← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 19667 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-08-16
2005-08-16 03:58 | User Profile
RAW STORY - an entity heretofore unknown to me - has recently published a 3-part interview with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who should be no stranger to OD regulars.
As a commentator aptly summed up, "Scott Ritter has been pilloried by the neocons and the mainstream media for his analyses and predictions, which turn out to be deadly accurate. Ritter said during the frenzied ramp-up to the war in Iraq that Saddam Hussein had no WMD, and he was right; he said that BushCo was inventing intelligence to pump up the war, and he was right; he alleged Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda; and he was right; and he said Colin Powell was lying in his presentation to the UN regarding Iraq, and he was...well, you get the drift. Unfortunately, considering the numbers of Americans and Iranians who are bound to perish in this military travesty, I think he's right about this call, too, timed to coincide with the June reinstatement of the draft. The Bush warlords are too greedy and high on their own imperial vapors to see what a disaster this invasion would be, just as they were bedazzled concerning Iraq. But watch for China and the EU to cut off the money supply and put a crimp in Bush's plans; an American war with Iran would not be in the best interest of either faction, or the rest of the world, for that matter."
Thanks to Sertorius for locating Part 1.
[QUOTE]----------------------------- Scott Ritter Raw Story Interview - Part I By The bug Posted to The bug's weblog (News and Links) on Fri Mar 25th, 2005 at 06:37:52 PM EST
(Includes very interesting information about how we "cooked" the Iraq election)
Nuking the Spin: Former UN Weapons Inspector Talks to Raw Story on Iran, Iraq
Exclusive: Raw Story chats with Scott Ritter
By Larisa Alexandrovna | RAW STORY Staff
In a candid interview with RAW STORY, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter sets the record straight on his comments about Iran, shares his concerns about the threats facing America and discusses his hopes. RAW STORY's interview with Ritter will be published in three parts.
Iran's nuclear program
Raw Story's Larisa Alexandrovna: Scott, first let me thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I want to get right to the meat of things by asking you about a comment you reportedly made in February of this year in your joint appearance with journalist Dahr Jamail in Washington state, where you were quoted as saying that George W. Bush had signed off on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter: No. Someone else wrote that I had said that.
Raw Story: So it is not correct?
Ritter: It is not wildly incorrect, but it is taken totally out of context. The emphasis is placed on the wrong things. What I said was that the President, in October of 2004, had been briefed by the Pentagon. In [the Pentagon's] preparation to have in place by June 2005 a viable military option. This was in response to instructions by the President that the US must be prepared to implement the next phase of its Iran policy or strategy; the first phase of course being the pursuit of the so called diplomatic option-in other words allowing the European Union to carry out its outreach program.
Raw Story: So Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments regarding not taking any options off the table would echo that sentiment, it seems.
Ritter [Rice] had just come back from Europe, and this is what I was talking about during that speaking engagement, [Rice] said that military plans were not on the table at this time. I said that she was a liar; either she is being really cute or she is lying. Military plans are on the table and the President has signed off on those plans. That does not mean we are going to bomb, but to sit here and pretend that we have fully embraced the diplomatic option or have not considered military plans is wrong. I reminded everyone of the situation in the fall of 2002 where the same Condoleezza Rice, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Collin Powell, and other members of the Bush administration were saying that the United States was embarking on serious diplomatic path to resolve the situation in Iraq. They made these statements to Congress in the fall when the President had already signed off on plans for an Iraq invasion in August. She lied then and she is lying now.
Raw Story: So based on this pattern that you are pointing out, does that then mean an attack on Iran is probable?
Ritter: No, what is happening is that in June, the U.S. will walk away from Europe with regard to their outreach in Iran. If the situation is not resolved by June, the US will shift its policy and methodology. Now this is not speculation on my part. This has been stated. Then [the U.S.] will seek to impose robust sanctions against Iran.
Raw Story: The UN has to approve those sanctions still.
