PDA

View Full Version : Scott Ritter Calls For Chimpeachment



Hardrock69
03-26-2006, 03:46 PM
It's Criminal
Posted by Scott Ritter at 9:59 AM on March 20, 2006.

Impeachment is the only recourse that can bring a halt to the madness in Iraq, and the insanity being planned in Iran and elsewhere.


As America reaches the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq, there is for the first time the unsettling realization brought about by the clarity of acts that emerges only after the passage of time that something horrible has happened.

This awakening of collective awareness on the part of the American people is reflected not only in the numerous polls which show President Bush's popularity plummeting to all-time lows, largely because of the war in Iraq, but also the collective shrug of the shoulders on the part of the one-time cheerleaders for the war in Iraq -- the mainstream American media -- when covering the hollow rhetoric of the President as he tries to rally a nation around a cause that has long since lost its allure.

No amount of flowery language and repeated pulls at the patriotic heartstrings of America, no repeated assault on the senses and sensibilities through repetitious referral to the events of 9/11 can jump start a second phase of the kind of mindless nationalistic fervor that greeted the erstwhile Cowboy President when he first herded a compliant America down the path of war with Iraq three years ago.

Looking back on the string of unfulfilled objectives, broken promises, squandered dreams, shattered bodies and eviscerated lives that was and is the war in Iraq, one thought emerges plain and clear. This isn't simply a result of bad governance. This is criminal.

Bad governance is telling the American people that a war with Iraq would be concluded in a manner of months, and would cost the American taxpayer less that $2 billion, when in fact the war has gone on for three years now, with no end in sight, and over a quarter-trillion dollars have been expended, with untold billions more to be spent.

Criminal governance is the fabrication of a justification for war (weapons of mass destruction), hiding the President’s true intentions from the American people and the Congress of the United States (Bush signed off on the Iraq war plans in late August 2002, and yet continued to publicly state that no decision for military action had been made), and shredding international law by waging an aggressive war of pre-emption void of any United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing such actions.

Bad governance is manipulating war planning on the part of military professionals so that we enter into a conflict with far too few troops for the task, with no plan for how to proceed once the fighting ended and the reality of occupation set in.

Criminal governance is violating every principle of the laws of war in the conduct of the occupation of Iraq, manipulating the economic and political direction of Iraq, suppressing its population, and engaging in wanton acts of widespread murder, torture and abuse of the Iraqi people.

The fact is the war in Iraq has degenerated into one giant hate crime.

American soldiers and Marines are being thrown into a cauldron of our own making, scalded by a conflict with no purpose or direction, with the end result being that in order to survive these fighting men and women have dehumanized the totality of the Iraqi people.

The ancestors of ancient Babylon have become nothing more than "sand ******s", "rag-heads", "camel jockeys", "ninja women" or "haji" in the hearts and minds of American fighting men who are now killing Iraqis in ever increasing numbers. Gone is any talk of rebuilding Iraq. We are there to destroy it. The criminal nature of the war in Iraq is starting to become common knowledge among observers of the war.

It has long sense been common knowledge on the part of those waging it. In Vietnam Americans were shocked by the revelations of Mai Lai and the murder of innocent Vietnamese civilians by American fighting men. But Mai Lai is repeated in bits and pieces every day in Iraq, with the American military occupation slaughtering family after family of Iraqis in the name of bringing peace and security.

The realization that something has gone horribly wrong in Iraq, however, has not translated into any kind of discernable action on the part of the American people. While pundit after pundit breaks ranks with the Bush administration on Iraq, often repudiating their own pre-war chest beating and encouragement of the war, the fact is that the manifesto which manifested itself in the invasion of Iraq -- the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States -- continues to dictate the manner and nature of America's interfacing with the rest of the world in unquestioned fashion.

