Mission Accomplished -- What they were saying four years ago.

headscratcher4 · 2nd May 2007, 08:30 AM

They all still pontificate on the war, etc. There is no penalty for being wrong..even wildly wrong in this country.

Taken from Howard Kurtz's Media Matters cloumn in today's Washington Post.

" David Asman, Fox News, April 9, 2003 (upon the toppling of Saddam's statue in Firdos Square, where tight shots by the cameras masked the fact that the crowd barely filled one quarter of the plaza): 'My goose bumps have never been higher than they are right now.'

"Brit Hume, Fox News, same time: 'This transcends anything I've ever seen.'

" Dick Morris, Fox News, April 9, 2003: 'Over the next couple of weeks, when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing . . . the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.'

" Fred Barnes, Fox News, April 10, 2003: 'The war was the hard part . . . And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but not as hard as winning a war.'

" David Broder, The Washington Post, reacting to the events of May 1: 'This president has learned how to move in a way that just conveys a great sense of authority and command.'

"Columnist Robert Novak: 'Could Joe Lieberman get into a jet pilot's jump suit and look credible?'

" Judy Miller of the New York Times, talking on CNN, March 19, 2003: According to 'a slew of information from defectors' and her other 'intelligence sources,' American troops would soon find the WMD sites; indeed, 'one person in Washington told me that the list could total more than 1,400 of those sites.' "

Dr Adequate · 2nd May 2007, 08:37 AM

Meadmaker · 2nd May 2007, 09:12 AM

I think all this anti-Bush rhetoric is in its last throes.

headscratcher4 · 2nd May 2007, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think all this anti-Bush rhetoric is in its last throes.

Yep...just a few dead-enders out there.

Mephisto · 2nd May 2007, 09:35 AM

I call an end to all major combat operations against the credibility of our President.

Ohmer · 2nd May 2007, 10:48 AM

On the other hand, here is Scott Ritter, July 2002:

Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?

Quote:

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

...

The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible - the American people.

At the time, Ritter was accused of drinking Saddam's Kool-Aid. It sucks to be right.

TobiasTheViking · 2nd May 2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Ohmer

On the other hand, here is Scott Ritter, July 2002:

Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?

At the time, Ritter was accused of drinking Saddam's Kool-Aid. It sucks to be right.

Hm, no, it sucks to be left...

corplinx · 2nd May 2007, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ohmer

On the other hand, here is Scott Ritter, July 2002:

Quote:

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

Scott Ritter from War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know, 2002

Ritter's largest beefs were over American claims of Saddam's current capacity and ongoing programs. It should be noted that Ritter's largest fear wasn't what Saddam had, but that Saddam would restart programs once sanctions were lifted.

Scott Ritter is probably one of the most misunderstood figures from the pre-Iraq debate. He went on many many news shows including those on Fox News, but 5 minutes blips don't give much time to convey complex though such as "I don't agree with the admin's claims, I don't think we should go to war based on those claims, but Saddam is a rat, he still has stockpiles but not enough to threaten us, and I know him well enough to know he will go back into production once sanctions based on inspections are lifted".

Edited to add: I am guessing Ritter was wrong as well since he guessed Iraq still has WMD, just not enough to make them a threat in his opinion. However, he was still more on the money than anyone else at the time.

strathmeyer · 2nd May 2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblo...earslater1.jpg

Do these people vote in congress directly, or are you saying that congressmen and senators favor these newscasters?

2nd May 2007, 08:30 AM	#1
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Mission Accomplished -- What they were saying four years ago. They all still pontificate on the war, etc. There is no penalty for being wrong..even wildly wrong in this country. Taken from Howard Kurtz's Media Matters cloumn in today's Washington Post. " David Asman, Fox News, April 9, 2003 (upon the toppling of Saddam's statue in Firdos Square, where tight shots by the cameras masked the fact that the crowd barely filled one quarter of the plaza): 'My goose bumps have never been higher than they are right now.' "Brit Hume, Fox News, same time: 'This transcends anything I've ever seen.' " Dick Morris, Fox News, April 9, 2003: 'Over the next couple of weeks, when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing . . . the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.' " Fred Barnes, Fox News, April 10, 2003: 'The war was the hard part . . . And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but not as hard as winning a war.' " David Broder, The Washington Post, reacting to the events of May 1: 'This president has learned how to move in a way that just conveys a great sense of authority and command.' "Columnist Robert Novak: 'Could Joe Lieberman get into a jet pilot's jump suit and look credible?' " Judy Miller of the New York Times, talking on CNN, March 19, 2003: According to 'a slew of information from defectors' and her other 'intelligence sources,' American troops would soon find the WMD sites; indeed, 'one person in Washington told me that the list could total more than 1,400 of those sites.' "
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

2nd May 2007, 09:12 AM	#3
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,449	I think all this anti-Bush rhetoric is in its last throes.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

2nd May 2007, 09:24 AM	#4
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I think all this anti-Bush rhetoric is in its last throes. Yep...just a few dead-enders out there.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

2nd May 2007, 09:35 AM	#5
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	I call an end to all major combat operations against the credibility of our President.
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

2nd May 2007, 10:58 AM	#7
TobiasTheViking Resident Viking Autist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: With your mother Posts: 6,923	Originally Posted by Ohmer On the other hand, here is Scott Ritter, July 2002: Is Iraq a True Threat to the US? At the time, Ritter was accused of drinking Saddam's Kool-Aid. It sucks to be right. Hm, no, it sucks to be left...
	__________________ He pricked me with his prick that prick - NobbyNobbs Endearingly Obnoxious - Rebecca Watson

2nd May 2007, 08:37 AM	#2
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897

2nd May 2007, 10:48 AM	#6
Ohmer Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 678	On the other hand, here is Scott Ritter, July 2002: Is Iraq a True Threat to the US? Quote: In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence. ... The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible - the American people. At the time, Ritter was accused of drinking Saddam's Kool-Aid. It sucks to be right.

2nd May 2007, 11:03 AM	#8
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by Ohmer On the other hand, here is Scott Ritter, July 2002: Quote: There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. Scott Ritter from War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know, 2002 Ritter's largest beefs were over American claims of Saddam's current capacity and ongoing programs. It should be noted that Ritter's largest fear wasn't what Saddam had, but that Saddam would restart programs once sanctions were lifted. Scott Ritter is probably one of the most misunderstood figures from the pre-Iraq debate. He went on many many news shows including those on Fox News, but 5 minutes blips don't give much time to convey complex though such as "I don't agree with the admin's claims, I don't think we should go to war based on those claims, but Saddam is a rat, he still has stockpiles but not enough to threaten us, and I know him well enough to know he will go back into production once sanctions based on inspections are lifted". Edited to add: I am guessing Ritter was wrong as well since he guessed Iraq still has WMD, just not enough to make them a threat in his opinion. However, he was still more on the money than anyone else at the time.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

2nd May 2007, 02:08 PM	#9
strathmeyer seriously unable to be serious Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Posts: 2,382	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblo...earslater1.jpg Do these people vote in congress directly, or are you saying that congressmen and senators favor these newscasters?