Ritter: Right. Only the UN Security Council can apply those sanctions and the Russians and the French have already said we are not game, we are not playing.
When we confront the Russians with our desire to impose sanctions and the Russians must know there is something else outside of sanctions; so when they are saying no, they know they are opening the door to something else. That something else is a military bombardment. In that event, the U.S. has to be prepared; the Pentagon has been tasked with being prepared to launch a massive military bombardment by June of 2005. October of 2004 was a status report on those preparations.
Raw Story: Does Iran have a functioning nuclear weapons program?
Ritter: Iran does not have a fully functional nuclear program. I don't think there is anybody out there, anybody responsible, who would say that [Iran] does. There are a lot of people out there who have jumped on to the "Iran has nukes" wagon and are speculating on something they do not fully understand, especially in a knee-jerk fashion in response to North Korea's admission. The difference between Iran and North Korea is that the Iranian program has been thoroughly investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and you don't create nuclear weapons in a cave.
You need dedicated modern industrial facilities to do this.
Russia's unsecured weapons?
Raw Story: Some have said it would be cheaper for Iran to buy weapons. Is Russia selling the reported unsecured cache that it has to Iran?
Ritter: You can't buy them. If you could buy them, then everyone would be buying them.
Raw Story: What about Russia's much talked about post-Cold war unsecured nuclear stockpile?
Ritter: These are allegations. No one sustains the notion that there are stock piles of unsecured materials in Russia. It's not there.
Raw Story: Are you saying there is no way of really knowing if there is an unsecured stockpile of materials in Russia or are you saying that it is known that there is not?
Ritter: Firstly, there is no proof that [the stockpile of nuclear grade materials] is there. Secondly, what I know about how the material is secured leads me to believe that it is not there. It cannot be there. Putin would have to be involved, himself, in this misinformation campaign.
Raw Story: Why is it unlikely that Putin would not be involved? We are talking about the former head of the KGB, who is not shy about taking care of business, as it were.
Ritter:: Because that would be suicide for Putin. He faces his own terrorist-based threat. Why would Putin allow a system to exist that puts on the market nuclear grade material that would be bought by people who want to destroy him, like the Chechens for example, who have high placed financiers in the Islamic fundamentalist world. It is ludicrous to think that the Russians would embrace a system that would lead to their own destruction - to make what, a little bit of money? You are talking about a Russia that is a major producer of oil at a time when oil prices are record high. They are rolling in money right now.
Raw Story: Yet both Senator Kerry (D-MA) as well as President Bush both have made mention of this problem of unsecured nuclear grade materials in Russia.
Ritter:: Well, they both said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq's elections, the full circle to Iran
Raw Story: During that same talk you gave in Washington State with journalist Dahr Jamail, you are quoted as saying that the U.S. had "cooked" the Iraqi elections. Now given that you were misquoted on the first "bombshell," is this a correct account of what you said?
Ritter: It is amazing people are walking away from this one. The US cooked the election in Iraq. For three days after the election the Shia were saying "we" had 60 percent of the vote. The election was flawed to begin with. I was not a big supporter of having a so called democratic election under martial law where 300,000 troops were securing the scene. I don't think anyone would endorse elections under those conditions. Yet they did manage to vote. Anyone with a brain on their shoulders would know that if you have an open election, the Shia would win.
Raw Story: And they did win. So how was the election "cooked?"
Ritter: The way the law was given to the Iraqis [by the U.S.] - that L. Paul Bremer wrote and gave to Prime Minister Allawi - and gave to the transitional government is designed so that you have to win over 50 percent of the vote to have the plurality needed to control the assembly.
The election results came in and the Shia got 60 percent of the vote. Now, it is no secret that the Shia want a law based on the Islamic law [not secular].
Raw Story: Right. The Kurds want full independence.
Ritter: Right, the Kurds want independence and they got somewhere in the mid 20 percentile of the vote. I don't think most Americans are aware that the Kurds had their own referendum during this election. Ninety-eight percent of Kurds voted for independence.
