January 05, 2004
SELF-CENSORED SCOTT
Scott Ritter -- currently taking time out from arranging Burger King playdates with undercover police to pen some revisionist nonsense for The Independent -- is accurately analysed by Mark Steyn:
Anyone who doesn't know about the mass graves and torture in Baathist Iraq is someone who's chosen not to. A lot of people fall into that camp -- for example, weapons inspector turned Saddamite shill Scott Ritter. ''The prison in question was inspected by my team in January 1998,'' he told Time magazine, a propos one grisly institution. ''It appeared to be a prison for children -- toddlers up to pre-adolescents -- whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually, I'm not going to describe what I saw there, because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.''
Ritter is rare in the extent of his depravity: He saw the horror close up and opted to turn his back.
The Independent should ask Ritter to tell readers exactly what he saw at Saddam’s Tortured-Kids-R-Us. But they’re too busy “waging peace”.
Posted by Tim Blair at January 5, 2004 01:12 AMPardon me for responding to "Bleeding heart conservative- Brian" post below linking to Daniel Pipes'review of Endgame (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/896/) here, but both threads are about Ritter, so...
I think it's interesting that Pipes'review shows that Ritter was taking an objectively pro-Saddam view back in 1999. I don't think we're seeing a shift in Ritter's beliefs at all -- he's always been in Saddam's pocket, and has always promoted policies (as opposed to verbiage) which fell in line with Saddam's wishes.
What if the reason Ritter turned from Warhawk supreme to Saddamite, and chose to keep quiet about that jail, was the fact that the jailed suplied him with fresh meat?
Pedophile bastard.
Ah - he was waging peace... A peace that would leave all those children in those indescribably horrible conditions. Guess he figured the price was right for peace at any cost. Wonder what those kids thought of his price???
Posted by: Teresa at January 5, 2004 at 08:17 AMOn September 13th 2002, Scott Ritter was questioned by Paula Zahn of CNN regarding the $400,000 he was paid to film a one person, two camera, 90 minute documentary "movie" (Ritter's word) about the effects of the UN sanctions against Iraq.
ZAHN: Let me talk to you about the transition some people have accused you of making. They said you went to Iraq, to Baghdad, in July of 2000 to produce a documentary film that you said would de-demonize Iraq. An Iraqi-American, according to the "Weekly Standard," who is openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad, bankrolled this to the tune of some $400,000.
People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid.
RITTER: Have you seen the movie?
ZAHN: I have not.
RITTER: Has anybody who has criticized me seen the movie? Watch the movie before you come after me, because I tell you what, I made this movie for the people of the United States to get a fair, objective analysis...
Posted by: Gideon at January 5, 2004 at 02:05 PMRegarding Gideon's post, could any legal eagles out there say whether this transaction would meet the legal definition of misprison of felony? - He did receive a payment to keep a crime concealed and/or not prosecuted.
Posted by: wv at January 5, 2004 at 05:41 PM