Here are a couple different outlooks on the chances of the U.S. attacking Iran. First, our President...
"President Bush said Tuesday that it is "simply ridiculous" to assume that the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program.
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said after discussing the issue with European allies." From: Bush Denies U.S. Plans to Attack Iran
Now for a different point of view, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter...
"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." From: NEWS: Scott Ritter says US attack on Iran planned for June.
Well these two points of view are completely different... Whom should we believe? Let's think back before the Iraq war..
George Bush said these things about Iraq...
"27 February, 2003. George Bush: "In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it ... Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world." (Address at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington)
18 March, 2003. George Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (Televised address, giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war)" from: Rumsfeld Concedes Banned Iraqi Weapons May Not Exist.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matt
Since all intelligence indicated that WMDs were there and there are signs that weapons were moved just before the war, since Scott Ritter was on Saddam's payroll, since Scott Ritter also said that the US would never reach Baghdad and would lose the war, I will stick with the more credible source, George W. Bush.
2 - Eric Olsen
there's no way the administration would be falling all over itself denying they were going to attack Iran if in fact they were going to attack Iran in a few months, especially in such an overt manner. We threatened Iraq in every way possible before we finally attacked them - we are un-threatening Iran very vocally. Bush's domestic support would crumble if he did this after saying over and over he wouldn't - at the very minimum there will be an unambiguous ultimatum first.
Where does Ritter claim to get his information from?
3 - Dave Nalle
Scott Ritter is a paid-off shill who has no credibility at all. He couldn't find WMDs in Iraq when they were actually there, mainly because he didn't want to. Bush may have his shortcomings, but he's not quite as clapped out as Ritter - who is, really?
Dave
4 - Joe
Before I could answer that I'd need to know whether Ritter is actually on Al Jazeera's payroll or merely an editorial contributor.
5 - DrPat
On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders...
Ritter knows this -- how? This and his quotes from the article it links to both read like a Papal ex cathedra pronouncement; "I know this because it is true."
And sorry, but it sounds to me too much like Dan Rather's protestations that his story must be true even if the evidence supporting it was forged.
6 - Dave Nalle
Who in the administration would be nuts enough to tell Ritter anything?
Dave
7 - DrPat
Exactly, Dave.
Plus, Ritter has a strong motivation to claim this knowledge, to support his claims that he did a good job as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, and thus that the Bush administration's decision to go into Iraq was part of the same Machiavellian scheme as this putative attack on Iran.
8 - alienboy
It is really tragic to read the completely kneejerk reactions of nalle and drpat et al
There were no weapons, ritter didn't work for saddam, there were and are no hidden weapons and the whole issue is a red herring to distract Americans from actual IMPORTANT issues facing the world. All this threat to america and democracy stuff is hysterical nonsense.
please, come on, let's get serious...
9 - Silas Kain
Oh, Dave. You ask, "Who in the administration would be nuts enough to tell Ritter anything?"
Why do they have to tell Ritter a thing? All they have to do is scrape up some cash, pay off a journalist, and they get their misinformation out.
10 - Big Time Patriot
"Ritter has a strong motivation to claim this knowledge, to support his claims that he did a good job as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq" Why would Ritter need to support any claims to doing a good job in Iraq, haven't we fought a whole war that has just proven the claims he made before the war and disproven the claims that George Bush made before the war?
So, because you don't like what Mr. Ritter says, he must be an enemy of America? But a man who says "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." and sends more than a thousand Americans soldiers to die in a war he himself NEVER would have fought in, THAT is your hero? And how can he make this claim when the evidence of the UN Inspectors DID leave doubt of WMDs in Iraq? I was able to have doubt out on the West Coast of the US based strictly on news accounts, apparently by not reading the newspapers Bush was completely unfinformed of the UN Inspectors reports, no wonder he had no doubts, he never listened to anything he didn't want to hear.
"Since all intelligence indicated that WMDs were there" Read the Scott Ritter quote again, that IS intelligence and it indicated that WMDs were NOT there. Claiming there was overwhelming proof and agreement back then does not make it so, you may recall that many countries and many Americans were not at all convinced of WMDs in Iraq, and guess who was right? Those who believed a President couldn't POSSIBLY lie to them if it wasn't as important as a blow job in the white house? Or those who read the various reports at the time.
I'm sorry Ritter was right and Bush was wrong, but insulting Mr. Ritter still won't make Bush tell the truth about WMDs.
11 - DrPat
I have listed my reasons for taking Ritter's claims with a large grain of salt. If that is insulting to Ritter or to you, Big Time Patriot, I'm sorry you're so easily offended.
When we have President Bush stating publicly that his administration has no plans to attack Iran, and Mr. Ritter stating that he has sure knowledge that they do, it's entirely reasonable to ask where Ritter got that information, and to evaluate his potential reasons for believing as he does.
That is a rational response, alienboy, not a jerk of the knee. The reflex reaction is to automatically side with either statement without further examination or thought.
12 - Scott
"He couldn't find WMDs in Iraq when they were actually there"
They were there? Where are they now?
13 - alienboy
drpat, a studied response is not a rational one. refusing to accept facts despite all the evidence is simply prejudice.
This is all old news so you are unlikely to let the facts get in the way of your dogma now. shame really.
14 - DrPat
a studied response is not a rational one. refusing to accept facts despite all the evidence is simply prejudice.
alienboy, where is the evidence for Ritter's assertion that the Bush "...has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005"?
