The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear Colleagues, With all due respect to Prof. Herring whose own scholarship I admire (as opposed to that of his anonymous senior U.S. military fellow), I find it hard to accept Prof. Herring's description of flim-flam regarding Maj. Scott Ritter as "useful". I fully appreciate the sophistication of CASI readers, but why muddy the waters further particularly in the face of a full blown U.S. propaganda tsunami? The establishment's frenzied need here in Washington, D.C. to discredit Ritter (coupled with Washington's uncritical lionization of Ritter's nemesis, Butler, who in the grand narrative is beyond criticism ) needs to be contested particularly after Sen. Biden's sham hearings . I asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for suggestions on what to tell students who might ask how debate could be so truncated in a putative democracy. Sen. Biden's staffer, a Mr. McDermott, protested that a wide spectrum of opinion was being paraded in front of the cameras. He offered Butler as an example of a non-Bush-Pearle-Chaney sorta guy. I replied that even the most servile professor could hardly pass Butler off as anything except a loyal spear carrier for the U.S. government. . After hearing several of Ritter's speeches here in D.C., I find his analysis, in contrast to Butler's, plausible. Ritter has recognized that he had bought into the U.S government. trap of malicious misframing of a vital problem (quantitative disarmament to zero which is unattainable and unprovable vs qualitative disarmament which is attainable and verifiable). He has learned.. For some, such behavior may be a sign of inconsistency. For me it shows integrity and maturity. Butler on the other hand shows the iron resolve of consistency at the price of credibility. Disclaimer: I admit to being a colonial simpleton whose mind has been changed by new evidence on occasion. My mind has also been occasionally changed by stepping back and examining frames of reference, particularly those imposed on me from above. I'm certainly fallible and over time some of my views have become inconsistent with earlier views. I admit to a bias in favor of Major Ritter. Sincerely, Tom P.s. The lst line of the "useful piece" went missing in the posting. Here's what I found when I clicked on the URL provided in the posting: Saddam Hussein's American Apologist >From the November 19, 2001 issue: The strange career of former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter. by Stephen F. Hayes 11/19/2001, Volume 007, Issue 10 Eric Herring wrote: > Dear all > > A useful piece on the inconsistency of Scott Ritter. > http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/524dplvk.asp ... > > > > >From the November 19, 2001 issue: The strange career of > former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter. > by Stephen F. Hayes > 11/19/2001, Volume 007, Issue 10 > > "IRAQ TODAY represents a threat to no one." > > _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk