Ritter vs Hitchens ...who won?

FINAL UPDATE.. 1/8/06

See the comments section below or access the home page of this site.

-----

Scott Ritter and Christopher Hitchens held a much-anticipated debate on the Iraq war in Tarrytown, NY a couple of nights ago. Everybody wants to know what happened, unfortunately nobody seems to know what happened. Ironically, searching Google for "Hitchens Ritter debate recap" returned my own story posted a month ago, advertising the event. Doh!

You might try this site.. www.popdebate.com

They said the debate was a great success and promise to provide streaming audio "very soon".

UPDATE 1/1/06 (stays on top UFN)

For those seeking the debate transcripts or audio, I'll save you the trouble of paging down through the updates-- you won't find a link. Ironically, it seems reminiscent of a document search Scott Ritter might have undertaken with UNSCOM. Speaking of Ritter, wonder if he's also an Alpha Dog on the debate circuit?

And I'm also curious as to whether Scott explained his most recent predictions. Was he just a little off on his timing?

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE 1/2

Still no transcript, but here's another side of the coin from Red Mist, who was in attendance and saw things a little differently than did The Yellow Dog.

ht Rigamarole



UPDATE 12/26

Information is trickling out, but only if you search for it. Check out this review from a self-admitted anti-war attendee. He tried to be fair, then gave it to Ritter hands down. From his narrative I can't tell.

No matter who 'won', it's hard to suppress a grin at the level of irony here--Ritter being supported by the anti-war left and Hitchens by the pro-war right.

ANALYSIS OF AN ANALYSIS 12/27

The Yellow Dog Blogger was in attendance and posted this report. I think it's pretty clear how he feels about the war, and somehow that seemed to affect his choice of a winner. Here's a response to his points:

"Another confrontation with Saddam Hussein was inevitable," said Hitchens in defending the Iraq invasion. "Who should have determined the timing of that confrontation? Saddam Hussein? Or the U.S. and other democratic nations?"

That's not arguable. Saddam would have made sure of it..we were the ones keeping the sanctions on him.

When asked point-blank by the moderator whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the credible capability of harming the U.S. at the time of the invasion, Hitchens, who was in no position to challenge Ritter's expertise on the subject, stuck to vague GOP talking points.

"As long as Saddam Hussein was in power, it was not possible for the U.S. to ever relax," Hitchens said.

Nobody--Ritter, Blix, ISG, or anyone else has accounted for the destruction of the anthrax Saddam possessed. For Ritter, who personally witnessed the intransigence on the ground, to say Saddam posed no threat defies belief. Ritter quit in 1998 because he was disappointed with the US Government's lack of toughness in enforcing disarmament.

"The Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay, found [in post-invasion Iraq] that Iraq had destroyed the totality of its nuclear weapons program and confirmed what the CIA had already said about them having destroyed it as far back as the summer of 1991."

It's not only about nukes, Mr. Dog. Did Ritter mention Saddam's son-in-law?

Of course, like most people of a neoconservative bent arguing in favor of the Iraq war, Hitchens is snide about Ritter's military service while – and you just know this other shoe is going to drop – having never served in the military himself.

Ah, the ole chickenhawk neocon paint-ball shot to the head. Thing is, Hitchens is a liberal, sir. He's met Saddam and talked with weapons inspectors and others at length about Iraq in his journalistic career, not to mention backing the Clinton administration's regime change policy. But OK, if it floats your boat, he's one of them there neocons.

Hitchens even threw out that old neocon line about Muammar Khaddafi being frightened out of his wits by U.S. actions in Iraq and giving up his own weapons capability as a result -- at which point Diamond questioned whether Khaddafi's move wasn't actually the culmination of 10 to 12 years of negotiations with the Libyan dictator.

Surely the left is not trying to say Clinton disarmed Moammar? By the way, did Scott discuss how and where Libya acquired their yellowcake?

Near the end of the debate, Diamond asked Hitchens to explain the constant linking of Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and September 11 by the Bush administration, despite no proof of any such linkage. Hitchens stunned the crowd by saying the following:

"I think you'll find that with the exception of one clumsy statement made by the vice president, there hasn't been any other statements made to that effect."

Hitchens is correct, Bush never publicly linked Saddam to 9/11. He did link him in vague ways to al Qaeda, because there were meetings between the two. For some reason that's always been a hard concept for the left to grasp.

I'm a little disappointed Mr. Ritter didn't ellaborate on why he seemed to switch sides in the late 90s, culminating with his role in a Saddam-funded movie about Iraq right before the coalition invaded. That's something I've never been able to fully understand, although I'm willing to try. Ritter may indeed be correct that we aren't being told everything about Iraq.

Hopefully soon we'll get that promised audio so everyone can decide for themelves.

NOT MUCH MORE 12/30

Still can't find any transcripts nor audio. The Pensito Review covers the Yellow Dog blog review, but I found the comments section interesting if not predictable.

Poster 'Ci' made more rational points and was less vitriolic, but could not answer the question posed. In other words, despite the aura of possible blackmail due to his weird relationship with the former regime and the teenaged girl thing, Ritter was one of the few who correctly predicted the WMD outcome before the war. One could argue that if he was being blackmailed he'd have been tipped, which is possible, but for some reason I'm having a hard time thinking of Ritter as some kind of American version of Tariq Aziz.