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]
Dear Colleagues, . May I urge CASI review its policy on permitting participation of people, including "high U.S. military officials, " who demand the right of hiding behind anonymity, either on the CASI discussion list or in placing their views on the CASI list of documents. I believe that explicit treatment of this issue is particularly timely when folks like Maj. Ritter, who have the integrity to publicly change their minds based on new facts, is dismissed as "all over the place" on the CASI discussion list by some CASI colleagues. Maj. Ritter's cogent analysis combined with his former role as Chief Weapons Inspector of UNSCOM threatens the "party line". It is predictable that attacking of him will increase in the mainstream media as he damages the cliches of the "Iraq delenda est" bunch (See below) . Of course Ritter's views must be scrutinize, but I fear that more anonymous "high U.S. gov. officials" will try to attack him anonymously on the CASI site. I think it prudent that CASI have a policy in place to deal with the vexing issue of granting anonymity. . May I urge the adoption of a single standard with no hiding even for "high U.S. military officials" who want to participate in the CASI discussion list and have the "rebuttals" posted on the CASI site. If such folks want to make claims, let them make their names public. I am confident that the world's sole remaining superpower backed by the mighty Office of Homeland Security which will soon be upon us can protect these patriots from the ravages of pacifists. This is no small matter here in Washington where the testimony of thoughtful critics of going to war on speculation and tearing up not only International Law but also the Bill of Rights from people such as Halliday, Ritter and Bennis and Rep. Kucinich are are almost totally ignored by the mainstream media -- even the media of dissenting Representatives' home districts. I think such selective reporting is dangerous to the entire world. Yesterday, Rep. Kucinch held his 3rd briefing in as many weeks on the Hill. The disconnect which concerns me is the overflow audience on the one hand vs. the nearly complete news blackout on the other hand. The other speakers included folks like Von Hipple and Rep. McDermott of Washington State. A guy with NBC news speculated that at most there might be a sound bite on MSNBC, but not even that on NBC nightly news. The wheels are plainly flying off the war wagon as it plunges the world into the next major war. I offer these thoughts in the hope that CASI's role in promoting reasoned discourse will accelerate in response to the growing danger. Here's a non anonymous analysis of the state of discourse on our side of the Big Pond. Hope these thoughts have been constructive, Tom ===================================================== Toronto Star Sep. 12, 01:00 EDT CNN's hatchet job on Scott Ritter Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq 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. 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 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." 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 Toronto Star Sep. 12, 01:00 EDT CNN's hatchet job on Scott Ritter Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq 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. 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 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." 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 _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk