Scott Ritter Says Iran Attack in June, Iraq Elections "Cooked" (from ATSNN)

How come Scott Ritter has to be correct to the month on something this big or else his credability is whitewashed?

He's been on the forfront of other information about this war which has been true and now because he said June and it might not happen this month, he has no cred and it's just leftist excuses instead of shooting him down for being 'wrong'?

What if it happens in July? Will he have cred then?
What if it was scheduled for June and he was right but plans changed because the Pentagon thought to wait until after the Iranian election, or because the information became public or that it was signed off by Bush but for August and he only got the date wrong??

How about all the excuses BushCo have made for this war to begin with? Why aren't they having their credability shot down in flames by people saying 'he's wrong and your making excuses for him, he has no cred now'?

So only Bush can have multiple excuses for being wrong and we should shoot down the credability of anyone who puts forward information in which the exact DATE is not correct 6 months after it was claimed? What if he's completely correct about his claims but something as small as the date has been changed since, what does that mean to the Bush supporters? I expect an EXCUSE will be forthcoming if 12 months from now we are in the middle of a new war and although it didn't start in June, it's proven that Bush had signed off on it by that stage.

Bush WAS wrong. I never said he wasn't, but this thread is about Ritter. He said conclusively that there was going to be an attack in June, and there has been NO evidence that it was going to happen. Even back when he said this, there was no evidence that it was planned. There was TALK about Iran and North Korea being Bad, but no evidence that we planned to attack them. And attacking them any time in the near future with this out there, if this was enough to change the plans would be even more insane, because Iran would have been "warned" about it and watching out for it to happen. If he was right and it had been planned, they would have moved it UP and gone earlier, not delayed it until later. The point was that it was supposed to be a sneak attack, and going in AFTER the time frame he gave, it wouldn't BE a sneak attack anymore.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Erm, no, billybob.
I think my position within this very topic has and is known on how I interpret Scott "true-blue American hero" Ritter and the myrid of conjectures and assertions that spew from his lips, and those views of mine have nothing to do nor are they remotely connected to "possibilities, probabilities and ramifications."

that's not what i meant. the big "YOUR" adjective in my sentence is to modify me. it is ME who wants to discuss, "possibilities, probabilities and ramifications." however, the views of scott ritter have been extrapolated and grafted onto me. it seems because i started this thread, i have been pressured to verify the veracity of his claims. people are identifying scott's beliefs with mine by some weird web default. what "netty number" is that?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Simply put, the man's word is about as credible as your, and others, view of Bush and his administrations word, correct? I am sure that his current employer, Al-Jazerra, is enjoying Scott's predictions and assertions though....
seekerof

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Seekerof]

and i'm sure i enjoy a counterspin to the north american brainwash media spin cycle.
if scott's words are as credible as mine, he's in good company.

i started a new thread but was redirected here, sorry, however here is what scott said i too was pessimistic about him saying we would attack iran howwe wenver here is what he meant he meant we are at war with iran in the sense that we are doing what we did before we went into iraq, covert ops and flyovers, like the u2 that crashed that the gov does not want to talk about?
in scott ritter terms it means we are at war with iran on the charmles goyette show in phoenix
www.charlesgoyette.com...
here is the link

How does the government not want to talk about the U-2 crash? They said it crashed after returning from a mission over Afghanistan, and they don't know why yet. That's more than they USUALLY say when a U-2 goes down. They NEVER admit where they fly missions. And Ritter was NOT talking about flying drones over Iran. He DISTINCTLY said, that we would launch an aerial bombing campaign in June. Now that he realizes he was wrong, he's changing his story? There are a several countries that we aren't at war with, and aren't GOING to war with that we fly covert missions around and probably over to keep an eye on things going on. The government won't EVER talk about them. That's standard practice.

not one to argue points and lies but just because the u.s. says it was over afghanistan does not necessarily make it true.
i agree with you about ritter though, he is back pedaling, i was just trying to get what he said last week on the air out there.
he did say we would bomb iraq now he has corrected hmself.
back to the u2, this was obviously a mission of high secrecy if it was over iran and i am only saying if they hushed this story immediatly.
yet an american pilot is dead!
the words that are spoken behind closed doors are what count here and unfortunatly,we don't have acces to what g-dub is REALLY saying

Originally posted by farleftoftheright
i started a new thread but was redirected here, sorry, however here is what scott said i too was pessimistic about him saying we would attack iran howwe wenver here is what he meant he meant we are at war with iran in the sense that we are doing what we did before we went into iraq, covert ops and flyovers, like the u2 that crashed that the gov does not want to talk about?
in scott ritter terms it means we are at war with iran on the charmles goyette show in phoenix
www.charlesgoyette.com...
here is the link

just listen to the link as opposed to trtying to defcypher my psycho babble

Actually there is a good chance the U-2 WAS flying over Afghanistan when it went down. Usually if there is a crash on or returning from a mission they just say it was trying to land, or it was flying a mission, and never anything about where it was at the time. The chances of trying to use a U-2 over Iran right now aren't very good. The U-2 is a slow, nonstealthy aircraft that is very vulnerable to ground fire. Especailly now when Iran is expecting something and watching their borders/airspace closer than ever with all the chaos in Iraq, and all the people saying we're going to attack them. They easily have the defenses to bring down a U-2. There are still MANY SA-2 missiles out there in the world, precisely because they CAN get up to where the U-2 flies. As far as hushing up what happened, it's because a crash investigation can take weeks or months or even years, and theories can change quicker than you can change a pair of pants. It makes sense to not say anything about it until they know conclusively what caused it. Besides that I've seen many military crashes where they never said anything about what caused it, because after the initial crash it's not "newsworthy" enough for the mainstream news. Also the U-2 doesn't do many overflights of a hostile country unless we are in control of most of the country, or all of it. They have systems that will let them fly along the border where it's safer for them and look into the area and try to get pictures. There were a couple of threads about the U-2 posted not long after this one went down that talk about flying it, and how vulnerable it is in normal flight when no one is shooting at it.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

thats all well and good but scott is talking up a lot of conspiracy crap and it is not panning out as of tomorrow night at 12
it just seems the way the story was reported something was amiss and you got to admit george is and has been up to stuff the country does not know about hence all this conspiracy talk
i doubt that attack will happen though
not enough time left but according to scott, it has already begun............

Oh, I don't deny that Bush can and has. But in the case of the U-2 and the attack on Iran other evidence points to another conclusion. Ritter just wants to sound like he is still an insider. If there WAS a plan that was signed off and ready to go, for an attack on Iran, then he could be charged with several crimes for leaking it to the media. Giving out classified material is the LOWEST charge that could be brought against him, and some people would make the arguement that it was treason, because if we were at war with Iran, they would be considered the enemy, and leaking plans to them would be giving aid to the enemy.

he also said that we will use nukes in iran...

www.tubearoo.com...

lets not forget about a draft....possibly...i hate bush

[edit on 12-9-2007 by ATSGUY]

Originally posted by ATSGUY
he also said that we will use nukes in iran...

www.tubearoo.com...

lets not forget about a draft....possibly...i hate bush

[edit on 12-9-2007 by ATSGUY]

How could we forget? not as if its been years like!!

You think Bush or any other country would use nuclear bombs in today�s world, on another country, when they have smart bombs that could take out precise targets.

Why do people not understand that Nukes are a last resort for any country, you kiddies use the word nuke too much and with no understanding of its nature. Thank god you are not in control, as you make Bush look positively stable