Indeed, President Bush has, on the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraqi war, promulgated a new, improved version of this manifesto, the 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States, which re-affirms America's commitment to the principles of pre-emptive war. In short, the President has re-certified America as the greatest threat to international peace and security in modern times, especially when one considers that even as America is engaged in the brutal rape and occupation of Iraq, President Bush has his eyes firmly set on another war of aggression in Iran.

What are the American people doing in response? There is a huge difference between becoming aware and taking action. While poll numbers on Iraq reflect a growing unease about the war, this unease has not manifested itself into any discernable reaction of consequence. The Democratic Party has remained largely mute, largely because of the culpability on the part of much of its membership in facilitating and sustaining the Iraqi war and its underlining doctrine of global domination by the United States.

But in the face of the near total subservience on the part of the Republican Party in supporting the policies of President Bush no matter how illegal and harmful they are to America and the world, the Democratic Party must shake itself free of the doldrums it currently finds itself stuck in. The time for passive recognition that the war in Iraq has gone bad is long past.

The time for concrete political action has arrived. The Democrats need to recognize that the political struggle in America today is not a trivial extension of the partisan Red State-Blue State nonsense the American media likes to bandy about, but rather a far more serious struggle of national survival, if one in fact defines the American nation as being reflective of the ideals and values set forth by the Constitution of the United States.

The Iraq War, if anything, is a reflection of the total abrogation of constitutional responsibility and process by the Congress of the United States. As a result, the President has led a nationdown the path of illegal war of aggression which has damaged America's reputation abroad, and its very fabric here at home. The Republican-controlled Congress has done little to stop this collective march towards national self-destruction, rubber-stamping the president's illegal actions with little regard to either the rule of law or Congress's status as a second but equal branch of government.

This must end.

The fact is that America today stands on the brink of having everything we stand for as a nation being swept away by a power-crazed President and a compliant Congress, both of whom are Republican. Whatever direction the Democratic Party takes in the future, it must be with the recognition that the hopes and dreams of saving the United States as a nation of laws founded in the words and principles of the Constitution rest heavily on their shoulders. The Democratic Party must become laser-like in its rejection of the war in Iraq, resolute in condemning this war for what it is, an illegal war of aggression,and determined in fighting for the concept of a nation governed by the rule of law by holding President Bush accountable for his illegal actions.

In short, the rallying cry of the Democratic Party must become impeachment. Given the magnitude of the crimes committed by the United States in Iraq under the direction and leadership of President Bush and his administration, there is simply no other recourse that can bring a halt to the madness in Iraq, and the insanity being planned in Iran and elsewhere.

The remedy is clear. The question now is whether the Democratic Party is up to the task.


http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/ritter/33788/

EAT MY ASSHOLE
03-26-2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Hardrock69


The question now is whether the Democratic Party is up to the task.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! !!!!

As fuckin' IF!!!

Nickdfresh
03-26-2006, 09:15 PM
Who is the 800lb gorilla in the room known as SCOTT RITTER?

twonabomber
03-26-2006, 10:14 PM
he was great in that show with the two chicks.

BITEYOASS
03-26-2006, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Hardrock69
It's Criminal
Posted by Scott Ritter at 9:59 AM on March 20, 2006.




"....there ought to be a law"-Bon Scott "If you want blood, you've got it" :D

BigBadBrian
03-27-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who is the 800lb gorilla in the room known as SCOTT RITTER?

The Child Molestor. Fucking piece of shit.

:gulp:

FORD
03-27-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The Child Molestor. Fucking piece of shit.

:gulp:

Those bullshit false accusations are proof of how low the BCE will sink to stop someone from telling the truth.

Scott Ritter knew for a fact there were no weapons in Iraq because he was there to look for them. The BCE knew he could destroy their fraudulent case, so they had to manufacture a way to discredit him.

Warham
03-27-2006, 02:58 PM
Are you saying those claims are invalid, FORD?

BigBadBrian
03-27-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Are you saying those claims are invalid, FORD?

Another whacked out, cooked-up conspiracy, courtesy of our resident nut.

