Sunday, February 27, 2005


From Eric Blumrich at

This article caught my eye, the other day.

I'm pretty sure that a great number of you out there are familiar with Scott Ritter, but I shall recap, just for the sake of convenience.

Scott Ritter is a marine veteran, who served as the United States' chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in the 90's. He resigned under president Clinton in 1998, believing that Clinton was being "too soft" on Iraq.

However, As the frenzy the led up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq took hold, Scott Ritter, a hardliner, and republican, came to the fore as an effective debunker of Bush's accusations of WMD development in Iraq. Declaring time and time again, that Iraq had been "effectively disarmed", and demanding the restoration of weapons inspection, Ritter became an unlikely ally of the antiwar movement.

However, the republican smear machine went into overdrive, accusing Scott Ritter of being everything from a paid Iraqi agent, to a "Disloyal traitor" (sound familiar, folks?)

Long story short, Ritter was the target of a concerted corporate media hatchet job that was just shameful to witness. In the end, we find that he was, indeed, absolutely correct, in his assertions about WMDs, and the unfolding of the war in Iraq.

Now, just a few days ago, during a lecture in Olympia, Washington, Ritter has stated that Bush has "signed off" on plans to begin airstrikes, within Iran, in June, 2005.

Considering that Ritter was right, all along, in regards to Iraq, while the Bush administration has been almost comically incompitent, I'm more inclined to believe Scott's assertions, rather than Bush's continued statements that such predictions are "ridiculous".

Basically, the plan is this: We send in a few stealth bombers, to perform hits on suspected nuclear sites. The Neoconservatives within the Bush administration hope that this will set into motion a series of events that provoke a full-scale invasion, and "regime change", after which our troops will be greeted as liberators, and public squares will be named in honor of Bush.

Strange- I seem to have heard this line of logic, sometime ago- it turned out to be a load of bollocks, and it cost us 300 billion dollars. However- the facts don't dissuade the PNAC crowd.

This is a very interesting, and troubling development. We're now only three months from the new war in Iran, while things continue to spiral down the toilet, in Iraq.

Is there a draft, in here, or is it just me?