War lies: Bob Geiger at the Yellow Dog Blog was on hand when former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter debated the formerly liberal Christopher Hitchens about the war in Iraq. The event was held at the Tarrytown Music Hall near New York City and was moderated by talk-show host Jay Diamond. Based on Bob’s report, Ritter won the debate quite handily:
— Scott Ritter
“I am as opposed to this war as strongly as one can possibly be against this war,” said Ritter firmly. “I cannot come up with one justification worthy of a single American life for why we’re in Iraq…”
Hitchens, the acerbic British author and Vanity Fair contributor is a self-described “proponent of the Iraq war,” and, while sometimes hard to pin down on his overall political views, clearly came to this event prepared to defend George W. Bush and the Iraq war.
“Another confrontation with Saddam Hussein was inevitable,” said Hitchens in defending the Iraq invasion. “Who should have determined the timing of that confrontation? Saddam Hussein? Or the U.S. and other democratic nations?”
When asked point-blank by the moderator whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had the credible capability of harming the U.S. at the time of the invasion, Hitchens, who was in no position to challenge Ritter’s expertise on the subject, stuck to vague GOP talking points.
“As long as Saddam Hussein was in power, it was not possible for the U.S. to ever relax,” Hitchens said.
Ritter, whose last role at the U.N. was as chief of the “Counter-Concealment Team,” fired back at Hitchens.
“The Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay, found [in post-invasion Iraq] that Iraq had destroyed the totality of its nuclear weapons program and confirmed what the CIA had already said about them having destroyed it as far back as the summer of 1991.”
In 2002, I spent an hour or so driving west from Palm Springs listening to Ritter making some of the same points about Iraq in a taped speech on Pacifica Radio. He introduced himself as a lifelong Republican who had voted for Bush in 2000, and then he proceeded to tear apart the Bushists’ phoney rationale for war.
That trip through the desert was a tipping point. Ritter confirmed what I suspected: We were being lied to about the reasons for war. I had supported ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban, but there was no way I could get behind a war that was being cooked up for obscure reasons by a failed Texas oilman and the former CEO of Halliburton, both of whom had axes to grind with Saddam that had nothing to do with national security.
Scott has been right about Iraq from the beginning, so I found this statement in the Yellow Dog’s report very telling:
does anyone have a link to watch this debate? it’s always amusing to see mr. hitchens get waxed.
I seriously doubt that Mr. Hitchens got “waxed.” It is amusing to see the so called anti-war left prop up a shady figure like Ritter. He spouts the most vile form of American isolationism, and all but supports the former Saddamists who are killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens as “freedom fighters”, much like George Galloway.
It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that Iraq was better off under Saddam. Over 11 million voted 2 weeks ago. Indeed, the only thing holding the country back are the Saddamist holdovers.
Ritter is discredited. I suspect that he not only took money from Saddam, but is also being blackmailed by some former baathist. You may want to disregard that he was arrested in BurgerKing trying to pick up a fourteen year old, but it happens to be the truth. It was widely reported in the press, I’ve never seen one word discrediting those reports. I’m sure that that type of behavior didn’t start happening overnight–just imagine what happened in Iraq!
The anti-war left does itself no service by embracing scum like Ritter and Galloway. I find it curious that the “movement” continues to pick such laughably corrupt figures as spokespersons. You really should try to do better. It just makes you look ridiculous in the eyes of thinking people.
What Ci has written here is typical Bushist slander meant to discredit an opponent of the regime’s imperial pretensions. It’s right of the Rove playbook – trumped up charges, lies and half-truths all mixed together.
This is very similar what they got caught doing to Joe and Valerie Wilson. And none of it – not one piece of this slander – alters the fact that Ritter was right about what we would – and would not – find in Iraq.
When given the choice of believing the guy who told the truth about Iraq before the war or the team who lied repeatedly about their motives and intentions, I’ll stick with the honest guy.
I agree with both of you. Scott Ritter had some definite “issues” from day one, with the one exception that he was right about Iraq the second time (much earlier, I seem to recall he was one of the ones who said the sky was falling). As for imagining what happened in Iraq, ci, getting that wrong has been your team’s problem from the get-go. And I must have missed the Liberal Election when my fellow “anti-war left” “movement” members voted to make Scott Ritter our spokesperson. Maybe, you’re the one who wants to oversimplify. It sure makes a better story your way.
On C-Span last week, Ritter said the under-age girl thing was bogus and had been dropped. The charge sounded like GOP dirty tricks when I first heard about them a year or more ago. If the charges hadn’t gone away, it would be extremely unlikely that he would be out promoting his book today.
Oh course that’s what he said Jon. And OJ was innocent too. The fact of the matter is, however, it did happen, and he has never been honest about it.
Ritter is a rather insignificant person. Why on earth would the GOP waste a dirty trick on him?
They wouldn’t. It’s paranoid to even suggest it without any proof. But it sounds good, doesn’t it, a way for Ritter to get out of an honest admission of his activities. And look who is falling for it.
As I said, if you all want to remain in denial about Ritter, and embrace his paleo-conservative, isolationist, pro-Saddam stance, that’s your business. Most people don’t take Ritter seriously however, and it just marginalizes your position.
