mikepd
02-22-2005, 03:51 AM
"On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq...."
From an article here:
Scott Ritter's Crystal Ball (http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/2/)
I am not sure exactly what Mr. Ritter hopes to achieve with these announcements. If the tampering in the Iraqi elections is even partly true, one would think the MSM would be all over the story like ants at a picnic. Anything that discredits the Bush administration is good so this would be splashed on page one and CNN would be doing in-depth hand wringing "breaking news" stories.
As for the Iran statement, the same thing applies. I can hear the cries now of where are the Congressional consultations, etc.
He claims to have the word of the official involved in the cooking of the results and from what the article says, seems to be passing his information to the bastion of objectivity, The New Yorker and Seymour Hersh.
Ritter is on the speaking circuit again, telling those who book him what they want to hear, but is what he talking about have any basis in reality? He levels serious accusations but never in a forum where the audience is skeptical and demanding of more proof than their own bias.
From an article here:
Scott Ritter's Crystal Ball (http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/2/)
I am not sure exactly what Mr. Ritter hopes to achieve with these announcements. If the tampering in the Iraqi elections is even partly true, one would think the MSM would be all over the story like ants at a picnic. Anything that discredits the Bush administration is good so this would be splashed on page one and CNN would be doing in-depth hand wringing "breaking news" stories.
As for the Iran statement, the same thing applies. I can hear the cries now of where are the Congressional consultations, etc.
He claims to have the word of the official involved in the cooking of the results and from what the article says, seems to be passing his information to the bastion of objectivity, The New Yorker and Seymour Hersh.
Ritter is on the speaking circuit again, telling those who book him what they want to hear, but is what he talking about have any basis in reality? He levels serious accusations but never in a forum where the audience is skeptical and demanding of more proof than their own bias.