Scott Ritter Says US Attack On Iran Set For June

http://www.rense.com/general63/IRAN.HTM

Scott Ritter Says US Attack
On Iran Set For June​

​

By Mark Jensen
United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
2-21-5​

On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking claims: George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and the U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100 Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United for Peace of Pierce County.

--
NOTE: Dahr Jamail will make three more appearances in the Puget Sound area this weekend: (1) SATURDAY, FEB. 19, 7:00 p.m., at the Kirkland Congregational Church, 106 5th Avenue, Kirkland WA. Admission $5 -- Sponsored by Evergreen Peace & Justice; (2) SUNDAY, FEB. 20, 1:00 p.m. at the Vashon Land Trust. Vashon Islanders for Peace will be hosting Dahr Jamail and Bert Sacks on the subject of Exit Strategies from Iraq. For more information, contact: Kate Hunter, 206-463-5117; (3) SUNDAY, FEB. 20, 7:30 p.m. at UW Kane Hall, Room 120. Hosted by the Interfaith Network Of Concern for the people of Iraq (INOC), the University of Washington -- Department of Communication, the Iraqi Community Center of Seattle (ICCS), and the United Nations Association, Seattle. For more information contact the Rev. Richard Gamble at Keystone United Church of Christ 206 632-6021.

--Mark Jensen is a member of United for Peace of Pierce County.

Miro International Pty Ltd. © 2000 - 2004 All rights reserved.

 

Yawn. Rense is NOT a credible source of information, nor are you.

Anyway, if there's an attack planned for June, they certainly are doing a horrible job preparing for it. George Bush started preparing for war with Iraq over a year before the invasion (possibly before he even took office). You're telling me he's going to invade Iran in FOUR MONTHS with the military currently positioned the way it is? I call bullshit.

While an Iranian invasion may or may not eventually happen, there's no way that it would happen that soon (assuming there isn't a strong push for war by the American people before then). Our forces are currently stretched far too thin to invade Iran, there aren't any troops gearing up to invade Iran, and I highly doubt George Bush wants to waste (what he perceives as) his newfound political capital on this.

There is one point in which this article may actually be correct: What may happen, instead of a full-scale invasion, is a few tactical airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. This would certainly be much cheaper and effective.

 

What do you mean Rense is not a credible source, you mindless peon?

If Rense.com was not credible news source, it likely would not be one of the most visited websites on the internet.

"In addition to offering compelling personalities with often unforgettable information and experiences, Jeff was a pioneer in making talk radio interactive, and commonly presents interviews with simultaneous online illustrations and images which make these programs ever more special".

"His Rense.com internet site is one of the world's elite and most referenced 24-hour news services. It is the world's number ONE talk radio site and records close to 10 million total hits per month. Rense.com archives over 75,000 pages of stories, articles, reports and features. Rense.com is a powerhouse and sits firmly in the top .001% of the 7 million major websites on the internet".

Just because something doesn't fit your conditioned idea of reality, doesn't mean it's not credible.

http://www.rense.com/aboutnew1.htm

Besides, this information did not even originate from Rense. And are you saying Scott Ritter didn't say this, when this is being covered on many mainstream media sites?

You are a narrow-minded fool.

 

Alexa.com Rankings (11/11/04)
Top to Bottom, most visited to least


Ebay.com (non-news site) - 12

CNN.com - 26

Reuters - 585

Associated Press - 1,382

NewsMax.com - 1,217

Worldnetdaily.com - 1,596

Worldnetdaily.com - 1.436

National Geographic - 1,596

UPI - 4,385

RENSE.COM - 5,125

The Village Voice - 7,771

Popular Mechanics - 20,892

Christian Science Monitor - 106,542

 

Way to completely ignore all the points I made about the current geopolitical situation and America's military position in the world. How about you address some of those points instead of wasting time by defending your anti-semitic tabloid?

And no, I'm not saying that Scott Ritter didn't say those things. In fact, I mentioned above that he is very possibly correct about tactical strikes against Iran rather than an invasion.

 

How the fuck do you know? What makes you think it will be a ground invasion anyway? You don't need thousands of troops to launch a massive air assault.

I wonder who knows more about this.... some nameless punk on the internet with the screen name of "Kandahar," or a former weapons inspector. I wager the later. Humpf.

Notice the title of the article reads "attack." Not "invasion."

 

You're right, you don't (not as many thousands anyway). However, if George Bush had already "signed off" on this, as the article claims, it would not make any logical sense for the military to be so completely unprepared for an Iranian war. If he "signed off" on this, it begs the question: to whom? I would think that notifying the generals in the area so that they can prepare might be a high priority.

It seems to me the lead-up to the Iraq war confirmed the fact that UN weapons inspectors don't have much influence with the Bush administration. Why would you think that he had any kind of inside information on this?

Notice that I've already acknowledged that...twice now.

 

RENSE.COM - 5,125

The Village Voice - 7,771

Popular Mechanics - 20,892

Christian Science Monitor - 106,542

What do you mean popular mechanics is not a credible source, you mindless peon?

Just because something doesn't fit your conditioned idea of reality, doesn't mean it's not credible.

You are a narrow-minded fool.

Popularity does not always mean credible... i am sure Britney spears gets thousands of hits through search engins .. the site you were dismising as not being able to debunk 9/11 (not its primary goal i am sure) scored higher than your great rense.com .. did you not notice that ?.

 

Hmmmm and where is that quote from?

RENSE! You are too funny Rat. TOO FUNNY! Can I quote Cheney saying he isn't part of a CIA/Mossad/ZOG/Bilderburg plot?

