"Three years ago Ritter warned that ‘Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.’ "
from what I know about the words “will be able to” and “reconstitute” ritter’s statement meant saddam didn’t have the weapons at the time.
"Now comes an American apologist for Saddam who claims Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever."
a lot can happen in three years obviously. programs that were funded and poised to resume can wither away. we saw that in the former ussr and kay said as much last week. still i don’t see any actual contradictions between the two statements. “will be able to” make weapons (but doesn’t have weapons yet) and “has no weapons” are essentially synonymous. saying saddam is no threat to anyone is probably engaging in hyperbole but i can’t say for sure what he meant without seeing that quote (and the rest as well) in context.
i'm not sure what the point of the article is beyond engaging in every neurotic neo cons favorite sport of clinton bashing (“national nightmare” lol. he'd kick bush's ass in an election), but if it is was to expose "ritter waffling" the author hasn't made his case. those two inconsistent statements are actually factually consistent.
btw, just how old is that piece?
“Is it possible he is a one-time teller of truth who has been given a new assignment by his CIA case officer to use his almost hero-like status to head off those of us calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's government?” (almost a hero to who?)
last i heard that particular gov't's out of power.
- js.
|