, I asked him…

Ritter told me that he felt that John Kerry’s Iraq plan was “rational, sound and plausible, however it was not enough unless he takes responsibility for his vote.”

“He has,” I told Ritter, “repeatedly starting in late October with his speech at Georgetown University and most recently with his “Dissent” speech, this last Saturday in Boston.” I told Ritter, I would be happy to send him copies of Kerry’s statements and speeches to verify this,

“Then, under those circumstances,” Ritter told me, “I would be behind his plan.”

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2793

[saltpoint]

1. I have a lot of respect for Ritter. He stood up against the Bush

and PNAC pressure early and well.

Actually he seems like a hell of a bright and sturdy soul all around. If you give me a choice between Ritter's take on Iraq and Richard Perle's take on Iraq, it won't surprise you to know I'd take Ritter's, no question.

Hell of a smart guy with titanium cajones.

[kerrygoddess]

2. I'll have more from Ritter later

either tonight or tomorrow morning. So glad he's changed his tune with JK. We had a great talk yesterday.

[MH1]

4. I'm glad you had a talk with him.

I hope his tune stays changed.

If it mattered at all to him, I don't know how he could have missed that Kerry did take responsibility for his vote, and has been talking about taking the appropriate steps to get our troops out of Iraq since the summer of 2004. Or did he miss that, during the campaign, Kerry said his goal was to start withdrawing troops in June 2005?

[saltpoint]

5. kerrygoddess, you are at the junction of important things.

Really appreciate what you bring to these boards.

[kerrygoddess]

11. Thank you Old Crusoe

I appreciate that you appreciate!

[sandnsea]

3. Give him 24 hours

He'll come up with another excuse not to support John Kerry's plan, no doubt.

It shouldn't really matter what anybody says about their vote. What should matter is whether they have a plan to get out of Iraq and whether they've been consistent with a goal of ending the war. John Kerry has been, more than most. Even more than some who voted "against the war", but propose plans that keep troops in Iraq for far longer than the end of the year.

[Dr Ron]

6. Kerry wins either way

If we look at what people are advocating right now, then Kerry deserves support.

If we look at the whole picture of what Kerry advocated before the war, such as his statements against going to war, in addition to the IWR vote, then Kerry also deserves support.

[sandnsea]

8. Sure he deserves support

But I'm not seeing it coming and I'm not counting on it coming from Scott Ritter any time soon. Especially not considering things like this, when the amendment actually calls for troops in Iraq well after the end of the year for a variety of purposes. And yet this is what is getting the support instead of JK's resolution which is much clearer about the use of troops in Iraq.

http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/livingwithwar/

[kerrygoddess]

10. In the end

It's all about finding a plan that the Senate will support. We, the Kerry supporters all hope it will be his plan - however, if they come up with a plan that is meld of many, and it works and it passes, I don't doubt that JK will be pleased. I'm not prone to being defeatist. The more plans on the table the better, it means they are thinking about this - and remember Feingold stated that he supported Kerry's plan.

[sandnsea]

12. getting the right plan matters

A plan that leaves forces in Iraq after the end of the year for "engaging directly in targeted counter-terrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting US infrastructure and personnel" isn't a withdrawal plan at all. That can be interpreted by Bush to mean adding troops to protect the 14 US bases. If we're near the target for training Iraqi forces, why should we need any troops there after the end of the year? This is giving Bush more leeway than he has now.

I don't care who comes up with a good plan to end the war. But I've seen far too many supposed plans to end this war that were nothing of the sort when you look at the details. It isn't being defeatist, it's being realistic about what has gone on for 3 years.

I'm really really glad you set Scott Ritter straight. I'm just not holding my breath that it will change anything based on the last 3 years, that's all.

[kerrygoddess]

7. I don't think so

We had a long talk about it yesterday and he knew I would be passing the info along directly to Kerry's office. He was cvery amiable and glad to hear what I told him.

[sandnsea]

9. We'll see

As I posted to Ron, when these groups can support an amendment that really is a blank check, and ignore JK's resolution which is succinct, then I don't trust much of anything they have to say.

