The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] The inconsistency of Scott Ritter

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

Perhaps we should consider that Scott Ritter was the product
of military brainwashing for most of his life.  It's like the "T"
shirt that marines from a local marine base like to strut around
in that has "When you absolutely positively want it destroyed
overnight, call in the Marines."   Many ex-Marines in their 40's and
50's we know still maintain that aggressive attitude and spout the
military line and verse.  But some we know have actually matured
and become "human"......I believe Scott Ritter is going through a serious
reality and maturing process and that the govt./military mindset that
controlled him from the time he was a teenager is being broken down.
Standing back and listening to his viscous former compadre Butler must in
itself be a shocking wake-up call to any newly civilianized military
robot, not forgetting that faces of the continually suffering and dying
Iraqis must still be swirling around in his head amid tidbits of guilt
over the roll he played in this continuing tragedy.
When Ritter spoke at a local World Affairs Council meeting when he was
fresh out of UNSCOM, he obediently recited the govt. propaganda line.
At one point he justified Bush's war by quoting the allegation that Iraq
had "threatened to attack Israel" which  point two people in the
audience (including myself) spontaneously shouted out "Finish the sentence,
Mr. Ritter!"  He instantly looked shocked, was speechless for what seemed
like an eternity to him, I suppose, then quietly added...  "...If Israel attacked
Iraq."  (Remember that  at the time the statement was made Israel was
repeatedly threatening Iraq, and had already done so before)  After that little
forced injection of truth into his presentation the rest of his speech was
noticeably much less aggressive and "govt. speak."
A well known former CIA agent (see  "The Praetorian Guard")
who was on the speaking circuit after leaving the agency
addressed the issue of the govt recruiting young impressionable college
students and molding their minds, and how many years and thousands
of deaths of targeted enemies later he finally couldn't look at himself in
a mirror any more, look at what he had become, and left the agency.
The govt. deals a harsh hand to those who leave "the fold" and exerts
tremendous control over their speech and writings for the rest of their
I think Scott Ritter is honest --- and within the restraints placed
upon him-- is gradually breaking out of the hard-nosed aggressive cast
the govt put him into decades ago; that he is sincerely trying to
prevent another Bush slaughter;  and that he is trying very hard
to contribute to a just solution for Iraq.

Hassan Zeini wrote:

> Friends,
> With all respect for Tom Nagy's views, I have to agree with Eric Herring.
> The issue is not "muddying the water" in as much as being and sounding
> credible as many have stressed on this list. We have been reminded time and again
> that what we say and post must be correct and consistent.
> Scott Ritter has not been consistent.
> If he was able to change his mind once, what is to stop him from changing his
> mind again and again? Would we still quote Ritter if he goes back to what he was?
> If we remember well, it was Ritter who created the crisis of the Presidential
> Palaces, when he insisted on entering them. He gave the US administration the
> justifications it needed (flimsy as they were) to attack Iraq later that year. His
> resignation was not due to any awakening or humanitarian concern for the Iraqis:
> on the contrary, his criticism of the US administration was because, in his
> opinion, it wasn't doing enough against Iraq. He thought it was being too soft on
> Iraq, and he wanted it to use force…
> For seven years, he continued to carry out the work for the US army
> intelligence (disguised as a UN official), spying on Iraq for the US and for a
> foreign state (Israel), like he himself later admitted.
> Why didn't Ritter, working for the UN, express his opposition to Butler's
> policies while he was still working for UNSCOM? If he dared oppose the US
> administration, couldn't he have opposed his UN boss, and gone directly to the UN
> Secretary General or the Press to expose what was being done???
> At that time, Ritter gave Ekeus and then Butler reports that Iraq was not in
> 100% compliance and he wanted 100% disarmament. Why didn't Ritter then talk of
> qualitative disarmament versus quantitative disarmament? Was his conscience on
> vacation??
> Questions that I have put even to Iraqi officials I met last April, and to
> which no one had an answer..
> So what happened between December 1998 and his awakening? Shakir Al Khafaji
> happened, who gave Ritter 400 000 reasons to change his mind!!
> Would Ritter change his mind again if he were given more reasons to do so by
> someone else???
> That is why I believe that someone like Ritter has lost his credibility with
> me at least, and I do not quote him. I would rather use statements by Rolf Ekeus
> and Kofi Annan on UNSCOM's spying activities to expose these issues than refer to
> Ritter.
> Sorry, but that is how I feel….
> Hassan

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]