Scott Ritter: CNN (Wolf Blitzer) Try to apologize for what they did , but not really
Scott Ritter was the most demonized of any American before the war. I always thought was happened to him was horrible. All he tried to do was tell the American people what he knew about Iraq and Saddam in the runup to the war and he was made out to be all sorts of things for that. Just another huge mistake the media in this is responsible for in the runup to the war. So yesterday CNN tried to make up for their part with this article, Was Ritter right? and a Wolf Blitzer interview. If you don't remember what was done to him maybe this will help you, CNN's Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter:

First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behavior has really bewildered a lot of people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility..."

The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided," "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."

By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."

He got all of for what? He just wanted some simple things from his government before going to war.

"As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with the - with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter. "It's the most patriotic thing I can do."

[and]

...I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass destruction. I believe I've done a lot about Saddam Hussein," he replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States. But at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United States worthy of war."

He wanted facts? He should have known better than that. Didn't he know that 9/11 changed everything and the facts no longer mattered? So what did he get for wanting the tacts? Banishment! He was also accused of being a child molester and our mainstream media acted like he didn't exist anymore. But now we know he was right. I remember reading his stuff before the war either at commondreams or alternet and he knew Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat. He wasn't pro-Saddam he just wanted someone to prove to him that Saddam had something. After we went into Iraq and I would get into a discussion with someone that was pro-Bush/war about no WMD being found in Iraq. They would always use the line, "everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD", to justify their case. I would always start with, "Scott Ritter didn't!".

I'm going to post the transcript of Wolf Blitzer trying to make up to Scott Ritter yesterday. Wolf is still trying to justify this administrations case for war. What else should we expect from a media whore, right? It was a weak attempt. See what you think:

BLITZER: Brian Todd, thanks very much for that report.

And let's bring in the man himself, Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector, joining us now from Albany, New York.

Scott, as you take a look right now at what Charles Duelfer has reported, David Kay has reported, the fact that no significant stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction have been found, what goes through your mind looking back on what you went through personally, how you were hammered before the war?

RITTER: Well, I try to keep myself out of the debate, because it's not about me. It's about the United States of America and the decisions that our elected officials make in our name. Look, I said what I said. I wasn't guessing. I was basing it upon factual data derived from seven years experience in Iraq.

If you read my book that I write in 1998, "Endgame," it's almost a mirror image of the report that Charles Duelfer just produced. It's the same data. We used the same facts. The problem is, in 1998, I was willing to embrace these facts. Unfortunately, it's taken us five years and a war and over 1,060 dead Americans before government officials have come to the same conclusion that was very reachable in 1998, indeed reachable in 2002 on the eve of war.

BLITZER: Well, what is your interpretation? You came up with the right conclusion before the war. The administration came up with the wrong conclusion. You didn't have access to the latest intelligence reports. You had access to information you had collected years earlier.

RITTER: Well, let's keep in mind that I acknowledge that all of the analysis that I made was derived from seven years of accumulated data that I had not updated the database since I left in 1998. And I made it clear in my discussion since 1998 that unless someone can demonstrate that there is a new stream of intelligence, that there is new data out there that significantly alters what I knew to be the case in 1998, then I would stick to the data that existed.

No one could provide any hard substantive data to sustain the assertions made by the Bush administration post-2001 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It simply wasn't possible.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Scott, one final question. I want to cut this relatively short, because we have breaking news coming out of the Middle East in Taba, Egypt, as you know.

There was a suggestion from Charles Duelfer in his report saying that if the sanctions were lifted, Saddam Hussein would then go ahead, his intention was to reconstitute a weapons of mass destruction program. Do you accept that one?

RITTER: Absolutely not.

First of all, Charles Duelfer in his report acknowledges that this assessment is based on fragmentary speculation. He doesn't have a confession from Saddam. He doesn't have a confession from any of the senior leadership. He doesn't have any documentation to back this up.

This is political spin. Charles Duelfer, a nice guy, I like him a lot and I respect him, but he's a political appointee whose task is to spin this data to the political advantage of the president, and that's all this issue of intent is.

BLITZER: Well, if that was what he was intending to do, to spin it for the political advantage of the president, he certainly didn't do it in that 1,000-page document, most of which contradicted dramatically what the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense were saying on the eve of the war, so you have to give him a little bit more credit than that.

RITTER: No.

Again, the issue of intention provides the Bush administration a convenient out. Witness the statements made by the president and the vice president just today, where they say that because Saddam Hussein intended to have his weapons, this war was justified. That's a dramatic, you know, new approach to why we went to war with Iraq, and I don't think the American public or the American Congress should buy it in the least.

We should demand that the data used by Charles Duelfer to derive this conclusion of intention be declassified, so that we all could be privy to why he believes Saddam Hussein had such intentions.

BLITZER: Scott Ritter joining us today -- Scott, thanks very much.

RITTER: Thank you.

When you read this transcript you have to embrace one of these two things about Wolf Blitzer. He is either an idiot -- not to be able to realize this report has an out for the Bush administration -- or he is shilling for them -- they wouldn't do that with something so important. Take your pick. I think Scott Ritter makes it very plain and easy to understand that even the little bit of an out that Charles Duelfer left for the Bush administration has no basis in fact. So who are you going to believe? Scott Ritter or the Bush administration?

Why does David Kay hate America?
Bush administration in denial about lack of Iraq WMD: Kay
"They will focus on issues such as intent. You will also hear that although we haven't found the weapons or manufacturing capability, they could have been shipped across the border. You can't ship that which you haven't produced. You can't bury that which you haven't obtained or produced."

"Look, Saddam was delusional. He had a lot of intent. He wanted to be Saladin the Great, of the Middle East yet again. He wanted to put Iraq in a preeminent position to remove the US from the region," Kay added.

"He had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."
- posted by Mom/Dad @ 6:40 AM