[JI7]

13. i agree

the war is still going on. i don't get the "too late too little" and the need for an apology from people who claim to be opposed to the war. shouldn't the important thing be to stop the war ?

you dind't see KErry protest Vietnam by demanding apologies from McGovern, Humphrey and whoever else may have voted for the Tonkin Resolution. not even from Nixon. what he wanted was something done about the war. not some empty feel good crap.

it's interesting that on here Kerry got more reaction for regretting the vote than for actually proposing a way to get out. not only that but at the beginning before we went into Iraq people would blow off anything Kerry said to oppose going in with "why did you vote for it".

[MH1]

14. Excellent points. I do really hope that Ritter has come around -

that would be a good thing - but I certainly share the frustration that some folks seem to want to make it more about beating up certain people, asking for "apologies" and all, rather than looking at how we move forward to end the war and bring the troops home.

[ProSense]

15. I agree.

J17 makes excellent points about Kerry's protest of the Vietnam War. Your point, MH1, sums it all up.

I really appreciate KG efforts in earnest because getting support is key and Scott Ritter feels the need to be stroked in this way. Still, anyone truly concerned with stopping the war should be paying attention to the efforts, especially by members of Congress, to do.

[kerrygoddess]

16. I'm not sure if

he needs to be stroked so much as he's maybe not paying full attention to everything. He's been on a book tour and working on new book. I think he was grateful for the info and perspective I brought him and I'm glad for that.

[One Honest Guy]

17. What effing plan?

"John Kerry’s Iraq Plan"? Will this plan bring about immediate discontinuation of slaughter of innocent Iraqis? It will not.

So, what effing plan? John Kerry is neocon lite, like most Dems, if Iran Freedom Support Act that passed 397-21 the other day is any kind of measure.

[paulk]

18. "john kerry is neocon lite, like most Dems"

they're like mushrooms

:rofl:

[karynnj]

19. Kerry voted in the House?

Kerry is in no way a neo-con. His foreign policy philosohphy was influenced by someone who, even in a book he wrote in the early 90s was adamently against the neocon philosophy - nis name Richard Kerry. Did you read his Ulster speech? - in it Kerry speaks of his philosophy. It is significant because it succeeds in presenting an idealist, moral view of how the US show engage with other nations. It deepens some of the ideas he spoke of in 2004. In 2004, there was a NYT op-ed that refered to the Republicans as having taken the idealist side offering democracy to all while the liberals took the pragmatic (less appealing) side. That is not true of this speech.

Here's a link:
http://www.ulster.ac.uk/news/john-kerry-speech.pdf

As to Kerry's Iraq Plan - no plan that Bush does not implement does anything - the significant thing about this plan is that it has moved the discussion on the conservative side.

[mtnsnake]

20. Please prove he's "neocon lite". You can't, so you won't

You people who call Democrats like Kerry "neocon lite" and then go on to include "most Dems" as being such, too, always fail to back up your preposterous statements. Why can't you back up those statements? It's because they're not true, that's why. I've also seen Hillary called "neocon lite", among other ridiculous Repukian adjectives, yet not a single one of you can back up your lies with proof. You can't do it because Kerry, like Hillary, ranks towards the top of the list of Senators when it comes to voting progressively on all the issues placed in front of the senators to vote on.

There might be other legitimate beefs with Kerry or other Democrats, too, but "neocon lite" sure doesn't apply to him nor most other Democrats either.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Indeed, but it depends on how far to the left you view someone

Democrats are fascists if you look at us from far enough away.

[sandnsea]

21. By the US, actually yes it would

Using the logic of the left, pulling US troops back would end the war because they're only fighting for their freedom from the US anyway. Kerry's plan calls for ending US troop patrols and the like, and then bringing them home. Iraq troops and police would be front and center in policing the country.

If the slaughter of innocent Iraqis continued, then I guess there would need to be a different solution. Maybe a summit with the UN and Arab nations. Oh yeah, that's part of the plan too.

Question, does voting for the Iran Freedom Act mean voting for war?

[LittleClarkie]

23. You're right in one regard

No plan by any Democrat has a chance of being implimented at the moment. All such a plan can do is put pressure on the powers that be.

The powers that be at the moment are all Republicans.

But I'd be interested to hear how you think any plan by any Dem at the moment could bring about immediate discontinuation of slaughter of innocent Iraqis.

Nevertheless, Kerry's plan is a good one, and make no mistake, he's serious about it. I don't think he involks his younger self lightly.