Allawi's group got low single digit figures. That makes them meaningless as any government influence in Iraq. The Kurds do not have enough votes to have their own government. The Shia do, however. Now what would happen is that the Shia would cut a deal with the Kurds and give them autonomy as a road to independence.
Raw Story: So the Shia, and through them, the Kurds, win the election, which we know. The cooking, as it were, then took place in terms of percentages?
Ritter: Well suddenly, three days later after the election. We have a secret recount and ballads appear, disappear... now this is not Florida, and you don't have TV cameras holding up the chads in front of everybody.
Raw Story: Missing ballots, secret recount, magically appearing new ballots - I can see how this is not Florida.
Ritter [laughs] Well I am talking about Iraq right now.
Raw Story: So back to Iraq.
Ritter: Right. So you have ballots appearing from nowhere, disappearing, and there is a secret recount and suddenly the Shia have 48 percent of the vote and Allawi has 13 percent. Allawi is now a viable force and can deny the Shia control. This is what was wanted from the beginning. Now why this is important is, and we come back to Iran and these things are related. You cannot talk about bombing Iran unless you have neutered the Shia of Iraq.
Raw Story: What about Lebanon, Yemen, and other countries in the region with a strong Shia population, how will they see this Iraq-U.S.-Iran conflict?
Ritter: There is 130,000 troops in harms way in Iraq right now. If you are going to use these forces in any useful way with regard to Iran - well, I won't say too much here.
Raw Story: Please don't say too much. I want to live long enough to at least write this piece [laughs].
Ritter: Well, there are things that can be done with conventional forces, without going into Tehran. The fear is that if we bomb Iran, the Shia of Iran will do their best to use the Shia of Iraq to strike back at U.S. forces.
National security
Raw Story: Is this not going to galvanize the rest of the Muslim world regardless of sect affiliation against the U.S.? How is a galvanized international Muslim force supporting fundamentalist factions - something they would otherwise not support - be beneficial to the U.S.?
Ritter: Right. From a national security perspective this makes no logical sense.
Raw Story: So there is no logic behind this?
Ritter: Well, let's change the environment that you are operating in - you're your thinking from a national security perspective. Rethink this from a domestic political consideration - here in America, from the perspective of a radical minority called the neocons.
[url]http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=170[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][url]http://the-bug.forclark.com/story/2005/3/25/185817/710[/url]
Former UN weapons inspector, who worked with CIA, sees 'terminally ill' intel operation
Former UN weapons inspector, who worked with CIA, hits neocon `brownshirts'
By Larisa Alexandrovna | RAW STORY Staff
In part one of Raw Story's exclusive interview with former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the discussion focused on Iraq, Iran, and touched briefly on the probability of Russia's unsecured nuclear materials.
Ritter also clarified his much misquoted statements with regard to a U.S. planned attack on Iran scheduled for June; elaborated on his suspicions that the Iraqi election was "cooked;" and shared his feelings on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
In part two of Raw Story's interview, Ritter elaborates his views on the neoconservative role in governing bodies and domestic issues and a delivers a scathing assessment of the CIA as "terminally ill." Ritter spent a good part of the 1990s working closely with the CIA on Iraq related issues and continues to have contact with some former and current CIA staff.
Prior to this segment, Ritter sought to explain his feelings on the rationale behind the U.S. apparent alienation of much of the Muslim world, which he partially attributes to a domestic political gambit by the neoconservative movement.
`The brown shirts'
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter: Well, let's change the environment that you are operating in - you're thinking from a national security perspective. Rethink this from a domestic political consideration - here in America, from the perspective of a radical minority called the neocons.
Raw Story's Larisa Alexandrovna: So you think a radical minority is running things?
Ritter: I have had senior politicians privately call [the neo-cons] Brown Shirts. I have asked why don't [the senior politicians] say this in public and there is response is that it would be political suicide.