Go right ahead.
If you want to believe Ritter is a teen rapist and on the payroll of Saddam, fine by me. Whatever he may or may not have done in his personal life, the fact is he correctly predicted that George Bush and members of his Administration were lying about the reasons that they took the country to war.
On the other hand, if they weren’t lying, the only other alternative is that they took the country to war in error – which, oddly enough, is what they are insisting: “We didn’t lie. It was just a big mix up over bad intelligence.”
If this were true, it would represent the most egregious case of official negligence and incompetence in the history of modern warfare: Thousands of service members and innocent Iraqi children and adults dead and wounded and a half a trillion dollars so far, all because the president’s team got bad intelligence.
It’s the Bush conundrum: Were they lying about Iraq, or are they the most incompetent war-makers in history?
Take your pick.
“It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that Iraq was better off under Saddam.”
Approximately 300,000 people were killed under Hussein. With over 100,000 dead since the invasion, and the quality of life of the average Iraqi far worse than before, it is no wonder that Iraqis see things a little differently than you do.At this rate Bush will have killed more Iraqis than Saddam in a couple of years.
if you run across a thinking person ci, you might want to take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth. you may learn something. i did not embrace anyone as my spokesman, and all the reviews say hitchens was beaten. to me, that’s waxed. anyone got a link to the video?
I think this comments thread pretty much speaks for itself. Boorish, insulting, ahistorical and as intellectually deep as a rain puddle.
I enjoy it when the arrogant anti-war movement outs itself. Especially when you state with great earnestness that Iraq was better off under Saddam.
The only “reviews” I’ve read were written by those who despise Hitchens and would have given it to Ritter if he has recited nursery rhymes.
Put the debate up on the web, and we’ll see.
And if the exchange on the radio the day of is any indication, you’re just blowing smoke.
By the way, notice Bush’s numbers are now at 50%? Pat yourselves on the backs boys. He owes it all to you.
Ci – Are they liars or just the worst fuck-ups in military history? You forgot to choose.
Jon, the only liars and fuckups I know of are in the anti-war movement.
You people actually are gullible enough to heap praise on Michael Moore, Ritter the nymphets chaser and George “oil vouchers” Galloway–and I haven’t even mentioned Clark and Chomsky! What a pantheon! Their bank accounts thank you!
And if that’s not bad enough:
Many of you believe that Bush knew about 911 in advance.
And I’m not going to touch the comparisons between American service men and women and Al Qaeda. Sick. And don’t say you don’t do it. Some of your fellows have right here in the comments! And I have Galloway and Ritter doing the same thing both in print and in audio.
Creeps and losers worshiping sham artists.
As for military history, you really don’t want to go there. Tell me the last time forty million people have been freed from totalitarian hell with the lives of two thousand American soldiers. Pull out your history books and tell me–you got a war with fewer casualties? (Hint, you’ll be looking for a long long time.. you do know what a history book is, don’t you?)
Over 50,000 dead in Vietnam. When do you think we’ll hit that one?
I think one of the most dishonest, ghoulish tactics is to use the dead, all who volunteered for service, as a political talking point. In the first place, many of their families are proud of their sacrifice, and don’t think their lives were wasted.
You kids need to get a grip. We’re living in serious times, and you are not serious either intellectually, politically or morally. I blame the crap schools that you all have to go to now a days.
As much as you’d like to, this is not a re-run of Vietnam. I know it’s fun to go to all those protest rallies, some a little dope and maybe get laid by some Bush hating chick, but you’re wasting your time and energy.
Most people look at your arguments and are horrified. You really don’t get it.
If you want to save the world, there are plenty of ways to do it. Like, hey, why not join Hitchens and support the Iraqi secular left!!!!
The world is a much better place with Saddam gone and Al-Qaeda on the run. Deal with it. Your hatred of Bush is making you stuck on stupid.
PS, don’t bother banning me….you’re not worth replying to anymore.
Ci – I guess I hit a nerve. Since you refuse to answer, we’ll just put you down for “both – they lied AND they screwed up.”
As a proud American I would prefer to believe my president lied to me than to think he was so incompetent that he took the country to war, sacrificing the lives of thousands of service personnel and innocent citizens, because he got the intel wrong.
But Bush insists it was all just a big snafu. (Yeah, one for the history books!)
The rest of your post sounds like the sort of heated rhetoric that cult members spew when their Dear Leader has been critized. He is hands-down the Worst President Ever, but it’s your right to follow him over the cliff.
Bushists can’t win arguments otherwise so you cast about throwing stones, stirring up dust over nothing and smearing everyone in sight.
Post here all you like – your comments are perfect illustrations of the intellectual corruption of Bush worshippers who put devotion to a strutting, aristocratic popinjay over the best interests of their own country.
Why do Bush worshippers hate America and our troops so much that they support sending them to die in Iraq, even though their very own infallible Dear Leader admits he screwed up the intelligence that took us to war?
Ci – Are they liars or just the worst fuck-ups in military history? You forgot to choose.
Comment by Jon
_______________________________________
why can’t they be both?