Greenwald on Scott Ritter, the Cassandra of Iraq (and Iran)

He was completely right. And he's still an outcast.


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/proven-wisdom.html

Friday, April 21, 2006
Proven wisdom

One of the most bizarre aspects of our current political debates is that the very people who were most glaringly and incessantly wrong about virtually everything prior to the invasion of Iraq are still held out as some sort of wise foreign policy experts. The converse of that distorted principle is that those who were most right about Iraq-related issues are still treated as subversive lepers who are unfit for decent company, as well as unfit to be heard in mainstream media outlets and television talk shows.

Few people, if any, were as right about the critical pre-invasion issues as Scott Ritter was. Back in September, 2002, Ritter was trying to tell anyone who would listen that Iraq had no WMD's, and accordingly said:


My country seems on the verge of making an historic mistake…. My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance, as opposed to the reality of truth and fact.


Ritter was not just some newspaper columnist like Charles Krauthammer or free floating pundit like Michael Ledeen. He was a former Marine officer, top aide to Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the first Gulf War, and a tenacious weapons inspector working inside Iraq for the U.N. It is difficult to imagine someone with greater credentials and credibility who ought to have been listened on those issues.

But in a vivid reminder of just how ugly and corrupt were the tactics used by Bush followers at the time to crush any dissent, Ritter was virtually excluded from any mainstream setting. He was branded a subversive, a traitor, and the "new Jane Fonda." The media -- while it venerated the Krauthammers and Bill Kristols and Fred Barnes's and the slew of other know-nothings who paraded forth to spew fictitious pro-war talking points -- cooperated enthusiastically with the smears on Ritter, all but treating him like some sort of untouchable traitor, notwithstanding the fact that, until 2004, he had voted only for Republicans, not to mention that he been an outstanding Marine officer. Nothing shielded those who dissented from the Bush agenda from charges of treason and subversion.

... and, yet, I haven't seen him since he was on that idiot Dennis Miller's show. Does he still have a show? Ritter was 100% correct the whole time he was making the rounds prior to the war and he was only ridiculed and vilified. I guess they don't want him on their shows now because they would have to admit that they were wrong and he was right.

;-)

Why interview Gen. Grange who got everything wrong, when we should be hearing from General Clark who got it absolutely right. And then there's the pundits quoting John McCain who knows squat while ignoring Dennis Kucinich or any other of the over 100 Democrats who understood the truth. Well, tomorrow's Sunday, and I assume that the Gasbag line-up will underscore the same mystery: why aren't we hearing from the people who were smart enough to get it right.

The only thing I would disagree with is his calling Michael Ledeen a free floating pundit. There was nothing free floating about him. He was very closely tied to the architects of this war. Probably involved in the Niger forgeries.

"Cassandras."

Well, one important fact about Cassandra (character in The Iliad) is that she was RIGHT.

(She was cursed by being given the gift of 100% accurate prophecy, which sounds great, except for part 2 of the curse: no one would ever believe her.)

Scott Ritter was swift-boated before that term existed. He was the first swift-boat victim--the first Wilson/Plame, actually--turned into a pedophile to keep him from being taken seriously.

That Rove is one evil mother...

,...concerns me most. It tells me our country is NOT healthy but rather weak, maybe even desparate. There's just this,...pervasive,...dissatisfaction and wanting and, like, despair combined with anger, seeming to invade the whole of the American community; and, this phenomenon is making us vulnerable to abuse and exploitation via the easiest emotional manipulation.

:shrug:

Happy, healthy people are totally turned off by those who engage in persecutory behavior. Know what I mean?

Your mileage may vary I suppose.

But the people deserve what they vote for.

If only they would restrict what they vote for to themselves, and not force it on the rest of the world... Sigh.

,...just trying to make life work for them the best they can with no real sense of security about their futures.

Bigoted imbeciles are only vulnerable to manipulation associated with their hatred. Those folks actually advocate authoritarianism,...but, they are a very small minority.

who isn't rich, straight, white, christian, and male as one of them.

Rich straight white christian men are the only people with substantial reason to vote for republicans - it's in their narrow self-interest, after all.


