The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
Links
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
*************
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
September 12, 2002
In Defense of Scott Ritter B.A.,
Several problems with the "Let's smear Ritter" site you sent me a link to:
First, since I've heard Ritter speak at length, making comments similar to those recently reported, I've heard his detailed argument in full context-NOT merely the out-of-context snippets quoted by the Ritter-bashers.
1. Ritter heavily emphasizes that the instant that the Bush administration can produce credible evidence that Iraq is attempting to rearm, in any way, that he, Ritter, will gladly join the pro-war bandwagon. The Bush administration need not share sensitive information with the general public, but there's no excuse for hiding the allegedly credible new information from the House and Senate Intelligence committees, + Dashcle, Lott, Hastert, et al. That's precisely why every member of both the House and Senate Intelligence committees, in order to be allowed to serve on those committees, are given the highest security clearance status. Clinton, for example, could never have started a war somewhere, while arguing that the intelligence which indicate, "We gotta go to war, NOW!" is "too sensitive" to even share with Congressional Intelligence committee members + the top Congressional leadership.
2. Ritter argues for full, unfettered weapons inspections, and would not oppose invading Iraq IF Iraq refuses reasonable, full, unfettered inspections. The Ritter-bashers who "ignore" that part of Ritter's argument are "spinning".
3. Ritter claims that the U.S. used weapons inspections as an excuse to expand the weapons inspections mission, and in fact look for ways to "destablize" Saddam's regime. To 90%+ of Americans, this probably sounds like a damn good idea! One little problem with that, though: The U.N. sanctions against Iraq call for ONLY ascertaining that the bitch is disarming. As a pure legal issue under international law, Saddam has a solid case against the U.S., if it's true that weapons inspectors were doing any C.I.A. "side projects" (!) of any kind, whatsoever. As long as he's actually disarming, as a legal matter under international law, even the attempt to use weapons inspections for secret C.I.A. infiltrations, etc., is a violation BY THE U.S., of the U.N. mandate. Was the U.S. doing anything in Iraq, during the inspections, other than merely, narrowly confirming the destruction of Saddams weapons programs? Saddam insists they were a bunch of C.I.A. spies! Now, Saddam could be right, or he could be full of feces. However, the idea that the weapons inspectors were really covertly also looking for ways to destablize Saddam's government is not exactly a farfetched conspiracy theory!
What would meet Saddam's stated objection, and yet still allow full, unfettered new inspections by the U.S., is to take up Canada on their offer to "monitor" our U.S. inspectors, and serve as an "honest broker" between the U.S. and Saddam: If the U.S. is seen doing anything OTHER that weapons inspections, the Canadians will report this right to the U.N. Secretary. Likewise, if the Iraqis won't cooperate, THAT fact will likewise be reported to the U.N. Secretary. Since it was a series of U.N. resolutions that officialy instigated the entire weapons inspections program, and since the U.S. agreed to the U.N.'s role, this deal seems only reasonable. Note: We'd STILL have full, unfettered access; Only we'd be also eliminating one of Saddam's pet propaganda points, (that the U.S. inspectors are really C.I.A. spies, covertly trying to undermine his regime, instead of just "weapons-inspecting", like their supposed to!).
3. Comparing Ritter's assessment circa 1998 with his assessment in 2002, he may have simply changed his mind. Also, the '98 vs. '02 statements, paired side by side, give a misleading impression. For example, 'Does Saddam pose a threat to his neighbors?' Ritter, in '98:"Yes"; Ritter, in '02: He's quoted as saying, in effect, "no". But Ritter is not contradicting himself. Rather, the columnist does a bit of context-dropping. In '02, Ritter would say, that Saddam does have enough conventional weapons and troops to menace a neighbor, if he chose to. However, in '02, he is making no sign, (troop movements, etc.) that he intends to invade any other country; and thus he is not currently threatening any other country. Ritter will point out that none of the bordering countries around Iraq currently expresses any fear of an imminent Iraqi invasion, or feel menaced in any way. (Israel does not border Iraq. Israel might feel menaced, but as Ritter argues, the most recent internal Israeli "threat assessment" lists Iraq as only number SIX, on their list of greatest threats to Israeli security).
4. This column is fairly heavy on ad hominems. Please try to focus more on in-depth analysis, and not so much on sites that merely quote Ritter out of context, (as I've demonstrated they have).
5. Ritter's personal "agenda", if he has one, is not important. His evidence and arguments are what's important. Is his analysis correct? If it is, then I don't care whether or not he's getting some big ego boost out of standing up to the Bush administration.
6. Let's contrast Ritter's position, with Cheney's. On "Meet the (de)Press(ed)", Sunday, Russert directly asked Cheney, "Do you possess any actual intelligence, that Saddam is actually re-arming, or pursuing any weapons program, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological?" NOTE THE QUESTION. Not, "WHAT IS your evidence?" (To which, "It's classified!" might be a reasonable response). Cheney's reply was artful in it's evasion, :"We don't know what he's got, now. That's why we have to take him out". IF Cheney possessed new, fresh intelligence on the alleged Iraqi weapons programs, he'd have said, "Yes, we do have actual intelligence...I can't share it with you, but-yes we have it!" Just the kind of artful evasions on the subject that Ritter put us in mind to beware of, from the Bush administration! Can you see why I smell "a great big Commie Rat", in Cheney's artful evasion?
7. Ritter insists that if we invade, we won't be fighting teenaged boys, out in the desert. He insists that Saddam's much reduced army will consist primarily of his 100,000 "elite" Republican Guard troops. Furthermore, he WON'T engage our troops, in the desert. (Been there, done that, and got his ass whipped!) Instead, he'll hole up with his troops, in the major cities and use civilians as human shields! Saddam knows we CAN oust him, if we have the will. Knowing this, he COUNTS ON al Jazera and CNN saturation coverage worldwide, of U.S. Troops mowing down ten's of thousands of Iraqi Arab/Muslim women and children, (to get to his Republican Guard troops). In other words, if Saddam has to go out, he's got it planned to, (shall we say?) "Go out in style"! It's a very realistic senario, (and Bush has to know it), that Saddam's "Top of the world, Ma!" Blaze of Glory is going to likely spark street battles in Arab countries all around, and even (potentially), coups in a couple of these countries. Somewhere along the line, someone, (not necessarily Iraq) will lob a couple of scuds at Israel, (just on G.P., to REALLY make things more interesting!) who will NOT sit this war out!
So you see, Bush is setting us up for a world of trouble. I think that Congress ought to exercize it's role as a check on the power of the President, in this case. If Saddam is really THAT dangerous, then Bush needs to lay out his evidence NOW to Congressional leaders, and ask for a formal Declaration of War. Or, shut up. One or the other.