The only thing funnier than that is the photo on his "about" page. At least he looks the part.

Now lets remember just a few weeks ago you told us you were 99% sure and would bet any money that Bush will INVADE Iran and Syria in his second term (and the stock market will fall 50% is social security isn't privatized, there is definitely going to be a draft, pipelines in afghanistan, terrorist attack right before the election, etc etc.). So don't change your tune now. We're waiting for the invasion (and when it doesn't, you explanation how that only makes you more right somehow....).

 

Um, do you not know how to read? Rense scored higher than PM. I think you're reading the list wrong. Those numbers aren't the number of hits to each site, but rather their rank. Obviously, the smaller the number is, the higher the rank, which explains why eBay -- one of the most popular sites on the net -- is at #12.

 

Again you have nothing of substance to offer.

Bush WILL invade Iran. I am certain of that. Anyone who is not sleeping knows this. And you're denying that it will happen, when it is pretty much one of the top news stories? You cannot even turn on one of the major news networks and not hear about Iran within the first 30 minutes of watching.

Yes, when we do attack Iran within the next year (likely the coming months), I will laugh in your face and will very much enjoy it.

 

Better have a back up plan to explain why the fact that the US didn't invade Iran (and Syria) somehow makes you even more right. You've made the worst mistake a conspiracy theorist can do - predicting something specific. Which reminds me about that draft you are "sure" is going to happen. Kandahar is taking bets - care to put your money where your mouth is?

 

So are you saying that Scott Ritter is a conspiracy theorist, too?

 

How come you didn't address the point I made about Ritter? Could it be because you know I'm right?

Here it is again:

It seems to me the lead-up to the Iraq war confirmed the fact that UN weapons inspectors don't have much influence with the Bush administration. Why would you think that [Ritter] had any kind of inside information on this?

 

No, I don't think you are right. Let me speak for myself, please.

Well, obviously Scott Ritter was right about Iraq not having WMD's. Whether he has influence on the Bush administration or not is irrelevant, and does not apply to this discussion

It would have been pretty stupid of Ritter to say that the US will attack Iran in June if he didn't have inside information, which he obviously does. So basically what you are saying is that Ritter pulled this out of his ass? Why else would he have said this? Can you think of any logical explanation why?

I doubt you even read the article.

 

K, kids... let's quit bickering about who's the bigger asshole and just accept that Bush is a facist asshole who has evil intentions that a normal human being is entirely incapable of. Obviously, Bush is an alien life form from another planet... perhaps that's why we have not found intelligent life on other planets (and here I am wondering if I can even spell the damn word in the first place). Perhaps Bush is an evil alien who travels the galaxy destroying each planet and consuming all resources in order to fulfill his evil agenda of spreading "Democracy" and "Christian" values or what he calls "Freedom."

I think we should send Iran some lube in the time between now and June... They're gonna need lots of it for the ass-raping I'm sure W. and his Dick are splooging themselves over right now, even as I type this! C'mon... let's just all take a deep breath and calmly say "Fight the power..." That's it chi'rens.... "Fight the power...." There ya go!

 

Yes, as was every other objective observer... You're saying that because he was once right about something blatantly obvious, that he's forever infallible about more uncertain things such as whether or not the US will invade Iran?

Where is he getting his inside information if not from the Bush administration? Do you know what "inside information" is? And how come Scott Ritter knows about this invasion before the American generals in the Mideast do?

I don't know why he says the things he says, as I am not Scott Ritter. Perhaps he was just speculating and misspoke, and it sounded like he was stating it as fact. Perhaps he has erroneous information. I don't see how he'd get this information when he has little to no influence with the White House. Until you can explain this (along with the other questions I asked), I'll remain skeptical. "Why else would he have said this?" doesn't pass the truth test as far as I'm concerned.

 

I don't think he was implying that. Why would you say that the invasion of Iran is less certain than whether or not Iraq had WMD? What is the difference?

Why do you only trust info that comes from the government?

 

Scott Ritter is not a conspiracy theorist because US plans to attack Iran would not be a conspiracy. You keep thinking that the definition of conspiracy theory is "bad". Its not. If the US planned to fly remote controlled missile firing drones into Iranian nuclear reactors and claiming it was an accidentally off course Turkish passenger plane (while meanwhile secretly capturing a Turkish passenger plane, landing it at a secret military base, killing all the passengers and then ditching the plane in the sea) so they could steal Iran's oil, that would be a conspiracy. If the US air force drops bombs on an Iranian nuclear weapons lab, that is not a conspiracy.

 

That's a two-part question.

Part one: Why it is uncertain whether or not the United States will invade Iran.

- The military is currently bogged down in a quagmire next door.
- Contingency plans aside, the generals in the area have not begun to prepare for any kind of major attack against Iran.
- While George Bush continues to condemn Iran, he doesn't do it with the same "disarm or we will disarm you" fervor that he did before Iraq.

Part two: Why it is virtually certain that Iraq did not have WMDs.

- No WMDs have been found.
- The Bush Administration provided NO evidence of WMDs prior to the war (if they existed, the evidence would have been provided to rally support for the war).
- The Bush Administration refused to allow the UN weapons inspectors enough time to confirm or deny the existence of WMDs in Iraq, basically kicking them out so he could invade.
- Former Baathist scientists and other leading Iraqis have all stated that Iraq's WMD program was scrapped years ago. While I can understand a reluctance to believe people who worked for Saddam Hussein, I don't find it plausible that almost all of them would deny this.

I don't. As you may recall, the government was sort of pushing the whole WMD-in-Iraq thing.