But regardless of the details you and I might differ on, there's an overall-picture that's more important, that I think we disagree on. I don't view the electorate as don't-blame-the-poor-little-passive-powerless-wanna-do-the-right-thing-but-life-just-makes-it-so-hard-whinewhinewhine-they're-just-trying-to-get-by-yadayadayada.

I think such a view of people is deeply insulting to them - treating them as if they were little children or teddy bears or something.

I take an OPTIMISTIC view of people as ACTIVE moral and practical agents in the world, who PURPOSEFULLY decide on courses of action, and CHOOSE whether or not to go along with things, and so forth.

A consequence of my belief in the DIGNITY of people is that they be held RESPONSIBLE for, among other things, their voting. This is by contrast with what I took from your post, that the-poor-schmucks-are-just-tryin-to-get-along-in-the-world-why-is-mean-blooinbloo-so-hard-on-them point of view.

I don't believe this country will get anywhere until people are viewed as POWERFUL ACTIVE AGENTS in the world, and hence held responsible for their beliefs, actions, and votes.

,...themselves as you do. Perhaps, your optimism relates not to people but to an ideal, YOUR ideal people (e.g. "powerful active agents"). Perhaps, you ignore the fact that most incidences in our lives happen beyond our control although we always have power to choose our way through life. Perhaps, your perspective fails to acknowledge and hold responsible those who can, do and will continue to exploit others while simultaneously demeaning the victims of that exploitation.

:shrug:

"don't-blame-the-poor-little-passive-powerless-wanna-do-the-right-thing-but-life-just-makes-it-so-hard-whinewhinewhine-they're-just-trying-to-get-by-yadayadayada"

You are obviously into your hard-assedness thingy. But, it's completely ineffective with me. It's just a total turn-off.

at San Diego CityBeat:

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

snip:"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."

snip:"You’d be surprised what kind of plans are being hatched up right now—plans that include covert action; plans that include massive aerial bombardment, according to Seymour Hersh’s recent article in The New Yorker; plans that include massive aerial bombardment that incorporate the possibility, or some would say the probability, of nuclear weapons. And if you go to the School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as I have several times, you’ll see the maps on the wall clearly indicate an American interest in pushing forces into Azerbaijan. Why? It neighbors Iran. Why is that important? The shortest route to Tehran is down the Caspian Sea coast, the Army is planning an incursion right now"

read full article:

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



http://www.dontattackiran.org

They never had interest in controlling arms. FUCK! They are in the side-business of DEALING ARMS.

It's really not terribly complex, their "vision" that is.

They seek to dominate the most oil-producing countries exploiting their own people to do it. It's THAT simple. THAT'S their "vision" as THE global force/power in the whole wide world.

The lapdog media will do its duty. They realize that much of the American public will in spite of misgiving feel its their patriotic duty to "support the troops". They realize that most but not all key Democrats will support the move at least initially--either because they agree with it or because they are afraid of being labeled "week on defense", "soft on terrorism", or being part of the "blame America first crowd".

I certainly hope I am wrong. but I would not put it past these people.
And as I always we must NEVER, NEVER, NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE WAR PROPAGANDA MACHINE..

Here is just one example. Now forget what you know about the reality of the situation. Forget what facts you know. Let's just imagine that we are Jane Doe or John Q. Public living in Anytown, USA:




http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7955

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites.)

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms."



http://www.dontattackiran.org

Their credibility is as much in question as this administration's credibility.

An amazing development, independent news, is spreading, in addition to word of mouth and plain ole' reality.

What to do. What to do? Will the CM save their own asses and pull away from the global corporateers? Or, will they BE the "big brother" necessary to assist world dominance?

Such difficult, self-involved decisions with little thought to the impact upon humanity.

Must be,...JUST AWFUL,...for those poor fother-muckers. Poor things. *boohoo*

Counter Spin --the 30-minute weekly radio program put out by the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). - Counter Spin -

available for streaming on line or downloading--link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=5

I have found it the absolute best program of its kind..thank for indulging my plug for this great program

I'd like to see what those wonderful anchors at CNN and MSNBC who tried to discredit him two years ago have to say about him now.

I've always liked and respected Scott Ritter. :thumbsup: