Not too much analysis by me is needed - Mr. Ritter lays the truth down on 10/16/06, C-SPAN TV.
He stops just shy of saying that America went to war with Iraq because of Israeli lobby pressure and machinations (the so called neocons), saying that it "may be" because of the Israeli lobby.
In fact, Sharon's Israeli government was instrumental in pushing for the USA-Iraq war. It fed Dick Cheney's Office of Special Plans cherry picked intelligence about Iraqi WMD.
Guardian article (mainstream British newspaper):
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.
There is no "it may be", what you see is "that is exactly how it was" and "we are in Iraq thanks in big part to Jewish lobby interests and Israeli government manipulation".
The OSP was created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who are not exactly Protestants. In the language of Scott Ritter, they just "may be" Jewish-Americans (catch my drift?).
Mr. Ritter of course realizes that, in fact, "may be" should be really "it is" and those listening to him in the audience know exactly that is what he means (applause!).
If you have been reading my blog, you realize that I vehemently disagree with his assumption that there is nothing wrong with Israeli, or British, or French, or Saudi or whichever country spending money to lobby and influence American politicians to force them to vote/make laws for their country's benefits, EVEN IF they register with the American government as agents of a foreign power (The pro Israel Jewish lobby does NOT have to register at all - hence the claim "The American and Israeli goals are the same - both countries have the same goals", which, because the Israeli and Israeli paid agents of influence do not have to register as such, is, in a twisted legal way, is true).
That is no way to run a democracy.
We have enough national special interests in America as it is, without adding whole other countries needs...
Want your mind blown? Literally, blown away and sent spinning? Read the whole article I linked to from the Guardian.
Excerpts to note:
In 1996, he (Feith -AG) and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.
Reread the last sentence. Again. And again. Let it sink in.
Still having trouble? Re-read it again. Mull it over in your head. Ponder it. Think about it.
Analysis: Two American government officials, Douglas Feith, then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the Pentagon and Richard Perle, then a chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, which advises the Department of Defense (the Pentagon again) wrote a policy paper on what is best NOT for America, but FOR Israel.
Think on that one. Future (very powerful) American Department of Defense officials write an official paper on how best to further Israel's goals. A paper that states explicitly what needs to be done for Israel.
The policy paper stated that "Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe".
Do you think this plan of action was put into effect?
Do you even watch, or have seen the nightly TV news as they show what is going on in Iraq if you have trouble answering this question?
In the days after September 11, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror. When the established agencies came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully.
"They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it."
In fact, the OSP's activities were a complete mystery to the DIA and the Pentagon.
"The iceberg analogy is a good one," said a senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war. "No one from the military staff heard, saw or discussed anything with them."
The OSP itself had less than 10 full-time staff, so to help deal with the load, the office hired scores of temporary "consultants". They included lawyers, congressional staffers, and policy wonks from the numerous rightwing thinktanks in Washington. Few had experience in intelligence.
I personally would LOVE to see names of people who were hired by the OSP as "consultants". I would also like to politely inquire if all of them were American citizens or citizens of another country, say, France...