Raw Story: If you look at how the neo-cons went after Senator Byrd for providing a historical context to shutting down political dissent, it does seem if not political suicide, then at the very least a serious smear campaign could emerge. How does a political career make sense if the country falls into a single ruling class? In other words, how can any political leader imagine a political career if there is no political process through which they can govern on behalf of the people?
Ritter: If you look at what is going on with Iraq, Iran, and the global war on terror; the only way it makes sense is from a domestic prospective, In other words, when you ask yourself "how does this minority retain its hold on power" the vehicle it uses is the post-9/11 environment that it exploited so well?
Raw Story: It seems that the 9/11 vehicle, as it were, no longer has the effect it had prior to the Iraq war. There are more and more questions about sincerity and using 9/11 during the election as a tool has left a bad taste in peoples' mouths.
Ritter: They don't have to use 9/11 anymore.
Raw Story: What can/will they use?
Ritter: Iraq - [questions about] how will we get out of Iraq, what about Iran - they built the perfect trap.
Raw Story: War equals terror equals fear equals submission? Really though, I am hearing from people worried about food, health, jobs and issues that affect them directly and closer to home.
Ritter: I am not saying that the Neo-cons' plans will succeed in the long-run. I am saying these are people who will use global instability as an empowering vehicle, politically, here at home.
Raw Story: Do you feel the latest flurry of warnings with regard to biochemical and/or nuclear attacks are part of this strategy-fear-or is something coming down the pike?
Ritter: No, they are using fear. [FBI director] Robert Mueller said he is a 100 percent certain that the US will be attacked by chemical and biological weapons. That's a stunning statement if you think about it. I am a firefighter here in New York state, if we are going to be attacked by chemical/biological weapons; then why am I and other first responders not being mobilized to be trained in responding to that environment - in an emergency fashion? I mean this is a national security imperative.
Fear as terror
Raw Story: So is border safety, food safety, water safety, and so forth are seemingly not being prepared or secured.
Ritter: Exactly my point. You can say that about any number of things. It is a political statement to try to induce fear. The FBI came out with its own report about Al Qaeda that [states] while they may want to attack us, they don't have the means, and there is no intelligence showing that they are capable of doing it.
Raw Story Do you think this is playing "dare-a-terrorist" with someone, if not Al Qaeda, in that part of the world?
Ritter: I am not saying that the neo-cons are sitting there hoping for an attack, but an attack would not be the worst thing to happen for them politically.
Raw Story: If there is no country left to play politics in then would it not defeat the purpose?
Ritter: First of all there is no terrorist attack out there that will fundamentally harm the infrastructure of this country.
Raw Story: I think we were pretty harmed on 9/11.
Ritter: Yes, I lost my firefighter brothers that day, but the results of that attack were political. The twin towers falling did not stop farmers in mid-west America from harvesting their crops.
Raw Story: The results of 9/11 have, however, stopped farmers via budget cuts and so forth.
Ritter: Right, but that is still politics - politics that puts the neocons in control.
Raw Story: Some have suggested that the neocons are simply incompetent.
Ritter: Actually, I think they are very competent because they are succeeding. I would say logically, are they really this criminally disposed to fundamental evil? That is what they are really, evil.
Raw Story: The entire government and law enforcement arms cannot all be evil. You are talking about a small group of people, aren't you?
Ritter: There is not that many of them, so yes, of the neocons, they can all in fact be evil. They have exploited a situation politically to the point where no one can challenge them. They just appointed John Bolton. No one will stand up and challenge that appointment.
Raw Story: Because they will be seen as anti-American.
Ritter: Right.
CIA `terminally ill
Raw Story: So you allege all of this corruption by a small group of people. Where is the rest of the country's leadership and law enforcement then? For example, where is the rest of the CIA?
Ritter: Let's talk about the disintegration of the CIA as an organization capable of operating with any form of integrity. I am someone who believes that the world is a dirty place and for a great nation like the United States who wants to do right by the rule of law, etc., you cannot come in on a white horse with a white hat all the time if you want to take on the bad guys. You have to do "some stuff." The CIA happens to be the organization tasked with doing "the stuff" and I am not against the "the stuff," as long as the people doing it are honorable people operating in accordance with the rule of law and are being honest and forthright about it.
The CIA post-1990 became a corrupt politicized organization. They had already been on the track to that after, I would say right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it lost its big enemy, its focus. It became a very politicized entity. The CIA as an organization has no real integrity today.
Raw Story: Again, the entire CIA body cannot be lacking integrity. I mean you have agents risking their lives who do believe they are doing something honorable and acting in an honorable way.
Ritter: I am formerly a big defendant of the CIA, formerly someone who was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I was very closely involved with the agency during the 1990s with regard to Iraq. I am not speculating on any aspect when it comes to the CIA and Iraq. As an organization, it is a terminally ill organization. The CIA as an organization is not structured anymore to carry out operations with the integrity necessary to exist in a democracy. The CIA is so much about lies that it can no longer function interpedently, so politicized that it cannot function as an independent assessor of fact.
Raw Story: Is there no one left who can or would come forward. They risk their lives for their country abroad, but they won't come forward to protect their country at home?
Ritter: Of course there are good people in the CIA. They have not come forward because when they do and have come forward, they are destroyed. For example, I think we had a window of opportunity post Iraq for the CIA to clean house - it was clear that George Tenet lied. Instead of Congress coming forward and saying we have a problem: our oversight mechanisms are defective; we need to take a look at ourselves, the way the CIA intelligence community works, the way the House intelligence committee works; the way the CIA reports; the way that the CIA is directed by the President. Instead, we install Porter Goss who comes in and purges any potential voice of dissent, and then we get John Negroponte put above him - a man who has already lied to Congress about CIA covert activities. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what John Negroponte is going to be whispering to George W. Bush.
Raw Story: What about the FBI?
Ritter: The FBI
has some issues, but I would not say that the FBI is compromised to the extent of the CIA, because the FBI does not work for the President. When you talk about the chain of command between the FBI and the President, there is a [whole bureaucratic system] system separating them. The FBI is much more accountable to the rule of law.
Raw Story: Okay, then I pose this same question: where is the FBI?
Ritter: The system is broken. America is going through one of these closed loops.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][url]http://www.hermes-press.com/ritter_neocons.htm[/url]
Former UN weapons inspector says NeoCons parasites of GOP
By Larisa Alexandrovna | RAW STORY Staff
This is the third of RAW STORY’s series of conversations with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. In the first installment, Ritter spoke about the situations as regards weapons in Iraq, Iran and Russia. In the second, Ritter enumerated what he saw as the failings of the U.S. intelligence operation, calling the CIA ‘terminally ill.’
In this final part of the three-part series, the former weapons inspector details his beliefs about the neoconservative movement, the American legislative process and his hopes for the future.
Congressional Catch-22
Raw Story’s Larisa Alexandrovna: Paul Wolfowitz stated prior to the Iraq invasion that Iraqi reconstruction would pay for itself. It seems that Mr. Wolfowitz, now charged with handling the World Bank, miscalculated. What is going on with the oil in Iraq?
Former UN Weapons Scott Ritter: Paul Wolfowitz was a salesman; his job was to sell a war. He acknowledged this in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, in which he acknowledged that WMDs and the threat they posed, was nothing more than a vehicle to sell this war to America. Now you come to the war itself and selling it to Congress and questions: How long will this take? Or how much will this cost? etc…
Paul Wolfowitz lied to Congress about the costs of war. There is not a responsible member of government who thought this would be quick and cheap. There was nobody who believed that Iraq oil would pay for itself, no one in the oil business thought so.
Raw Story: What about oil companies, were they for the war or against it?
Ritter: No oil professional in their right mind would support what is happening in Iraq. This isn’t part of a grand ‘oil’ strategy; it is simply pure unadulterated incompetence.
Raw Story: So they are concerned about their bottom lines, and chaos doesn’t forward that goal.
Ritter: Right. Oil company executives are businessmen and they are in a business that requires long-term stability. They love dictators because they bring with them long-term stability. They don’t like new democracies because they are messy and unstable. I have not run into a major oil company that is willing to refurbish the Iraq oil fields and in invest in oil field exploration and development. These are multi-billion dollar investments, that in order to be profitable, must be played out over decades. And in Iraq today you cannot speak out to projecting any stability in the near to mid-future.
Raw Story: Okay, so now to Congress. They approved the war. I know we have discussed the post-9/11 reality and the pressure of not seeming unpatriotic.
Ritter: Yes, but they also approved the war because Congress had been locked into a corner by the NeoCons in 1998. Our policy in Iraq since 1991 has been regime change.
How many times did G H. W. Bush have to say “we will not remove sanctions until Saddam is removed from power?” Bill Clinton inherited this policy of regime change, but the Bush policy was not an active policy, it was a passive policy to strangle, as it were, Saddam. It was not our policy to take him out through military strength. Saddam, however, was able to out-maneuver this policy, he did not get weaker he got stronger. The NeoCons played on the political implications of this, to box the Clinton administration and Congress into a corner.
When you declare Saddam to be a threat with WMDs and then do nothing, you have a political problem. The NeoCons played on this. In 1998, the Heritage Foundation, Paul Wolfowitz and the American Enterprise Institute… basically drafted legislation became the Iraq liberation act. This is public law. So when people ask why did Congress vote for the current war in Iraq, it is simply that they had already voted for it in 1998, they were trapped by their own vote.
Raw Story: So your implication is that in our current foreign policy the NeoCons have set the tone via thinktanks or supposed thinktanks?
Ritter: Yes. Look at who funds the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, and I think you’ll have your answer.
The American Heritage Leninist
Raw Story: What do you think these institutions are trying to achieve? I know the public claim is conservative values, but there is a some speculation regarding what appears more like Leninist, even Trotskyite values, especially given the current domestic government involvement and control or attempt at control of almost every facet of society, economy, family, etc. Even the term Leninist was used by the Heritage Foundation to describe their approach to Social Security during the 1980’s (read it here - PDF).
Ritter: A high level source, a NeoCon at that, within the system has said to me directly that “John’s Bolton job is to destroy the UN, Rice’s job is to destroy the State Department’s and replace it with a vehicle of facilitation for making the Pentagon’s national security policy.”
Raw Story: And what of Karen Hughes’ appointment?
Ritter: Hughes she is a salesperson; she will sell the policy. She is irrelevant. She is nothing. Her appointment means nothing. Rice has already capitulated to the Pentagon and the White House, and Hughes’ appointment is but a manifestation of that larger reality.
The NeoCons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. They don’t have a foundation. They don’t stand for business. They don’t stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until is no longer convenient. They latch on to Democracy until it is no longer convenient.
Rice’s appointment to the State Department is simply to reshape it into a NeoCon vehicle.
Raw Story: Why the State Department? Why Rice?
Ritter: The State Department still has free thinkers in it. Rice is a dilettante. Anyone who was there during the Reagan era and her advising on Soviet policy knows how inept she is. She is not there because she is a brilliant Secretary of State.
The media has bought into this, because the NeoCons cleverly put a woman, an African American woman at that, into this position. So when Rice goes abroad, people do not look at the stupid things she says, they look at what she was wearing and such.
‘Godless people who want power, nothing more’
Raw Story: So you believe the NeoCons are elitist parasites?
Ritter: Yes, elitism is the perfect term.
Raw Story: Do you consider it localized or global elitism?
Ritter: The NeoCons believe in what they think is a noble truth, power of the few, the select few. These are godless people who want power, nothing more. They do not have a country or an allegiance, they have an agenda. These people might hold American passports, but they are not Americans because they do not believe in the Constitution. They believe in the power of the few, not a government for or by the people. They are a few and their agenda is global.
Raw Story: You suggest the Republican Party is simply an organizational host. Is there any vestige left of the host or has the entire party been devoured?
Ritter: The Republicans have been neutered by the NeoCons
Raw Story: Your concept of NeoCons seems confusing because, using your host/parasite paradigm, they cannot tell between the host and the parasite which invades it.
Ritter: I know people who have worked for George H. W. Bush, both when he was Vice President and President. Bush Sr. called the NeoCons the “crazies in the basement.” I think it is dangerous to confuse the two, because there are Americans who love their country and are conservatives who do not support what is going on. Until the host rejects the parasite, it is difficult to separate the two. Brent Scowcroft for example is not a NeoCon, yet people call him one. Scowcroft worked hard to reign in the “crazies in the basement,” as did Reagan.
Raw Story: Many have defined the NeoCon movement based on the highly intellectual, albeit warped, musings of Strauss and Bloom. Yet one could hardly call the current leadership intellectual or even capable of digesting this philosophy. Even NeoCon thinkers are jumping off the ship. Do you believe this is simply trickle-down Machiavellianism in much the same way that Communism trickled down as an aberration of its original intent?
Ritter: No plan survives initial contact with the enemy. The NeoCon ideology was always hypothetical in its pure application until now. What we are seeing today is what happens when theory (bad theory at that) makes contact with reality. You get chaos, through which the NeoCons are now trying to navigate.
Raw Story: Is Karl Rove a NeoCon?
Ritter: Karl Rove is not part of the neo-conservative master group; he is a host.
Raw Story: Then who is in steering the ship?
Ritter: An oligarchy of ‘public servant’ classes who are drawn from business, and serve naked economic interests. This is true whether you are Democrat or Republican.
Patriot Enactment
Raw Story: Several insiders have expressed concern over possible oil shortage riots. Would the Patriot Act be put to use, in your opinion, to address such riots?
Ritter: [The Patriot Act] is simply the NeoCons putting their judicial agenda in place by other means. It was a compilation of all of the conservative initiatives, not NeoCon initiatives, which the conservative Republicans have been pushing for, including a more conservative law enforcement element.
This is not unhealthy as long is it is done properly, through legislation, proper channels of debate and discourse. A lot of this had been submitted in the past, but was rejected. After 9/11 all of these initiatives were lumped together.
There are some things in the Patriot Act I agree with, but the Patriot Act requires a responsible society. The NeoCons they have no interest in a responsible society; they simply used the conservatives as a vehicle to push an agenda to assault the individual civil liberties.
As the Patriot Act is now, how it came about, is entirely un-American. It is extreme legislation that does nothing to address the issues it professes to, but moreover, it is as an existing law, un-American. What makes it un-American is that no one read it before they voted for it. So the process was un-American, and the motivation behind it was un-American. We cannot have a nation that is governed by fear. The patriot act is un-American simply because it exists.
Raw Story: So how do citizens address this situation since the very means of addressing it via Congress seem to have been closed off?
Ritter: Congress has ceased to function as a viable tool of government. What is needed is for leaders of honor to resign in protest.
Raw Story: I have had this conversation some in Congress and have asked about their thoughts on shutting down Congress and cleaning house. Their counter is that they are afraid to “leave the crazies in control.”
Ritter: They are already in control. If the people want to heal this country, the people have to purge the failing of this country. Vote them out, it might take two or three cycles, but it will happen and it will take time.
Everyone who voted for the war in Iraq should be voted out of office because it violated the violated article six of the Constitution. Everyone who voted for the Patriot Act needs to go because they did not represent the people by voting on legislation they did not read. They have to go, regardless of party. They have through their actions decided who stays and who goes.
Hope, and worries, for the future
Raw Story: You suggest Americans vote out all who voted for these measures. If New Yorkers voted out Hillary, who voted for both the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, and who is also leading pack of the Democratic Party for the 2008 nomination, what then?