15 - Triniman
Prior to the recent Iraq war, the only people in the world who were afraid of an attack on their soil by Iraq were...
not the Israelis...
not the Iranians...
not the Saudis...
not the Kuwatis...
answer - the Americans. Americans, already in a heightend state of fear after the horrifc 9/11 attacks, were taken advantage of by the Bush administration, by means of frightening the public to believe that the Iraqis were an imminent threat.
Does anyone remember this?
People are right to be skeptical about Ritter, though. Who's payroll is he on? Follow the money, the judge his credibility.
16 - Big Time Patriot
"When we have President Bush stating publicly that his administration has no plans to attack Iran, and Mr. Ritter stating that he has sure knowledge that they do, it's entirely reasonable to ask where Ritter got that information, and to evaluate his potential reasons for believing as he does."
It's also entirely reasonable to question whether a President who made the quotes earlier mentioned is telling the truth THIS TIME. A President who claims to be trying to reduce the deficit in half in 5 years, but doesn't count his own wars, his own desired permenant tax cuts OR his own plans for social security.
I guess I wasn't trying to contrast someone who has shown himself to be basically willing to lie to America for his personal gain with someone who has shown himself to tell the truth to America even if it is unpopular with some people... To quote a man who came in second in vote totals in one election and had the most Americans ever vote against him in his next election "fool me once, shame on â€" shame on you. Fool me â€" you can't get fooled again." Bush has fooled us all once...
I didn't mean to say that you personally, DrPat, were calling Mr. Ritter an employee of Al Jazeera, I was replying in general to some of the other posts in the list, but in putting that paragraph after one in which I quoted you in particular I see that it might have been construed that way.
17 - Dave Nalle
>>Prior to the recent Iraq war, the only people in the world who were afraid of an attack on their soil by Iraq were...<<
Come again?
>>not the Israelis...<<
Where every suicide bomber's family got $25K direct from Saddam.
>>not the Iranians...<<
Which had been invaded twice by Iraq and was fighting an ongoing border skirmish war with them.
>>not the Saudis...<<
Their stated target for invasion after the invasion of Kuwait.
>>not the Kuwatis...<<
Who had already been invaded by Iraq and plundered and raped as a nation and individuals.
No, none of them were at all worried about Iraq - oh, of course not.
>>answer - the Americans. Americans, already in a heightend state of fear after the horrifc 9/11 attacks, were taken advantage of by the Bush administration, by means of frightening the public to believe that the Iraqis were an imminent threat.<<
Actually, I don't think anyone considered a direct Iraqi attack on America an imminent threat. The concern was that Iraq would help enable terrorist groups to attack us, which they were already involved in doing. Attacking America directly wasn't Iraq's style not to mention being too dumb for even Saddam to try.
Dave
18 - ifearfascists
it was obvious bush planned to go into iran before ritter claimed to have evidence. follow carefully US stonewalling of european diplomacy. NYTimes reported today bush lied in his speech in germany (NYT 2/24/05 p.A8) about iran signing a treaty not to enrich uranium, and of course the whole axis of evil statement. our foriegn policy is clearly on track to manufacture another war, similar to the strategies proposed by the neocon's New American Century.
i know this argument is more like religious conviction than rational analysis, but its difficult for me to understand the bush supporters in this particular conversation. ritter was right. all along. period. the administration has lied. repeatedly. if you wish to embrace the lies and hope neocon theocratic fascists make the world a better place for you thats fine, and it may be a good bet for white christian red staters, but please acknowledge your blind and maniacal love of the state instead of yelling deinal at a wall of truth...
19 - DrPat
this argument is more like religious conviction than rational analysis...
Yes.
20 - Eric Olsen
the central issue, which remains unanswered, is where did Ritter's information come from?
21 - DrPat
Dave, maybe it was fed to him by Karl Rove (in the same way Dan Rather's fatal misstep was engineered by Rove.)
end sarcasm.
22 - oneofshibumi
Scott Ritter’s claims prior to the Bush’s Iraq Invasion included: Iraq had less than 95% of the chemical and biological weapons that it had after Iraq War I. He stated that Iraq did not have nuclear capability. Ritter also claimed that Iraq’s Military would be a push over for the US, but a guerrilla war would ensue. He has been more correct than the Bush Administration. In fact, Ritter has been correct 4 times and Bush Administration has been correct 0.
Ritter’s Source: “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."”
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295
23 - Susan
I believe Ritter, since he has consistently been right.
The Dalfour report said no evidence that Iraq made any WMDs since 1991. The WMDs did not get "moved" to another country.... they simply did not exist. There is no evidance to support the claim that they got "moved".
Ritter wasn't the only one to figure out that there was no WMDs there. I figured it out too. Amazing what a Google search and a thinking mind can do.
24 - alienboy
C'mon everybody, it's a well known fact that contemporary politicians lie. It0s part of what they perceive as politics.
Officials serve the process they work in, trying to do what's right. Without political influence, they have no reason to lie.
So, who would you believe, the politician or the civil servant or researcher?
Anybody who bases their world view and understanding on political thinking has got an inherent problem with facing the facts, by definition.
25 - Eric Olsen
alienboy, if you change "lying" to "spinning to their greatest advantage" I'll go along with your statement.
I will reiterate: the headlines every single day scream out that the administration is doing everything it can to avoid the military option, I would guess mainly because it is simply not politically, economically or logistically practical as long as we are so deeply entrenched in Iraq (and Afghanistan, and ...)