:gulp:

FORD
03-27-2006, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Are you saying those claims are invalid, FORD?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Warham
03-27-2006, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

And is your reasoning because he says something contrary to what W. says?

FORD
03-27-2006, 10:56 PM
My reasoning is that the BCE are a bunch of vindictive bastards and they really hate it when someone in a unique position to know the FACTS about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (or more specifically the complete lack of them) won't play along with the PNAC agenda.

So they have to use the willing corporate whore media to discredit such a person. The fact that he was a USMC intelligence officer who served honorably in Poppy's Iraq war didn't even matter. His facts negated their case. So his facts had to be silenced.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:01 AM
Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Toronto Star
CNN's Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter
Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq
by Antonia Zerbisias


To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

OF COURSE it was just coincidental that, on Sunday, as CNN was discrediting former United Nations weapons' inspector Scott Ritter, it was running promos for the remake of Four Feathers, A.E.W. Mason's tale of the coward who would not go to war.


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

Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After his 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq allowed.

Ever since, he has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's failure to complete its mission — a failure Ritter largely blames on Washington — and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that, if the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is building nukes, then the American people have a right to see it before they sacrifice their lives.

So, naturally, CNN talking head Miles O'Brien on Sunday questioned Ritter on his loyalty.

"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."

Not in this climate. Not when there's the ironically named U.S.A. Patriot Act which abrogates civil rights. Not when those who criticize the administration are considered to be "with the terrorists." Not when the U.S. media let President George Bush's advisers — who, with the exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, have never served their country as Ritter has — gallop all over the airwaves.

You couldn't flip a channel on Sunday without catching one of the Bush bunch, including wife Laura, Powell, vice-president Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice, promoting an attack on Iraq as if they were actors flogging their latest project on Leno and Letterman.

Certainly, the line of questioning was no more tough. Nowhere was any of them asked seriously, if at all, about such trivia as the costs of a war, or what, if anything, is known about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or what proof there is that Iraq has the ability to make and deliver nuclear weapons, or why that country as opposed to others, or what oil has to do with it, or how Cheney justifies his former business dealings with the regime he now so desperately wants to change ...

Still the demonization of Ritter continued.

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 behaviour 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."

Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips interrogated him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq —and all but calling him a quisling.

"Ha! Excuse me; 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 a0 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."

Maybe today, in his speech to the United Nations, Bush will make that case.

Maybe not.

Whatever happens, the list of cowards and traitors here won't include Scott Ritter.

Antonia Zerbisias' column appears every Thursday. You can reach her at azerbis@thestar.ca

Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

###

DrMaddVibe
03-28-2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Those bullshit false accusations are proof of how low the BCE will sink to stop someone from telling the truth.

Scott Ritter knew for a fact there were no weapons in Iraq because he was there to look for them. The BCE knew he could destroy their fraudulent case, so they had to manufacture a way to discredit him.


He sure made a good living trying to find those WMD too!

Don't stick up for the kiddie molestors!

DrMaddVibe
03-28-2006, 07:09 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID61/12164.html

From your own "well".

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
He sure made a good living trying to find those WMD too!

Don't stick up for the kiddie molestors!

So did BUSH; only he's managed to kill 2400+ American Servicemen and 100,000 Iraqis...

Warham
03-28-2006, 07:28 AM
I don't buy that 100,000 figure.

I've heard anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000, and for some reason, liberals always use the 100,000 figure.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
03-28-2006, 09:53 AM
My understanding is that it's somewhere approaching 40,000.

And one life is too many.

Nickdfresh
03-28-2006, 10:04 AM
Well, there's "estimates" and there's casualty figures derived by counting the deaths from media reports...

FORD
03-28-2006, 12:35 PM
And don't forget that 50% of Iraq's population is under 18.

So it's George Bush Jr harming children, not Scott Ritter.

Warham
03-28-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
My understanding is that it's somewhere approaching 40,000.

And one life is too many.

That's right. One janitor's life is one too many. :)