Ritter: Hillary is the manifestation of all that ails the Democratic Party. She stands for nothing. She has been compromised by her voting record…how can she stand for anything worth supporting? And yet, she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, thus guaranteeing another NeoCon/Republican victory. ‘Dump Hillary Now’ would be the smartest move Dean could make as the new Democratic National Committee Chair…. Like I said, it might take two or three cycles, but it will happen and it will take time.
Raw Story: What about Dean?
Ritter: Dean has to be part of the process of rebuilding and that will take time. Dean cannot run for President, because Dean cannot run as a Democrat–the party is not set up to sustain someone like him. He is one of the exceptions in a corrupt party. He is also not corrupted by his voting record. He is someone who represents something, he did not vote for the war in Iraq, for example.
Raw Story: We talked about this current social crisis as a closed loop during the second installment. Have you ever seen a loop like this throughout the history of the US? What does this mean?
Ritter: The American experiment is much too complex to be destroyed by the NeoCons. In the end, the NeoCons will lose. It may take ten to twelve more years, and the costs will be horrific, but
America will survive. There will be one hell of a mess to clean up, though, after the fall of the NeoCons.
Raw Story: Where do you see America, should things continue as is, in five years from now?
Ritter: At war, bankrupt morally and fiscally, and in great pain….and only half-way through the nightmare. Ten to twelve years is what we will have to get through, but we will get through it.[/QUOTE]
2005-08-16 04:19 | User Profile
Sert, I'm glad you dug up Part 1. If you choose to reformat, just append Part 1 above Parts 2 and 3 (obviously, you can delete my Part 1 fragment).
I looked everywhere for that Part 1...good eye, Sert.
2005-08-16 04:45 | User Profile
Many thanks, Sert: I've reformatted as per your suggestion.
2005-08-16 04:50 | User Profile
And thank you as well for bringing this interview to everyones' attention. I haven't seen this one before and I bet most others haven't seen it either. Ritter is someone the media would prefer to forget after showing them to be nothing more than whores of this administration.
2005-08-16 09:13 | User Profile
I've had a hunch Scott Ritter was someone worth listening to ever since the neocon-friendly press and the "warbloggers" started smearing him with accusations of pedophilia (he allegedly solicited sex from a cop posing as a minor over the Internet). Do a Google for "Scott Ritter pedophile" and you'll see what I mean.
2005-08-16 14:09 | User Profile
Ritter knows what he is talking about. :wink:
2005-08-16 18:50 | User Profile
I agree with Ritter mostly.
But it seems to me that he pulls the ultimate punch here. It's clear that the neokhans made 9-11 happen. It's also clear that they're Jews who did it for Israel.
He's right on, but he's not quite willing to say the whole truth yet. Not that I blame him.
[QUOTE]Ritter: No, they are using fear. [FBI director] Robert Mueller said he is a 100 percent certain that the US will be attacked by chemical and biological weapons. That's a stunning statement if you think about it. I am a firefighter here in New York state, if we are going to be attacked by chemical/biological weapons; then why am I and other first responders not being mobilized to be trained in responding to that environment - in an emergency fashion? I mean this is a national security imperative.
Fear as terror
Raw Story: So is border safety, food safety, water safety, and so forth are seemingly not being prepared or secured.
Ritter: Exactly my point. You can say that about any number of things. It is a political statement to try to induce fear. The FBI came out with its own report about Al Qaeda that [states] while they may want to attack us, they don't have the means, and there is no intelligence showing that they are capable of doing it.[/QUOTE]
2005-08-16 20:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Unfortunately, considering the numbers of Americans and Iranians who are bound to perish in this military travesty, I think he's right about this call, too, timed to coincide with the June reinstatement of the draft.[/QUOTE]But June has come and gone.
2005-08-17 04:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]But June has come and gone.[/QUOTE]
Ritter claims that was a misquote; i.e. that he did not say that bombing would start by June but rather that detailed military plans for an attack on Iran would be in place by that time.
At least that's how I understood it.
2005-08-18 00:22 | User Profile
OK - thanks, Walter.