SF Chronicle take

May be found [link|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/09/14/MN81272.DTL| here.] Deemed, in the US environment ~ a more liberal paper than most. I'd say actually - a more nearly centrist one, rather than the usual "conservative" / Right slant to be found in 80, 90%? of the major city Corp-papers. Many cities are down to one daily newspaper, these days. Very few of these could be fairly dubbed 'liberal' IMO. But of course, with musical definitions of such words here: it's a crap shoot to know what anyone means. They are all now epithets.
First part:

Ex-weapons inspector berates war plans

David Wallis, Special to the Chronicle Saturday, September 14, 2002

To his admirers, Scott Ritter -- who turned up in Baghdad last week to blast the Bush administration's war plans before Iraq's parliament -- is something of a modern-day Daniel Ellsberg, who serves his country patriotically by protesting a government policy he considers misguided and immoral.

To his detractors, Ritter is a shill for Saddam Hussein -- a deeper-voiced Tokyo Rose. Ritter "is a paid spokesman now for Iraq. The traitor bastard should be shot," one critic of the former U.N. weapons inspector fumed on the online forum Paratrooper.com.

The decorated ex-Marine is used to the hostility. Once branded as a CIA agent by Saddam Hussein because he often surprised Iraqi intelligence with aggressive, no-notice inspections, Ritter claims he survived three assassination attempts during his days as a U.N. weapons inspector there.

He resigned his U.N. post in 1998, publicly scolding the Clinton administration for undermining efforts to root out Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. A registered Republican, he voted for George Bush in 2000. But his 1999 book "Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem Once and for All" (Simon & Schuster will reissue the book next month) has since alienated many Republicans and Bush supporters because it advocates a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi standoff.

"Ritter has many detractors for a reason," Stephen F. Hayes wrote in the the Weekly Standard. "He lies."

Just before his trip to Baghdad, Ritter sat for an interview at his home outside Albany, N.Y.

Q: What is the case against the Bush administration's Iraq policy?

A: There is no case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The weapons inspectors eliminated 90-95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability . . . The indicators of Iraq's efforts to reconstitute are readily detectable, not only by U.S. intelligence but by Israel, France, Germany and Great Britain. No nation has brought any credible evidence to substantiate allegations that Iraq has reconstituted its weapons.

This war is about political ideology. It's about a bunch of neo- conservatives in Washington, D.C., who have hijacked the national security of the United States for the pursuit of their own politically driven ideological objectives.
--------------< snip >------------------

Alas, sfgate.com's so-called Boolean search... for "30 days" on Butler + Ritter + Iraq - sports [there's a sports 'Butler'] listed lots of unrelated junk - so it's difficult to conclude whether the above is the *only* report re the protagonists.

I don't / won't watch enough Tee Vee to gauge whether any mention of these matters ever gets thru the car-crash, Corporate newsfotainment filters - but you will notice above, the calibre of 'rebuttal': "He's a liar" yada yada. (From the Weakly.. Standard. Is that the best the SF Chron could find?)

Will be watching to see where this goes / if Ritter survives much longer? / if Cheney, Rumsfeld et al resign [before Cheney is indicted for something]. Watching to see how much more long-term damage to the US' credibility in the world, shall occur between now and

A) the end of this Admin's term OR
B) its impeachment

Ashton
Suddenly it's September 1939

What I want to say here is a statement.

It comes from someone who loves Texas and as an Australian sees both places interwoven in history and intent even though Texas has a much more warlike history.

In 1990 I did what in my eyes all Americans should do - visited the Alamo, was overawed by the simplicity but reverential power of that place. Moslems are supposed to pay a once in a lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca - Americans *should* pay a once in a lifetime pilgrimage to San Antonio.

Why???
- Moslems know why they do it!.
- To understand what is precious in the US and what is important to both life & liberty. The Alamo does it so much more effectively than any pilgrimage to Philadelphia to see the liberty bell, or to Washington's Lincoln memorial. The Alamo in its simple reconstruction brings home to the real American (and some of us non Americans who feel the significance) what at first were a brave 145 then with reinforcements the famous 189 who achieved great worldwide glory knowing that the outcome for them was to be death but no dishonour.

I as a non-American, can easily today cry for what those men fought for and what they achieved posthumoustly for the concepts that they so clearly saw of of liberty, feedom and integrity. They backed Travis & Bowie knowing they would be put to the sword by Santa Ana's men. But they so believed in what they were fighting for.

But from that great sacrifice we move to a Texan who has his nose up the backside of warmongers who are intent on fermenting war for reasons only they completely understand.Bush junior may well enjoy a high level of popularity - that is partly because so few Americans realise the extent to which they are being misled. Bush jnr may well one day be impeached, on the other hand he may just get away with it.

Doug Marker

#2 - toned this post down a lot as on refelection as I can't really claim that I know what is best for the US or the world, am afterall, just an observer. Bush & his advisors may well be grappling with complex issues to do with our long term survival and may have insights we don't (just wish I could see them). The fact that even his father appears to be trying to counter the war talk tells me that others are also concerned about this admin's tactics. Have posted another sep post in one of the threads following this one that attempts to offer a rationalisation as to why Bush wants control of Iraq. Am still 100% convinced that they will find a pretext & invade. The argument here is the untruths being told in order to justify the ends.

Welcome to IWETHEY!